Chapter 13: II Lyons - Florence
Ever since the eleventh century, the problem of reunion with the East has been a special concern of the Church. The Council of Florence in the fifteenth century stands as a testimony to this concern. Before going on with a discussion of this gathering, however, we ought to turn back the wheels of time for a momentary consideration of a similar attempt in the thirteenth century - II Lyons. Both of these Councils failed to achieve the goal sought, but they did witness the desire of Rome for such reunion. In addition, they resulted in our clearest doctrinal statements regarding the Holy Spirit as the third Person of the Trinity.
After a vacancy of nearly three years following the death of Clement IV, Pope Gregory X was finally elected in September of 1271. He was crowned at Rome in March of 1272, and he immediately announced the convocation of a General Council. He later named Lyons in France as the city where the Council would be held.
As with the Lateran Councils of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, II Lyons was to be concerned with the need of reform within the Church. In calling it, Gregory was also troubled about the loss of a large part of the Holy Land as well as with what this implied - the continuing progress of Mohammedan belief. This non-Christian religion was a constant threat to the Christian world during these ages, both politically and religiously. If the Turks conquered the West, both the Christian faith and Western civilization would be seriously challenged.
Gregory's special concern, however, was for reunion with the Greeks. As soon as he called the Council, he notified Joseph, the patriarch of the Greeks, of his intention. At the same time, he communicated with Michael VIII Paleologus, the Greek Emperor, inviting him to attend either personally or through his legates (granted full power to act in his name).
The Pope had chosen Lyons as the city for the Council because he himself had been a canon of Lyons, and had also taken part in I Lyons; hence he knew its resources for such a gathering. By way of preparation, he named five new cardinals who would play important roles at the gathering. Among them was the then bishop of Lyons, Peter of Tarentaise (later Pope Innocent V), and St. Bonaventure, the Superior-General of the Franciscans.
The Pope himself arrived in November of 1273 to preside, and soon afterward the other members of the Council gathered. II Lyons is noteworthy for the personages who did attend. In addition to Pope Gregory himself, three future popes were present and another was active in the preparations; St. Bonaventure and St. Albert the Great were both present, and eventually the representatives of the Greek Emperor also appeared. St. Thomas Aquinas was to have attended, but he died on the way to the Council. In all, about 500 bishops and cardinals attended together with more than 1000 other members of the clergy. While the Pope actually presided, the dominant role was played by St. Bonaventure and Peter of Tarentaise.
The Council opened officially on May 7, 1274, in the Cathedral Church of St. John. The Pope spoke of the three-fold purpose of the Council: reunion with the Greeks, general reform, and the problem of the Holy Land. Early in the proceedings word came that the legates of the Greeks were to attend. The second and third sessions (May 18 and June 7) were especially concerned with preparations for that meeting, but some disciplinary decrees were also formulated at that time.
The Greek representatives finally arrived at Lyons on June 24; among them were the patriarch of Constantinople himself and the metropolitan of Nicea. They met with the Pope and presented letters from the Emperor and the Greek prelates, testifying their willingness to accept the faith of Rome. On June 29, the feast of SS. Peter and Paul, the Pope celebrated a solemn Mass in the cathedral, during which the Epistle, Gospel, and Credo were chanted both in Latin and in Greek. In the Credo, the Greeks repeated three times, in their own language, the controversial phrase concerning the Holy Spirit: "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son" (Qui ex Patre Filioque procedit).
At the fourth session (July 6), there was a solemn profession of faith. George Acropolita, the special representative of Michael Paleologus, recited it in the name of the Emperor; the others did likewise, all accepting the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. A solemn Te Deum of thanksgiving was intoned by the Pope, sung both in Latin and in Greek. The work of reunion was apparently achieved. The Council then turned its attention to the remaining problems, above all the matter of papal elections. Gregory X wished to be sure that no three-year vacancy would ever recur; his suggestions, however, met with opposition. In the end, he won out, and it was decreed that the conclave should begin ten days after the Pope's death. Those present should remain until the Pope is elected, and to hurry them along, the regulation was added that if a Pope were not chosen in three days, only one dish is to be served for the cardinals' dinner and supper. If the election continued eight days, only bread, wine, and water should be served until the election is completed.
As for the hopes of reunion, they were stillborn. The break resulted largely from political considerations, and so also did the reunion; hence it could not be lasting. The third canon of I Constantinople and the twenty-eighth of Chalcedon had set the spirit of competition between Constantinople and Rome; Ceru-larius had brought the final break. While there were many, even in the thirteenth century, who did not think of it as a lasting break, nothing was done effectively to bridge the gap until Pope Gregory X. Politically, there was the fear that union with Rome would mean the end of the Eastern empire and the re-establishment of the Roman. Religiously, there were objections above all because of the "Filioque" (". . . and the Son") which by now had become a major concern. The unwillingness of the Eastern patriarch to be considered anything less than an "equal" with the Roman Pontiff also entered into the picture.
Pope Urban IV and Pope Clement IV had both made some vague moves for reunion immediately before Gregory; they had been careful to insist, however, that a future Council would not be for debate, but for acceptance of the Roman faith. Despite this, one doctrine was discussed at II Lyons. The First Canon proclaimed that the Holy Spirit proceeded or came forth from the Father and the Son "as from one principle." There were not two eternal sources of the life of the third Person; the life of the Trinity was communicated to the Spirit by the Father and the Son as though from only one principle or source.
This manner of expression satisfied the Greek representatives; moreover, this was an important declaration of Catholic belief. Michael VIII Paleologus, however, had most probably consented to the Council more because of political motives than religious ones; he was fearful of Charles of Anjou, the king of Sicily, who threatened his power. Union with Rome was the one sure way of tying the hands of Charles.
In addition, the people of the East were strongly opposed to union with Rome for emotional reasons. When, after II Lyons, attempts were made to put the reunion into practice, the populace split violently into two parties - some in favor, some against. Above all, opposition arose among the monks, who were particularly influential with the people. A good number finally reached the position where they would rather see the kingdom perish than consent to destroy what they considered the purity of their faith by the "heresy of Rome."
From the Roman side, the change in popes during the years immediately following II Lyons hampered further success. As one writer comments, during these crucial years a series of popes passed over the papal throne like meteors; there were five popes between 1276 and 1285. This made it difficult to give stability to the plans.
As a result of this lack of success, relations cooled again between Rome and Constantinople. Paleologus had realized that union with Rome would not be the political help he had hoped for. Even though he continued diplomatic relations with Rome, he began arranging a military offensive against the West. All of this finally resulted in the excommunication of Paleologus by Pope Martin IV. The Emperor died in 1282. Under his son, Andronicus, the anti-Roman reaction took over completely, and the hopes of II Lyons were crushed entirely.
In the fifteenth century, a second fruitless attempt was made to secure union of the East and the West. As we have already noted in Chapter XII, this union had its first start at Basel, which resulted in a repetition of the worst days of Constance. The Council had its real start, then, at Ferrara in 1438, and later moved to Florence and finally to Rome.
When the Council of Constance (1414-1418) had cleared up the papal schism and elected Martin V, there was still much to be accomplished in the way of reform. In fact, few popes had ever been elected with more perils at hand. The final acts of the Council of Constance gave rise to perhaps the most grave problem of all - the challenge to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. As we have seen, this challenge did not die at Constance; it was revived at Basel, and continued to trouble the popes for many years.
When Eugene IV finally broke completely with the Council of Basel, he did so by a decree issued in January, 1438, transferring the Council to Ferrara, in Italy. Many bishops followed this decree; they set out for Ferrara, leaving behind a clearly schismatical group that continued its strivings for eleven more years.
The Council of Florence was in reality, a fresh start. It is divided into three periods: Ferrara (January 8, 1438 - January 10, 1439); Florence (February 26, 1439 - April 26, 1442); Rome (April 26, 1443 - August 7, 1445). Florence was a city more acceptable to the Greeks to begin with, and they were now on the way; they had at least insisted on some place in Italy for the meeting, so Ferrara would also have been acceptable.
As at II Lyons, unfortunately, we are faced here with conflicting motives. There was in the Western Church a sincere desire for religious union, shared by many in the East. The emperor, John VIII Paleologus, however, could feel the breath of the Turks on his neck, and, as at II Lyons, we can perceive politics and military security as the chief motive of the Emperor in agreeing to reunion with Rome. Many of the Greek bishops also failed to share this enthusiasm for reunion, but they went along with it. Some, in fact, had to - the Emperor eventually forbade them to speak against it any further.
The Roman Pontiff had arranged for the travel of the Greek delegates to Italy. They landed at Venice on February 8, 1438; they reached Ferrara in early March. While waiting for them to arrive, the Western bishops had opened the Council as planned on January 8, 1438. There had been a number of preliminary sessions, suspending the schismatic group at Basel and making plans for the discussions with the Greeks.
Once they had landed in Venice, however, the division between the Greeks (as well as their extreme sensitiveness) became quite apparent. Even before they arrived, they seemed to have chosen their sides, for or against union. They also fell into minor disputes concerning the manner in which they ought to greet the Pope, the proper order of precedence among the bishops, and the ever recurring problem at this Council: the question of the financial reimbursement they were to receive.
They arrived at Ferrara in full splendor; the details of precedence were all solved somehow, but not without a great deal of fuss concerning the position of the various thrones and their respective heights. At last, on April 9, a truly fantastic picture was unveiled in the Church of St. George. The Latins gathered on the Gospel side, and the Greeks on the Epistle side. The Emperor was present, as well as his son, Demetrius (who happened to be against the idea of union). The Pope was there also, as well as Joseph II, the patriarch of Constantinople - a sick, old man who favored the union, and who had made this long journey for that reason, knowing full well that he would probably never return home.
Among the Latins the dominant figure was Cardinal Cesarini. For the Greeks, there was Bessarion, the archbishop of Nicea (who favored union from sincere motives), and Mark of Ephesus (violently opposed to it).
Never had the Western world seen such a magnificent gathering of personages as this. But then things came to a temporary halt. The Emperor was particularly upset because none of the Western princes had shown up; he could hardly satisfy his political and military plans if no one but disputing priests showed up. For this reason, nothing important was done for the next six months - until October 8, when the temporal princes arrived. The Emperor went hunting; the cardinals and bishops had dinners; and the financial resources for supporting them all ran lower and lower. Eventually a commission of theologians, half Latin and half Greek, was appointed to discuss the main problems: the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the use of unleavened bread, Purgatory, and the primacy of the Pope.
At long last, the first important session got under way on October 8, 1438, in the Pope's chapel; about 200 bishops took part in the proceedings of the Council. In all, sixteen sessions took place at Ferrara from that date until January 10, 1439. The situation was somewhat different from that adopted at II Lyons, for in this instance, the theological questions were debated openly, particularly that concerning the "Filioque."
While Photius and Cerularius had mentioned this question, it did not have the import with them that it later assumed; it was now very central. The II Council of Lyons had, of course, solved one principal objection: it defined that the Western Church held the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son as "from one principle," and not from two distinct sources. This was a real concern for some of the sincere theologians of the East. Antiquity noted two phrases that had been used to explain this doctrine. Once Arianism had been conquered, all agreed that the Son proceeded from the Father; the attention now centered upon the eternal relationship of the Holy Spirit to these Two.
One phrase - used by some Latin writers, but favored in the East - stated that the Spirit proceeded "from the Father through the Son" (ex Patre per Filium). The other - used by some Greek writers, but favored in the West - stated that the Spirit proceeded from the Father "and the Son" (Filioque - "que" being the word for "and," attached to the end of the word for "Son"). Through the efforts of Bessarion and George Scholarios, a learned layman, the Greeks at Florence were convinced that the two phrases meant the same thing. A statement of this fact was incorporated into the final decree.
The argument continued, however, on a more technical point. The Council of Ephesus had decreed that no one could add anything to the Nicene Creed. Thus the Greeks insisted that the Church of Rome could not add the "Filioque," and the Latins insisted that it could do so. In the background, of course, was the question of papal authority in doctrinal questions.
This particular point had been debated ever since the contact with Alcuin and other Western theologians who attended II Nicea as representatives of Charlemagne (787). The phrase was certainly added to the Creed, perhaps first of all in Spain; the practice then spread. The Greeks were fond of citing Pope Leo III who, at the beginning of the ninth century, refused to admit the phrase into the Creed as recited at Rome. His reason was actually the addition, rather than the teaching, although he was now quoted as also being against the doctrine expressed by the phrase.
With time, these problems were solved, but not at Ferrara. The plague had come to Ferrara, and this suggested a move. In addition, the Pope was no longer able to pay for the food, lodging, and wages associated with the Council. Robbers had continually interfered with delivery of funds from Rome. The people of Florence, however, agreed to undertake the support of the Council; and the Greeks, at first somewhat unwilling, agreed when it was stated that their back wages would be forthcoming in Florence.
At Florence, the Emperor apparently got tired of the priestly debates, and was sorry that no other princes came; his main desire now was to conclude a union and leave. Since this demanded unity among the Greek theologians, the Emperor stepped in and silenced those against union (who were already decreasing in number). This did not exactly rush matters, but along with a new system of commissions that met separately rather than in a full session, a final formula of union was worked out. On June 8, 1439, the Greeks finally accepted the points on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, and between then and July 5, the other questions were discussed and acceptable formulas devised.
The ailing patriarch, Joseph II, died on June 10. Some of the other Greek bishops (as well as the learned layman, Scho-larios) purposely left the Council about the same time, before the solemn signing of the decree. One bishop stayed, steadfastly refusing to sign: Mark of Ephesus. This manner of avoiding the question of signing the decree is quite significant in view of what happened after the Council had ended.
When the time for the official signing arrived, the Greeks gathered with the Emperor to place their signatures on the final formula; this occurred on July 5, 1439. In all, thirty-three Greek representatives signed. At the same time, the Latins met with the Pope at the Church of St. Maria Novella, where one hundred and seventeen more signed. The next day, the Pope celebrated a solemn Mass in the Cathedral at Florence, where the final decree was read aloud.
Soon after, the Emperor and the other Greek delegates were on their way home. Certain matters were left unsolved - especially the election of a new patriarch, and the problem of what to do when one city had two bishops, a Latin and a Greek. (This was eventually solved according to which bishop died first; the diocese then reverted to the other rite.)
The Council of Florence continued after the Greeks left, but we know little about it. The schism at Basel had to be discussed, and new requests came from other Oriental bishops seeking union. The Armenians were on their way when the first decree was being formulated; they arrived as the Greeks were leaving. A formula of agreement was drawn up for them, although in practice nothing ever came of it; the situation had changed radically when their delegates returned home. In 1442, a similar decree was issued for the Jacobites, sent by the King of Ethiopia; again it was not of lasting value.
As with II Lyons, the Council of Florence failed to achieve a lasting union. The mixed motives involved in achieving a formula of union could not be overcome. Of the Eastern rites now in union with Rome (the so-called Uniates), all but one group returned, at various times and in smaller numbers, after the sixteenth century. Only the Maronites lay claim to having always remained Catholic.
In 1443, Pope Eugene IV left Florence to move the Council a third time, now to the Lateran Basilica at Rome. There was the danger of the antipope, Felix V, elected at Basel, as well as the desire expressed by some to transfer the Council to the North again. It appeared safer to continue the Council in Rome to avoid any such moves; the transfer had the added advantage of putting the Pope closer to the source of funds for such a gathering. The Council remained in Rome from 1443 until 1445, the date usually set for its end. It accomplished nothing important that we know of. We are not even sure just how or when it ended. The fifteenth-century historian lost most of his interest when the Greeks departed for Constantinople. Apparently reunion with some other Oriental groups was effected, but this was done most probably by way of imitation, and out of fear of the Turks, with no lasting effect.
Meanwhile, in Constantinople, the work accomplished at Florence was rapidly coming to naught. The Emperor attempted to adhere to the agreement with the Pope, as did his successor; but the people were opposed. In fact, thirteen years later the emperors had not yet dared to publish the decrees signed in Florence; and all the while those opposed to union were violently attacking the notion. This included Scholarios, who had apparently undergone a change of heart; he had been in favor of union at first, but not at the close of the discussions. He had now become a monk and a most violent anti-unionist. The entire mentality of the period was summed up in the phrase: "Better the turban of the Prophet than the tiara of the Pope."
The next pope, Nicholas V (1447-1455), insisted that the Emperor publish the decrees, which he did. Nicholas also sent him what help he could. But it was already too late. Constantinople was doomed to fall. It fell to the Mohammedans on May 29, 1453, thus spelling the end of all hopes of lasting union.
Strangely, Mohammed II, who took over the rule, did not crush out the religion, as one might fear. Instead he chose to give the Greek nation a sort of autonomous organization under the direction of its religious leader. For this task, the clergy elected none other than Gennadius the Monk - the religious name of Scholarios. Thus the scene ended. Gennadius ruled only a few years, returning to his monastery in 1456, but the pattern was established and has continued until today.
While the Council of Florence, like II Lyons, failed to bring about a lasting union, it is remarkably indicative of the action of the Holy Spirit in a Council. Out of such a conglomeration of elements and cross motives, two particularly important results can be detected. One, the Church received its most clear and explicit statement concerning the doctrine on the Holy Spirit, a formula worked out in the discussions between the Eastern and Western theologians. Moreover, the authority of the Roman Pontiff that had been so challenged after the Council of Constance, now emerged more firmly established in doctrinal matters than ever before.
Unfortunately, the needed work of reform was never accomplished; it should have been attended to long before. All of these other concerns sidetracked this particular problem, however, but with tragic results. Very shortly the Protestant Revolt would break forth in full fury, to be met finally by the much-needed Council of Reform - Trent.