Council of Florence

Authority level: Dogma
Disciplinary status: Church discipline
Evidence type: Historical account
GuideFlorence's definitions on the Filioque, purgatory, Eucharistic matter, and Roman primacy belong to the extraordinary Magisterium; its procedural acts, union history, and reform provisions must be distinguished according to doctrine, discipline, and evidence.
Contents

Council of Florence is the seventeenth ecumenical council, lawfully begun at Basel and continued at Ferrara, Florence, and Rome from 1431 to 1445, which defended papal government against conciliarism and achieved authoritative but tragically short-lived acts of reunion with several Eastern Christian delegations.

The Council of Florence was the seventeenth ecumenical council recognized by the Catholic Church, held between 1431 and 1445. It was convened in territories under the Holy Roman Empire. Italy became a venue of a Catholic ecumenical council after a gap of about two centuries (the last ecumenical council to be held in Italy was the 4th Council of the Lateran in Rome's Lateran Palace in 1215). It was convoked in Basel as the Council of Basel by Pope Martin V shortly before his death in February 1431 and took place in the context of the Hussite Wars in Bohemia and the rise of the Ottoman Empire. At stake was the greater conflict between the conciliar movement and the principle of papal supremacy.

The Council entered a second phase after Emperor Sigismund's death in 1437. Pope Eugene IV translated the Council to Ferrara on 8 January 1438, where it became the Council of Ferrara and succeeded in drawing some of the Byzantine delegates who were in attendance at Basel to Italy. Some Council members rejected the papal decree and remained at Basel: this rump Council suspended Eugene, declared him a heretic, and in November 1439 elected an antipope, Felix V.

After becoming the Council of Florence (having moved to avoid the bubonic plague in Ferrara), the Council concluded in 1445 with the promulgation of a decree of union with delegates of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The union was not universally accepted among the Eastern Christian churches. The delegates of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Church of Alexandria did not sign the decree of union.[12], p. 282 The Serbian Orthodox Church rejected the union and was not represented at the council.[12], p. 200 Although delegates from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Patriarchate of Antioch signed the decree, their patriarchs later rejected the union, maintaining that the delegates had not been authorized to make such commitments on behalf of their churches.[12], pp. 290–292

The union also met strong opposition in Constantinople, where the overwhelming majority of both clergy and laity rejected it, accusing the emperor and the patriarch of betrayal.[13] As a result, the attempted resolution of the Great Schism proved short-lived and failed to gain broad acceptance in the Eastern Christian world, despite representing a significant political achievement for the papacy.

In 1447, Sigismund's successor Frederick III commanded the city of Basel to expel the Council of Basel; the rump Council reconvened in Lausanne before dissolving itself in 1449.

Identity, scope, and enumeration

The Council of Florence is one ecumenical council across several cities, not four unrelated councils. Catholic enumeration begins with the lawful assembly at Basel in 1431, follows the council after Pope Eugene IV transferred it to Ferrara in 1438, continues through its celebrated Florentine sessions beginning in 1439, and includes its final Roman phase through 1445. The title Council of Florence is conventional because the decree of union with the Greeks was concluded there and became the council's best-known act. A historically exact account nevertheless names Basel, Ferrara, Florence, and Rome whenever the continuity or jurisdiction of the council is at issue.

That continuity has a necessary qualification. The early Basel sessions belonged to the ecumenical council recognized by the pope. When a majority at Basel rejected the lawful transfer, claimed superiority over the Roman pontiff, attempted to depose Eugene IV, and elected Amadeus of Savoy as the antipope Felix V, that remnant ceased to be the Catholic council. Its later acts do not acquire ecumenical authority merely because the same delegates stayed in the same city. The lawful council continued with the pope at Ferrara, Florence, and Rome. Thus Catholic usage can speak of Basel as a phase without accepting the schismatic Basel conventicle as the supreme judge of the pope.

Florence must also be distinguished from a modern bilateral dialogue or diplomatic congress. Bishops and authorized representatives examined disputed doctrine, celebrated the faith they held in common, and subscribed reunion decrees approved and promulgated by the pope. The council's doctrinal definitions remain acts of the Catholic Magisterium even though the corporate unions they expressed largely failed to take root. Historical rejection can prevent restored communion from becoming a durable social fact; it cannot retroactively erase an ecumenical council's lawful judgment or make its Catholic teaching optional.

From Constance to Basel

The council arose from the unsettled settlement of the Western Schism. Constance had restored a universally recognized pope and required the regular celebration of councils. Martin V convoked Basel, and after his death Eugene IV inherited the summons. Reform of ecclesiastical government, peace among Christian princes, resistance to the Hussite movement, and reconciliation with the Greeks all belonged to the program. These aims were legitimate, but they were pursued amid a continuing argument over whether an ecumenical council possessed authority over the pope as a constitutional superior.

The conciliar theory drew strength from the emergency through which Constance had helped end rival papal claimants. Some theologians and canonists converted that emergency remedy into a general principle: a council representing the universal Church could sit in judgment over the Roman pontiff. Catholic doctrine instead holds that the episcopal college is never without its head and that a council does not constitute itself as an authority above the pope. The conflict at Basel therefore concerned the Church's visible constitution, not simply ceremonial precedence or a pope's reluctance to accept reform.

The lawful transfer

Eugene IV initially tried to dissolve Basel and later recognized it under pressure, but cooperation deteriorated as the assembly asserted an independent sovereignty. Negotiations with the Byzantine emperor and patriarch created an immediate practical issue: the Greeks preferred an Italian city accessible by sea, while the Basel majority proposed sites north of the Alps. Eugene transferred the council to Ferrara by the bull Doctoris gentium. A papally approved minority obeyed. The majority refused and continued a path that ended in schism.

The transfer was not an escape from theological discussion. It made the long-sought meeting with the Eastern delegation possible and placed the proceedings under the pope whose confirmation belonged to their ecumenical character. The Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaiologos, Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople, metropolitans, theologians, and attendants arrived in 1438. Latin bishops and theologians gathered with them. The expense of sustaining the Eastern party and an outbreak of plague later encouraged another transfer, from Ferrara to Florence, financed with Medici assistance.

Reunion with the Greeks

The Greek and Latin fathers did not begin as strangers to one another's formulas. Both confessed the Trinity, the Incarnation, apostolic succession, seven sacramental mysteries, the Eucharistic sacrifice, episcopal order, and the authority of the ancient councils. Yet centuries of estrangement had hardened differences of vocabulary into suspicions of a different faith. The council therefore examined patristic texts in Greek and Latin, translation problems, liturgical customs, and the precise meaning of contested propositions. Agreement required more than a political signature because each side claimed fidelity to the Fathers.

Patriarch Joseph II died in Florence before the final decree. Nearly all remaining Greek delegates signed the union, including the learned Bessarion and Isidore of Kiev. Mark of Ephesus refused, judging the agreements incompatible with Eastern doctrine, and later became the principal symbol of anti-union resistance. Emperor John VIII signed because he accepted the settlement and urgently sought Western aid for Constantinople. Political necessity affected the circumstances, but it neither supplies nor disproves doctrinal assent. The text must be judged by what it teaches and by the authority that promulgated it.

The procession of the Holy Spirit

The central doctrinal dispute concerned the Filioque: the Latin confession that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Greeks feared two causes or principles in the Godhead and objected to the West's unilateral addition to the creed. The Latins insisted that the Son's participation does not divide the Father's monarchy. After prolonged examination, the council taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle and through one spiration. The Son eternally receives from the Father all that belongs to the Son except being Father, including the spirative communion by which the Spirit proceeds.[1]

Florence also judged the patristic expression through the Son to bear the same orthodox meaning when correctly understood. The formulas need not be made verbally identical, because Greek and Latin traditions approach the one mystery through different conceptual idioms. The Father remains the source without source; the Son does not become a second independent origin. The council's definition rules out both a separation of principles and an exclusion of the Son from the Spirit's eternal procession.[2]

The definition did not retrospectively approve every polemical argument used by either side, nor did it settle the canonical history of inserting the Filioque into the Latin creed. Catholic ecumenical teaching continues to distinguish dogmatic content from liturgical wording. Eastern Catholic Churches may recite the creed in their authentic form without the interpolation while professing the same trinitarian faith. Modern Catholic–Orthodox dialogue has therefore returned to the council's claim that diverse formulations can be complementary when they exclude the errors each tradition feared.[3]

Purgatory and the last things

On purgatory the council affirmed that persons who die truly penitent in God's friendship but not fully purified undergo purification after death, and that the suffrages of the living—especially the Eucharistic sacrifice, prayers, almsgiving, and other works of piety—benefit them. Souls already purified are immediately received into heaven and behold the triune God; those who die in actual mortal sin descend immediately to punishment, though not all punishments are equal. These propositions state the reality of judgment, purification, intercession, and the beatific vision.[4]

Florence did not impose the imagery of a material purgatorial fire as the only permissible theological account. Greek objections often targeted Latin images or scholastic explanations rather than the Church's core teaching. The definition carefully concentrated on purification and suffrage. Later Catholic theology may explain the mode, duration, and experience of purification, but such explanations remain subordinate to the defined truth. The council accordingly illustrates how doctrinal precision can preserve a real teaching while declining to canonize every schoolman's model.

Eucharistic bread and papal primacy

The council recognized that either leavened or unleavened wheat bread can be valid matter for the Eucharist and required priests to follow the discipline of their own Church. The East's use of leavened bread and the Latin use of unleavened bread do not create different sacraments. Both celebrate the one sacrifice of Christ, and after consecration the true body of Christ is present. The ruling protected legitimate ritual diversity against the claim that one ancient custom necessarily invalidated the other.

Laetentur caeli confessed the Roman pontiff as successor of Peter, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, possessing the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. It also referred to the acts of ecumenical councils and sacred canons concerning the order of the other patriarchs. The definition teaches a universal primacy of divinely given jurisdiction, not merely an honor granted by emperors or a temporary appellate function created by later custom.

Papal primacy is ordered to unity in faith and communion and does not abolish episcopal authority, patriarchal government, synodal life, or the legitimate traditions of particular Churches. Florence did not give a complete modern treatise on the relation between primacy and episcopal collegiality. Vatican I and Vatican II later articulated further aspects without retracting Florence. Ecumenical use of the decree must therefore neither dilute its words nor isolate them from the Catholic doctrine that bishops are true shepherds and that the Church is a communion of Churches under a visible head.

Laetentur caeli and the other unions

On 6 July 1439 Eugene IV promulgated Laetentur caeli, Let the heavens rejoice, in the cathedral of Florence. Latin and Greek versions were solemnly read, and the pope and emperor exchanged the kiss of peace. The decree stated agreement on the Filioque, purgatory, Eucharistic bread, and Roman primacy. It did not absorb the Byzantine tradition into the Latin Church. Reunion meant restoration of sacramental and hierarchical communion while retaining the Greek liturgy, discipline, spiritual patrimony, and legitimate theological expression.

The council then received other Eastern delegations. Exultate Deo, issued for the Armenians in November 1439, included a compact exposition of the seven sacraments, their matter, form, minister, and effects, drawing strongly on Latin scholastic categories. Cantate Domino, issued for the Copts in February 1442, confessed the Trinity and Incarnation, rejected christological errors, treated the biblical canon and sacramental communion, and called for union. Later acts concerned Syrians, Chaldeans, Maronites, and Ethiopians as the council continued at Rome.

Sacramental teaching for the Armenians

The decree for the Armenians is important in the history of sacramental theology because it enumerates Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony as the seven sacraments of the New Law. It distinguishes their signs and ministers and describes the spiritual remedy each supplies. The decree is a real magisterial witness, but its concise Latin scholastic presentation does not exhaust the Church's sacramental doctrine or suppress the ritual and theological patrimony of the Armenian Church.

Some formulas in Exultate Deo were inherited from earlier instructional texts and must be read within the Church's whole tradition. Later magisterial clarification can identify more exactly what belongs to sacramental validity, what expresses the Latin rite, and what is a theological explanation. For example, the Church's judgment about the essential form of Holy Orders was clarified by Pius XII in Sacramentum ordinis. Development of precision is not repudiation; the Magisterium itself determines how an earlier formulation functions in the living doctrinal tradition.

The scope of Cantate Domino

Cantate Domino contains uncompromising assertions about the necessity of belonging to the Church and condemns religious systems and christological propositions judged incompatible with the Gospel. It must be received together with the Church's permanent teaching that all salvation comes from Christ through his Body and with later authoritative explanation of invincible ignorance, grace, desire, and the real but imperfect bonds that can unite persons to the Church. The decree does not authorize Catholics to declare the eternal fate of named individuals or to treat coercion as evangelization.

The same document condemns the continuation of Old Covenant ceremonial observances when treated as necessary for justification after the promulgation of the Gospel. It does not condemn the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jewish people, or morally neutral cultural customs as such. Catholic interpretation is governed by the unity of the Magisterium, including the teaching that God's gifts and call to Israel are irrevocable and that the Church rejects antisemitism. Historical polemical language is neither concealed nor allowed to override later authoritative clarification of the same deposit.

Reception and the failure of durable reunion

The Greek delegates returned to a society in which many clergy, monks, and laypeople distrusted Latin intentions, remembered the sack of Constantinople in 1204, and considered the council's concessions unacceptable. Patriarch Joseph was dead, imperial authority was weakened, and bishops who had signed encountered fierce opposition. Mark of Ephesus organized the theological case against Florence. Formal proclamation of union in Hagia Sophia occurred only in December 1452, when Ottoman conquest was imminent, and did not establish broad ecclesial reception.

Constantinople fell on 29 May 1453. Ottoman rule reorganized Orthodox public life under a patriarchate whose leadership rejected the union. Some pro-union Greek churchmen entered Catholic communion or served in Italy; Bessarion became a cardinal and a major humanist patron. Eastern Catholic communities later restored communion in different circumstances, but their existence cannot simply be described as the delayed administrative execution of Florence. Each union has its own history, and communion must respect the equality, rites, and rights of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Why signatures were not enough

A conciliar subscription can establish what authorized representatives judged and what the Catholic Church teaches, but ecclesial reconciliation also requires reception in worship, governance, catechesis, and communal memory. Florence lacked sustained conditions for that reception. The Eastern delegation was small relative to the Christian East; several sees were represented under political pressure; communication home was difficult; and longstanding grievances had not been healed. The failure exposes no defect in the truth that Christians ought to be one. It shows that reunion cannot be secured by diplomacy alone.

Claims that every Greek signature was simply purchased or forced flatten a complicated record. Financial dependence and military danger were real, as were conviction, patient debate, personal change of mind, and disagreements among the delegates. Conversely, Catholic apologetics should not pretend that a formally valid decree automatically repaired the violence, mistrust, and unequal power that conditioned the encounter. Historical truth serves unity when it acknowledges both the council's authority and the human failures surrounding its reception.

Modern Catholic–Orthodox dialogue

Modern dialogue does not begin by asking the Orthodox simply to reenact 1439. It seeks a common reading of the first millennium, clearer language about primacy and synodality, and healing of memories that made older formulas appear as instruments of domination. The Catholic Church nevertheless remains bound by the dogmatic substance of Florence. Development can deepen the account of how universal primacy is exercised and how Eastern Churches govern themselves; it cannot redefine primacy as a merely honorary presidency with no universal authority.[5]

The council's method retains value. It compared sources, acknowledged linguistic difference, distinguished custom from dogma, and found common meaning beneath apparently opposed formulas. Its limitations are equally instructive: insufficient reception, compressed treatment of ecclesiology, political urgency, and failure to build trust among local churches. Genuine reunion requires truth, repentance, canonical security, liturgical respect, and the freely received communion of pastors and faithful.[6]

Proceedings, participants, and conciliar method

Florence was conducted through public sessions, general congregations, deputations, and extended conferences between appointed Greek and Latin speakers. The solemn decrees preserve the council's conclusions, while surviving acts, speeches, diaries, letters, and theological memoranda reveal how slowly the agreements were reached. A doctrinal history must keep those levels distinct. An argument proposed in debate is not thereby a conciliar definition, and a participant's private explanation does not control the meaning of the decree finally approved by the fathers and confirmed by the pope.

Language was itself a theological problem. Many Greek terms did not map neatly onto Latin scholastic vocabulary, and both sides suspected that translated patristic passages concealed doctrinal change. The council repeatedly returned to Greek and Latin witnesses of the Fathers, especially Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, Epiphanius, Augustine, Jerome, and Hilary. Its achievement was not to declare one language sacred and the other defective, but to determine whether different formulas could confess the same revealed mystery without contradiction.

Common prayer and solemn liturgy framed the disputation. The council was not a detached academy: its purpose was restored communion at the altar. Public proclamation, subscription, the kiss of peace, and Eucharistic celebration gave visible form to conclusions reached in debate. Those ceremonies did not substitute emotion for doctrinal consent. They manifested the ecclesial reality the texts sought to restore—one faith confessed by hierarchs who could again recognize one another within Catholic communion.

The delegations and their principal voices

The Byzantine delegation was headed by Emperor John VIII Palaiologos and Patriarch Joseph II and included metropolitan bishops, monastics, imperial officials, and scholars. Bessarion of Nicaea became the most influential Greek advocate of union; Isidore of Kiev also supported it and later suffered for proclaiming communion in lands hostile to Florence. Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus emerged as the leading opponent. George Scholarios, a lay theological adviser who later became Patriarch Gennadios II under Ottoman rule, participated in the debates and afterward opposed the settlement. Their later careers show that the council was not a staged encounter between a single Latin position and an undifferentiated East.

Among the Latins, papal legates, cardinals, bishops, mendicant theologians, and humanists supplied different kinds of expertise. Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini helped guide proceedings until his later death at Varna; the Dominican John of Montenero presented major Latin arguments; Ambrogio Traversari's Greek learning aided communication; and figures such as Juan de Torquemada defended papal primacy. Eugene IV did not personally deliver every theological intervention, but papal direction, confirmation, and promulgation gave the council its Catholic unity. Neither imperial attendance nor the brilliance of individual theologians replaced episcopal and papal authority.

From preliminary debate to definition

The first meetings at Ferrara addressed procedural order and then purgatory. The discussion exposed a recurring pattern: Greek representatives often rejected Latin imagery or terminology while accepting a substantive proposition once it was stated without disputed accretions. Debate later concentrated on the Filioque and the patristic formula through the Son. The transfer to Florence did not restart the council; it moved the same assembly and enabled negotiations to continue under more sustainable financial and public-health conditions.

Drafting required exact compromise without doctrinal ambiguity. Formulae were compared in both languages, voted, subscribed, and solemnly promulgated. The resulting decree did not merely record that the parties agreed to disagree. It confessed one procession of the Holy Spirit, one final purification, one valid Eucharist under the legitimate usages of leavened and unleavened bread, and one universal primacy. At the same time, it avoided demanding that the East abandon every customary expression by which those truths had traditionally been taught.

Counciliar acts and historical witnesses

The council's authoritative corpus consists principally in the decrees formally approved and promulgated in its lawful phases. Narrative sources preserve attendance, speeches, disputes, liturgical ceremonies, financial pressures, illness, and the personal reasoning of subscribers. These records are indispensable for understanding the event, but they do not all possess the authority of Laetentur caeli or the later union decrees. Critical editions sometimes correct titles, punctuation, translation, or manuscript readings without altering the Church's reception of the conciliar act itself.

This distinction also governs popular quotations. A sentence attributed to a speaker at Florence may illuminate Latin or Greek theology without being an article of faith. Conversely, a definition cannot be neutralized by showing that individual fathers understood surrounding details differently. The object proposed by the approved decree, interpreted in the Church's living tradition, determines the doctrinal obligation. Historical scholarship and magisterial reception answer related but nonidentical questions.

The conciliar corpus and its later use

Florence produced a family of decrees rather than a single undifferentiated text. Documents from the Basel phase addressed procedure, Hussite reconciliation, peace, and reform; the lawful Ferrara–Florence–Rome phases yielded the great reunion acts. Laetentur caeli concerned the Greeks, Exultate Deo the Armenians, and Cantate Domino the Copts, while further acts received Syrians, Chaldeans, Maronites, and Ethiopians. Each arose from a particular encounter, yet each was promulgated by the same ecumenical authority and must be interpreted according to its subject and form.[7]

The council's documentary history matters because later manuals sometimes extracted short propositions from their immediate setting. That can be useful for identifying doctrine, but it can also obscure the decree's purpose: restoration of sacramental communion among ancient Christian traditions. Florence did not establish a museum of isolated formulae. It sought visible unity in confession, Eucharist, hierarchy, and papal communion while preserving lawful rites. Its texts belong together as both doctrinal judgments and acts of ecclesial reconciliation.

Reform, Hussites, and the lawful Basel acts

Before the rupture at Basel, the council addressed the Hussite crisis and negotiated the Compactata with representatives from Bohemia. Questions of Communion under both kinds, preaching, clerical possessions, and public sin were treated amid political and military exhaustion. The agreements were disciplinary and pastoral settlements, not a reversal of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine. The Church can permit or restrict the chalice for the laity while holding that Christ is received whole and entire under either species.

Basel also proposed extensive reforms of benefices, elections, finance, and conciliar frequency. Some addressed real abuses; others assumed a constitutional superiority over the pope that could not be accepted. Catholic evaluation therefore proceeds act by act and phase by phase. A sound reform proposal does not validate schism, and the later rebellion does not make every earlier lawful measure false. The council's complicated archive requires chronology rather than slogans.

Use at Vatican I and in later teaching

Vatican I cited Florence when defining the Roman pontiff's full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church. The later council gave a more developed account of primacy and its infallible teaching office, but it did not replace Florence with a different constitution. Vatican II then situated that same primacy within the sacramental episcopate and the college of bishops. The three councils form a doctrinal continuity: universal papal authority, genuine episcopal office, and conciliar action with and under Peter's successor.[8]

The Catechism likewise receives Florence on the Filioque, purgatory, the last things, sacramental doctrine, and ecclesial government. Modern Holy See explanations of the procession of the Spirit employ Florence while clarifying that the Father's monarchy is not compromised and that the Greek formula through the Son has an orthodox value. This is authentic development: the defined truth remains, while later teaching supplies a wider patristic and ecumenical account.

What remained unresolved

Florence did not produce a complete shared ecclesiology of primacy and synodality, settle every canonical grievance between East and West, or heal memories of violence and Latin domination. It did not foresee the political order imposed after the Ottoman conquest, and it had no practical mechanism capable of securing reception in every Eastern diocese and monastery. Those omissions help explain historical failure without making the council doctrinally void.

Nor did the council define every theological detail associated with its subjects. It affirmed purification after death without settling all theories of its manner; it confessed the Spirit's procession without exhausting trinitarian theology; and it defined primacy without specifying every prudent mode of papal intervention in Eastern governance. Legitimate theological schools and canonical development therefore remain possible inside the boundaries the council established.

Authority, interpretation, and legacy

Florence's solemn doctrinal definitions belong to the extraordinary Magisterium and must be held according to their subject and definitive intention. Historical narratives, diplomatic judgments, procedural acts, and changeable disciplinary provisions do not all possess the same grade. The fact that a proposition appears in a council decree is not enough by itself to classify every clause as dogma. The Church reads the decrees according to their genre, language, confirmation, later reception, and relation to the whole tradition.

The council stands at the junction of medieval conciliar controversy, the final Byzantine appeal to the West, Renaissance humanism, the history of Catholic dogma, and the still unfinished restoration of Christian unity. It preserved the principle that an ecumenical council acts with and under the pope, gave authoritative formulations on trinitarian and eschatological doctrine, recognized ritual diversity in Eucharistic bread, and defined the Roman primacy. It also demonstrates that juridical union without broad ecclesial reconciliation can be real in intention and still prove historically fragile.

Basel and the limits of conciliarism

The schismatic continuation at Basel illustrates why representation alone does not make a council ecumenical. A body of bishops and experts can pursue reform, cite an earlier council, and claim to speak for the Church while severing the hierarchical communion required for a collegiate act. By purporting to suspend and depose Eugene IV and electing Felix V, the Basel remnant made visible the contradiction within a theory that placed a factional assembly over the Church's divinely constituted head.

This judgment does not canonize every decision of Eugene IV or deny that reform grievances were serious. Popes can govern imprudently, and councils can call attention to real abuses. The doctrinal point is constitutional: neither moral urgency nor numerical strength creates authority to depose a legitimate pope on the theory that a council is ordinarily his superior. Florence's lawful continuation preserved both conciliar action and papal headship rather than choosing one against the other.

Eastern Catholic reception

Eastern Catholics receive Florence within the full Catholic tradition while preserving their own liturgies, canonical discipline, patristic vocabulary, and synodal institutions. They are not Latin Catholics with decorative Eastern ceremonies. The council's recognition that leavened and unleavened bread are both valid and that through the Son can express orthodox trinitarian faith supports the broader Catholic principle that unity does not require ritual uniformity.[9]

At the same time, the history of later unions contains episodes of Latinization, political pressure, and inadequate respect for Eastern governance. Those wrongs cannot be justified by invoking Florence. Orientalium Ecclesiarum and the Eastern code require Eastern Catholic Churches to preserve and recover their authentic traditions. The faithful reading of Florence is therefore both doctrinally firm and ecclesially generous: one faith and communion, genuinely diverse traditions, and no forced absorption.[10]

Background

The initial location in the Prince-Bishopric of Basel reflected the desire among parties seeking reform to meet outside territories directly controlled by the pope, the emperor or the kings of Aragon and France, whose influences the council hoped to avoid.[14], pp. 12–15 Ambrogio Traversari attended the Council of Basel as legate of Pope Eugene IV.[15], pp. 18–21

Under pressure for ecclesiastical reform, Pope Martin V sanctioned a decree of the Council of Constance (9 October 1417) obliging the papacy to summon general councils periodically.[14], pp. 16–18 At the expiration of the first term fixed by this decree, Pope Martin V complied by calling a council at Pavia. Due to an epidemic the location transferred almost at once to Siena (see Council of Siena) and disbanded, in circumstances still imperfectly known, just as it had begun to discuss the subject of reform (1424). The next council fell due at the expiration of seven years in 1431; Martin V duly convoked it for this date to the town of Basel and selected to preside over it the cardinal Julian Cesarini, a well-respected prelate. Martin himself, however, died before the opening of the synod.[16], p. 463

Council of Basel

The Council was seated on 14 December 1431, at a period when the conciliar movement was strong and the authority of the papacy weak.[14], pp. 12–15 The Council at Basel opened with only a few bishops and abbots attending, but it grew rapidly and to make its numbers greater gave the lower orders a majority over the bishops.[15], pp. 18–22 It adopted an anti-papal attitude, proclaimed the superiority of the Council over the Pope, and prescribed an oath to be taken by each new Pope.[14], pp. 20–23 On 18 December Martin's successor, Pope Eugene IV, tried to dissolve it and open a new council on Italian soil at Bologna, but he was overruled.[15], pp. 25–28

The council was held in the Cathedral of Basel, where benches were placed for the 400 and more members, and general congregations were held either in the cathedral or in its chapter house.[17] The clerks of ceremonies were Enea Silvio Piccolomini and Michel Brunout.[17]

Sigismund, King of Hungary and titular King of Bohemia, had been defeated at the Battle of Domažlice in the fifth crusade against the Hussites in August 1431.[18], pp. 254–281 Under his sponsorship, the Council negotiated a peace with the Calixtine faction of the Hussites in January 1433.[18], pp. 285–290 Pope Eugene acknowledged the council in May and crowned Sigismund Holy Roman Emperor on 31 May 1433.[14], pp. 45–48 The divided Hussites were defeated in May 1434.[18], pp. 292–295 In June 1434, the pope had to flee a revolt in Rome and began a ten-year exile in Florence.[14], pp. 50–53

Replacement by the Council of Florence

In 1438, Pope Eugene convened a new council at Ferrara, which however was transferred to Florence in 1439 because of the danger of plague at Ferrara and because Florence had agreed, against future payment, to finance the Council.[19]

Rump Council of Basel

Most of the original Council moved from Basel to Ferrara in 1438. Some remained at Basel, still claiming to be the Council. They elected Amadeus VIII, Duke of Savoy, as Pope Felix V. He is considered an antipope, and was the only claimant to the papal throne who ever took the Basel oath. Driven out of Basel in 1448, they moved to Lausanne. In 1449, Felix V resigned and the rump Council formally closed.[19]

Meeting in Florence

The Council had meanwhile successfully negotiated reunification with several Eastern Churches, reaching agreements on such matters as the Western insertion of the phrase "Filioque" to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the definition and number of the sacraments, and the doctrine of Purgatory. Another key issue was papal supremacy, which involved the universal and supreme jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church, including the national churches of the East (Serbian, Byzantine, Moldo-Wallachian, Bulgarian, Russian, Georgian, Armenian, Coptic, Syriac etc.), and secular matters such as the promise of military assistance against the Ottoman Empire.

On 6 July 1439, the union was proclaimed (in both Latin and Greek) in the document Laetentur Caeli ("Let the Heavens Rejoice"), which was signed by Pope Eugene IV and by the Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaiologos. All but one of the bishops were present. Some Greek bishops, perhaps feeling political pressure from the Byzantine Emperor, reluctantly accepted the decrees of the Council. Other Eastern bishops did so out of sincere conviction, such as Isidore of Kiev, who subsequently suffered greatly for it. Among the Eastern bishops, Mark of Ephesus refused to accept the union, becoming the leader of the opposition back in Byzantium. A representative of the Georgian Orthodox Church, Gregory, Metropolitan of Tbilisi, who attended the council on behalf of David III, Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia, shared the position of Mark of Ephesus and likewise refused to sign the decree of union.[20] Bishop Isaiah of Stavropol likewise opposed the union and fled from Florence.[21]

The Serbian Patriarch, Teofan I, did not even attend the council. The only Russian prelate present, Avraamy of Suzdal, signed the union, but Russian sources claimed that this was under duress from Metropolitan Isidore.[22] The Russian Orthodox Church, upon learning of the union, angrily rejected it and ousted any prelate who was even remotely sympathetic to it, declaring itself autocephalous (i.e., autonomous), with subsequent Russian sources portraying the actions of Grand Prince Vasily II of Moscow as protecting the purity of the faith.[23]

Despite the religious union, Western military assistance to Byzantium was ultimately insufficient, and the fall of Constantinople occurred in May 1453. The Council declared the Basel group heretics and excommunicated them, and affirmed the superiority of the Pope over the Councils in the bull Etsi non dubitemus of 20 April 1441.[19]

The council also decided to terminate the dietary prohibition on Gentile converts to Christianity from consuming blood issued by the apostle James at the apostolic council of Jerusalem. This law although observed by the Eastern Orthodox Church, had been practically obsolete in the West since the popes' rejection of the Quinisext Council.[24]

[The council] also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practicing the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased.

— Bull of Union with the Copts, 1442[25]

Composition

The democratic character of the assembly at Basel was a result of both its composition and its organization. Doctors of theology, masters and representatives of chapters, monks and clerks of inferior orders constantly outnumbered the prelates in it, and the influence of the superior clergy had less weight because instead of being separated into "nations", as at Constance, the fathers divided themselves according to their tastes or aptitudes into four large committees or "deputations" (deputationes). One was concerned with questions of faith (fidei), another with negotiations for peace (pacis), the third with reform (reformatorii), and the fourth with what they called "common concerns" (pro communibus). Every decision made by three "deputations" (the lower clergy formed the majority in each) received ratification for the sake of form in general congregation and, if necessary led to decrees promulgated in session. Papal critics thus termed the council "an assembly of copyists" or even "a set of grooms and scullions".[16], p. 464 However, some prelates, although absent, were represented by their proxies.

Nicholas of Cusa was a member of the delegation sent to Constantinople with the pope's approval to bring back the Byzantine emperor and his representatives to the Council of Florence of 1439. At the time of the council's conclusion in 1439, Cusa was 38 years old and thus, compared to the other clergy at the council, a fairly young man though one of the more accomplished in terms of the body of his complete works.

Attempted dissolution

From Italy, France and Germany, the fathers came late to Basel. Cesarini devoted all his energies to the war against the Hussites until the disaster of Taus forced him to evacuate Bohemia in haste. Pope Eugene IV, Martin V's successor, lost hope that the council could be useful owing to the progress of heresy, the reported troubles in Germany, the war that had lately broken out between the dukes of Austria and Burgundy, and finally, the small number of fathers who had responded to the summons of Martin V. That opinion and his desire to preside over the council in person, induced him to recall the fathers from Germany, as his poor health made it difficult for him to go. He commanded the council to disperse, and appointed Bologna as their meeting place in eighteen months' time, with the intention of making the session of the council coincide with some conferences with representatives of the Orthodox Church of the Byzantine East, scheduled to be held there with a view to ecumenical union (18 December 1431).[16], p. 463

That order led to an outcry among the fathers and incurred the deep disapproval of the legate Cesarini. They argued that the Hussites would think the Church afraid to face them and that the laity would accuse the clergy of shirking reform, both with disastrous effects. The pope explained his reasons and yielded certain points, but the fathers were intransigent. Considerable powers had been decreed to Church councils by the Council of Constance, which amid the troubles of the Western Schism had proclaimed the superiority, in certain cases, of the council over the pope, and the fathers at Basel insisted upon their right of remaining assembled. They held sessions, promulgated decrees, interfered in the government of the papal countship of Venaissin, treated with the Hussites, and, as representatives of the universal Church, presumed to impose laws upon the sovereign pontiff himself.[16], p. 463

Eugene IV resolved to resist the Council's claim of supremacy, but he did not dare openly to repudiate the conciliar doctrine considered by many to be the actual foundation of the authority of the popes before the schism. He soon realized the impossibility of treating the fathers of Basel as ordinary rebels, and tried a compromise; but as time went on, the fathers became more and more intractable, and between him and them gradually arose an impassable barrier.[16], p. 463

Abandoned by a number of his cardinals, condemned by most of the powers, deprived of his dominions by condottieri who shamelessly invoked the authority of the council, the pope made concession after concession and ended on 15 December 1433 with a pitiable surrender of all the points at issue in a papal bull, the terms of which were dictated by the fathers of Basel, that is, by declaring his bull of dissolution null and void and recognising that the synod as legitimately assembled throughout. However, Eugene IV did not ratify all the decrees coming from Basel, nor make a definite submission to the supremacy of the council. He declined to express any forced pronouncement on this subject, and his enforced silence concealed the secret design of safeguarding the principle of sovereignty.[16], p. 463

The fathers, filled with suspicion, would allow only the legates of the pope to preside over them on condition of their recognizing the superiority of the council. The legates submitted the humiliating formality but in their own names, it was asserted only after the fact, thus reserving the final judgment of the Holy See. Furthermore, the difficulties of all kinds against which Eugene had to contend, such as the insurrection at Rome, which forced him to escape by means of the Tiber, lying in the bottom of a boat, left him at first little chance of resisting the enterprises of the council.[16], p. 463

Issues of reform

Emboldened by their success, the fathers approached the subject of reform, their principal object being to further curtail the power and resources of the papacy. They took decisions on the disciplinary measures that regulated the elections, on the celebration of divine service and on the periodical holding of diocesan synods and provincial councils, which were usual topics in Catholic councils. They also made decrees aimed at some of the assumed rights by which the popes had extended their power and improved their finances at the expense of the local churches. Thus the council abolished annates, greatly limited the abuse of "reservation" of the patronage of benefices by the Pope and completely abolished the right claimed by the pope of "next presentation" to benefices not yet vacant (known as gratiae expectativae). Other conciliar decrees severely limited the jurisdiction of the court of Rome and even made rules for the election of popes and the constitution of the Sacred College. The fathers continued to devote themselves to the subjugation of the Hussites, and they also intervened, in rivalry with the pope, in the negotiations between France and England, which led to the treaty of Arras, concluded by Charles VII of France with the duke of Burgundy.[16], pp. 463–464 Also, circumcision was deemed to be a mortal sin.[26] Finally, they investigated and judged numbers of private cases, lawsuits between prelates, members of religious orders and holders of benefices, thus themselves committing one of the serious abuses for which they had criticized the court of Rome.[16], p. 464

Papal primacy

The Council clarified the Latin dogma of papal primacy:

"We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church."[27]

Eugene IV's eastern strategy

Eugene IV, however much he may have wished to keep on good terms with the fathers of Basel, found himself neither able nor willing to accept or observe all their decrees. The question of the union with the Byzantine church, especially, gave rise to a misunderstanding between them which soon led to a rupture. The Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaiologos, pressed hard by the Ottoman Turks, was keen to ally himself with the Catholics. He consented to come with the principal representatives of the Byzantine Church to some place in the West where the union could be concluded in the presence of the pope and of the Latin council. There arose a double negotiation between him and Eugene IV on the one hand and the fathers of Basel on the other. The council wished to fix the meeting place at a place remote from the influence of the pope, and they persisted in suggesting Basel, Avignon or Savoy.[16], p. 464 On the other hand, the Byzantines wanted a coastal location in Italy for their ease of access by ship.

Council transferred to Ferrara and attempted reunion with Eastern Orthodox Churches

As a result of negotiations with the East, Emperor John VIII Palaiologos accepted Pope Eugene IV's offer. By a bull dated 18 September 1437, Pope Eugene again pronounced the dissolution of the Council of Basel and summoned the fathers to Ferrara in the Po Valley.

The first public session at Ferrara began on 10 January 1438. Its first act declared the Council of Basel transferred to Ferrara and nullified all further proceedings at Basel. In the second public session (15 February 1438), Pope Eugene IV excommunicated all who continued to assemble at Basel.

In early April 1438, the Byzantine contingent, over 700 strong, arrived at Ferrara. On 9 April 1438, the first solemn session at Ferrara began, with the Eastern Roman Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople and representatives of the Patriarchal Sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem in attendance and Pope Eugene IV presiding. The early sessions lasted until 17 July 1438 with each theological issue of the East–West Schism (1054) hotly debated, including the Processions of the Holy Spirit, the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, purgatory, and papal primacy. Resuming proceedings on 8 October 1438, the Council focused exclusively on the Filioque matter. Even as it became clear that the Byzantine Church would not consent to the Filioque clause, the Byzantine Emperor continued to press for a reconciliation.

Initially, the seating arrangements were meant to feature the pope in the middle with the Latins on one side and Greeks on the other, but the Greeks protested. It was decided to have the altar with the open Bible in the center of the one end of the chamber, and the two high ranking delegations facing each other on the sides of the altar, while the rest of the delegations were below further in chamber. The Byzantine Emperor's throne was opposite that of the Holy Roman Emperor (who never attended), while the Patriarch of Constantinople faced opposite a cardinal, and the other high-ranking cardinals and bishops faced the Greek metropolitans. The throne of the pope was set slightly apart and higher.[17]

Council transferred to Florence and the near East–West union

With finances running thin and on the pretext that the plague was spreading in the area, both the Latins and the Byzantines agreed to transfer the council to Florence.[28] Continuing at Florence in January 1439, the Council made steady progress on a compromise formula, known as "ex filio".

In the months to follow, an agreement was reached on the Western doctrine of Purgatory and a return to the pre-schism prerogatives of the papacy. On 6 July 1439, an agreement (Laetentur Caeli) was signed by all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, delegate for the Patriarch of Alexandria, who, contrary to the views of all others, held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism.

To complicate matters, Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople had died the previous month. The Byzantine Patriarchs were unable to assert that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved without a clear agreement of the whole Church.

Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their attempts toward agreement with the West broadly rejected by the monks, the general populace, and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Turkish Ottoman Empire in 1453). Facing the imminent threat, the Union was officially proclaimed by Isidore of Kiev in Hagia Sophia on 12 December 1452.[29]

The Emperor, bishops and people of Constantinople accepted this act as a temporary provision until the removal of the Ottoman threat. Yet, it was too late: on 29 May 1453 Constantinople fell. To prevent the Eastern Orthodox Christians from seeking military assistance from the Catholic states of Europe, the Ottoman Sultans appointed anti-unionists into high church-positions, who justified the Ottoman conquest as divine punishment for the Byzantine emperors decision to pursue unity with heretics (meaning, the Catholic Church). The union signed at Florence remained, and remains, unimplemented by the Orthodox Churches.

Copts and Ethiopians

The Council soon became even more international. The signature of this agreement for the union of the Latins and the Byzantines encouraged Pope Eugenius to announce the good news to the Coptic Christians, and invite them to send a delegation to Florence. He wrote a letter on 7 July 1439, and to deliver it, sent Alberto da Sarteano as an apostolic delegate. On 26 August 1441, Sarteano returned with four Ethiopians from Emperor Zara Yaqob and Copts.[30] A contemporary observer described the Ethiopians saying "They were black men and dry and very awkward in their bearing."[31], p. 128 At that time, Rome had delegates from a multitude of nations, from Armenia to Russia, Greece and various parts of north and east Africa.[31], p. 129

Deposition of Eugene IV and schism at Basel

During this time the council of Basel, though nullified at Ferrara and abandoned by Cesarini and most of its members, persisted nonetheless, under the presidency of Cardinal Aleman. Affirming its ecumenical character on 24 January 1438, it suspended Eugene IV. The council went on (in spite of the intervention of most of the powers) to pronounce Eugene IV deposed (25 June 1439), giving rise to a new schism by electing (4 November 1439) Duke Amadeus VIII of Savoy, as (anti)pope, who took the name Felix V.[16], p. 464

Effects of the schism

This schism lasted fully ten years, although the antipope found few adherents outside of his own hereditary states, those of Alfonso V of Aragon, of the Swiss confederation and of certain universities. Germany remained neutral; Charles VII of France confined himself to securing to his kingdom (by the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, which became law on 13 July 1438) the benefit of a great number of the reforms decreed at Basel; England and Italy remained faithful to Eugene IV. Finally, in 1447, Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, after negotiations with Eugene, commanded the burgomaster of Basel not to allow the presence of the council any longer in the imperial city.[16], p. 464

Schism reconciled at Lausanne

In June 1448 the rump of the council migrated to Lausanne. The antipope, at the insistence of France, ended by abdicating (7 April 1449). Eugene IV died on 23 February 1447, and the council at Lausanne, to save appearances, gave their support to his successor, Pope Nicholas V, who had already been governing the Church for two years. Trustworthy evidence, they said, proved to them that this pontiff accepted the dogma of the superiority of the council as defined at Constance and at Basel.[16], p. 464

Aftermath

The struggle for East–West union at Ferrara and Florence, while promising, never bore fruit, largely due to the activities of Mark of Ephesus. While progress toward union in the East continued to be made in the following decades, all hopes for a proximate reconciliation were dashed with the fall of Constantinople in 1453, when Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II appointed the strongly anti-unionist Gennadius Scholarius as the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Perhaps the council's most important historical legacy was the lectures on Greek classical literature given in Florence by many of the delegates from Constantinople, including the Neoplatonist Gemistus Pletho. These greatly helped the progress of Renaissance humanism.[32]

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

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.[11]

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 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.

Proceedings

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

References

  1. 1.Unitatis redintegratio — Vatican II on Catholic principles of ecumenism and the distinctive inheritance of the East
  2. 2.Clarification on the Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit — The Holy See's explanation of the Father's monarchy, the Filioque, and the council's definition
  3. 3.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 245–248 — The Filioque and the complementarity of Eastern and Western formulations
  4. 4.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1021–1032 — Particular judgment, heaven, and final purification
  5. 5.Ut unum sint — John Paul II on ecumenical reception, dialogue, and the ministry of unity exercised by the Bishop of Rome
  6. 6.Common Declaration of Paul VI and Athenagoras I — The 1965 Catholic–Orthodox act removing the mutual excommunications of 1054 from living memory
  7. 7.Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils — The conciliar decrees from Basel, Ferrara, Florence, and Rome, including Laetentur caeli, Exultate Deo, and Cantate Domino; English translation based on Norman Tanner's critical edition
  8. 8.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 880–887 — The episcopal college and the primacy of the successor of Peter
  9. 9.Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches — The contemporary Catholic canonical recognition of Eastern Churches, patriarchs, synods, rites, and discipline
  10. 10.Orientalium Ecclesiarum — The equal dignity, rights, and authentic traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches
  11. 11.1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: Council of Florence
  12. 12.[12.2][12.3]Gill, Joseph (1959). The Council of Florence. Cambridge University Press.
  13. 13.Runciman, Steven (1965). The Fall of Constantinople 1453. Cambridge University Press. pp. 74–75.
  14. 14.[14.2][14.3][14.4][14.5][14.6]Decaluwe, Michiel (2017). Thomas M. Izbicki; Gerald Christianson (eds.). A Companion to the Council of Basel. Leiden-Boston: Brill.
  15. 15.[15.2][15.3]Stieber, Joachim W. (1978). Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel and the Secular and Ecclesiastical Authorities in the Empire. Brill.
  16. 16.[16.2][16.3][16.4][16.5][16.6][16.7][16.8][16.9][16.10][16.11][16.12][16.13]Valois, Joseph Marie Noel (1911). "Basel, Council of". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 3 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  17. 17.[17.2][17.3]Minnich, Nelson H. (2018-10-24). The Decrees of the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–17): Their Legitimacy, Origins, Contents, and Implementation. Routledge.
  18. 18.[18.2][18.3]Fudge, Thomas A. (2017). The Hussites and the Council. Brill.
  19. 19.[19.2][19.3]"Florence, Council of". Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press. 2005. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.
  20. 20.Rayfield 2012, pp. 155, 158.
  21. 21.Занемонец, Александр (2010). "C6". Воспоминания о Ферраро-Флорентийском соборе (1438–1439) (in Russian). Vol. 12. p. 35.
  22. 22.Fennell 2014, pp. 174–175.
  23. 23.Casiday, Augustine (2012). The Orthodox Christian World. Routledge. pp. 18–19. ISBN 978-0-415-45516-9. The years 1448–1589 mark the establishment of autocephaly of the Russian Church... According to Russian sources, in attempts to protect the purity of the faith, Grand Prince Vasily II, along with a council of bishops, condemned the Union
  24. 24.von Hefele, Karl Josef. Commentary on Canon II of Gangra. We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuse, like other laws.
  25. 25."Council of Florence, Bull of Union with the Copts". papalencyclicals.net. 14 December 1431.
  26. 26.Eugenius IV, Pope (1990) [1442]. "Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438–1445): Session 11 – 4 February 1442; Bull of union with the Copts". In Norman P. Tanner (ed.). Decrees of the ecumenical councils. 2 volumes (in Greek and Latin). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. ISBN 0-87840-490-2. LCCN 90003209. [The Holy Roman Church] firmly... asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.
  27. 27.Shaw, Russell (2000). Papal Primacy in the Third Millennium. Our Sunday Visitor. p. 51. ISBN 0879735554.
  28. 28.McManus, Stuart M. "Byzantines in the Florentine polis: Ideology, Statecraft and ritual during the Council of Florence" (PDF). The Journal of the Oxford University History Society. 6: 4–6. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-04-24. Retrieved 2026-07-21.
  29. 29.Dezhnyuk, Sergey. "Council of Florence: The Unrealized Union". Retrieved Dec 27, 2022 – via academia.edu.
  30. 30.Quinn, David B.; Clough, Cecil H.; Hair, P. E. H.; et al. (January 1, 1994). The European Outthrust and Encounter: The First Phase C.1400-c.1700 : Essays in Tribute to David Beers Quinn on His 85th Birthday. Liverpool University Press. ISBN 9780853232292. Retrieved December 27, 2022 – via Google Books.
  31. 31.[31.2]Trexler, Richard C. (December 27, 1997). The Journey of the Magi: Meanings in History of a Christian Story. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691011265. Retrieved December 27, 2022 – via Google Books.
  32. 32.Geanakoplos, Deno John (December 27, 1989). Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologan) and Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches. Univ of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 9780299118846. Retrieved December 27, 2022 – via Google Books.