Academic literature on the topic 'Council of Florence (1438-1445)'

Sergius Bulgakov considered the Council of Florence as the theological and spiritual foundation for the real, though invisible, unity of the Churches of East and West. He was following in the footsteps of Vladimir Solovyev, who deemed the Council of Florence one of the historical preconditions for the reunion of the Churches. After a survey of Old Russian sources on the Council of Florence and a short discussion of codicological studies on them, the article offers a reconstruction of the events connected to Russian participation in the Council. In the second part, different historical-critical accounts and theological reinterpretations of the Council in Russian theology from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are analyzed.

The Dominican theologian Francisco de Vitoria, founder of the School of Salamanca, was cautiously positive about general councils as useful to the church. However, he was not supportive of the strong conciliarism of the University of Paris. Vitoria’s successor at Salamanca, Melchor Cano, was much more a papalist, an opinion partially shared by Bartolomé Carranza, who attended the opening sessions of the Council of Trent (1545–63) and became archbishop of Toledo. Both Cano and Carranza rejected any claim to conciliar power over a reigning pope, although Carranza wrote more favourably about councils than did Cano. Their criticisms of the fifteenth-century councils of Constance (1414–18) and Basel (1431–49) foreshadowed the categorization of councils by Robert Bellarmine based on loyalty to the papacy. All of these theologians shared the belief that the ideal council was that of Ferrara–Florence (1438–45), which was summoned and directed by a pope.

The Dominican theologian Francisco de Vitoria, founder of the School of Salamanca, was cautiously positive about general councils as useful to the church. However, he was not supportive of the strong conciliarism of the University of Paris. Vitoria’s successor at Salamanca, Melchor Cano, was much more a papalist, an opinion partially shared by Bartolomé Carranza, who attended the opening sessions of the Council of Trent (1545–63) and became archbishop of Toledo. Both Cano and Carranza rejected any claim to conciliar power over a reigning pope, although Carranza wrote more favourably about councils than did Cano. Their criticisms of the fifteenth-century councils of Constance (1414–18) and Basel (1431–49) foreshadowed the categorization of councils by Robert Bellarmine based on loyalty to the papacy. All of these theologians shared the belief that the ideal council was that of Ferrara–Florence (1438–45), which was summoned and directed by a pope.

According to Pope Leo XIII, it could almost be said that Thomas Aquinas “presided” over the deliberations at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438) when these councils confronted the Greek church.1 This judgment, which would be true at best and in part only for the later council, both enshrines and encourages a misreading of Thomas's short treatise Contra errores Graecorum. In fact, the Contra errores is neither as well informed nor as technically argued as other Latin polemics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It is a treatise limited in form and argument, motivated by another, poorer treatise.

Introduction. The article is aimed at studying the negotiations on the Greek-Latin Church Union at the Church Councils in Constance (1414–1418) and Basel (1431–1449), which were the predecessors of the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439) in this matter. Since they were generated by internal processes in the Latin West, they originally had not direct relationship to Byzantium. Methods and materials. The reason for the appeal of Councils to the problem of the Church Union should be sought in the field of Western international policy. It acted here as a tool for solving political problems by different actors. Analysis. At the Council of Constance the discussion of the Greek-Latin Union was initiated by Poland and Lithuania, who used it as a means of political propaganda against the Teutonic Order. The Council of Basel subsequently entered into direct negotiations with Byzantium. The reason for this was at first internecine strife in the Duchy of Lithuania, which interfered with Poland, the Teutonic Order and King Sigismund. The Council initiated consideration of the Church Union in order to support the Lithuanian Duke Švitrigaila in the struggle for the throne. As a result Byzantium was included also in the negotiations with the Council of Basel. But in 1435 Švitrigaila was defeated in the clash with Poland and its ally Duke Sigismund Kęstutaitis. This defeat undermined the influence of Sigismund of Luxembourg at the Council of Basel. The King began his rapprochement with the Pope and Venice, and the Council of Basel was influenced by their political rivals, such as Milan and France. The theme of the Church Union at the Council became an instrument of struggle for political interests between these groups of political subjects. As a result, the struggle led to sharp disputes over the choice of the place for the Greek-Latin Council. The main options were Italy and French Avignon. The Byzantines chose the first option. But Byzantium was not the subject of the policy that created the situation of this choice. In the West this policy has led to significant changes. Results. The results of the negotiations on the Church Union at the Council of Basel displayed the fall of the role of imperial policy in the Latin West, which was represented by the King and Emperor Sigismund Luxembourg. The Empire was losing control of Italy. The result was the withdrawal of the papacy from its influence and the strengthening of Venice. Their union stood behind the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Outside Italy this Council has not received recognition.

The legation sent by Pope Eugenius IV to Constantinople in 1437 played a critical role in the long diplomatic efforts towards a reunification of the Latin and Greek Churches, and paved the way for the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439). With some exceptions, such as the later Cardinal Nicholas Cusanus, the members of the delegation have not received wide attention. This paper presents a biographical analysis of all those involved – the nuncios, the financiers and the galley commanders – and their relationship to the Pope. The findings provide new insight into Eugenius IV’s diplomacy towards the Byzantines, as well as Cusanus’s place in it. Cusanus’s presence added conciliar legitimacy, but the key functions were in the hands of a core team of Venetians – including non-patricians – who had prior experience in Constantinople and a personal connection to the Pope.

A neglected source for the text of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations is to be found in the writings of the Byzantine theologian Joseph Bryennius, who seems to have been born about 1350 (details of his early life are obscure) and to have died before the Council of Florence (1438), probably in 1430/1. He was a monk who was also a scholar, a theologian, and an ecclesiastical diplomat. He spent the years 1382–1402 in Crete (then under Venetian rule), and was sent in 1406 on a mission of ecclesiastical diplomacy to Cyprus. Otherwise the greater part of his life was spent in Constantinople; from about 1402 to 1406 he lived at the monastery of Stoudios, from 1416 to 1427 at that of Charsianeites. He was a court preacher, and as a theologian upheld the claims of the Greek Church against the Roman; among his published works are twenty-one Discourses on the Trinity maintaining the Greek Orthodox position.