By Fr. Panagiotes Carras
The deep-rooted antagonism of the
Church in the Byzantine Empire toward the Roman Catholic West during the
thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries has been generally believed to
spring from nationalistic or political causes, [1] rather than
religious. The endless discussions concerning the Filioque are
only to be understood either in the light of the contemporary political
conditions; or, as D.J. Geanakipoulos says, it would appear that the
question of the Filioque, so bitterly debated at Florence, masked the vital,
underlying problem of the hostility between Greeks and Latins. [2] However,
a careful examination of the discussion at the Council of Florence of the Filioque will
reveal that the Orthodox understood that doctrine of the Filioque actually
was in direct contradiction to Orthodox soteriology and to the Sacramental life
of the Church, which is the life source of the Church. [3]
Rome's acceptance of the Filioque in
1014 entrenched Scholastic theology which defended and developed an Augustinian
soteriology contrary to Orthodox doctrine. For, to the Orthodox, salvation is
the liberation of man from the power of death by participation in the Divine
Life, the quickening Grace of God which is God Himself.
By 1438 Thomistic theology had so
developed and applied the Filioque doctrine that the whole
life and fabric of the Western Church was changed. The Orthodox
at Florence faced not only the innovation of the Filioque (as
did Saint Photius), but a host of teachings and practices spawned by a
distorted trinitarian theology the doctrinal errors of which had been
previously noted by Orthodox theologians such as Saint Gregory Palamas, Nilus
Cabasilas, Nicholas Cabasilas, Symeon Thessalonikes, [4] and Joseph Bryennius.
[5]
The presuppositions, basis, and
cause of the Filioque in Roman theology were well understood
by the Orthodox; for Augustine [6] and Aquinas [7] were read and known in the
East. The Emperor John VIII, however, forbade any discussion by the Orthodox on
the relation of God's Essence to His Energies, which is the heart of the Filioque problem
and of the difference between West and East, as had been demonstrated in the
Hesychast Controversy. [8] As evidence that Western theology
was well known and that the basic problem was believed to be that of God's
Essence and Energies, we have John VIII's first direction that the discussions
at the forthcoming Council revolve around the two basic problems of the
Filioque and the Divine Essence and Energies. [9] Once the discussions
commenced, however, John VIII, attempted to avert all serious theological
discussion on the problems. [10] He realized that the cleavage between the
Orthodox and the Latins was too deep and too wide to be
healed. According to the Orthodox, the Latins were not only wrong in
regard to the Filioque and their theology of Grace, but were
also wrong in regard to the Eucharist, Papal Primacy, Baptism, Purgatory, etc.
Symeon Thessalonikes in his list of Latin errors [11] included the
withholding of the chalice from the laity, the withholding of Holy Chrismation
and Holy Communion from infants, the non-concelebration of the clergy. Symeon
was also shocked by Latin religious art, especially by the statues equipped with
artificial hair and clothing and painted in life-like fashion. What
disturbed him even more was Latin sacred drama and the realism for which it
strove. For Symeon, Latin sacred drama was a theatrical profanation
of divine things. He also points out that the ethical and moral corruption of
the Latin Church was caused by doctrinal error.
No real union could have taken
place at Florence. A few bishops apostasized, yet most of these
repented of their actions. [12] In fact, when the Union had been signed
and a Mass was held to celebrate the event, not one of the Greek bishops would
take part with the Latins even though the Pope desired them to do so; [13] and
only three of the Orthodox party had anything to do with the service. [14] Ostroumoff
also reports that while the delegation was in Venice on their way back to
Constantinople, the Doge of Venice expressed the desire to see a Greek Divine
Liturgy. The emperor wishing to accede to the Doge's wish of seeing the
Greek service could prevail on the Metropolitan of Heracles alone to officiate
in the Church of Saint Mark, and that too after many entreaties. The
Metropolitan consented at last, but performed the service on the Greek
Antimensia, and with the Greek communion plate; the Pope's name was not
mentioned and the Creed was read without the Filioque clause. [15]
The envoys to the Council
returned home only to find that they were considered traitors to their
faith. In Constantinople, the faithful were told to shun the
Unionists as one does a snake, [16] and in Moscow, Isidore of Kiev, one of
the signers and now a cardinal, was accused of heresy and imprisoned
immediately upon his arrival. [17] The Orthodox people refused to accept the
Union, and would not Communicate with those who did. In so doing,
they remained adamant until the fall of the city, an event which they
recognized as an act of God. [18] The faithful who resisted
the Union were not an illiterate mass ignorant of the issues at
hand. Rather, they were the faithful followers of two of the best
educated men of their time, Saint Mark of Ephesus and Gennadius Scholarius;
the latter became the first patriarch of Constantinople after the
fall. These two shepherds explained to the faithful the nature of what was
happening.
The role that these two leaders
of the Orthodox faithful played in the last years before the fall should not be
underestimated. K.G. Mamones lists one hundred and ten titles in his
catalog of the works of Saint Mark, [19] and we must remember that Saint
Mark reposed at the age of fifty-two. The works of Gennadius have been
published in eight volumes by L. Petit. Mention need not be made of the long
list of anti-Latin writings which circulated at that time, authored by such
great men as Nilus and Nicholas Cabasilas. In Syropoulos we find references to
Nilus Cabasilas as saint and to Nicholas as God-inspired.
[20]
In the light of the cognizance of
the real issues which the Orthodox faithful enjoyed, we can be assured of the
severity with which they viewed the separation that now existed between them
and the Latins, and we must make a serious attempt to ascertain the exact
theological issues which were so vehemently defended. At the Council
of Florence, the major debates centered around the canonicity and
doctrinal truth of the Filioque. A. Alivizatos, however,
among others, claims that the Filioque issue was excessively
magnified by the Byzantine theologians. [21] Even in that age there was a
serious attempt to dismiss the whole issue as a theologoumenon, [22]
in spite of the fact that the exponents of this doctrine, who were, at the same
time, the leaders of the anti-Hesychast movement, had been condemned by two
Councils. [23] Bessarion and the other unionists at Florence made use of the
research of the Latinophron Patriarch Beccus (1275-1282) [24] in
an effort to prove that from the Son and through the
Son were the same according to the fathers, [25] and to convince the
Orthodox in this manner that they should not be scandalized by the Filioque.
Roman Catholic doctrine of
the Filioque had so developed that it violated the basic
teachings of the Church on the Holy Trinity. The property of causation was
attributed to the one common essence of the Holy Trinity, and trinitarian
doctrine accordingly developed around this basic premise. The theology of
the Filioque is in direct contrast to the Orthodox teaching
that the Essence of God is totally incomprehensible to man and that nothing can
be postulated about it. The standard argument of the Orthodox against the
Latins concerning the Filioque was that it implied that the
Holy Spirit had two sources, the Father and the Son. Although the Latins
at Florence, through their spokesman, never refused to admit that the Son
is a cause of the Holy Spirit, they would never admit that they of the Spirit,
and that the Son derives power from the Father to educe the Spirit not from
Himself but from the Father." [26] This doctrine concerning the one
Essence of the Trinity as the cause or principle of the Holy Spirit, was, for
the Orthodox, nothing less than Sabellianism. The Latins, a few years after the
Council of Florence, officially condemned both Sabellianism and the teaching
that there are two principles in the Trinity, yet Scholarius warned:
Even as the Monophysites,
though they deny ten thousand times that God suffered in the flesh, are still
Theopaschites as long as they remain Monophysites, and even though they name
Christ both true God and true man, but nevertheless remain Monophysites ...so
also the same must be understood here, for as long as they profess the Filioque
in the Creed, even though they deny ten thousand times the Dyarchy (alt. trans;
the two principles of Godhead) and Sabellian-like teaching, and other such
things, or even should they renounce or state their intent of renouncing their
teachings at some point, but still retain the Filioque, they still remain what
they are. [27]
The Latins appeared to the
Orthodox to be either Sabellians, or to teach that there are two principles of
Divinity. Even though the Latins condemned both doctrines, their theology, as
well as the manner of its presentation, differed so greatly that the Orthodox
could not be convinced that the Latins were not heretics. The Latins kept
affirming that it is the Essence of God which is the source or cause of the
persons, and to this the standard answer was: The essence, as the
teachers stated, neither begets nor projects; but neither does the Father beget
or project according to the common essence, nor does the Son do so, as you say;
but according to His own essence, or rather, to His own hypostatical characteristic."
[28] The Latin answer to the above was to begin a discussion of the substantia
prima and substantia secunda, using Aristotle as an
authority. [29]
At the Council of Florence, the
theological debate on the Filioque was carried on principally
by Saint Mark Eugenicus and John de Montenegro, a Dominican. Before the
Orthodox allowed the Latins to force them to discuss the theology of the Filioque, they
tried their best to limit the discussions to the canonicity of the insertion. [30] These
discussions lasted about two months. The Greeks argued that the insertion was
uncanonical: We say that it is not permissible to add to the Creed, and
that the addition which you have added is not a pious one. And we further state
that no addition of any kind, neither word nor syllable, should be added to the
Creed. [31]
The Latins retorted that
the Filioque is not an addition but an explanation, for
nothing new is added to what is already taught: For the second time, we
come to the question of that which you call an addition and which we call an
explanation, which is not forbidden (by the Church). [32] The Greeks
continued to insist that absolutely nothing could be added after the Council of
Ephesus, which had announced the prohibition. They further argued that this
council had placed this restriction on everyone, including itself, and as
evidence of this, Saint Mark brought out the point that even the term Theotokos, which
is so important, was not inserted by the fathers of this council. (Those
Fathers) who first forbade (any addition) were the first also who abided by
their own order (or commandment). Thus, at that time, the naming of (the term)
Theotokos was most clearly needed as an addition to the Creed. They entreated
that (this term) be added (to the Creed), but they did not add it, making
examples of themselves to those who would come after them; and thus validated
that which they had laid down as law, even though there was great need for such
an addition. [33] Not only did the fathers refrain from adding
anything to the Creed concerning the Mother of God, but they even refrained
from adding anything on the two natures, the two wills and the two energies of
Christ, all of which would have been quite useful against Nestorians,
Monophysites, and Monothelites. The fathers, however, found a way with which to
express the true faith without violating the canons; they published separate
definitions. [34]
The Latins, however, kept
insisting that the addition was an explanation and, as such, was perfectly in
order. Their strongest argument, based on a false document, was that the
Council of Ephesus was not the first to make the prohibition against any insertions
to the Creed. They quoted the apocryphal Letter to Athanasius by
Pope Liberius [35] as proof that the Council of Nicea itself made a similar
prohibition against insertions, yet the next Council completed the
Creed. Bessarion claimed that this argument baffled the Orthodox,
[36] yet the opposite was true. Saint Mark openly declared that
nothing was known of this prohibition in the East and refused to accept the
argument. [37]
After two months of such
discussions, the Orthodox were ready to abandon the Council and return
to Constantinople. What do we accomplish by speaking thus, and by
listening to empty words; for they will never convince us, or will we ever
convince them; for this reason, we should return to our city. [38] Yet
after much pressure from the Pope and the emperor, they decided to allow the
Pope to transfer the Council from Ferrara to Florence and to start discussions
on the doctrine of the Filioque. [39]
The Orthodox delegation knew
quite well that the Latins would base themselves on their own fathers who were
not acknowledged in the East. [40] Saint Mark and the rest of the Orthodox
delegation knew the Latin arguments and their sources [41] even
before the Latins presented them. They were not at all impressed either by
quotations from Augustine [42] or Aquinas or the use of scholastic
arguments. In fact, Saint Mark often made clear that he believed
Augustine to be in error. [43] Later, when Saint Mark
published his confession of faith, he declared: The words of the
western fathers and doctors, which attribute to the Son the cause of the
Spirit, I never recognize (for they have never been translated into our tongue
nor approved by the Oecumenical Councils). [44]
Latin presuppositions being
basically Augustinian, [45] the debates
at Florence centered around whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the common essence of the Father and Son. The Latins could find
no Greek fathers who explicitly taught this doctrine. They did, however, find
evidence which seemed to support their arguments in the patristic teaching that
the Spirit is received from the Son. The Orthodox tried to point out that this
referred to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit. They were hindered in
their explanations, however, by the fact that the emperor had forbidden them to
speak on the uncreated Energies of God and the activity of the Holy Spirit
within the world.
Montenegro started the
discussions by affirming that The Spirit receives its existence from
the Son [46] which was immediately denied by Saint
Mark. In order to defend his position, Montenegro produced two
passages from Saint Epiphanius, both of which were from a poor Latin
translation. [47] In the Greek Acts of the Council of Florence, the first
text reads: I call him Son, who comes from (or is begotten of) from him
(the Father), the Holy Spirit only (cometh) from both (the Father and the Son. [48]
The text, however, as accepted by Petavius and Migne, reads: If He
names as Son, He who is begotten of Him, the Holy Spirit then is from both? [49]
The second text presented by
Montenegro was, And as no one hath seen the Father, except the Son, nor
the Son, except the Father, so do I dare to say that no man has known the Holy
Spirit, except for the Father and the Son, from Whom He receives His being and
proceeds neither the Son and the Father, except for The Holy Spirit, which
(Spirit) truely glorifies, Who teaches all, and Who is (cometh) (from the
Father and the Son. [50]
The text which Migne has,
however, not only differs from the text of Montenegro, but by examining it
in its context, one can better understand the Orthodox position:
Since now, as the Lord states,
(the Spirit) proceedeth from the Father, and is received of ‘Me’, and as no one
knows the Father, except the Son, nor the Son, except the Father, so do I dare
to say in such a manner no one knows the Spirit, except the Father and the Son,
from whom the Spirit proceedeth, and from whom he is received, and that no one
knows the Father and the Son, except the Holy Spirit, who truly glorifies, who
teaches all things, who attesteth to the Son, who is of the Father and from the
Son: the only guide to the truth, the interpreter of the holy Laws (or the
interpreter of the laws of the saints). [51]
Saint Mark contested the validity
of the texts, and explained that Saint Epiphanius never said that the Holy
Spirit receives its being from the Son. He also called particular attention to
the use of the words proceeds and is received.
According to Saint Mark, Saint Epiphanius used the verb proceeds to
show that the Holy Spirit receives its existence from the Father. The
verb receive, however, is used to show the agreement and
concordance of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, which Son announces
to his disciples (the coming) of the Holy Spirit, who would instruct them in
the matters which they had received from Him. [52] Later in the
debate, Saint Mark again clearly stated the Orthodox position: According,
therefore, to the theology of the Fathers, we are able to comprehend that the
Spirit thus proceedeth from the Father, that is to say, derives its existence
(or being) from the Father; is given (or bestowed) by the Son; and is received
by those who believe in him. [53]
That the verb receives is
used to show the activity of the Holy Spirit in the world was further
demonstrated by Saint Mark through his citing of Saint John Chrysostom and
Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Montenegro, however, denied that Saint
Mark's interpretation of Saint Epiphanius was correct. He insisted that Saint
Epiphanius actually taught that the Holy Spirit receives its being from the Son
also. Saint Mark then asked if, by this, he meant that the Holy Spirit receives
its being from both the hypostasis of the Father and that of the
Son. Montenegro answered:
We admit that whenever we say
that (the Holy Spirit) is from the Father, we mean from his Person, whenever we
say that he is from the Son, we mean to say from his Person; for the essence of
the Father and the Son is one. As the Father projects the Spirit, so does the
Son likewise project the Holy Spirit, as if from one the Holy Spirit is
projected. [54]
At this point it seems necessary
to note that the Latin subsistentia (person) was
rendered hypostasis by the interpreters, a rendition which
could easily lead the Orthodox to believe that the Latins were teaching that
the Holy Spirit had two sources. For the Latins, this was not so;
the source of the Holy Spirit is one, the common essence of the Father and the
Son. The use of the Thomistic term subsistentia leads us
further to understand why, when one reads the Acts of the Council, he is led at
times to believe that the two opposing sides spoke different theological
languages.
Latin theology teaches a Trinity
of persons subsisting in the one undivided nature or essence, thus reducing the
persons to relations of paternity, sonship and active and passive spiration.
Orthodox theology on the other hand hangs on the patristic terms the
only source of the super-essential Godhead is the Father (Saint
Dionysius) [55] and The only source of Godhead is the Father (Saint
Athanasius) [56] The Latins, following Augustine, who defined the
essence of God to be simplicity (unity), [57] defined God as Actus
Purus. [58] Aquinas in his
fivefold proof for the existence of God followed pagan Greek Philosophy and
declared that there must be a first mover, unmoved, a first cause in the chain
of causes. For Roman Catholic Scholastic Theology, God is this unmoved
cause. Their theology became a theology of Being, and God was then
subjected to a theology which was governed by categories and laws of
being. Everything from the first principle down to the last detail
was thought of as likewise determined by these laws and categories, and thus
deducible in a logically consistent manner which in effect was Aristotelian.
This theology of Being was
propounded at Florence also. When Montenegro was asked to
clarify why, when referring to from Him, he at one time would mean
the hypostasis (subsistentia) of the Father, and at another time the
essence, he answered:
The existence and the essence
of the Father are the same thing. For this reason, we always say that the
Spirit is from His essence. [59]
In the same line of thinking we
find Montenegro affirming that:
The essence and the person or
hypostasis are the same thing, in reality, and differ only according to our
mode of comprehension, in that the person depends on the essence and the
attributes. Now, therefore, while the persons differ according to thought or
word, the essence remains common to the persons, but the attributes in no way
are made common to all; this being due to the vitality of the relationship. [60]
In order to preserve the unity of
the Trinity, the Latins made the persons subsistent to the
essence. According to Scholastic Theology it is from the essence
that the Son is born and the Spirit proceeds, yet the essence itself is not the
cause of generation and spiration. Consequently the persons of the
Trinity cause generation and spiration. The essence is not (the cause)
of the divine generation or spiration, but rather, the persons generate and
spirate, so that it follows that the cause of the Spirit is the person, and not
the essence. [61]
When Saint Mark heard that last
statement he proclaimed, I am not able to connect your statements, for
it seems to me that they are contradictory. For at times, you say that the
Father and the Son are of the essence, which is one, and which essence is also
the number, but now, you again change, consequently saying to the teachers that
the essence is not the cause of the hypostases, per se. [62] The query of
Saint Mark was due to the fact that since in Latin theology the persons of the
Trinity are reduced to relations within and subsistent to the Divine Essence,
the Essence becomes the source of Godhead instead of the hypostasis of the
Father. Accordingly, the modes of existence peculiar to the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit lose their identity and simply become casual and principal
relationships within the common Essence. In Thomistic theology, the
above is expressed in the following terms:
In creatures relations are
accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself. Thence it
follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person: and yet that
the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated
signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred
to the essence does not differ therefrom really but only in our way of
thinking: while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction
by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons. [63]
Such a theology forced the Latins
to deny that God had any real relationship with the world, limiting the
activity of God within the world to the mission of created grace.
This is all in keeping with the Augustinian doctrine whereas, everything
which is said of God, is said of Him as regards either His substance or
relation. [64]
The nature of the Latin
theological approach was such that the Orthodox theologians were actually
dumbfounded by certain Latin positions. One particularly striking incident took
place while Saint Mark and Montenegro were discussing [65] a passage
of Saint Basil. Montenegro stated that there is an order of
nature within the Trinity and that the Holy Spirit is third in order. Saint
Mark said that Latin theology was on this particular point Eunomian [66]
and he asked Montenegro: Was Eunomios then speaking the truth when
he said that the Holy Spirit was third in order and dignity? To
this the answer was yes. [67]
Montenegro, however, was simply
propounding Thomistic Trinitarian theology, when he stated the reason for
numbering the Holy Spirit third in order of nature by saying: We,
therefore, say that the Son is the beginning from the beginning as He was God
of very God, since the Father is the beginning. [68] On this point
Aguinas teaches that, the order of nature means not the ordering of
nature itself, but the existence of order in the divine persons according
to natural origin. [69] Again Aguinas’ teaching was an
explanation of Augustine’s doctrine, which defined order of nature as not
whereby one is prior to another, but, whereby one is from another. [70]
This is the basis of the theology of the Filioque. The Latins
argued that they did not teach two origins of the Holy Spirit and yet at this
point they were arguing that the Holy Spirit is third in order of nature
because it is from the Son, Who is second in order of nature because He is from
the Father. To an Orthodox it may appear that the Latins teach two
origins of the Holy Spirit when they speak of an order of nature in the
Trinity, yet in reality, for the Latins, the origin of the Holy Spirit is one,
the Divine Essence. The persons of the Holy Trinity are understood
in terms of relations. The relationship of the persons within the essence is
expressed as the relationship of love. The Father loves Himself and
the Son, and in this the Holy Spirit proceeds as Love. [71] Since Love between
the Father and the Son is mutual, the Spirit (Love) proceeds from both. These
relationships have their origin in the Divine Essence and, because the object
loved is said to be in the lover, [72] then even if the Holy
Spirit has its origin in the loved (the Son) it still actually originates in
the lover (the Father).
To all the arguments of the
Latins that when they teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father
and the Son, they do not teach two causes of the Holy Spirit but one,
Saint Mark answered, and is it possible for one cause to come from two
persons? Is this not a commingling of the hypostases? This is the dogma of
Sabellios. [73] Saint Mark understood what the basis for
the Filioque was and according to him it taught a confusion of
the hypostatic modes of existence. in continuation he stated:
If then, the unique source of
the super-essential Godhead is the Father, and in this He is distinguished from
the Son and the Spirit, what was the objective of this radical distinction? The
Son cannot partake of the source of the Father, nor can the Holy Spirit do so,
for thus, there is a confusion concerning the divine persons, and the
distinctions are abolished. For as he says, neither is it lawful that those
things which are united be abolished, nor can those things which are
distinguished (from one another) be confused. And for this reason, (the matter)
of the source of the Godhead can in no way be attributed to the Son. [74]
Montenegro was convinced
that he could show that even the fathers of the East taught that the
Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son. In attempting to prove his
thesis, Montenegro offered Saint Mark an opportunity to
confess the Church’s doctrine of Uncreated Grace:
We receive the Spirit from the
Son: this is the Spirit of adoption. We become by Grace what the Son is by
nature, through the adoption by the Spirit ...... if then, we receive the
Spirit of adoption from the Son, we are also adopted of the Father by the Spirit. From
the Spirit, we receive naught but that very Spirit. [75]
Upon hearing
this, Montenegro, who was familiar with Orthodox doctrine, tried to force
Saint Mark to expound on the doctrine of the Uncreated Energies of God. Finally
he asked him directly: I ask you, reverend Father, is this Spirit which
is bestowed by the Son creator, or is it creation? For there are two
modes in all; creator and creation; and if the Holy Spirit is creator, His
energies are then created. Is this Holy Spirit, therefore, which God has poured
upon us through Jesus Christ a creation? [76] Saint Mark would
not answer Montenegro, even though Montenegro restated the
question. We are told by the Acts that, The
Emperor, fearing that this discussion would lead us to another dogma, thus
bringing unwillingly to the fore the question of the created and uncreated,
directed that the discussion of this matter be halted. [77]
Reading the Acts one can readily
note that this short but frantic episode concerning the Orthodox doctrine on
Uncreated Grace was planned by Saint Mark. He continuously
met Montenegro's arguments with standard answers: here, however, he
insisted upon revealing the Orthodox doctrine on Grace. In fact, he
managed to put in a last word before the emperor made his power
felt. Saint Mark plainly and boldly stated what he considered to be
the basis of the Latin heresy. Concerning this matter is our
difference to be found. Let him (Montenegro) show us how he derives
that the Spirit receives its existence from the Son, and how we receive
creations from the Spirit. [78] Saint Mark knew quite well that
the Filioque doctrine was to be viewed in the context of
Orthodox doctrine on the Divine Essence and Energies. He was familiar with
Augustine and Aquinas and previous to his trip to Florence he had
written such works as collection of chapters against the Heresy of the
Akindynists and concerning the distinction between Divine Essence and Energies
and concerning the fruits of the Spirit. [79]
Further evidence from the
discussions at Florence that show Saint Mark was familiar with Scholastic
theology is to be found when Montenegro, in defending the doctrine of the order
of nature within the Trinity, brought forth an analogy between the stars and
the Trinity. Saint Mark interrupted Montenegro's exposition and
asked, From out of the created things and examples do you with to
portray the professedly Divine Things' Montenegro answered Yes,
created examples are used to explain the uncreated. From human things and from
various beings, we exemplify the incomprehensible and inconceivable. [80]
This was clearly an exposition of the Augustinian and Thomistic doctrine
of Analogia Entis, which Saint Mark recognized.
The Filioque controversy
was quite involved and, in actuality, cannot be understood unless the doctrine
of the Filioque is examined in the light of the Orthodox teaching
on the Divine Essence and Energies. It is due to a false theology on
the Essence and activity of God that the Filioque found a place in
the Latin Creed. Saint Mark had an excellent knowledge of the
doctrine of the Divine Essence and Energiess and was able to realize what the
basis of the Filioque was. He was the successor of Joseph Bryennius
[81] who in turn had been a personal desciple of Saint Gregory
Palamas. [82] Although during the Filioque discussions
at the Council of Florence, Saint Mark didn't have an opportunity to expound on
the Orthodox doctrine of Grace, he did manage in one place [83] to
be explicit about the doctrine of the Uncreated Energies, and in two places
[84] to speak concerning the activity of the Holy Spirit in the
world. In his final reference to the activity of the Holy Spirit in
the world he based himself on Saint Gregory Nazianzus' phrase that the Holy
Spirit, is sent through economy, comes of its own volition. [85]
The Spirit is sent. into the world through the Son and it is through the Son
that the Holy Spirit is revealed to mankind. [86]
The open discussions of the
Council of Florence were not the only time that Saint Mark made it evident that
the basic error of Latin theology is its incorrect view of the Divine Essence
and Energies. Saint Mark submitted to the Latins [87] three
documents on purgatory in which he struck out at the doctrine of the Beatific
Vision [88] and Latin gnoseology. [89]
The Roman Catholic doctrine of
the Filioque not only confuses the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity
but also denies the real activity and presence of the Holy Spirit within the
world. According to the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the
Holy Fathers, if we do not acquire the Holy Spirit in this life, we are not
saved. St. Mark of Ephesus as well as all the Fathers who
struggled against the false teachings of the Filioque were able to
see and point out the dangers that lurked behind the phrase and from
the Son. The Council of Florence has much to teach us, especially how when
we are confronted by a new Council of Florence soon to be convened by
the counterfeit Orthodox hierarchs who sit on the thrones of Constantinople and
Moscow. The Filioque doctrine has already been accepted by
them and now they seek to give it the appearance of being Orthodox by
convening a new Council of Florence. We believe, however, that just as these
efforts bore no fruit in the past they will not be able, even now, to drown the
truth in the sea of error.
FOOTNOTES
1. D.J. Geanikopoulos, The Council of Florence
(1438-1439) and the Problem of Union Between the Greek and Latin Churches,
Church History, XXIV <1955>, No. 4, pp.
324-346. cf. J. Gill, The Council
of Florence, (Cambridge. 1959), pp. 1-15. S. Runciman, The
Eastern Schism, (Oxford, 1955), pp. 160-161; A. Alivizatos, Economy, (Athens,
1949), p. 97 (in Greek).
2. Geanikopoulos, op. cit., p. 333.
3. Cabasilas, N., De Vita in Christo, Migne,
P.G., 150:521.
4. S. Upson, Simeon Archbishop of
Thessalonika, St. Vladimir' s Seminary Quarterly, II
(1958) No. 4, pp. 14-15.
5.A. Schmeman, "St. Mark
of Ephesus and the Theological Conflicts in Byzantium", St.
Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, I (1957) No. 1, p. 16.
6. J. Romanides, Notes on the Palamite Controversy
and Related Topics, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, VI
(1960-1961) No. 2, p. 203.
7. The most important works of Acquinas were translated by
Demetrius Cydones and his brother in the fourteenth century, cf. P.
Sherrard, The Greek East and the Latin West, (London, 1959),
p. 120.
8. The Hesychast Controversy was essentially a battle between
Orthodox and Latin theologies, cf. J. Romanides, of), cit., pp.
194-205. Also C. K. Mamones notes that All the foes of the hesychasts
were initiates of the Scholastic theology of the West.' K.G. Mamones, Mark
Evgenicus; His Life and Works, Theologia, 25 1955), p. 384
(in Greek). Krumbacher also states that there are parts of Akindynus' Concerning
Essence and Energy, which are literal translations from
Acquinas' De Veritate Catholicae Fidei Contra Gentiles. K.
Krumbacher, History of Byzantine Literature, (Athens, 1897),
vol. 1, p. 195 (in Greek).
9. A. Schmemann, op. cit., pp. 16-17.
10. I. N. Ostroumoff, The History of The Council
of Florence, (London, 1861), p. 46.
11. Migne, P. G., 155:97-123.
12. Excluding of course Bessarion, Isidore and Dorotheus.
13. I. N. Ostroumoff, op. cit., p. 156.
14. They carried the water and towel for the
washing of the Pope's hands, cf. J. Gill, op. cit., p. 293-294.
15. I. N. Ostroumoff, op. cit., p.
166.
16. I. Sevenko, "Intellectual Repercussions of the
Council of Florence", Church History, XXIV (1955)
No. 4, p. 299.
17. M. Cherniavskv. "The Reception of the Council of Florence in Moscow", Church
History, XXIV (1955) no. 4, p. 348.
18. Migne, P.G., 157:1058.
19. K. G. Mamones, op. cit., pp.
553-563.
20. I. Sevenko, op. cit., p. 314.
21. A. Alivizatos, op. cit., p. 97.
22. J. Romanides, op. cit., pp. 190-191.
23. Synods of Constantinople held in 1341 and 1351.
24. D. S. Balanos, Byzantine Church Authors, (Athens,
1951) pp. 133-135 (in Greek).
25. J. Gill, op. cit., p. 249.
26. J. Gill, Actorum Graecorum Concilii
Florentini, (Rome 1953), p. 290.
27. Scholarius, G., Centre L'Union de Florence, ed.
L. Petit, "Oeuvres Completes de Gennade Scholarios'', (Paris,
1930), t. Ill, pp. 155-156.
28. Actorum Graecorum, pp. 287-288 (my italics).
29. Ibid, p. 288. "and concerning the
various meanings of the word essence, some one (Aristotle) has
spoken in the fifth Tome of Metaphisics."
30. I. N. Ostroumoff, op. cit., pp. 62-87.
Gill, op. cit. pp. 147-178.
31. Actorum Graecorum, p. 47.
32. Ibid., p. 101.
33. Ibid. p. 146.
34. Ibid. p. 148.
35. Migne, P.G., 28:1469 - 1471.
36. J. Gill, op. cit., pp. 168 - 169.
37. Ibid., p. 162.
38. Actorum Graecorum, p. 217.
39. J. Gill, op. cit., pp 169 - 179; N. Ostroumoff, op.
cit., pp. 84-91.
40. N. Ostroumoff, op. cit., p. 86.
41. Saint Mark read Augustine's De Trinitate
in Greek. Cf. Documents Relatifs au Concile de Florence,
ed. L. Petit, Patrologia Orientalis, v. 15, p. 73.
42. J. Gill, op. cit., p.216.
43. N. Ostroumoff, op. cit., pp 52 & 55; Patrologia
Orientalis, v. 15, pp. 48, 49, 67, 88 - 91, 121 - 122.
44. Quoted in J. Gill, op. cit., p. 226.
45. The doctrinal debate was started by Montenegro who in his
opening address quoted Augustine twice. Actorum Graecorum, p. 250
ff.
46. Actorum Graecorum, p. 255.
47. N. Ostroumoff, op. cit., p. 93.
48. Actorum Graecorum, p. 256.
49. Migne, P.G., 43:148.
50. Actorum Graecorum, p. 256.
51. Migne, P.G., 43:153.
52. Actorum Graecorum, p. 257.
53. Ibid., p. 271.
54. Ibid., p. 261.
55. Ibid., p. 368.
56. Ibid., p. 323.
57. Augustine, On the Holy Trinity, Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, (Grand Rapids, 1956), vol. 3, pp. 99 - 101.
58. T. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q. 9, Art.
1; Q. 54, Art. 3; Q. 79, Art. 2; Q. 90, Art. 1.
59. Actorum Graecorum, p. 265 (My
italics).
60. Ibid., p. 266.
61. Ibid., p. 281.
62. Ibid.
63. Summa, Q. 39, Art. 1 (My italics).
64. Augustine, op. cit., p. 88 - 89.
65. Actorum Graecorum, pp. 286 - 339.
66. Ibid., p. 315.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid., p. 308.
69. Summa, Q. 42, Art. 3 (My italics).
70. Quoted in Summa, Q. 42, Art. 3.
71. Ibid., Q. 37, Art. 1 & 2; Q. 41. Art. 2.
72 Ibid., Q. 37. Art. 1.
73. Actorum Graecorum, p. 352
(My italics).
74. Ibid., p. 368
75. Ibid., p. 342 (My italics). At this
point St. Mark struck out against the Roman Catholic doctrine of
created Grace.
76. Ibid., p. 345.
77. Ibid., p. 346.,
78 Ibid., p. 348.
79. K. G. Mamones, op. cit. p. 536.
80. Actorum Graecorum, p. 365.
81. Bryennius was also familiar with Aquinas and Western
Theology. cf. Dictionaire de Theologie Catholique. (Paris,
1905), vol. 2, pp. 1158 - 1159.
82.A. Schmemann, op. cit., p. 16.
83. Actorum Graecorum, p. 345.
84. Ibid., pp. 257 & 364.
85. Ibid., p. 365.
86. Ibid., p. 367.
87. Private discussions on Purgatory were held at Ferrara while
everyone waited for the Emperor and the Pope to start the work of the
council officially, cf. J. Gill, op. cit., pp. 85 -130. N.
Ostroumoff, op. cit., pp. 40-64.
88. Patrologia Orientalis, vol. xv,
p. 157.
89. Ibid., p. 161.
Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231129091705/http://orthodoxyinfo.org/CouncilOfFlorence.htm
