The death of the Patriarch

For the delegates from the East the death of their Patriarch was no small loss. The Patriarch Joseph II died in Florence on 10 June, 1439, and was buried in the Church of St. Mary the New. Although Siropoulos has very little to say about the incident it is clear that the Patriarch’s death helped only to weaken the position of the eastern delegates coming as it was near the end of the dialogue.

Somehow or other the discussions finally came to their conclusion. The final details were attended to. The easterners, more now than ever, felt the Latin pressure. The Emperor John VIII, in keeping with Tradition, requested of the Latins that his signature be the first one on the document. The Latins categorically opposed this request (Memoir 478). As a matter of fact, even the Greek text of the final document of union was edited by the Latin monk Ambrose who knew both Latin and Greek. Towards the end the Latins even used bribery to make certain that all of the eastern bishops would sign the union. Siropoulos mentions two Latin bishops, Christopher and Ambrose, who engaged in bribery with the Pope’s approval.

St. Mark of Ephesus, as a witness to these events observed that he was completely powerless to do anything about them. For that reason he addressed the Emperor in the following words: “Your Imperial Majesty knows that I desired neither to become a bishop not to come to this council. From the beginning I have sought only the life of silence according to my abilities. It is Your Majesty that has insisted that I assume both. It is not in accordance with my own will that I obey Your Majesty. I have taken upon myself a duty which I find it above my ability to perform….I ask, at this time, since things are not developing as was agreed previously, that Your Imperial Majesty not force me to sign the document (of union) since that is something I will never do, no matter what happens” (Memoir 482).

The Signing

The Divine Liturgy was celebrated in Florence on Sunday the 5th of July, 1439. After the Liturgy, immediately before the signing of the act of union, the Emperor called a meeting of all the eastern delegates at the residence of the Great Chartofilax. When they had gathered, that official simply informed them that the Emperor had commanded that all of them must sign the act of union, and furthermore be prepared to celebrate Liturgy on the following day together with the Latins at which time the official act of union would be announced. This imperial pronouncement came as a shock to all of the delegates since there had been no previous consultations or warning and there was great opposition. Nevertheless, the actual act of signing went ahead and was, as far as the Latins were concerned, quite successful. Among the last to sign the document was Pope Eugenius IV. Siropoulos mentions that the Pope at that moment asked if Ephesus (Metropolitan Mark) had signed the agreement. Upon hearing that he had not the Pope was heard to say: “Then we have accomplished nothing.” The next day at the Liturgy the Latin text of the union was read by Cardinal Julian Caesarini and the Greek text by Metropolitan Visarion of Nicaea.

Not failing to notice the steadfastness and uncompromising position of St. Mark the Pope attempted to put pressure on him through the eastern bishops and especially through the Emperor. Actually the Pope demanded that the synod of eastern bishops condemn St. Mark. The Emperor responded correctly by saying: “Mark of Ephesus is one of our archpastors and we ourselves will deal with him,” showing in effect what the Emperor really thought of universal papal jurisdiction. That the Pope approached St. Mark through the Emperor and that he conceded on this very point, is itself a demonstration that if there was any common faith in Florence, it was not in universal jurisdiction with the Pope. Thus in no uncertain terms did the Emperor reject the papal counsel. The Pope has no right to demand the deposition of of Mark of Ephesus even though he wishes the synod of eastern bishops to do so (Memoir 504). Despite such rebuttal, the Pope, again through the Emperor, sought to meet personally with St. Mark. On the advice of the Emperor St. Mark agreed. Siropoulos tells us that at the meeting, which was most interesting, the Pope went to great lengths to convince the Saint to agree to “unity”, since if he did not he would be deposed as a heretic. In response to the Pope’s words St. Mark responded by saying that the Councils had already passed judgment on those who failed to submit to the Church and who incorrectly confessed the Faith: “I do not confess my own teachings, nor do I propose any innovations, neither do I rise up in defense of any false and foreign teaching, but rather I hold to the pure faith which the Church has received directly from our Savior Christ and which it has preserved. The Roman Church has also, until the schism, preserved this same faith together with the Holy Church…Are there men of healthy and pious mind who will do the same today together with me? First of all you have to condemn the teachings which I preach. If, however, they have been demonstrated to be Orthodox, how can I be condemned?” (Memoir 508-510).

Florence, the aftermath

The “Union” that was signed in Florence was in accordance with the Latin concept and understanding of union. Siropoulos remarks that the vast majority of both Greek and Latin delegates who signed the document did so without reading it or without even being fully aware of what it contained (Memoir 518). It was soon to be demonstrated, as it had been in the past, and it would be many times in the future, that any business conducted in this manner was to be of little fruit. Theoretical union without the necessary spirit of repentance and removal of error could not bring lasting results. This was soon to be demonstrated in this case.

The eastern delegates returned to Constantinople by way of Venice. While there they celebrated Divine Liturgy. Anthony, Metropolitan of Heraclia, was the celebrant. The Liturgy was celebrated in a Latin Church and, as Siropoulos states: “We celebrated on our own antimins, with our own sacred vessels, as we had previously done in Latin houses, in accordance with the customs and rubrics of the Church.” During the Liturgy the Creed was read from the top of the ambo without the ‘addition’. The Pope’s name was not mentioned” (Memoir 530).

The easterners finally returned to Constantinople on the 1st of February 1440, but were received by the populace and the clergy as traitors. They were treated everywhere with derision. The reaction of the clergy of the Great Church of St. Sophia was such that they refused to serve together with those that had signed the act of union (Memoir 546). The Emperor himself had to often intervene. Many of the priest were so adamant in their position that they forsook serving in their churches. The number of people attending Divine Services dwindled. Such was the spontaneous reaction of the Orthodox clergy and people, despite the fact that the Pope’s name was never mentioned at the Liturgy, nor was the Creed read with the filioque clause. In fact, the decree of official union was not even publicly read in that city.

Many of those who had been delegates to the ill-fated council confessed as to how the entire process had missed the point entirely. Metropolitan Anthony of Heraclia stated: “What took place in Florence was evil and unfortunate, destructive to the Orthodox Faith and done under duress. I did a wicked thing in signing it, I was forced to, and my hand which held the pen should be cut off” (Memoir 548-550).

Siropoulos goes on to comment on some incidents that took place after Florence. There was, it seems, difficulty finding a candidate to fill the vacant position of Patriarch. Anthony of Heraclia and Dorotheos of Trebizond refused the position since it entailed effecting the union, an impossible task. Finally, Metropolitan Metrophanes of Cyzicus (1440-43) who was in favor of the union, was given the position. The people would not come to receive his blessing (Memoir 554-556). Siropoulos mentions the case of a village priest who had been present at the election of the new Patriarch and also at his enthronement. Upon returning to his parish he discovered that the people had stopped coming to his services, even to the Liturgy. the respected Metropolitans of Heraclia, Trebizond and Ephesus did not commune with the new Patriarch.

The motivation for this false union was always of a political nature. The Christian Empire that had once stretched from Persia to Scotland was now no bigger than the city of Constantinople itself. The union was supposed to bring western military aid to the beleaguered citizens. It did not. The Lord Himself finally abandoned to the world those who had turned to the world for their salvation and who had abandoned Faith in Him. Fifteen years after the signing of the union of Florence the new moon and star of the false prophet Muhammad rose over the walls of the city for the first time. It remains there to this day as a warning to us not to turn to the world for our salvation, for if we do, we shall have the world as our master to determine the kind of peace for us that satisfies them.

So the Western world has constantly proven, for having the power to easily do otherwise, it has given Constantinople to modern day Turkey, leaving Greece insignificant on its periphery – a clear testimony as to how they perceive the Greek Fathers and Christian Byzantium. Collaboration with the West has constantly undermined the position of Orthodoxy in the world. Orthodox leaders themselves are primarily to blame for not turning to God as their only source of salvation, and boldly confessing the true faith before the threatening world, as the martyrs did of old. Those martyrs triumphed over their enemies and subjected the entire Empire to the dominion of Christ, whereas our contemporary witnesses before the world are betraying the One Faith in the Orthodox God. As a consequence of not trusting in God, even that which we have is being taken from us and given to others. God alone is the Savior of the Orthodox. He is bound to us as to His own Body, and He has promised to preserve us in spite of those who turn away to the world. Our main obligation as Orthodox Christians is thus to remain faithful to the Lord as He is to us, and as zealous for Orthodoxy.

Editor’s Afterword

I was a little perturbed by the term used above, ‘the Orthodox God’, in the conclusion of this series. I have created this special blog to collect these posts in one continuous narrative by copying them from Again and Again, the weblog of Fr Milovan Katanic. The original text was published by a South African monastery under the jurisdiction of the Old Calendar Church of Greece. I am not an Orthodox zealot, but I am also definitely not an ecumenist in the current meaning of the term. What I believe about the unity of the Church is no secret, as I have written about it extensively in my main blog, Cost of Discipleship, and in fact my beliefs and opinions are of little value. But I do hope that all readers of this special blog understand, there is no such thing as an ‘Orthodox God’ except in the sense of ‘what Orthodox Christianity dogmatizes about God the Holy Trinity.’ As Archimandrite Vasileios writes in his book Hymn of Entry (page 18), “the Gospel cannot be understood outside the Church nor dogma outside worship.” I agree without reservation with everything the archimandrite writes in this book about ecumenism, especially with regard to the papacy, and I recommend it to your further reading in understanding what the unity of the Church really is.