Florence, Council of
Florence, Council of
The Seventeenth cumenical Council (1438 -1445 ), held in the pontificate of Pope Eugene IV , first in the city of Ferrara and later at Florence , Italy . Its aim was the reunion of the Eastern Churches , especially of the Greek Orthodox Church, with the Catholic Church . Although at the council the Greek representatives, headed by the Greek emperor, agreed to the famous decree of union (Ltentur Cli) which was announced, 6 July 1439 , yet in Russia the Muscovite princes, and in Byzantium (now Constantinople ) the Byzantine clergy and people, refused to abide by the decrees of the council.
Le Dece-septime Consilo Ecumenic (1438 -1445 ), conduciva durante le pontificato de Papa Eugene IV, prime in le citate de Ferrara e depost a Florence, Italia. Su proposito era le reunion del Ecclesios Oriental, specialmente del Ecclesio Orthodoxe Grec, con le Ecclesio Catholic. Ben que durante le Consilo le representatives Grec, conducite per le imperator grec, consentiva al famose decreto de union (Ltentur Cli) annunciava 6 julio 1439, ancora a Russia le princes moscovita, et a Byzantium (nunc Constantinople) le clero e gentes byzantin, refusava observar le decretos del consilo.
Nove Dictionario Catholic
NCD Index SQPN Contact Author
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Florence, Council of
The Seventeenth Ecumenical Council was, correctly speaking, the continuation of the Council of Ferrara, transferred to the Tuscan capital because of the pest; or, indeed, a continuation of the Council of Basle, which was convoked in 1431 by Martin V. In the end the last-named assembly became a revolutionary conciliabulum, and is to be judged variously, according as we consider the manner of its convocation, its membership, or its results. Generally, however, it is ranked as an ecumenical council until the decree of dissolution in 1437. After its transfer to Ferrara, the first session of the council was held 10 Jan., 1438. Eugene IV proclaimed it the regular continuation of the Council of Basle, and hence its ecumenical character is admitted by all.
The Council of Constance (1414-18) had seen the growth of a fatal theory, based on the writings of William Durandus (Guillaume Durant), John of Paris, Marsiglio of Padua, and William of Occam, i.e. the conciliar theory that proclaimed the superiority of the council over the pope. It was the outcome of much previous conflict and embitterment; was hastily voted in a time of angry confusion by an incompetent body; and, besides leading eventually to the deplorable articles of the “Declaratio Cleri Gallicani” (see GALLICANISM), almost provoked at the time new schisms. Influenced by this theory, the members of the Council of Constance promulgated in the thirty-fifth general session (9 October, 1417) five decrees, the first being the famous decree known as “Frequens”, according to which an ecumenical council should be held every ten years. In other words, the council was henceforth to be a permanent, indispensable institution, that is, a kind of religious parliament meeting at regular intervals, and including amongst its members the ambassadors of Catholic sovereigns; hence the ancient papal monarchy, elective but absolute, was to give way to a constitutional oligarchy.
While Martin V, naturally enough, refused to recognize these decrees, he was unable to make headway openly against a movement which he considered fatal. In accordance, therefore, with the decree “Frequens” he convoked an ecumenical council at Pavia for 1423, and later, yielding to popular opinion, which even many cardinals countenanced, summoned a new council at Basle to settle the difficulties raised by the anti-Hussite wars. A Bull of 1 Feb., 1431, named as president of the council Giuliano Cesarini, Cardinal of Sant’ Angelo, whom the pope had sent to Germany to preach a crusade against the Hussites. Martin V died suddenly (20 February, 1431), before the Bull of convocation and the legatine faculties reached Cesarini. However, the new pope, Eugene IV (Gabriele Condolmieri), confirmed the acts of his predecessor with the reservation that further events might cause him to revoke his decision. He referred probably to the reunion of the Greek Church with Rome, discussed between Martin V and the Byzantine emperor (John Palaeologus), but put off by reason of the pope’s death. Eugene IV laboured most earnestly for reunion, which he was destined to see accomplished in the Council of Ferrara-Florence. The Council of Basle had begun in a rather burlesque way. Canon Beaupère of Besançon, who had been sent from Basle to Rome, gave the pope an unfavourable and exaggerated account of the temper of the people of Basle and its environs. Eugene IV thereupon dissolved the council before the close of 1431, and convoked it anew at Bologna for the summer of 1433, providing at the same time for the participation of the Greeks. Cesarini, however, had already opened the council of Basle, and now insisted vigorously that the aforesaid papal act should be withdrawn. Yielding to the aggressive attitude of the Basle assembly, whose members proclaimed anew the conciliar theory, Eugene IV gradually modified his attitude towards them, and exhibited in general, throughout these painful dissensions, a very conciliatory temper.
Many reform-decrees were promulgated by the council, and, though never executed, contributed towards the final rupture. Ultimately, the unskilful negotiations of the council with the Greeks on the question of reunion moved Eugene IV to transfer it to Ferrara. The embassy sent from Basle to Constantinople (1435), Giovanni di Ragusa, Heinrich Henger, and Simon Fréron, insisted obstinately on holding at Basle the council which was to promote the union of the two Churches, but in this matter the Byzantine Emperor refused to give way. With all the Greeks he wished the council to take place in some Italian city near the sea, preferably in Southern Italy. At Basle the majority insisted, despite the Greeks, that the council of reunion should be convoked at Avignon, but a minority sided with the Greeks and was by them recognized as the true council. Hereupon Eugene IV approved the action of the minority (29 May, 1437), and for this was summoned to appear before the council. He replied by dissolving it on 18 September. Wearied of the obstinacy of the majority at Basle, Cardinal Cesarini and his adherents then quitted the city and went to Ferrara, whither Eugene IV, as stated above, had transferred the council by decree of 30 December, 1437, or 1 January, 1438.
The Ferrara Council opened on 8 January, 1438, under the presidency of Cardinal Niccolò Albergati, whom the pope had commissioned to represent him until he could appear in person. It had, of course, no other objects than those of Basle, i.e. reunion of the Churches, reforms, and the restoration of peace between Christian peoples. The first session of the council took place 10 January, 1438. It declared the Council of Basle transferred to Ferrara, and annulled in advance any and all future decrees of the Basle assembly. When Eugene IV heard that the Greeks were nearing the coast of Italy, he set off (24 January) for Ferrara and three days later made his solemn entry into the city. The manner of voting was first discussed by the members of the council. Should it be, as at Constance, by nations (nationes), or by committees (commissiones)? It was finally decided to divide the members into three estates: the cardinals, archbishops, and bishops; the abbots and prelates; the doctors and other members. In order that the vote of any estate might count, it was resolved that a majority of two-thirds should be required, and it was hoped that this provision would remove all possibility of the recurrence of the regrettable dissensions at Constance. At the second public session (15 February) these decrees were promulgated, and the pope excommunicated the members of the Basle assembly, which still continued to sit. The Greeks soon appeared at Ferrara, headed by Emperor John Palaeologus and Joasaph, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and numbered about seven hundred. The solemn sessions of the council began on 9 April, 1438, and were held in the cathedral of Ferrara under the presidency of the pope. On the Gospel side of the altar rose the (unoccupied) throne of the Western Emperor (Sigismund of Luxemburg), who had died only a month previously; on the Epistle side was placed the throne of the Greek Emperor. Besides the emperor and his brother Demetrius, there were present, on the part of the Greeks, Joasaph, the Patriarch of Constantinople; Antonius, the Metropolitan of Heraclea; Gregory Hamma, the Protosyncellus of Constantinople (the last two representing the Patriarch of Alexandria); Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus; Isidore of Kiev (representing the Patriarch of Antioch); Dionysius, Bishop of Sardes (representing the Patriarch of Jerusalem); Bessarion, Archbishop of Nicaea; Balsamon, the chief chartophylax; Syropulos, the chief ecclesiarch, and the Bishops of Monembasia, Lacedaemon, and Anchielo. In the discussions the Latins were represented principally by Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini and Cardinal Niccolò Albergati; Andrew, Archbishop of Rhodes; the Bishop of Forlì; the Dominican John of Turrecremata; and Giovanni di Ragusa, provincial of Lombardy.
Preliminary discussions brought out the main points of difference between the Greeks and the Latins, viz. the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the azymes, purgatory, and the primacy. During these preliminaries the zeal and good intentions of the Greek Emperor were evident. Serious discussion began apropos of the doctrine of purgatory. Cesarini and Turrecremata were the chief Latin speakers, the latter in particular engaging in a violent discussion with Marcus Eugenicus. Bessarion, speaking for the Greeks, made clear the divergency of opinion existing among the Greeks themselves on the question of purgatory. This stage of the discussion closed on 17 July, whereupon the council rested for a time, and the Greek Emperor took advantage of the respite to join eagerly in the pleasures of the chase with the Duke of Ferrara.
When the council met again (8 Oct., 1438), the chief (indeed, thenceforth the only) subject of discussion was the Filioque. The Greeks were represented by Bessarion, Marcus Eugenicus, Isidore of Kiev, Gemistus Plethon, Balsamon, and Kantopulos; on the Latin side were Cardinals Cesarini and Niccolò Albergati, the Archbishop of Rhodes, the Bishop of Forlì, and Giovanni di Ragusa. In this and the following fourteen sessions, the Filioque was the sole subject of discussion. In the fifteenth session it became clear that the Greeks were unwilling to consent to the insertion of this expression in the Creed, although it was imperative for the good of the church and as a safeguard against future heresies. Many Greeks began to despair of realizing the projected union and spoke of returning to Constantinople. To this the emperor would not listen; he still hoped for a reconciliation, and in the end succeeded in appeasing the heated spirits of his partisans. Eugene IV now announced his intention of transferring the council to Florence, in consequence of pecuniary straits and the outbreak of the pest at Ferrara. Many Latins had already died, and of the Greeks the Metropolitan of Sardis and the entire household of Isidore of Kiev were attacked by the disease. The Greeks finally consented to the transfer, and in the sixteenth and last session at Ferrara the papal Bull was read, in both Latin and Greek, by which the council was transferred to Florence (January, 1439).
The seventeenth session of the council (the first at Florence) took place in the papal palace on 26 February. In nine consecutive sessions, the Filioque 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 theologian 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 propositions 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 discourse in favour of reunion, and was supported by Georgius Scholarius. Both parties now met again, after which, to put an end to all equivocation, the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they stated that they did not admit two “principia” 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-formula, whereupon Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Dortheus 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 emperor, 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” (arche) and from one cause (aitia). 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 Patriarch of Constantinople died, 10 June; 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, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved. On 6 July, however, the famous decree of union (Laetentur Coeli), the original 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 remained to promote the reunion with the other Eastern Churches–the Armenians (1439), the Jacobites of Syria (1442), the Mesopotamians, between the Tigris and the Euphrates (1444), the Chaldeans or Nestorians, and the Maronites of Cyprus (1445). This last was the concluding public act of the Council of Florence, the proceedings of which from 1443 onwards took place in the Lateran palace at Rome.
The erudition of Bessarion and the energy of Isidore 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 interdependence, 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 Greek deputies, intimidated by the discontent prevailing amongst their own people, deserted their position and soon fell back into the surrounding mass of schism. The new emperor, Constantine, brother of John Palaeologus, 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 Florentine “Decretum Unionis” (Laetentur Coeli), but, before 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 ecclesiastical authority in Christendom; and Eugene IV was able to arrest the schism which had been threatening the Western Church anew (see BASLE, COUNCIL OF). This council was, therefore, witness to the prompt rehabilitation of papal supremacy, and facilitated, the return of men like Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, 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 Pius II.
———————————–
L. VAN DER ESSEN Transcribed by Tim Drake
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VICopyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Florence, Council of
(transferred from Ferrara in 1439). The circumstances under which the Council of Ferrara was called by Eugenius IV are stated under BASLE, COUNCIL OF SEE BASLE, COUNCIL OF; FERRARA, COUNCIL OF SEE FERRARA, COUNCIL OF. The plea for the transfer of the council from Ferrara to Florence was the prevalence of the plague in Ferrara; but this must be pronounced a blind, as the plague had prevailed for months, and was nearly over when the transfer took place. Are we, then, free to surmise that the true reason was kept a profound secret after all, and was, really, that the Latins were getting thoroughly the worst of it on the point of adding to the creed, and that attention was to be diverted from the subject by a change of scene and improved fare ? (Ffoulkes, Christendom’s Divisions, 2:346). It is clear that the Greek bishops were only led to consent to obey the pope and go from Ferrara to Florence by the promise that their allowance for expenses, which had been withheld for several months, should be promptly paid (Popoff, History of the Council of Florence, edited by Neale, Lond. 1861, chapter 6).
The bull transferring the council to Florence was read in the cathedral of Ferrara, January 10, 1439, on February 9 the pope and bishops entered Florence; the emperor, John Palseologus, arrived on the 15th. The aim of the council was (in continuation of that at Ferrara) to restore union between the churches of the East and the West, Eugenius IV desired this greatly, in order to confound his enemies at the Council of Basle, who were still in session, and who soon afterwards deposed him (June 25,1439: SEE BASLE ); while the emperor John Palaeologus sought to gain the aid of the West in his wars with the Turks. The chief topic of discussion was the addition of the filioque to the creed, SEE FILIOQUE; but the Latins succeeded in taking up the doctrinal question of the procession of the Holy Ghost instead of the historical one of the additions to the creed. The cardinal Julian chiefly represented the Latin side, and Mark of Ephesus was the strongest disputant on the side of the Greeks. Bessarion, of the Greek side, was won over to the Latin by promises of rewards from the pope. SEE BESSARION.
At the first session, February 26, 1439, Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople, was absent on account of illness. He died before the close of this council. Cardinal Julian proposed a discussion of the means of union; the emperor reminded him that the dispute on the filioque was not ended. At the end of the sitting, he held a private meeting of the Greeks to consider terms of union, but nothing came of it. In the second session (March 2) a beginning was made in discussing the doctrine of the procession, the Latin side being ably represented by Johannes de Monte Nigro, provincial of the Dominicans in Lombardy. The discussion was continued in several sessions up to the ninth (March 25). The Greeks succeeded best in the scriptural argument, and also showed that many of the passages from Epiphanius, Basil, and Augustine, cited by the Latins, had been corrupted. After the session of March 17, the emperor prohibited Mark of Ephesus and Anthony of Heraclea, the two strongest advocates on the Greek side, from taking further part in the discussions. The emperor was bent on union at any price. At the end of the session of March 24, the pope sent word to the patriarch that the Greeks must either express their assent to thee Roman view, or return home, by Easter, April 5. From this time the emperor vacillated: on the one side was his conscience, and also the fear that the whole East would brand him traitor to orthodoxy; on the other hand was his desire for the aid of the West in maintaining his falling empire. Policy triumphed. Moreover, the Greeks were far from home, and without money and they received nothing on account of the allowance promised them by the pope from the time of their arrival in Florence until May 22. The emperor summoned a meeting of the Greek bishops, March 30, in the apartment of the invalid patriarch Joseph, and other such meetings followed. The discussions were stormy. Dositheus of Jerusalem declared that he would rather die, than be false to time creed and Latinize.
Mark declared that the Latins were not only schismatics, but heretics. It was finally agreed that a committee of twenty should be, appointed, ten from each side, to lay down the doctrine of the procession in a form that might be accepted by both sides. After many unsuccessful endeavors, they drew up a profession of faith upon the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in which they declared as follows: That the Holy Spirit is from all eternity from the Father and of the Son; that he from all eternity proceedeth from both, as from one only principle, and by one only spiration; that by this way of speaking it is signified that the Son also is, as the Greeks express it, the cause, or, as the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit equally with the Father. Also we declare that what some of the holy fathers have said of the procession of the Holy Spirit from (ex) the Father by (per) the Son is to be taken in such a sense as that the Son is, as well as the Father, and conjointly with him, the cause or principle of the Holy Spirit; and since all that the Father hath he hath, in begetting him, communicated to his only begotten Son, the paternity alone excepted; so it is from the Father from all eternity that the Son hath received this also, that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Son as well as from the Father.’ In the same decree the council declared that it was lawful to consecrate unleavened bread as well as that which had been leavened and upon the subject of purgatory, that the souls of those who die truly penitent in the love of God, before bringing forth fruit meet for repentance, are purified after death by the pains of purgatory, and that they derive comfort in those pains from the prayers of the faithful on earth, as also by the sacrifice of the mass, alms, and other works of piety. Concerning the primacy of the pope, they confessed the pope to be the sovereign pontiff and vicar of Jesus Christ, the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and the governor of the Church of God, according to the sacred canons sand acts of the oecumenical councils, saving the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchs.
After various conferences, the decree of union was drawn up in due order, in Greek and in Latin; it was then read and signed by the pope, and by eighteen cardinals, by the Latin patriarchs of Jerusalem and Grenada, and the two episcopal ambassadors of the duke of Burgundy, eight archbishops, forty-seven bishops (who were almost all Italians), four generals of monastic orders, and forty-one abbots. On the Greek side, it was signed by the emperor John Palseologus, by the vicars of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (the patriarch of Constantinople had lately died), and by several metropolitans. This decree was published on the 6th of July, 1439, after which the Greeks, to the number of thirty, left Florence, and arrived at Constantinople, February 1, 1440. The union thus formed was of very short duration. SEE GREEK CHURCH. After their departure, the council continued its sittings; and in the next session, held September 4th, the fathers at Basle were declared to be heretics and schismatics. In the second, November 22d, a very long decree was made upon the subject of the union of the Armenians with the Roman Church. This decree runs in the name of the pope only. In the third, March 23, 1440, the anti-pope Amadeus, who on the council at Basle had elected, pope (Felix V), was declared to be a heretic and schismatic, and all his followers guilty of high treason; a promise of pardon being held out to those who should submit within fifty days. In the fourth session, 4th of February, 1441, a decree for the reunion of the Jacobites of Ethiopia with the Roman Church was published, signed by the pope and eight cardinals. Andrew, the deputy of John XI, the patriarch of Alexandria, received it in the name of the Ethiopian Jacobites. In the fifth session, 26th of April, 1442, the pope’s proposal to transfer the council to Rome was agreed to, but only two sessions were held there, in which decrees for the union of thee Syrians, Chaldaeans, and Maronites with the see of Rome were drawn up (Landon, Manual of Councils, s. 5). On the return home of the Greeks, they found no welcome: Mark of Ephesus was held up as the true representative of orthodoxy, and the signers to the union were denounced as recreants. Most of those who haud signed their names recanted, saying, Alas! we have I seen seduced by distress, by fraud, and by the hopes and fears of a transitory life. The hand that has signed the union should be cut off, and the tongue that has pronounced the Latin creed deserves to be torn from the root.
Literature.For the acts of the council (on the Latin side), see Hor. Justinianus, Acta Concil. Florentini (Rom. 1638, 3 parts fol.); Mansi, Concilia, 5, 9; Labbe et Cossart, Consil. 13:223, 510, 1034; Harduin, Cons cil. 9: The acts are summed up in Semler, Selecta Historiae Eccles. capit. 3:140 sq. On the Greek side we have Sylvester Sguropulos (often written Syropulus) , Vera Hist. unionis non verae inter Graecos et Latinos, s. Concil. Florent. narratio; Gr. et Lat., ed. Rob. Creyghton (Hague, 1660, fol.); in reply to which, Leo Allatius wrote Exercit. in R. Creyghtoni apparat., etc. ,(Romae, 1674, 166o, 4to). See also Schrockh, Kirchengeschichte, 34:388 sq.; Ffoulkes, Christendom’s Divisions (Lond. 1867) 2:332 sq.; Milman, Latin Christianity, Luke 13, chapter 14; Hefele, in Tubing. Quartal-Schrift, 1847, 183 sq.; Grier, Epitome of Councils (Dublin, 1827, 8vo), chapter 26; The History of the Council of Florence translated by Basil Popoff, ed. by J. M. Neale (Lond. 1861, 12mo) Cunningham, Historical Theology, 1:468 sq.; Elliott, Delineation of Romanism, book 3, chapter 3.