finally, a definition of byzantine and orthodox theology (nicolaus 40.1 2013)

1 For our period of interest, the following may be consulted with profit: J. MONFASANI, Greeksand Latins in Renaissance Italy. Studies on Humanism and Philosophy in the 15th Century,Burlington 2004; ID., The Pro-Latin Apologetics of the Greek migrs to Quattrocento Italy, inByzantine Theology and its Philsophical Background, ed. A. RIGO (Studies in Byzantine Historyand Civilization 4), Turnhout 2011, 160-186. S. EBBESEN, Greek-Latin Philosophical Interaction:Collected Essays of Sten Ebbesen 1, Burlington, VT 2008.

2 An excellent illustration of these diverse trends comes to light when comparing the intellec-tual tenets of various medieval authors. Cfr. A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages,Blackwell Publishing, edd. J. GARCIA T. NOONE, Oxford 2003.

187

CHRISTIAAN W. KAPPES

A PROVISIONAL DEFINITIONOF BYZANTINE THEOLOGY CONTRA

PILLARS OF ORTHODOXY?

Introduction: the reception of Western theology into the Byzantinetradition during the Renaissance

Before beginning any serious discussion of the influence of Latin theologians andLatin theology on the East, it is only proper to demarcate the lines between Eastand West as they will be employed within the context of this present inquiry. Oldmyths and prejudices continue to cloud the modern imagination with respect to thecontent of these rather artificial categories. Real categories are timeless preciselybecause of their never-changing value. For instance, mathematical truths with respectto numerical values are ever fresh and a trans-cultural source of reflection preciselybecause they retain a constant application throughout human history. Anyone who isrational can grasp the value of 2 of x, y, or z. The categories of East andWest are quite different since they hopelessly attempt to divide entire populations,cultures, schools of thought, and philosophies, which were in constant interactionwith one another1.

Ordinarily, when someone speaks of Latin theology, such a person is speakingof theological trends that both/either have their origin and/or strongest representationwithin a geographical and cultural milieu that roughly corresponds to modernWestern Europe2. Obviously, this description already betrays itself as anachronistic.However, it is often the convenience of the category (along with age-old prejudice)

Christiaan Kappes

that allows inaccurate stereotypes to prevail over more appropriate divisions of the-ological and philosophical movements. One example in Western theology will suf-fice on this score. Since the advent of the neo-Thomist movement of the late 19th cen-tury, Western theology tended to be identified (by both Catholics and Protestants)with post 15th century Thomism3. Of course, this simplification gradually resulted inthe marginalization of the important historical role that other movements (viz.,Scotism, Ockhamism, humanism, etc.) played until the time of the Reformation andbeyond4.

Though Schoolmen may have espoused some common values (viz., dialectics,the overarching authority of Augustine and Ps.-Denys, etc.)5, still movements likeThomism and Scotism were very far apart (quoad beneplacita). Whether one speaksof their points de dpart (philosophically) or their conclusions, they represent twodistinctly different ways of doing theology. Thus, the reader must keep in mind thatwhen he reads about Latin or Western theology of the 14th-15th centuries, the pre-sent author is referring to a pluralist theological tradition heavily influenced (whetherpositively or negatively) by the primogenitors of Scholasticism, namely: PeterAbelard (1142), Peter Lombard (1160), and Alexander of Hales (1245). Thesemen represent common sources and trends in theology that led to the more rigidschools of Thomism and Franciscanism in later centuries.

Yet, for the purposes of the present investigation, it is necessary to speak evenmore restrictively about Latin theology in Renaissance Italy during the 14th-15thcenturies. In order to do so, it is essential to mention the equally powerful and bur-geoning humanistic movements within the environs of Italy. Humanist scholars, inthe mold of Ambrogio Traversari, exemplify a theological trend (viz., studia human-itatis) much more influential and popular than many Scholastic movements, thoughthe latter dominated many of the university theological faculties on the Italian penin-sula during the Renaissance6. In short, the West references a plurality of approach-es to theology that are heavily indebted to the sources of 13th century Schoolmen

188


3 For the dismal state of Thomism before its revival in the 19th century, see J. WEISHEIPL, TheRevival of Thomism. An Historical Survey, in New Themes in Christian Philosophy, South Bend1968, pp. 164-168.

4 For example, Scotism was a large school rivalling Thomism in both adherents and notablemasters. See M. HOENEN, Scotus and the Scotist School. The Tradition of Scotist Thought in theMedieval and Early Modern Period, in John Duns Scotus (1265/6-1308): Renewal of Philosophy(Elementa), ed. E. BOS, Amsterdam 1998, pp. 197-210.

5 For a description that transcends the normal prejudices of its day, see G. FRITZ A. MICHEL,Scolastique, in Dictionnaire de thologie catholique 14b, Paris 1941, col. 1691-1736.

6 An excellent summary of Traversaris contribution to humanist theology (and the Council ofFlorence) can be found in: C. STINGER, Humanism and the Church Fathers. Ambrogio Traversari(1386-1439), Albany, NY 1977.

7 J.A. Demetracopoulos has highlighted this glaring petitio principii. One must discover a uni-tary principle for what makes Byzantine Theology Byzantine. Only after delineating such aprinciple can one presume to select certain authors that fall within the school of Byzantine theol-ogy to the exclusion of others. See J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, chos dOrient RsonancesdOuest. In Respect of: C.G. Conticello V. Conticello, eds., La thologie byzantine et sa tradi-tion. II: XIIIe-XIXe S., in Nicolaus 37/2 (2010) 67-148: 70-71.

8 This description may not be satisfactory to everyone. However, I do not wish to engage in thedebate (in this context) about the denomination of Eastern Roman Empire and the ByzantineEmpire. The first part of such a question concerns one of substantial change from one entity toanother. The second part necessitates a precise or proximate date of the said mutation. N.B., thephenomenon of Byzantine theology might actually be better said to coincide with the elevationof the status of the Polis in the years leading up to Constantinople I.

9 AA.VV., La thologie byzantine et sa tradition. II: XIIIe-XIXe S., edd. C.G. CONTICELLO V.CONTICELLO, Turnhout 2002.

(whether in harmony to or reaction against them). By far, these approaches were mostoften collocated within the environs of Modern Western Europe.

Now that a dizzying working definition of Western theology has been estab-lished, it may be appropriate to indicate how the terms East and Byzantine willbe employed with respect to the present inquiry. The adjective is meant to describepersons who held an inalienable affection for the traditional Eastern Roman home-land (pi) and race (). Recent discoveries of many Latin sources for so-called Byzantine theologians make it difficult to demarcate the lines separating aByzantine and a Latin theologian7. The adjective, as used here, does not necessarilyexclude either sources or theologico-metaphysical principles (directly or indirectly)dependent on Byzantine sources extra muros. Here, Byzantine merely denotes thatany given author tenaciously held cultural, religious, and political values, which havebeen historically identified with movements proper to Byzantium. More restrictive-ly, one should think of Byzantines -in the theological sphere- as representatives ofintellectual movements within the Eastern Roman Empire after Constantines found-ing of his Polis8.

The influence of Latin theology on theologians universally and popularlydesignated as Byzantine

Upon the recent publication of a very large volume of scholarly contributions(i.e. La thologie byzantine)9 dedicated exclusively to Byzantine theologians, J.A.Demetracopoulos attempted to alert scholars to a methodological lacuna that shouldalreadly have been nagging Byzantine theologians for some time. La thologiebyzantine, apart from the books merits, illustrates a symptomatic expression ofscholars lamentable predilection for categories that are no longer operatively valid

189

A PROVISIONAL DEFINITION OF BYZANTINE THEOLOGY CONTRA PILLARS OF ORTHODOXY?

10 These are the following: Photius of Constantinople, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus.G. DEMACOPOULOS, Augustine and the Orthodox: The West in the East, in Orthodox Readingsof Augustine, edd. A. PAPANIKOLAOU - E. DEMACOPOULOS, Crestwood, NY 2008, pp. 11-40: 16. Theauthor does well to note that the motive for choosing these three authors was due to their poten-tial to represent a class of theologians that were neither influenced nor reconcilable to Westernapproaches and methods of theology. Alas, like their contemporaries and many of their predeces-sors, theyve proved to be a massive disappointment for the Byzantine purist.

11 It is not my intention to thoroughly treat the personality and thought of Photius ofConstantinople. Sufficient for our purposes is his explicit reverence for the personality and allegedthought of Blessed Augustine. Additionally, Photius falls within the scope of my evaluation foralso employing dialectics and the syllogism to argue for his conclusions on the question of theFilioque in his Amphilochia (viz., questions on the Holy Spirit). The popularity of designatingPhotius, Palamas, and Eugenicus as the Three Pillars is attested to by: AA.VV., The Lives of thePillars of Orthodoxy: St. Photius the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Gregory Palamas,Archbishop of Thessalonica and Saint Mark Evgenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus, ed. & tr. HolyApostles Convent, Colorado 1990.


190

in Byzantine theology. Many Byzantine authors, like the brothers Cydones,Nicephorus Gregoras, and John Cyparissiotis are found wanting. Instead, they cedetheir rightful places to theologians of less merit and less historical import. Upon whatcriterion did the editors make such an exclusion of these aforesaid theologians fromthe pale of Byzantine theologians?

Furthermore, since the end of the 20th century, discoveries have shown that twoof the three designated Pillars of Orthodoxy10 were not only respectful of LatinFathers and theologians, but were textually dependent on them for their own positivereflections and production within the realm of theology. This should cause no smalldifficulty in maintaining a pass division between theologians of a pure Byzantinetheology vs. an adulterated latinophrn theology (at least after the 14th century) inByzantium. The initial cost of this deficient compartmentalization of theologicaltraditions may only exclude authors like Demetrius/Prochorus Cydones andAcindynus (not to mention the likes of Gennadius Scholarius) from the pale ofByzantine theology. However, not enough scholars are yet speaking about the addi-tional cost of such a division (were they consistent in applying said categories),which results in the exclusion of modern Pillars of Orthodoxy from their own tra-dition11.

Mark Eugenicus and authentic Byzantine theology

Since the early 20th century, Mark Eugenicus authentic works (as the archetypalenemy of the Roman Church) were discovered to utilize dialectical reasoning and St.

12 E.g., MARK EUGENICUS, pi , in Die Mystik des Nikolaus Cabasilas vom Leben inChristo, ed. W. GASS, Greifswald, 1849 (Leipzig 18992), pp. 217-232; ID., Marci EugeniciMetropolitae Ephesi opera anti-unionistica, ed. L. PETIT (Patrologia Orientalis 17), Paris 1923,pp. 307-491. This has been photographically reproduced in: ID., Marci Eugenici MetropolitaeEphesi opera anti-unionistica, ed. L. PETIT (Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores10.a), Roma 1977.

13 Ibid., pp. 89-93 (Capita syllogistica, para. 27, ll. 23-36 para. 31, ll. 2-7). Though Mark (sim-ilar to Duns Scotus) often refers to Aristotle ex convenientia, nonetheless, he makes a point toexplicitly agree with the Stagyrite by name within his works.

14 The best reference for comparing Duns Scotus arguments to Marks can be found in: R.CROSS, Duns Scotus on God, Burlington, VT 2005, pp. 203-222.

15 DEMACOPOULOS, Augustine and the Orthodox, p. 16. N.B., For Marks source forAugustines De Trinitate, see Maximus Planoudes (13th century) translation: pi pi, pi , 1-2, edd.. pipi -. - G. Rigotti, Athens 1995. Though Marksuse of the Soliloquies is due to its association with the name and authority ofAugustine, Eugenicuswas actually citing Ps.-Augustine as translated by Demetrius Cydones. See PS.-AUGUSTINUS, Soliloquia ( pi pi ), ed. A. Kltsiou-Nikta (Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi - PhilosophiByzantini 11), Athens 2005. For Marks reception of this pseudo-Augustinian writing see J.A.DEMETRACOPOULOS, The Sitz im Leben of Demetrius CydonesTranslation of pseudo-AugustinesSoliloquia. Remarks on a Recent Edition, Quaestio 6 (2006) 191-258, at 233-236. For Markssource of Augustines epistles, see PROCHOROS KYDONES, Prochoros Kydones. bersetzung vonacht Briefen des Hl. Augustinus, ed. Herbert Hunger (Wiener Studien 9), Wien 1984.


191

Augustine in the realization of Marks theological projects12. For example, in hisSyllogistic Chapters against the Latins, any rigidly prejudiced ideology of Easternand Western theologies melts away, whether with respect to method or to sources.Mark expends considerable effort explicitly citing Aristotelian metaphysical princi-ples to justify the production of the Son and Holy Spirit from a single principle (viz.,)13. His explanation (similar to that of Scotus) finds its point of departure in iso-lating the formal or mental significance of the terms generation and proces-sion14. As Mark sees it, these two terms signify two different modes of emanationfrom an immaterial divine object. These modes are traced back, ultimately, to prop-erties (not relations that presuppose such properties) that are not mentally/formallythe same with respect to each other. As such, they are sufficiently irreducible to oneanother so as to justify the emanation of the Holy Spirit from the Father without anydirect cooperation from the person of the Son.

In the very same work Mark appeals to the authority of Augustines De Trinitate,Soliloquies and select epistles15. If an ideological theologian were to suppose a pri-ori that Mark Eugenicus embodies the Orthodox theologian par excellence, then thesame scholar would be at a loss to justify the popular, modern (and thoroughlyanachronistic) categorization of dialectics, Augustinian authority, and metaphysics as

16 The scholasticism with a small s is meant to indicate only his affinity for dialectics in rela-tion to accomplishing a patristic synthesis within theology. Obviously, this category of scholasti-cism can be found in figures like Leontius of Byzantium, John Damascene, and a significant num-ber of Renaissance Byzantine theologians.

17 Most recently, Marks scholasticism has been explored by M. PLESTED, Orthodox Readings ofAquinas, Oxford 2012, pp. 124-127.

18 This should not be restricted to just ideological Orthodox writers, for it generally coincideswith some important scholarly studies by authors representing other traditions. See, for instance,G. PODSKALSKY, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz (ByzantinischesArchiv 15), Mnchen 1977.For a fair and nuanced look at Podskalskys conclusions on the relationship among dialectics, sys-tematization and Byzantine tradition, see M. TRIZIO, Byzantine Philosophy as a ContemporaryHistoriographical Project, in Recherches de Thologie et Philosophie Mdivales 74/1, 2007, pp.247-294. For an interesting description of Modern Greek patristic theologians, see N. RUSSELL,Modern Greek Theologians and the Greek Fathers, in Philosophy and Theology 18 (2007), pp. 77-92.

19 R. FLOGAUS, Theosis bei Palamas und Luther ein Beitrag zum kumenischen Gesprch(Forschungen zur systematischen und kumenischen Theologie 78), Gttingen 1997; J.A.DEMETRACOPOULOS, . pi , Athens 1997.


192

exclusively Western values for theological pursuits. Such presumptions definitive-ly exclude Mark Eugenicus from the fold of Byzantine theologians! In lieu of Marksscholasticism16 and Augustinianism17, an anti-Augustinian and anti-dialectical preju-dice even forces the ideologue to label him the Ephesine a latinophrn.Consequently, the ideologue should banish him to the dustbin of unread and unsungByzantine Scholastics. Ironically, perhaps due to Marks scholastic and metaphys-ical bent, the Ephesine has in fact been scandalously ignored in neo-Orthodox theol-ogy. Though Mark is just as apt to defend the pi as his Byzantinepredecessors, he sacriligeously breaks the inelastic mold constructed by modern the-ologians in their quest to establish Byzantine patristic theology as the only authen-tic way to theologize within the tradition of Byzantium18.

Gregory Palamas and his purely Eastern perspective

More recently, another iron-clad myth of the purely Byzantine theologian hasmelted away through a shocking set of discoveries proving the happy dialogue thatexisted between Eastern and Western theology and the positive influence ofAugustine on Byzantium during the so-called Palaiologian renaissance.

Near the end of last century, two scholars from diverse confessional backgroundsdiscovered Gregory Palamas liberal usage of Blessed Augustine of Hippos DeTrinitate within Palamas theological classic, The One Hundred Fifty Chapters19.

Christiaan Kappes

20 For a description of the various strategies used by scholars to dismiss or avoid Palamas(lim-ited) Augustinianism, see: R. FLOGAUS, Inspiration-Exploitation-Distortion: The Use of St.Augustine in the Hesychast Controversy, in Orthodox Readings of Augustine, edd. A.PAPANIKOLAOU - E. DEMACOPOULOS, Crestwood, NY 2008, pp. 63-80.

21 There is hope for discovering translations or oblique references to Scotus in Eugenicus due tohis joint study with Scholarius in 1437 under Emperor John VIII. Scholarius was familiar with theSubtle Doctor well before the arrival of the Greek contingent at Ferrara in 1438. See J.MONFASANI, The Pro-Latin Apologetics of the Greek migrs to Quattrocento Italy, inByzantine Theology and its Philosophical Background, ed. A. RIGO (Studies in Byzantine Historyand Civilization 4) Turnhout 2011, pp. 167-168.

22 In the formal sessions, the Greek contingent explicitly appealed to the authority of St.Bernards works for their Palamite position on the vision of the Blessed vis--vis the divineessence. See JOHN LEI, Tractatus Ioannis Lei O.P. De visione beata. Nunc primum in lucem edi-


193

Initial reaction to this discovery, at least on the part of ideological purists, attemptedto falsify each of the many instances of Palamas use of Augustine as mere interpo-lations postdating the period of Palamas composition. Once codological studieswere deemed unhelpful for such a narrative, some scholars moved to questionPalamas very authorship (Augustini causa) of this formerly uncontested work due totheir own a priori intellectual commitments20. Twenty years later, at least for some,it may be true that Palamas was an Augustinian (aliquomodo), yet it is still anunhappy subject of theological discussion. The reality is that an open-mindedPalamas simply does not serve to further certain theological agendas that are loatheto admit that the West made notable contributions to Palamas intellectual forma-tion and output. For if a Byzantine purist were to admit the sacrilegious activity ofrevered Byzantine authors freely employing Latin theology, it might blur the linesseparating the Roman Catholic and the Roman Orthodox Churches! Palamas (limit-ed) Augustinianism serves as a cause clbre for inaugurating a more ecumenicalattitude with respect to interconfessional theological dialogue. Conversely, oppo-nents of such dialogue often serve as marvelous illustrations of the power that a pri-ori reasoning plays in contingent matters like history and historical theology.

Gennadius Scholarius: the hand-picked successor of Mark Eugenicusand champion of Gregory Palamas

Mark Eugenicus affinities for Scotus Trinitarian argument, though Duns ismore developed (viz., subtle), have been briefly mentioned21. Although Eugenicusis not known to have explicitly cited the Franciscan, Mark was almost certainlyresponsible for publicly presenting the Greek position on the beatific vision atFerrara-Florence through explicit recourse to the works of Bernard of Clairvaux(1153) in the summer of 143822. The Greeks recourse to Bernard bears witness to

194


the seeds of Western theology germinating and bearing significant fruit in the East23.

tus. Introductione Notis Indicibus auctus (Studi e Testi 228), ed. M. Candal, Citt del Vaticano1963, pp. 83-84, 193. Etsi ex hiis satis non mediocriter, sed abunde quidem et copiose, queassumunt, se Greci probasse existiment, plus tamen ex nostris ea firmare constituunt. Conferuntse quidem ad beati Bernardi dogmata atque asserverationes, quas ex plerisque sermonibus itexcipiunt [] (De visione beata, I, cap. VI, ll. 4-7). Candal has shown that Leis compositionbegan as early as March of 1439 (see M. CANDAL, Introduction, in ibid., p. 25). He was utiliz-ing his knowledge of the Greek position from earlier public debates. Proinde agunt nostri, sicutceptum est, solemnioribus disputionibus; ego vero adversus eos de visione sanctorum, quos Grecideum videre negant (De visione beata, I, prol. cap. I, ll. 1-3). Gill has shown that the De novis-simis debates began on 4 June 1438. See J. GILL, The Council of Florence, Cambridge 1959, pp.118-120. The two designated Greek orators were Mark Eugenicus and Bessarion. Their disputeswere particularly with Torquemada. M. CANDAL, Introduction, in Apparatus super decretumFlorentinum unionis Graecorum (Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores, Series B.II.1),Roma 1942, p. XIX. On 16 July 1438, Mark must have made the point of emphasizing the natureof the Beatific vision is akin to seeing the light from Christ on Mt. Thabor. The Greek Acta excludeScholarius from the conversation before the emperor, since John VIII explicitly wished to hearprelates opinions on the matter. Before the Latins could respond, there was a delay through tar-diness of representatives from Basel and the plague in Ferrara. See Quae supersunt ActorumGraecorum Concilii Florentini 1, ed. J. GILL (Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores,Series B.V.1), Roma 1953, pp. 25-26. , pi pi pi , pi , , , pi . This does not appear to be a verbatim citation,yet it is closest to JOHN CANTACUZENUS, Cantacuzeni ad Paulum epistula quarta, edd. E.VOORDECKERS F. TINNEFELD (Corpus Christianorum Serie Graeca 16), Turhout 1987, pp.202-203. pi pi pipi pi [] pi pi , pipi pi (Epistle IV,c. 1, ll. 3-4; c. 2, ll. 1-32). Eugenicus reechoes this doctrine ad sententiam Palama in EUGENICUS, ..., pp. 227-228. He says: pi pipi , , , , , pi [...]; (Capita syllogistica, n. 42) Marks doctrine constitutes the exact point of debate at Florence.Candal also presents arguments for Marks leading (and nearly unique) input on the De novissimisamong the theologians. See CANDAL, Introduction, in Tractatus Ioannis Lei O.P. De visionebeata, p. 24. Leis composition anticipated future debates whereat the past ones had abruptlyleft off. I do not suppose Johns knowledge is from his presence at private sessions among the sixLatin and Greek theologians, since there is no evidence that John Lei was among that select group.See op. cit., pp. 4-5. Instead, if Leis information is from the private sessions, it is almost certain-ly due to John de Torquemada with whom Lei must have been a collaborator. For Torquemadasnon-membership among the groups of six theologians on De novissimis, see ID., Introduction,in Apparatus, p. XVII.

23 The use of Bernard by The Greeks in the public sessions is explicitly attested to in LEI,Tractatus Ioannis Lei O.P. De visione beata, p. 72. This likely accounts for the Abbot of

Christiaan Kappes

Citeauxs own reliance on Bernard as an authority coram Graecis at Ferrara in November of 1438.See ANDREAS DE SANCTACROCE, Acta Latina Concilii Florentini, ed. G. Hofmann (ConciliumFlorentinum Documenta et Scriptores.Series B.VI), Roma 1955, p. 91. It is unlikely that Bessarionspearheaded the defense of Palamas. Candal argues for Bessarions rejection or wavering onPalamism based on his correspondence with Andrew of Rhodes. See ed. M. CANDAL, AndreaeRhodiensis, O.P., inedita ad Bessarion epistula (de divina essentia et operatione), in OrientaliaChristiana Periodica 4 (1938) 344-371. Yet again, errors have been discovered in Candals eval-uation. See A. DE HALLEUX, Bessarion et le palamisme au concile de Florence, in Irnikon 62(1989) 307-332. Recently, John Monfasani has argued Bessarions Palamism at the beginning ofthe Council, though one would look in vain in Bessarions library for Palamite works. See J.MONFASANI, Bessarion Scholasticus: A Study of Cardinal Bessarions Latin Library, Turnhout2011, pp. 2, 30. Monfasani also affirmsAntonio Rigos argument for Bessarions Palamism, whichwas only abandoned after Bessarions adoption of the Filioque. This would have eased Bessarionsconscience when signing the Decree of Union (if Torquemadas Apparatus correctly interpretsFlorence as implying a condemnation of Palamism). Still, the dissatisfaction with the compromisebetween Palamites and Latins (viz., Franciscans and humanists) at the Council of Florence is par-tim the cause for Torquemadas Apparatus to the Council of Florence in the first place (perhapspostdated to 1441; cf., infra, Apparatus, 137, ll. 17-19). After the Council concluded (quoadGraecos) on 6 July 1439, theologians of the rebellious Council of Basel began to criticizeFlorences formulae. Though Thomists were unable to secure Palamites condemnation at theCouncil of Florence itself, Torquemadas commentary supplied for that lacuna. In addition toexcluding Bonaventuro-Scotistic hermeneutics, Juan targets the Palamites specifically (cf. M.CANDAL, Introduction, in Apparatus super decretum Florentinum unionis Graecorum(Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores. Series B.II.1), Roma 1942, pp. L-LI). Juanwrites: Hic sequitur declaratio et diffinitio sexti articuli controversiae Grecorum et Latinorumcirca visionem, quam sanctorum anime, a corporibus absolute, habent de deo ante diem iudicii[] Super qua controversia, matura et diligenti habita discussione, tandem operante deo, est talisdiffinitio in summa, duas complectens partes: primo, quod anime iustorum de quibus in precedentiarticulo habitum est, statim cum a corporibus absolvuntur, vident clare et sicuti est deum verumtrinum et unum. Secundo, quod quidam perfectius aliis vident pro suorum meritorum diversitate[] (Apparatus, 101, ll. 3-5)Ipsum Deum trinum et unum.Contra errorem dicentium beatitudinem, gloriam, sive felicitatemultimam hominum non consistere in visione ipsius dei, sed alicuius alterius entitatis, que ab ipsadivinitatis essentia realiter sit distincta, quam Greci energiam, sive actum, sive fulgorem vocant(Apparatus, 102, ll. 30-34). See IOANNES DE TORQUEMADA, Apparatus (cf. supra), p. 86.

24 N.B., all references to OCGS can be found in: GENNADIUS-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS, OeuvresCompltes de Georges Scholarios, I-VIII, edd. L. Petit - X. Sidrids - M. Jugie, Paris 1928-1935.Scholarius may have translated portions of Bonaventure in his study sessions before the Council.With minor differences, Gennadius repeats Bonaventures doctrine in Greek, after his return fromFlorence (1445), thus: pi pi , , pi pi ,

The Byzantine theologians also had likely access to Bonaventure. This was probablythanks to the research in John VIIIs preparatory commission (1437) before theCouncil of Florence by the future Patriarch of Constantinople after the ,George-Gennadius Scholarius (along with his partner Mark Eugenicus)24.

195


, , pi (OCGS VI, c. 94;p. 282, ll. 22-26). The Latin source for such disjunctive transcendentals is as follows: Item, siest ens ab alio, est ens non ab alio [] Item, si est ens respectivum, est ens absolutum [] Itemsi est ens diminutum seu secundum sive secundum quid [] Item si est ens propter aliud, est enspropter se ipsum [] Item, si est ens per participationem, est ens per essentiam [] (De myste-rio Trinitatis Q. 1, a. 1). See also BONAVENTURE OF BAGNOREGIO, Quaestiones disputatae de mys-terio Trinitatis, in Doctoris Seraphici S. Bonaventurae Opera Omnia 5, Quarrachi 1891, pp. 46-47. Given these obvious affinities, the only other possible source for these disjunctive transcen-dentals seems to be Richard of Middleton, since Scholarios claims to know this Franciscan. Forthe identification of Richard, see C. TURNER, The Career of George-Gennadius Scholarius, inByzantion 39 (1969-1970) 420-455: 427. For Richards close link with Bonaventure on questionslike created-uncreated disjunctives, see R. CROSS, Richard of Middleton, in A Companion toPhilosophy in the Middle Ages, edd. J. GARCIA T. NOONE, Oxford 2003, pp. 573-578. As ofyet, I have found no citations from Francis Mayron that correspond to these disjunctive transcen-dentals. Richard is the next most likely source.

25 This occurred at the end of Marks earthly sojourn. See J. GILL, The Year of the Death of MarkEugenicus, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 52 (1952) 23-31.

26 I.e. post 1445. For Scholariusmore unionist tendencies early on, see GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS,Orationes Georgii Scholarii in Concilio Florentino habitae ad fidem manuscriptorum edidit addi-ta versione latina, ed. J. GILL (Concilium Florentinum. Documenta et Scriptores, Series B.VIII.1),Rome 1964.

27 See C. KAPPES, Gennadius Scholarius and John Duns Scotus: Scotism as Palamismus infieri, in Rivista Nicolaus 40 (2013) forthcoming.

28 For all citations from Scholarius (abbreviated OCGS), see Oeuvres Compltes de GeorgesScholarios, edd. L. PETIT - X. SIDERIDES - M. JUGIE, Paris 1928-1935. For example,Scholarius uses Hervaeus doctrine of second intentions. SCHOLARIUS, Commentary on AquinasDe ente et essentia, in OCGS 6, p. 282, ll. 6-7; ID., Against the Partisans of Acindynus: pro-pos a passage of Theodore Graptos, in OCGS 3, p. 212, ll. 25-26; ID., On the Distinction betweenthe Essence and Its Operations, in OCGS 3, p. 230, ll. 9-10.


196

Given the fact that Eugenicus personally designated Scholarius his successor andchampion against the Union of Florence and the Filioque, one would expect thatScholarius faithfully represented the Orthodox mindset25. If the pi is interpreted to mean that Scholarius defended the traditional dogmas opposed to theLatin Filioque, azymes, Purgatory, etc.26, then Scholarius is thoroughly Orthodox. If,however, we were to investigate the method and sources that lead Scholarius to hisOrthodox conclusions, we might be surprised to encounter the Scotist (quoad divinaattributa), Hervaeus Natalis, as a principal in defense of the holy hesy-chast, Gregory Palamas27.

Not only Thomism, but even the School of St. Francis (viz., Bonaventure andScotus) had taken root in the East. Scholarius latently employed Franciscanismagainst Barlaamites and Acindynists to the glory of Orthodoxy28! What is more,Scholarius intermittently praised Scotus and his pious disciples as being moreOrthodox and taking the correct side of the debate between Thomists and

Palamites29. However, it should not be thought that Scholarius is a mere anomaly inthe otherwise anti-Scholastic Byzantine tradition. Scholarius himself was merelyenlarging on his own masters methods, i.e. Macarius Makrs30. Macarius was explic-itly honored by both Mark Eugenicus and Joseph Bryennius for his piety andOrthodoxy31. Yet, all the while, he was composing important works in defense ofOrthodoxy (vis--vis Islam) by synthesizing Aquinas Summa contra Gentiles withthe Greek patristic tradition. It was unfortunate that Macarius died before he was ableto represent Byzantine interests at the Council of Florence (which he had helped tonegotiate). Still, his intimate friend, Mark Eugenicus, carried on a theological pro-gram of synthesizing Latin writers with the Byzantine tradition through availableGreek translations. Scholarius imitated the examples of his two teachers, with theadditional advantage of having access to both Latin originals and Greek translationsof Western authors32. This allowed Scholarius to construct an impressive theologicalsynthesis. In imitation of his teachers syntheses, Scholarius own marriage ofThomism and Scotism in the service of Orthodoxy makes him, perhaps, the greatestharbinger of ecumenical theology to date (among theologians of either East or West).Still, Scholarius may safely be thought of as the natural child of the consummatedmarriage between Eastern and Western approaches to basic theological questions,which was already partially accomplished by his predecessors.

197


29 Scholarius explicitly recognizes the theological merits of Scotism and Franciscan theologyvis--vis Orthodoxy. Later, he is clearly troubled and openly wondered about the consequences ofAquinas philosophy of divine names-attributes in SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente etessentia, in OCGS 6, pp. 179-180, 285.

30 A. ARGYRIOU, Macaire Makrs. Sa vie et son oeuvre littraire, in A. ARGYRIOU, MacaireMakrs et la polmique contre lIslam (Studi e Testi 314), Citt del Vaticano 1986, pp. 92-93.

31 Mario Pilavakis has outlined the personal relationship between Eugenicus and Makrs, lead-ing to the formers encomium of Makrs as a champion of orthodoxy. See M. PILAVAKIS,Introduction. The Life of Markos, in M. PILAVAKIS, Mark Eugenikoss First Antirrhetic againstManuel Calecass Essence and Energy, London 1987 (unpublished doctoral dissertation), p. 30.For the intimate relationship between Makrs and Bryennius, see CH. DENDRINOS, Co-operationand friendship among Byzantine scholars in the circle of Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (1391-1425) as reflected in their autograph manuscripts, in Charalambos Dendrinos: Royal Holloway,University of London 2007: http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/greek/grammarofmedievalgreek/unlock-ing/Dendrinos.pdf (access 04-11-2013).

32 The discoveries of Marks Augustinianism in the 20th century do not yet tell the whole story.Quite recently, it was discovered that the Ephesine made wholesale incorporation of Thomistictexts. This sealed Eugenicus fate as a latinophrn theologian (according to the modern defini-tion), through his surprising reliance on and agreement with his archenemy, Thomas Aquinas. SeeJ.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Palamas Transformed: Palamite Interpretations of the Distinctionbetween Gods Essence and Energies in Late Byzantium, in Greeks, Latins, and IntellectualHistory 1204-1500, edd. M. HINTERBERGER - C. SCHABEL (Recherches de Thologie et PhilosophieMdivales. Bibliotheca 11), Paris 2011, pp. 340-368. These discoveries provide a supportivebackdrop for confirming Eugenicus as the theologian who argued ad mentem Bernardi at Ferrara.

The Council of Florence at the service of both theological pluralismand theological intolerance

The Council of Florence serves as a modern lightning rod for the religious senti-ments of any informed Eastern Christian. For the Byzantine Catholic it can be thesource of pride for one and simultaneous regret for another. For the EasternOrthodox Christian, it rarely serves as more than an occasion for negative sentimentflowing from the reductio of the Greek Church. Of course, all of these responses areunderstandable in light of each ones personal experience and values within the the-ological arena.

Perhaps, among historians, one fact has received less attention than it is due.Despite the Councils ultimate failure, it was the last great opportunity for a formalencounter between Eastern and Western theology. Both its preparation and debatesserved to interest both sides of the aula magna in the sources and theological methodof their interlocutors.

Unfortunately, the most celebrated figures in the Florentine debate tend to be theleast ecumenical and, sad to say, the most fanatical. For example, after the Councilhad successfully made important concessions to Palamism on the subject of theBeatific vision and the divine attributes, John Torquemadas (i.e. a Dominicans)fanatical Thomism resulted in an official interpretive apparatus33 being appendedto the Council documents that effectively neutralized any hermeneutic that was notad mentem Thomae34. Stemming from the significant criticism of the Florentinedecrees by the Conciliarists (at Basel), Pope Eugenius deemed it appropriate to takea harder line in the application and interpretation of the Council decrees than the con-ciliatory spirit by which he had just achieved agreements between the majority of the

198


33 It should be remembered that the Council of Basel was an officially sanctioned PapalEcumenical Council at its onset. Fathers who refused its transfer to Ferrara were deemed rebel-lious. Still, the Fathers of Basel (and, consequently, of Florence) explicitly recognized the author-ity of Bonaventure of Bagnoregio. The authority attributed to Bonaventure was due to his role asa Father at the Second Council of Lyons. See E. PUSEY, Praefatio, in Tractatus de veritateConceptionis B. V. Mariae pro facienda coram Patribus Concilii Basileae anno Domini 1437mense julio, London 1869, p. XVII. For Bonaventures modest role in that Council, see D.GEANAKOPLOS, Bonaventure, the Two Mendicant Orders and the Greeks at the Council of Lyons(1274), in The Orthodox Church and the West, Oxford 1976, pp. 183-211. After the transfer ofthe Council to Ferrara, Bonaventures authority was again explicitly invoked at least three timesby the Franciscan orator, bishop Ludovicus (Aloysius) Foroliviensis. See ANDREAS, Acta Latina,pp. 58, 60. For the third citation, see the Greek Acta, infra, n. 44.

34 Though from Spain (among whose Thomists many were pro-Marian), he was a virulentopponent of the Immaculate Conception (Thomae gratia). He zealously sought to have theFranciscans condemned as heretics for their defense of this doctrine at the Council of Basel. SeePUSEY, Praefatio, in Tractatus de veritate Conceptionis, pp. XVII-XVIII.

35 CANDAL, Introduction, in Apparatus, p. XXVI.36 TORQUEMADA, Apparatus, p. 114. Given the references to later documentation of Eugenius

IV in the Apparatus, the final published product must be dated to 1441. See J. GILL, Introductio,in Quae supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini 1 (Concilium Florentinum. Documentaet Scriptores, Series B.V.1), Rome 1953, p. LXXXVII.

37 Torquemadas recrimination contains the notable line (supra, n. 23): [A]gainst the error ofthe [Greeks] saying that beatitude, glory or final happiness of men, doesnt consist in the vision ofGod Himself, but consists of some other entity, which is really distinct from the very essence of thedivinity, which the Greeks call energy (viz., activity) or brightness (Apparatus, 102, ll. 30-34).Torquemada repeats John Leis transliteration of energia, but renders Johns splendor and claritasas fulgor. Cfr. LEI, Tractatus Ioannis Lei O.P. De visione beata, p. 202 (viz., De visionebeata, VI, cap. 11, ll. 14-20).

38 GILL, The Council of Florence, p. 141.39 This was in spite of considerable pressure put on Eugenius by Dominicans and Thomist the-

ologians. At the end of the Council, Eugenius acceded to their request to formally introduce a dis-cussion on Palamism. The Greeks declined and Eugenius dropped the matter. See op. cit., p. 267.The Benedictine, Andrew Escobar, in his De graecis errantibus, pleaded: O most blessed FatherEugenius [] He then listed the Greek errors, accusing them of the heresy of an essentialdistinction between attributes and essence in the Godhead. He concludes: ergo falsa est conclu-sio, et errores, aliquorum Graecorum, que dicit quod attributa in divinis differunt essentialiter abessencia divina (De graecis errantibus 94, ll. 3-4). See ANDREAS ESCOBAR, De graecis erran-tibus, ed. M. CANDAL (Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores. Series B.IV.1), Rome1952, p. 83. In addition to Torquemada, Leis prologue explicitly petitioned the Pope to condemnthe Palamites for heresy. See LEI, Tractatus Ioannis Lei O.P. De visione beata, pp. 69-70.

Greek and Latin contingents35. Sometime after 6 July 1439, the day celebrating theclose of the Council, Torquemada compiled a series of interpretative formulae underthe aegis of Pope Eugenius (published 1441)36. They included (inter alia) the con-demnation of Palamite metaphysics and several theological interpretations thatoffended both Franciscan and Palamite theological tenets (let alone the various bene-placita of anti-Scholastic humanist theologians present at the Council)37.

The Greek acknowledgment (to some degree) of theological pluralism within theLatin church had led the Greek contingent of John VIIIs theological commission tostudy the works of Augustine and Duns Scotus in 1437. This allowed both Scholariusand Mark Eugenicus initially to lay aside their earlier impressions that the Latinapproach to theology was monolithic. On the Latin side of the preparations, PopeEugenius had entrusted the Franciscans with the question of the essence and energiesin the godhead, as well as papal primacy (both in November of 1437)38. He also tookpersonal pains to ensure the presence of humanist theologians as important agents inthe Conciliar discussions. The result of this division of labor between theologiansfrom diverse streams was a far more ecumenical approach to theological questionsthan any orthodox Thomist approach could have tolerated. As it turns out, theFranciscan study of Palamism led to it being dropped as an official issue in theFlorentine debates39, while the Franciscan approach to Papal primacy may have led

199


to a mitigating clause recognizing all the rights and privileges of the Eastern Church,allaying the fears of the Greek contingent40. Perhaps these two developments can beattributed to John Capistrans (or other Franciscans) works, which reveal an open-ness to theological pluralism41. In fact, they made ready use of Blessed Thomasalong side their beloved doctors Alexander Hales, Richard of Middleton,Bonaventure and Scotus. Yet, these dangerous concessions were all but nullified byJohn Torquemada in his subsequent Apparatus, which seemed at every turn impervi-ous to approaches in theology that were outside of the narrow scope of his orthodoxThomism presently in fashion within the Dominican order42. Whatever compromisehad been reached in Florence was virtually irradicated by the unique composition ofa singular author, whose training naturally belittled theological pluralism extra murosSancti Thomae.

The point here is not to demonize Torquemada, since it is likely that he was sin-cere and he certainly was a brilliant theologian in his own right. However, given thefact that even his magister, divus Thomas, proved to be a material heretic (intermuros) on theological questions like the Immaculate Conception and sacramentalconfession of mortal sins to laymen43, it is a fortiori dangerous to approach theolog-

200


40 GILL, The Council of Florence, p. 190. This is speculative. However, the addition protectingthe Orientals rights and privileges (grosso modo) was added to the formula of union in the sac-risty of the Franciscan Church. This addendum cannot be attributed to the orators responsible forrepresenting the Latin position during sessions on the De primatu Papae.

41 See JOHN CAPISTRAN, De Papae et Concilii et Ecclesiae auctoritate, Venice 1580, ff. 1-135.Though the composition is post-Florentine (quoad Graecos, viz., post November 1439), Capistranmakes only slight reference to Oriental sources for papal claims. Interestingly, he also relies heav-ily on Blessed Thomas [Aquinas]. Another example can be found in the Cardinal Archbishop ofTours (fl. 1447), who was important for writing a response in defense of Eugenius IV against thePragmatic Sanction of Bourges by Charles VII of France (7 July 1438). See ELIAS DEBOURDEILLES, Contra pragmaticam Gallorum sanctionem, Romae ante 1486 (incunabulum).Therein, Alexander Hales plays an important authoritative role (cf. Ibid., p. a4r, c2r) He also wrotea critique of the process against Joan of Arc. See ELIAS DE BOURDEILLES, Super processu et sen-tentia contra dictam Johannam prolata, in Procs en nullit de la condamnation de Jeanne dArc2, ed. P. Duparc, Paris 1979, pp. 40-156. In the former, I have located four references to blessedThomas. See ELIAS, Contra pragmaticam Gallorum sanctionem, ff. b5, c8 (right), and the twopages preceding c10. Elias recognized Duns Sentences commentary as a weighty authority inELIAS, Super processu et sententia, pp. 50, 60.

42 This judgment is not an attempt to criticize Torquemadas method as a Dominican who under-standably takes a monolithic Thomistic approach to theological questions (not a vice in itself), butit intends to call into question the overall value of a work that seems immune to influence fromeither Greek or non-Thomist sources and writers to whom Torquemada would have been recentlyexposed during the Council. The index fontium of the Apparatus tells the story of someone whohad predetermined the sources that constitute Christian tradition, in spite of the goldmine of writ-ers and diversity of works made available in the Rennaissance and at Ferrara-Florence.

43 Whereas the question of the Immaculate Conception is notorious (cf. S.Th. IIIa, q. 27, aa. 1-2), Thomas position on laymen hearing sacramental confession in loco episcopi presbyterique is

ical questions from one perspective, and even more dangerous to approach themfrom the perspective of one man (whether it be with respect to Aquinas forTorquemada, or Torquemada for Florence: Time hominem unius libri!). Undoubtedly,Torquemada had much to offer to the Council Fathers for reflection. However, I dis-pute any claim that Torquemada ideally constitutes the locus of reflection for Eastand West on subjects ranging from Gods essence to the efficacy of prayers for thedead.

While it may be true that the Filioque debate at Florence was almost entirely aThomist-Greek battle of wills44, nonetheless, other areas of discussion actually result-ed in significant concessions made to Greek sensibilities and allowed them to main-tain all their theological values intact. Perhaps the fault in Florence did not lay ineither the preparation or debates, rather it lay in the general disinterest to include allparties and individuals theological traditions into the debate setting. Suchwise, anyagreement would have necessitated significant concessions on all sides and withinboth camps. Instead, the mode of argumentation and presentation of the Latin andGreek side was conspicuously narrowed to allow only a half dozen representativecharacters on each side to speak for the entirety of pluralistic traditions that could stillbe found alive and breathing within the spheres of influence of both Churches. Thissuggested formula for debate and discussion does not guarantee that something likethe Council of Florence would have ended with an agreement and an enduring union.Had there been a total freedom of discussion by all present, the Greeks would nothave been likely to return home with the impression that Aquinas was the uniqueexpositor of Roman dogmas, neither would the Latins have gone home with theimpression that Greeks did not appreciate the insights and genius of ThomasAquinas. Instead, each side returned home with only recollections of a half-dozen

201


less so. Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod sicut Baptismus est sacramentum necessi-tatis, ita et poenitentia. Baptismus autem, qui est sacramentum necessitatis, habet duplicem min-istrum: unum cui ex officio baptizare incumbit, scilicet sacerdotem; alium cui ratione necessitatisdispensatio Baptismi committitur. Et ita etiam minister poenitentiae, cui confessio est facienda exofficio, est sacerdos; sed in necessitate etiam laicus vicem sacerdotis supplet, ut ei confessio fieripossit. (Scriptum super Sententias, lib. 4, d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, qc. 2, corpus) Contrast his teachingwith: CONCILIUM TRIDENTINUM, Teaching concerning the most holy sacraments of penance andlast anointing, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 2, ed. & tr. N. Tanner, Georgetown 1990,pp. 702-703. Circa ministrum autem huius sacramenti declarat sancta synodus, falsas esse et averitate evangelii penitus alienas doctrinas omnes, quae ad alios quosvis homines praeter episco-pos et sacerdotes clavium ministerium perniciose extendunt, putantes verba illa Domini [...](Conc. Trent., Sess. 14, Cap. 6.23-26) Later, the Council attaches anathema to this Thomistic doc-trine.

44 The notable exception being Aloysius Foroliviensis, OFM, who attempted to introduceBonaventure (though not Scotus) into the discussion. See Quae supersunt Actorum GraecorumConcilii Florentini 1, 161-171. The Greek version of his speech contains three explicit referencesto Bonaventure and his works. N.B., he is incorrectly called bishop John in the Greek Acta.

larger than life figures who were often rigid in their opinions about what did and did-nt constitute the only orthodox approach to one valid theology for the entireChristian Church.

Conclusions: towards a definition of Byzantine theology

Now that two universally recognized Byzantine and Orthodox theologiansand their appreciation for Latin Fathers has been taken into account, and now thattheir followers (viz., Macarius Makrs and Gennadius Scholarius) have been foundto imitate their willingness to synthesize Scholasticism into their theological projects,a provisional answer to the question of what constitutes Byzantine theology is pos-sible.

After reflecting on the figures mentioned, Byzantine theology might be said to bean open system of Christian religious thought, which is ever conscious of its Greekpatristic heritage. This consciousness expresses itself through constant and explicitreference to Greek Fathers, and ecclesiastical writers approved by them, as the prin-cipal sources of theological reflection (after Scripture and Liturgy) and as the ulti-mate hermeneutic authorities on Sacred Scripture. Furthermore, this consciousnessof the patristic tradition simultaneously allows for the latent employment, or eventoleration, of insights from unapproved Greek writers, insofar as they are reconcil-able with the worldviews that are espoused by any approved Greek Fathers. This con-sciousness, too, may tolerate and incorporate other theological writers and traditionsin order to enhance or defend the teaching of these approved Fathers, who themselvesfind their validation in the lived Byzantine liturgical tradition and, at times, are alsoaffirmed by Ecumenical Councils. In short, Byzantine theology is an open system ofthought capable of incorporating all human wisdom45 that can be made subservient toHoly Writ as interpreted in accord with and within the limits of the pi of approved Fathers of the living Byzantine liturgical tradition.

202


45 N.B., this should be taken to mean all e limine (viz., ) philosophies and theologies.

finally, a definition of byzantine and orthodox theology (nicolaus 40.1 2013)

Documents