FLORENCE
113
FLORENCE
at Florence) took place in the papal palace on 20
February. In nine consecutive sessions, the Filio-
que was the chief matter of discussion. In the last
session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth
of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the
Latin doctrine in the following terms: "The Latin
Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the
Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the
Father that the Son holds his place in the ' Procession '
of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also
from the Son." In the last session, the same theolo-
gian again expounded the doctrine, after which the
public sessions were closed at the request of the
Greeks, as it seemed useless to prolong further the
theological discussions. At this juncture began the
active efforts of Isidore of Kiev, and, as the result of
further parleys, Eugene IV submitted four proposi-
tions summing up the result of the previous discussion
and exposing the weakness of the attitude of the
Greeks. As the latter were loath to admit defeat.
Cardinal Bessarion, in a special meeting of the Greeks,
on 13 and 14 April, 1439, delivered his famous dis-
course in favour of reunion, and was supported by
Georgius Scholarius. Both parties now met again,
after which, to put an end to all equivoca,tion, the
Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in
which they stated that they did not admit tivo " prin-
cipia" in "the Trinity, but only one, the productive
power of the Father and the Son, and that the Holy
Ghost proceeds also from the Son. They admitted,
therefore, two hypostases, one action, one productive
power, and one product due to the substance and the
hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Greeks
met this statement with an equivocal counter-form-
ula, whereupon Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Doro-
theus of Mitylene, encouraged by the emperor, came
out strongly in favour of the ex filio.
The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. ' When, therefore, at the request of the em- peror, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost, from the Father and the Son as from one "principium" (apx^) and from one cause {ahla). On 8 June, a final agreement was reached concerning this doctrine. The Latin teaching respecting the azymes and purgatory was also accepted by the Greeks. As to the primacy, they declared that they would grant the pope all the privileges he had before the schism. An amicable agreement was also reached regarding the form of consecration in the Mass (see Epiklesis). Almost simultaneously with these measures the Patri- arch of Constantinople died, 10 Jvme; not, however, before he had drawn up and signed a declaration in which he admitted the Filioque, purgatory, and the papal primacy. Nevertheless the reunion of the Churches was not yet an accomplished fact. The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seem- ingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved. On 6 July, how- ever, the famous decree of union (Lstentur Coeli), the original of which is still preserved in the Laurentian Library at Florence, was formally announced in the cathedral of that city. The council was over, as far as the Greeks were concerned, and they departed at once. The Latin members remaineil to promote the reunion with the other Eastern Churches — the Ar- menians (1439), the Jacobites of Syria (1442), the Mesopotaniians, between the Tigris and the Euphrates (1444), tlif( 'haldeansor Nestorians, and the Maronites of Cyprus(1445). This last was theconcluding public act of the Council of Florence, the proceedings of VI.— S
which from 1443 onwards took place in the Latcran
palace at Rome.
The erudition of Bessarion and the energy of Isitlore of Kiev were chiefly responsible for the reunion of the Churches as accomplished at Florence. The question now was to secure its adoption in the East. For this purpose Isidore of Kiev was sent to Russia as papal legate and cardinal, but the Muscovite princes, jealous of their religious independence, refused to abide by the decrees of the Council of Florence. Isidore was thrown into prison, but afterwards escaped and took refuge in Italy. Nor was any better headway made in the Greek Empire. The emperor remained faithful, but some of the (ireek deputies, intimidated by the dis- content prevailing amongst their own people, deserted their position and soon fell back into the surrovmd- ing mass of schism. The new emperor, Constantine, brother of John Pateologus, vainly endeavoured to overcome the opposition of the Byzantine clergy and people. Isidore of Kiev was sent to Constantinople to bring about the desired acceptance of the Floren- tine "Decretum Unionis" (La;tentur Cceli), but, be- fore he could succeed in his mission, the city fell (1453) before the advancing hordes of Mohammed II.
One advantage, at least, resulted from the Council of Florence: it proclaimed before both Latins and Greeks that the Roman pontiff was the foremost eccle- siastical authority in Christendom; and Eugene IV was able to arrest the schism which had been threat- ening the Western Church anew (see Basle, Council of). This council was, therefore, witness to the prompt rehabilitation of papal supremac}', and facili- tated the return of men like ^neas Sylvius Piccolo- mini, who in his youth had taken part in the Council of Basle, but ended by recognizing its erroneous attitude, and finally became pope under the name of Pius II.
Sources: — Dorotheus of Mitylene, Historia concilii Flor- enlini in Hardouin, Collecdo Concilionim, IX, 397, 669 sqq., and in Mansi, Sacronim conciliorum collectio (new ed., Paris, 1901), XXI: 'H ayia Kai oiKOU^eftKij ef •tAwpei'Tt^ cvVoSoy (Rome, 1507): Acta sacH animeniH concilii Florentini coUecta, disposila, ilhislrnla per Jiislinianum (Rome, 1638); Creygh- TON, ed.. Vera historia unionis non vera- inter Grtecos et Latinos, sive concilii Florentini exactissima narratio, grace scripta per Sylvestrum Syropulum (La Haye, 1660). For a criticism of these sources see Frommann, Kritische Beitrage zur Geschichte der Florentiner Kircheneinigung, 46-82; Fea. Pius II vindicatus (Rome, 1823); Perouse, Documents inedits rdatifs au concilede Bale in Bulletin historique et philologique du comite dcs travaux hisloriques et scienlifiques (Paris, 1905), 364-399.
Special Work8:-^reighton (Anglican), A History of the Papacy from the Great Schism to the Sack of Rome (new ed., Lon- don, 1900), I; VON Wessemberg (antipapal), Die grossen Kirchenversammlungen des XV, and XVI, Jahrhunderts (Con- stance, 1840); Zhisman, Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen der orientalischen und romischen Kirche seit dem Anfange des 15, Jahrhunderts bis zum Coned von Ferrara (Vienna, 1858); Cris- tophe, Histoirede la papaute pendant le quinzieme sHcle (Lyons, 1863); (^EccoNi, Studi storici sul concilia di Firenze (Florence, 1869), an important work: Frommann, Kritische Beitrage zur Geschichte der Florentiner Kircheneinigung (Halle, 1872); Vast, Le cardinal Bessarion {lU)3-llt72). Etude sur la chreliente et la renaissance vers le milieu du XV' siccle (Paris, 1878); Hefele. Conciliengeschichte (Freiburg im Br., 1879), VII, 426-821; Gdiraud, L'Eiat pontifical apris le grand schisme (Paris, 1897); Perrault-Dabot, Le due de Bourgogne Philippe le Bon et le concilede Florence (Dijon, 1900); Chretien, Le pape Eughie IV (1431-1447) in Revue intemationale de Theologie (1901), 150- 170, 352-367; Manger, Die Wahl Amedeos von Savoyen zum Papste durch das Baseler Konzil (Marburg, 1901); Pastor, Geschichte der Piipste seit dem A nsgangedes Mittelalters, I: Gesch- ichte der Papste im Zeitaller der Renaissance bis zur Wahl Pius II (Freiburg im Br., 1901); Pierling, La Russie et le Saint Sil-ge, Etudes diplnmatique-'i, I: Les Russes au concile de Florence (Paris, 1902); .K. PapADOPOULOS, Map«os 6 EvyefiKoc coy iraTT)p oYioy T^y opdoSo^ov (cadoAof^s "EjcicATjaiay in Bgzantinische Zeitschrift (1902), XI, .50-69; Preiswerk, Der Einfluss Araaons auf den Prozess des Baseler Konzils gegen Papst Eugen IV. (Basle, 1902); Scerbina, Liternturgeschichte der russischen Erztihlungen ijber die Florentiner Union, in Jahrbuch der hist, phil. Gesellschaft bei derkaiserl. neurussischenUniversitdt zu Odessa (1902), IX. sect. 7, i:i9-lS6; Die Immakidata-Bulle der Voter des Baseler Konzils. 1439, in Kaiholik (1903), third ser.. XXVIII, 518-520; Ro- cuol.L. Bf.s.'iftrinn, ,^l mlie zur Geschichte der Renaissance (Leipzig, 1904) ; A. L.. Le concile general et le grand schisme d' Occident, in Revue des Sciences ecclisiastiques (Paris. 1904), XC. 342-349; AuNER. La Moldavie au concile de Florence (Paris, 1904); Perouse, IjC cardinal Louis Aleman, president du concile de Bdle, et la fin du grand schisme (Paris, 1904); Chrys. Papado-
