The Hellenic Society of
Professional People and Scientists in Great Britain (Εταιρεία Ελλήνων
Επιστημόνων Μεγάλης Βρετανίας) organised a talk by Dr Charalambos Dendrinos
(who is Senior Lecturer in Byzantine Literature and Greek Palaeography at the
History Department of Royal Holloway, University of London). The talk, entitled
“Christian Unity and the Council of Florence (1439)” took place at The Hellenic
Centre, (16-18 Paddington Street, London W1U 5AS) on Thursday 13 March 2014, at
19.00.
This theme interests both East
and West. The Orthodox Church wanted union with the West, according to Dr
Dendrinos, for financial and ethical reasons in order to fight off the infidel
Ottomans. The talk re-examined why union, during that instance, failed. An
interesting fact, according to the speaker, was that there is not a lot of
evidence to support that in 1054 there was a schism between East and West
(known as the Great Schism). What we do have is the excommunication of the
Patriarch of Constantinople by the West (and not the whole Orthodox Church),
whilst Constantinople anathematised the delegates from the Rome and not the
whole Latin Church. This is additionally supported by a number of sources from
the 12th and 13th centuries. What is evident is the fact
that both churches were moving apart from each other, due to two reasons: a.
the 4th Crusade and b. the partition of Byzantium. Nonetheless,
there were a number of attempts to ecclesiastical union, after the Latin
occupation of Constantinople (1204) and at the Conference of Lyon (1274); these
were, however, short lived unions. The
final attempt to a union between West and East was during the Council of
Florence. Before that, even the Council of Basil (1414-1418) attempted a union.
According to the Byzantine
political scene, the Byzantine Emperor had the right to defend the Church and
its dogmas, being able to select the Patriarch of Constantinople. During the 15th
century Byzantium consisted of Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Mount Athos, Moria
and a number of islands. On the other hand, the Patriarch had a much larger
jurisdiction. However, the Church was under imperial control. That is why, the
Byzantine Government used union for political reasons. Additionally, during
this period both churches in East and West were in crisis.
What were the terms of union? Both Latin and Greek Church had different
views on this issue. The Byzantines believed that only an Ecumenical Council
could determine and decide on this crucial matter. They would want it to be
held in the East, specifically in Constantinople. Both churches would speak on
equal terms. However, the Latin church demanded union and submission for their
help they would give the Byzantines in order to fight of the Ottomans.
Additionally they did not want to speak on equal terms. The Latin Bishops
considered the Orthodox not as brothers, but as schismatics and heretics, who
had to subordinate themselves back to Rome. The Council of union, during the 15th
century was moved from the East to the West, in Florence.
Before the Byzantines travelled
to Italy they had some hesitations, that this council could create division,
suspicion and rivalry. The Byzantines worried that if they did not agree with
the papalists, the latter would not pay for their return back to Byzantium.
These worries are additionally based in a number of texts, found in St.
Sophia’s Church (Constantinople). On the
other hand, some bishops returned to Byzantium richer, showing emphatically
that corruption and bribery prevailed among a number of delegates.
A sense of betrayal was felt in
the Byzantine capital. The issues discussed during the Florence Council were:
-
Addition of filioque
-
Ecclesiastical primacy
-
Purgatory
-
Liturgical practices
-
Sanctification of Gifts, Epiclesis.
The significant issue of the
distinction between Essence and Energy of God was discussed briefly. During
this synod there was much tension. As the speaker claimed, there was an
‘Arsenal of patristic sayings!’
Most of the Byzantine bishops
voted for the filioque. However, Markos Evgenikos voted against it. He believed
that precision should prevail and not the economy of the church – which did not
apply here. Dr Dendrinos added that when the pope asked whether Mark had
signed, and the delegates replied negatively, the Bishop of Rome then said:
‘Then we have achieved nothing’.
On the other hand, despite everyone accepting
that the Bishop of Rome is Primus Inter Paris, any attempt to go further from
the spiritual area is inevitably wrong and goes against the councils and canons
of the Church. An agreement was finally reached, whereby the Latins prevailed;
however, the council failed. This council could not bridge the gap between the
two ecclesiastical traditions. Interestingly, when the Byzantine Bishops
returned back home, they recounted the decisions taken in Florence. The
unionists were increasingly isolated. The union of the churches was condemned
in 1443.
The union in Florence created a
greater rift between unionists and anti-unionists. Interestingly, however, in
1452 there was a Liturgy were both East and West concelebrated in
Constantinople, were a small lived union existed. The East, later understood
the loss of the Empire to the Ottomans due to the apostasy of the Emperor.
How can we, today, use this
knowledge, of the past? This knowledge could show the path we need to follow,
through the World Council of Churches, through the Official Dialogue,
relations, through hope. Nevertheless, we need to also be realistic. East and
West have different ecclesiological views on primacy, on the reality of the
Unites (also known as Greek Catholics). Dr Dendrinos concluded this thought
provoking talk by supporting that dialogue should give fruits. However,
dialogue needs to be done in a spirit of equality, where both views will be
stated.
No comments:
Post a Comment