Finally, a definition of Byzantine and Orthodox theology (NICOLAUS 40.1 2013)

CHRISTIAAN W. KAPPES

A PROVISIONAL DEFINITION OF BYZANTINE THEOLOGY CONTRA “PILLARS OF ORTHODOXY”?

Introduction: the reception of “Western theology” into the “Byzantine” tradition during the Renaissance Before beginning any serious discussion of the influence of Latin theologians and Latin theology on the “East”, it is only proper to demarcate the lines between “East” and “West” as they will be employed within the context of this present inquiry. Old myths and prejudices continue to cloud the modern imagination with respect to the content of these rather artificial categories. Real categories are timeless precisely because of their never-changing value. For instance, mathematical truths with respect to numerical values are ever fresh and a trans-cultural source of reflection precisely because they retain a constant application throughout human history. Anyone who is rational can grasp the value of “2 of ‘x’, ‘y’, or ‘z’”. The categories of “East” and “West” are quite different since they hopelessly attempt to divide entire populations, cultures, schools of thought, and philosophies, which were in constant interaction with one another1. Ordinarily, when someone speaks of “Latin theology”, such a person is speaking of theological trends that both/either have their origin and/or strongest representation within a geographical and cultural milieu that roughly corresponds to modern Western Europe2. Obviously, this description already betrays itself as anachronistic. However, it is often the convenience of the category (along with age-old prejudice)

For our period of interest, the following may be consulted with profit: J. MONFASANI, Greeks and Latins in Renaissance Italy. Studies on Humanism and Philosophy in the 15th Century, Burlington 2004; ID., «The Pro-Latin Apologetics of the Greek Émigrés to Quattrocento Italy», in Byzantine Theology and its Philsophical Background, ed. A. RIGO (Studies in Byzantine History and 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 intellectual tenets of various medieval authors. Cfr. A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, Blackwell Publishing, edd. J. GARCIA – T. NOONE, Oxford 2003. 1

187


that allows inaccurate stereotypes to prevail over more appropriate divisions of theological and philosophical movements. One example in “Western theology” will suffice on this score. Since the advent of the neo-Thomist movement of the late 19th century, “Western theology” tended to be identified (by both Catholics and Protestants) with post 15th century Thomism3. Of course, this simplification gradually resulted in the marginalization of the important historical role that other movements (viz., Scotism, Ockhamism, humanism, etc.) played until the time of the Reformation and beyond4. Though Schoolmen may have espoused some common values (viz., dialectics, the overarching authority of Augustine and Ps.-Denys, etc.)5, still movements like Thomism and Scotism were very far apart (quoad beneplacita). Whether one speaks of their points de départ (philosophically) or their conclusions, they represent two distinctly different ways of doing theology. Thus, the reader must keep in mind that when he reads about “Latin” or “Western” theology of the 14th-15th centuries, the present author is referring to a pluralist theological tradition heavily influenced (whether positively or negatively) by the primogenitors of Scholasticism, namely: Peter Abelard (†1142), Peter Lombard (†1160), and Alexander of Hales (†1245). These men represent common sources and trends in theology that led to the more rigid schools of Thomism and Franciscanism in later centuries. Yet, for the purposes of the present investigation, it is necessary to speak even more restrictively about “Latin” theology in Renaissance Italy during the 14th-15th centuries. In order to do so, it is essential to mention the equally powerful and burgeoning humanistic movements within the environs of Italy. Humanist scholars, in the mold of Ambrogio Traversari, exemplify a theological trend (viz., studia humanitatis) much more influential and popular than many Scholastic movements, though the latter dominated many of the university theological faculties on the Italian peninsula during the Renaissance6. In short, the “West” references a plurality of approaches to theology that are heavily indebted to the sources of 13th century Schoolmen

3 For the dismal state of Thomism before its revival in the 19th century, see J. WEISHEIPL, «The Revival of Thomism. An Historical Survey», in New Themes in Christian Philosophy, South Bend 1968, pp. 164-168. 4 For example, Scotism was a large school rivalling Thomism in both adherents and notable masters. See M. HOENEN, «Scotus and the Scotist School. The Tradition of Scotist Thought in the Medieval 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 théologie catholique 14b, Paris 1941, col. 1691-1736. 6 An excellent summary of Traversari’s contribution to humanist theology (and the Council of Florence) can be found in: C. STINGER, Humanism and the Church Fathers. Ambrogio Traversari (1386-1439), Albany, NY 1977.

188


(whether in harmony to or reaction against them). By far, these approaches were most often collocated within the environs of Modern Western Europe. Now that a dizzying working definition of “Western theology” has been established, it may be appropriate to indicate how the terms “East” and “Byzantine” will be employed with respect to the present inquiry. The adjective is meant to describe persons who held an inalienable affection for the traditional Eastern Roman homeland (πατρίς) and race (γένος). Recent discoveries of many Latin sources for socalled Byzantine theologians make it difficult to demarcate the lines separating a Byzantine and a Latin theologian7. The adjective, as used here, does not necessarily exclude either sources or theologico-metaphysical principles (directly or indirectly) dependent on Byzantine sources extra muros. Here, “Byzantine” merely denotes that any given author tenaciously held cultural, religious, and political values, which have been historically identified with movements proper to Byzantium. More restrictively, one should think of Byzantines -in the theological sphere- as representatives of intellectual movements within the Eastern Roman Empire after Constantine’s founding of his Polis8. The influence of Latin theology on theologians universally and popularly designated as “Byzantine” Upon the recent publication of a very large volume of scholarly contributions (i.e. La théologie byzantine)9 dedicated exclusively to “Byzantine” theologians, J.A. Demetracopoulos attempted to alert scholars to a methodological lacuna that should alreadly have been nagging Byzantine theologians for some time. La théologie byzantine, apart from the book’s merits, illustrates a symptomatic expression of scholars’ lamentable predilection for categories that are no longer operatively valid

J.A. Demetracopoulos has highlighted this glaring petitio principii. One must discover a “unitary principle” for what makes ‘Byzantine Theology’ “Byzantine”. Only after delineating such a principle can one presume to select certain authors that fall within the school of “Byzantine theology” to the exclusion of others. See J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Échos d’Orient – Résonances d’Ouest. In Respect of: C.G. Conticello – V. Conticello, eds., «La théologie byzantine et sa tradition». 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 the debate (in this context) about the denomination of “Eastern Roman Empire” and the “Byzantine Empire”. The first part of such a question concerns one of substantial change from one entity to another. The second part necessitates a precise or proximate date of the said mutation. N.B., the phenomenon of “Byzantine theology” might actually be better said to coincide with the elevation of the status of the Polis in the years leading up to Constantinople I. 9 AA.VV., La théologie byzantine et sa tradition. II: XIIIe-XIXe S., edd. C.G. CONTICELLO – V. CONTICELLO, Turnhout 2002. 7

189


in Byzantine theology. Many “Byzantine” authors, like the brothers Cydones, Nicephorus Gregoras, and John Cyparissiotis are found wanting. Instead, they cede their rightful places to theologians of less merit and less historical import. Upon what criterion did the editors make such an exclusion of these aforesaid theologians from the pale of Byzantine theologians? Furthermore, since the end of the 20th century, discoveries have shown that two of the three designated “Pillars of Orthodoxy”10 were not only respectful of Latin Fathers and theologians, but were textually dependent on them for their own positive reflections and production within the realm of theology. This should cause no small difficulty in maintaining a passé division between theologians of a “pure” Byzantine theology vs. an “adulterated” latinophrôn theology (at least after the 14th century) in Byzantium. The initial cost of this deficient compartmentalization of “theological traditions” may only exclude authors like Demetrius/Prochorus Cydones and Acindynus (not to mention the likes of Gennadius Scholarius) from the pale of Byzantine theology. However, not enough scholars are yet speaking about the additional 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 tradition11. Mark Eugenicus and “authentic” Byzantine theology Since the early 20th century, Mark Eugenicus’ authentic works (as the archetypal enemy of the Roman Church) were discovered to utilize dialectical reasoning and St.

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 Readings of Augustine, edd. A. PAPANIKOLAOU - E. DEMACOPOULOS, Crestwood, NY 2008, pp. 11-40: 16. The author does well to note that the motive for choosing these three authors was due to their potential to represent a class of theologians that were neither influenced nor reconcilable to Western approaches and methods of theology. Alas, like their contemporaries and many of their predecessors, they’ve 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 of Constantinople. Sufficient for our purposes is his explicit reverence for the personality and alleged thought of “Blessed Augustine”. Additionally, Photius falls within the scope of my evaluation for also employing dialectics and the syllogism to argue for his conclusions on the question of the Filioque in his Amphilochia (viz., questions on the Holy Spirit). The popularity of designating Photius, Palamas, and Eugenicus as the “Three Pillars” is attested to by: AA.VV., The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy: St. Photius the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica and Saint Mark Evgenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus, ed. & tr. Holy Apostles Convent, Colorado 1990. 10

190


Augustine in the realization of Mark´s theological projects12. For example, in his Syllogistic Chapters against the Latins, any rigidly prejudiced ideology of “Eastern” and “Western” theologies melts away, whether with respect to method or to sources. Mark expends considerable effort explicitly citing Aristotelian metaphysical principles to justify the production of the Son and Holy Spirit from a single principle (viz., αἴτιον)13. His explanation (similar to that of Scotus) finds its point of departure in isolating the “formal” or “mental” significance of the terms “generation” and “procession”14. As Mark sees it, these two terms signify two different “modes” of emanation from an immaterial divine object. These modes are traced back, ultimately, to properties (not relations that presuppose such properties) that are not mentally/formally the same with respect to each other. As such, they are sufficiently irreducible to one another so as to justify the emanation of the Holy Spirit from the Father without any direct cooperation from the person of the Son. In the very same work Mark appeals to the authority of Augustine’s De Trinitate, Soliloquies and select epistles15. If an ideological theologian were to suppose a priori that Mark Eugenicus embodies the Orthodox theologian par excellence, then the same scholar would be at a loss to justify the popular, modern (and thoroughly anachronistic) categorization of dialectics, Augustinian authority, and metaphysics as E.g., MARK EUGENICUS, Κεφάλαια συλλογιστικὰ κατὰ τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν Ἀκινδυνιστῶν περὶ διακρίσεως θείας οὐσίας καὶ ἐνεργείας, in Die Mystik des Nikolaus Cabasilas vom Leben in Christo, ed. W. GASS, Greifswald, 1849 (Leipzig 18992), pp. 217-232; ID., Marci Eugenici Metropolitae Ephesi opera anti-unionistica, ed. L. PETIT (Patrologia Orientalis 17), Paris 1923, pp. 307-491. This has been photographically reproduced in: ID., Marci Eugenici Metropolitae Ephesi opera anti-unionistica, ed. L. PETIT (Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores 10.a), Roma 1977. 13 Ibid., pp. 89-93 (Capita syllogistica, para. 27, ll. 23-36 – para. 31, ll. 2-7). Though Mark (similar to Duns Scotus) often refers to Aristotle ex convenientia, nonetheless, he makes a point to explicitly agree with the Stagyrite by name within his works. 14 The best reference for comparing Duns Scotus’ arguments to Mark’s 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 Mark’s source for Augustine’s De Trinitate, see Maximus Planoudes’ (13th century) translation: Αὐγουστίνου περὶ Τριάδος βιβλία πεντεκαίδεκα, ἅπερ ἐκ τῆς Λατίνου διαλέκτου εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα µετήνεγκε Μάξιµος ὁ Πλανούδης, 1-2, edd. Μ. Παπαθωµόπουλος -Ι. Τσαβαρῆ - G. Rigotti, Athens 1995. Though Mark’s use of the Soliloquies is due to its association with the name and authority of Augustine, Eugenicus was actually citing Ps.-Augustine as translated by Demetrius Cydones. See PS.-AUGUSTINUS, ∆ηµητρίου Κυδώνη µετάφραση τοῦ ψευδοαυγουστίνειου “Soliloquia” (Τί ἄν εἴποι ψυχὴ µόνη πρὸς µόνον τὸν Θεόν), ed. A. Kόltsiou-Nikíta (Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi - Philosophi Byzantini 11), Athens 2005. For Mark’s reception of this pseudo-Augustinian writing see J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, “The Sitz im Leben of Demetrius Cydones’ Translation of pseudo-Augustine’s Soliloquia. Remarks on a Recent Edition”, Quaestio 6 (2006) 191-258, at 233-236. For Mark’s source of Augustine’s epistles, see PROCHOROS KYDONES, Prochoros Kydones. Übersetzung von acht Briefen des Hl. Augustinus, ed. Herbert Hunger (Wiener Studien 9), Wien 1984. 12

191


exclusively “Western” values for theological pursuits. Such presumptions definitively exclude Mark Eugenicus from the fold of Byzantine theologians! In lieu of Mark’s scholasticism16 and Augustinianism17, an anti-Augustinian and anti-dialectical prejudice even forces the ideologue to label him the Ephesine a “latinophrôn”. Consequently, the ideologue should banish him to the dustbin of unread and unsung “Byzantine Scholastics”. Ironically, perhaps due to Mark’s scholastic and metaphysical bent, the Ephesine has in fact been scandalously ignored in neo-Orthodox theology. Though Mark is just as apt to defend the πατερικὸν φρόνηµα as his Byzantine predecessors, he sacriligeously breaks the inelastic mold constructed by modern theologians in their quest to establish “Byzantine patristic” theology as the only authentic 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 has melted away through a shocking set of discoveries proving the happy dialogue that existed between Eastern and Western theology and the positive influence of Augustine on Byzantium during the so-called Palaiologian renaissance. Near the end of last century, two scholars from diverse confessional backgrounds discovered Gregory Palamas’ liberal usage of Blessed Augustine of Hippo’s De Trinitate within Palamas’ theological classic, The One Hundred Fifty Chapters19.

The “scholasticism” with a small “s” is meant to indicate only his affinity for dialectics in relation to accomplishing a patristic synthesis within theology. Obviously, this category of scholasticism can be found in figures like Leontius of Byzantium, John Damascene, and a significant number of Renaissance Byzantine theologians. 17 Most recently, Mark’s scholasticism has been explored by M. PLESTED, Orthodox Readings of Aquinas, Oxford 2012, pp. 124-127. 18 This should not be restricted to just ideological Orthodox writers, for it generally coincides with some important scholarly studies by authors representing other traditions. See, for instance, G. PODSKALSKY, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz (Byzantinisches Archiv 15), München 1977. For a fair and nuanced look at Podskalsky’s conclusions on the relationship among dialectics, systematization and Byzantine tradition, see M. TRIZIO, Byzantine Philosophy as a Contemporary Historiographical Project, in Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales 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. 7792. 19 R. FLOGAUS, Theosis bei Palamas und Luther ein Beitrag zum ökumenischen Gespräch (Forschungen zur systematischen und ökumenischen Theologie 78), Göttingen 1997; J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Αὐγουστῖνος καὶ Γρηγόριος Παλαµᾶς. Τὰ προβλήµατα τῶν ἀριστοτελικῶν κατηγοριῶν καὶ τῆς τριαδικῆς ψυχοθεολογίας, Athens 1997. 16

192


Initial reaction to this discovery, at least on the part of ideological purists, attempted to falsify each of the many instances of Palamas’ use of Augustine as mere interpolations postdating the period of Palamas’ composition. Once codological studies were deemed unhelpful for such a narrative, some scholars moved to question Palamas’ very authorship (Augustini causa) of this formerly uncontested work due to their 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 an “unhappy” subject of theological discussion. The reality is that an “open-minded” Palamas simply does not serve to further certain theological agendas that are loathe to admit that “the West” made notable contributions to Palamas’ intellectual formation and output. For if a Byzantine purist were to admit the sacrilegious activity of revered Byzantine authors freely employing “Latin” theology, it might blur the lines separating the Roman Catholic and the Roman Orthodox Churches! Palamas´ (limited) Augustinianism serves as a cause célèbre for inaugurating a more ecumenical attitude with respect to interconfessional theological dialogue. Conversely, opponents of such dialogue often serve as marvelous illustrations of the power that a priori reasoning plays in contingent matters like history and historical theology. Gennadius Scholarius: the hand-picked successor of Mark Eugenicus and champion of Gregory Palamas Mark Eugenicus’ affinities for Scotus’ Trinitarian argument, though Duns’ is more developed (viz., “subtle”), have been briefly mentioned21. Although Eugenicus is not known to have explicitly cited the Franciscan, Mark was almost certainly responsible for publicly presenting the Greek position on the beatific vision at Ferrara-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 For a description of the various strategies used by scholars to dismiss or avoid Palamas´(limited) 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 to his joint study with Scholarius in 1437 under Emperor John VIII. Scholarius was familiar with the “Subtle Doctor” well before the arrival of the Greek contingent at Ferrara in 1438. See J. MONFASANI, «The Pro-Latin Apologetics of the Greek Émigrés to Quattrocento Italy», in Byzantine Theology and its Philosophical Background, ed. A. RIGO (Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization 4) Turnhout 2011, pp. 167-168. 22 In the formal sessions, the Greek contingent explicitly appealed to the authority of St. Bernard’s works for their Palamite position on the vision of the Blessed vis-à-vis the divine essence. See JOHN LEI, Tractatus Ioannis Lei O.P. “De visione beata.” Nunc primum in lucem edi20

193


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, Città del Vaticano 1963, pp. 83-84, 193. ”Etsi ex hiis satis non mediocriter, sed abunde quidem et copiose, que assumunt, se Greci probasse existiment, plus tamen ex nostris ea firmare constituunt. Conferunt se quidem ad beati Bernardi dogmata atque asserverationes, quas ex plerisque sermonibus it excipiunt […] (De visione beata, I, cap. VI, ll. 4-7)”. Candal has shown that Lei’s composition began as early as March of 1439 (see M. CANDAL, «Introduction», in ibid., p. 25). He was utilizing his knowledge of the Greek position from earlier public debates. “Proinde agunt nostri, sicut ceptum est, solemnioribus disputionibus; ego vero adversus eos de visione sanctorum, quos Greci deum videre negant (De visione beata, I, prol. cap. I, ll. 1-3)”. Gill has shown that the De novissimis 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 disputes were particularly with Torquemada. M. CANDAL, «Introduction», in Apparatus super decretum Florentinum 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 nature of the Beatific vision is akin to seeing the light from Christ on Mt. Thabor. The Greek Acta exclude Scholarius from the conversation before the emperor, since John VIII explicitly wished to hear “prelates’” opinions on the matter. Before the Latins could respond, there was a delay through tardiness of representatives from Basel and the plague in Ferrara. See Quae supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini 1, ed. J. GILL (Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores, Series B.V.1), Roma 1953, pp. 25-26. “ἔστησαν οὖν τοῦτο, ὅτι ἀπέλαβον καὶ οὐκ ἀπέλαβον· καὶ ἀπέλαβον µὲν τελείως αἱ ψυχαὶ καθὸ ψυχαί, µέλλουσι δὲ ἀπολαβεῖν καὶ τελεώτερον ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει µετὰ τῶν σωµάτων τῶν ἰδίων, καὶ τότε λάµψουσιν ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, ἢ καὶ ὡς τὸ φῶς, ὅπερ ἔλαµψεν ὁ κύριος ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν ὄρει τῷ Θαβωρίῳ.” 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. “Λείπεται δὴ καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἐν Θαβωρίῳ λάµψαντος ἐν τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ φωτὸς κατὰ τὴν µεταµόρφωσιν εἰπεῖν […] Ἑπόµενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσι καὶ θεολόγοις, τὸ ἐν τῷ Θαβωρίῳ λάµψαν φῶς ἐν τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ ἄκτιστον πιστεύοµεν εἶναι (Epistle IV, c. 1, ll. 3-4; c. 2, ll. 1-32)”. Eugenicus reechoes this doctrine ad sententiam Palama in EUGENICUS, Κεφάλαια συλλογιστικὰ..., pp. 227-228. He says: “Εἰ ὥσπερ τὸ κυριακὸν πρόσωπον ὡς ὁ ἥλιος ἔλαµψεν, οὕτω καὶ οἱ δίκαιοι λάµψουσιν ὡς ὁ ἥλιος ἐν τῇ Βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν, τῷ αὐτῷ ἄρα φωτὶ καὶ οἱ δίκαιοι λάψουσιν, ᾧ καὶ ὁ κύριος ἔλαµψε· τὸ δέ ἐστιν ἡ τῆς θεότητος ἀκτὶς ἄναρχος οὖσα καὶ ἄκτιστος, ὡς οἱ θεολόγοι φασί, καὶ πῶς κτιστὸν τὸ τοῖς ἁγίοις ὁρώµενόν τε καὶ µετεχόµενον φῶς [...]; (Capita syllogistica, n. 42)“ Mark’s doctrine constitutes the exact point of debate at Florence. Candal also presents arguments for Mark’s leading (and nearly unique) input on the De novissimis among the theologians. See CANDAL, «Introduction», in Tractatus Ioannis Lei O.P. “De visione beata…”, p. 24. Lei’s composition anticipated future debates whereat the past ones had abruptly left off. I do not suppose John’s knowledge is from his presence at private sessions among the six Latin and Greek theologians, since there is no evidence that John Lei was among that select group. See op. cit., pp. 4-5. Instead, if Lei’s information is from the private sessions, it is almost certainly due to John de Torquemada with whom Lei must have been a collaborator. For Torquemada’s non-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 194


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

Citeaux’s 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 (Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores.Series B.VI), Roma 1955, p. 91. It is unlikely that Bessarion spearheaded the defense of Palamas. Candal argues for Bessarion’s rejection or wavering on Palamism based on his correspondence with Andrew of Rhodes. See ed. M. CANDAL, Andreae Rhodiensis, O.P., inedita ad Bessarion epistula (de divina essentia et operatione), in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 4 (1938) 344-371. Yet again, errors have been discovered in Candal’s evaluation. See A. DE HALLEUX, Bessarion et le palamisme au concile de Florence, in Irénikon 62 (1989) 307-332. Recently, John Monfasani has argued Bessarion’s Palamism at the beginning of the Council, though one would look in vain in Bessarion’s library for Palamite works. See J. MONFASANI, Bessarion Scholasticus: A Study of Cardinal Bessarion’s Latin Library, Turnhout 2011, pp. 2, 30. Monfasani also affirms Antonio Rigo’s argument for Bessarion’s Palamism, which was only abandoned after Bessarion’s adoption of the Filioque. This would have eased Bessarion’s conscience when signing the Decree of Union (if Torquemada’s Apparatus correctly interprets Florence as implying a condemnation of Palamism). Still, the dissatisfaction with the compromise between Palamites and Latins (viz., Franciscans and humanists) at the Council of Florence is partim the cause for Torquemada’s Apparatus to the Council of Florence in the first place (perhaps postdated to 1441; cf., infra, Apparatus…, 137, ll. 17-19). After the Council concluded (quoad Graecos) on 6 July 1439, theologians of the rebellious Council of Basel began to criticize Florence’s formulae. Though Thomists were unable to secure Palamites’ condemnation at the Council of Florence itself, Torquemada’s commentary supplied for that lacuna. In addition to excluding 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). Juan writes: “Hic sequitur declaratio et diffinitio sexti articuli controversiae Grecorum et Latinorum circa 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 talis diffinitio in summa, duas complectens partes: primo, quod anime iustorum de quibus in precedenti articulo habitum est, statim cum a corporibus absolvuntur, vident clare et sicuti est deum verum trinum 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 felicitatem ultimam hominum non consistere in visione ipsius dei, sed alicuius alterius entitatis, que ab ipsa divinitatis 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, Oeuvres Complètes de Georges Scholarios, I-VIII, edd. L. Petit - X. Sidéridès - M. Jugie, Paris 1928-1935. Scholarius may have translated portions of Bonaventure in his study sessions before the Council. With minor differences, Gennadius repeats Bonaventure´s doctrine in Greek, after his return from Florence (1445), thus: “ὡς ὅταν αὐτὰ τῷ ἀπολελυµένῳ καὶ µὴ ἀπολελυµένῳ ἢ ἀναφορικῷ διακρίνωσι, τῷ ἀδιακρίτῳ καὶ διακεκριµένῳ, τῷ πρὸς ἑαυτὸ καὶ πρὸς ἄλλο, τῷ ἔκ τινος καὶ τῷ οὐκ 195


Given the fact that Eugenicus personally designated Scholarius his successor and champion against the Union of Florence and the Filioque, one would expect that Scholarius faithfully represented the “Orthodox mindset”25. If the πατερικὸν φρόνηµα is interpreted to mean that Scholarius defended the traditional dogmas opposed to the Latin Filioque, azymes, Purgatory, etc.26, then Scholarius is thoroughly Orthodox. If, however, we were to investigate the method and sources that lead Scholarius to his Orthodox conclusions, we might be surprised to encounter the Scotist (quoad divina attributa), Hervaeus Natalis, as a principal διδάσκαλος in defense of the holy hesychast, Gregory Palamas27. Not only Thomism, but even the “School of St. Francis” (viz., Bonaventure and Scotus) had taken root in the East. Scholarius latently employed Franciscanism against Barlaamites and Acindynists to the glory of Orthodoxy28! What is more, Scholarius intermittently praised Scotus and his pious disciples as being “more Orthodox” and “taking the correct side” of the debate between Thomists and

ἔκ τινος, τῷ µεθεκτῷ καὶ οὐ µεθεκτῷ καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ἃ πάντα ἀντιφατικά εἰσι (OCGS VI, c. 94; p. 282, ll. 22-26).” The Latin source for such disjunctive transcendentals is as follows: “Item, si est ens ab alio, est ens non ab alio […] Item, si est ens respectivum, est ens absolutum […] Item si est ens diminutum seu secundum sive secundum quid […] Item si est ens propter aliud, est ens propter se ipsum […] Item, si est ens per participationem, est ens per essentiam […] (De mysterio Trinitatis Q. 1, a. 1).” See also BONAVENTURE OF BAGNOREGIO, Quaestiones disputatae de mysterio Trinitatis, in Doctoris Seraphici S. Bonaventurae Opera Omnia 5, Quarrachi 1891, pp. 4647. Given these obvious affinities, the only other possible source for these disjunctive transcendentals seems to be Richard of Middleton, since Scholarios claims to know this Franciscan. For the identification of Richard, see C. TURNER, The Career of George-Gennadius Scholarius, in Byzantion 39 (1969-1970) 420-455: 427. For Richard’s close link with Bonaventure on questions like created-uncreated disjunctives, see R. CROSS, «Richard of Middleton», in A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, edd. J. GARCIA – T. NOONE, Oxford 2003, pp. 573-578. As of yet, I have found no citations from Francis Mayron that correspond to these disjunctive transcendentals. Richard is the next most likely source. 25 This occurred at the end of Mark´s earthly sojourn. See J. GILL, The Year of the Death of Mark Eugenicus, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 52 (1952) 23-31. 26 I.e. post 1445. For Scholarius’ more unionist tendencies early on, see GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS, Orationes Georgii Scholarii in Concilio Florentino habitae ad fidem manuscriptorum edidit addita 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 in fieri”, in Rivista Nicolaus 40 (2013) forthcoming. 28 For all citations from Scholarius (abbreviated OCGS), see Oeuvres Complètes de Georges Scholarios, edd. L. PETIT - X. SIDERIDES - M. JUGIE, Paris 1928-1935. For example, Scholarius uses Hervaeus’ doctrine of second intentions. SCHOLARIUS, Commentary on Aquinas’ “De ente et essentia”, in OCGS 6, p. 282, ll. 6-7; ID., Against the Partisans of Acindynus: à propos a passage of Theodore Graptos, in OCGS 3, p. 212, ll. 25-26; ID., On the Distinction between the Essence and Its Operations, in OCGS 3, p. 230, ll. 9-10. 196


Palamites29. However, it should not be thought that Scholarius is a mere anomaly in the otherwise anti-Scholastic Byzantine tradition. Scholarius himself was merely enlarging on his own master’s methods, i.e. Macarius Makrês30. Macarius was explicitly honored by both Mark Eugenicus and Joseph Bryennius for his piety and Orthodoxy31. Yet, all the while, he was composing important works in defense of Orthodoxy (vis-à-vis Islam) by synthesizing Aquinas’ Summa contra Gentiles with the Greek patristic tradition. It was unfortunate that Macarius died before he was able to represent Byzantine interests at the Council of Florence (which he had helped to negotiate). Still, his intimate friend, Mark Eugenicus, carried on a theological program of synthesizing Latin writers with the Byzantine tradition through available Greek translations. Scholarius imitated the examples of his two teachers, with the additional advantage of having access to both Latin originals and Greek translations of Western authors32. This allowed Scholarius to construct an impressive theological synthesis. In imitation of his teachers’ syntheses, Scholarius’ own marriage of Thomism and Scotism in the service of Orthodoxy makes him, perhaps, the greatest harbinger 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 consummated marriage between Eastern and Western approaches to basic theological questions, which was already partially accomplished by his predecessors. 29 Scholarius explicitly recognizes the theological merits of Scotism and Franciscan theology vis-à-vis Orthodoxy. Later, he is clearly troubled and openly wondered about the consequences of Aquinas’ philosophy of divine names-attributes in SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du “De ente et essentia”, in OCGS 6, pp. 179-180, 285. 30 A. ARGYRIOU, «Macaire Makrès. Sa vie et son oeuvre littéraire», in A. ARGYRIOU, Macaire Makrès et la polémique contre l’Islam (Studi e Testi 314), Città del Vaticano 1986, pp. 92-93. 31 Mario Pilavakis has outlined the personal relationship between Eugenicus and Makrês, leading to the former´s encomium of Makrês as a “champion of orthodoxy.” See M. PILAVAKIS, «Introduction. The Life of Markos», in M. PILAVAKIS, Mark Eugenikos’s First Antirrhetic against Manuel Calecas’s “Essence and Energy”, London 1987 (unpublished doctoral dissertation), p. 30. For the intimate relationship between Makrês and Bryennius, see CH. DENDRINOS, Co-operation and friendship among Byzantine scholars in the circle of Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (13911425) as reflected in their autograph manuscripts, in Charalambos Dendrinos: Royal Holloway, University of London 2007: http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/greek/grammarofmedievalgreek/unlocking/Dendrinos.pdf (access 04-11-2013). 32 The discoveries of Mark’s Augustinianism in the 20th century do not yet tell the whole story. Quite recently, it was discovered that the Ephesine made wholesale incorporation of Thomistic texts. This sealed Eugenicus’ fate as a “latinophrôn” theologian (according to the modern definition), through his surprising reliance on and agreement with his archenemy, Thomas Aquinas. See J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, «Palamas Transformed: Palamite Interpretations of the Distinction between God’s “Essence” and “Energies” in Late Byzantium», in Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History 1204-1500, edd. M. HINTERBERGER - C. SCHABEL (Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales. Bibliotheca 11), Paris 2011, pp. 340-368. These discoveries provide a supportive backdrop for confirming Eugenicus as the theologian who argued ad mentem Bernardi at Ferrara.

197


The Council of Florence at the service of both theological pluralism and theological intolerance The Council of Florence serves as a modern lightning rod for the religious sentiments of any informed Eastern Christian. For the “Byzantine Catholic” it can be the source of pride for one and simultaneous regret for another. For the “Eastern Orthodox” Christian, it rarely serves as more than an occasion for negative sentiment flowing from the reductio of the Greek Church. Of course, all of these responses are understandable in light of each one’s personal experience and values within the theological arena. Perhaps, among historians, one fact has received less attention than it is due. Despite the Council’s ultimate failure, it was the last great opportunity for a formal encounter between Eastern and Western theology. Both its preparation and debates served to interest both sides of the aula magna in the sources and theological method of their interlocutors. Unfortunately, the most celebrated figures in the Florentine debate tend to be the least ecumenical and, sad to say, the most fanatical. For example, after the Council had successfully made important concessions to Palamism on the subject of the Beatific vision and the divine attributes, John Torquemada’s (i.e. a Dominican’s) fanatical Thomism resulted in an official “interpretive apparatus”33 being appended to the Council documents that effectively neutralized any hermeneutic that was not ad mentem Thomae34. Stemming from the significant criticism of the Florentine decrees by the Conciliarists (at Basel), Pope Eugenius deemed it appropriate to take a harder line in the application and interpretation of the Council decrees than the conciliatory spirit by which he had just achieved agreements between the majority of the

33 It should be remembered that the Council of Basel was an officially sanctioned Papal “Ecumenical” Council at its onset. Fathers who refused its transfer to Ferrara were deemed rebellious. Still, the Fathers of Basel (and, consequently, of Florence) explicitly recognized the authority of Bonaventure of Bagnoregio. The authority attributed to Bonaventure was due to his role as a Father at the Second Council of Lyons. See E. PUSEY, «Praefatio», in Tractatus de veritate Conceptionis B. V. Mariae pro facienda coram Patribus Concilii Basileae anno Domini 1437 mense julio, London 1869, p. XVII. For Bonaventure’s 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 of the Council to Ferrara, Bonaventure’s authority was again explicitly invoked at least three times by 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 virulent opponent of the Immaculate Conception (Thomae gratia). He zealously sought to have the Franciscans condemned as heretics for their defense of this doctrine at the Council of Basel. See PUSEY, «Praefatio», in Tractatus de veritate Conceptionis…, pp. XVII-XVIII.

198


Greek and Latin contingents35. Sometime after 6 July 1439, the day celebrating the close of the Council, Torquemada compiled a series of interpretative formulae under the aegis of Pope Eugenius (published 1441)36. They included (inter alia) the condemnation of Palamite metaphysics and several theological interpretations that offended both Franciscan and Palamite theological tenets (let alone the various beneplacita of anti-Scholastic humanist theologians present at the Council)37. The Greek acknowledgment (to some degree) of theological pluralism within the Latin church had led the Greek contingent of John VIII’s theological commission to study the works of Augustine and Duns Scotus in 1437. This allowed both Scholarius and Mark Eugenicus initially to lay aside their earlier impressions that the Latin approach to theology was monolithic. On the Latin side of the preparations, Pope Eugenius had entrusted the Franciscans with the question of the essence and energies in the godhead, as well as papal primacy (both in November of 1437)38. He also took personal pains to ensure the presence of humanist theologians as important agents in the Conciliar discussions. The result of this division of labor between theologians from diverse streams was a far more ecumenical approach to theological questions than any orthodox Thomist approach could have tolerated. As it turns out, the Franciscan study of Palamism led to it being dropped as an official issue in the Florentine debates39, while the Franciscan approach to Papal primacy may have led CANDAL, «Introduction», in Apparatus…, p. XXVI. 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. Documenta et Scriptores, Series B.V.1), Rome 1953, p. LXXXVII. 37 Torquemada’s recrimination contains the notable line (supra, n. 23): “[A]gainst the error of the [Greeks] saying that beatitude, glory or final happiness of men, doesn’t consist in the vision of God Himself, but consists of some other entity, which is really distinct from the very essence of the divinity, which the Greeks call ‘energy’ (viz., activity) or brightness (Apparatus, 102, ll. 30-34).” Torquemada repeats John Lei’s transliteration of energia, but renders John’s splendor and claritas as “fulgor.” Cfr. LEI, Tractatus Ioannis Lei O.P. “De visione beata…”, p. 202 (viz., De visione beata, 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 theologians. At the end of the Council, Eugenius acceded to their request to formally introduce a discussion 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 Father Eugenius […]” He then listed the Greek “errors,” accusing them of the heresy of an “essential” distinction between attributes and essence in the Godhead. He concludes: “ergo falsa est conclusio, et errores, aliquorum Graecorum, que dicit quod attributa in divinis differunt essentialiter ab essencia divina (De graecis errantibus 94, ll. 3-4).” See ANDREAS ESCOBAR, De graecis errantibus, ed. M. CANDAL (Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores. Series B.IV.1), Rome 1952, p. 83. In addition to Torquemada, Lei’s prologue explicitly petitioned the Pope to condemn the Palamites for heresy. See LEI, Tractatus Ioannis Lei O.P. “De visione beata…”, pp. 69-70. 35 36

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 be attributed to John Capistran’s (or other Franciscans’) works, which reveal an openness to theological pluralism41. In fact, they made ready use of “Blessed Thomas” along side their beloved doctors Alexander Hales, Richard of Middleton, Bonaventure and Scotus. Yet, these “dangerous” concessions were all but nullified by John Torquemada in his subsequent Apparatus, which seemed at every turn impervious to approaches in theology that were outside of the narrow scope of his orthodox Thomism presently in fashion within the Dominican order42. Whatever compromise had been reached in Florence was virtually irradicated by the unique composition of a singular author, whose training naturally belittled theological pluralism extra muros Sancti Thomae. The point here is not to demonize Torquemada, since it is likely that he was sincere and he certainly was a brilliant theologian in his own right. However, given the fact that even his magister, divus Thomas, proved to be a material heretic (inter muros) on theological questions like the Immaculate Conception and sacramental confession of mortal sins to laymen43, it is a fortiori dangerous to approach theolog40 GILL, The Council of Florence, p. 190. This is speculative. However, the addition protecting the Orientals’ rights and privileges (grosso modo) was added to the formula of union in the sacristy of the Franciscan Church. This addendum cannot be attributed to the orators responsible for representing 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), Capistran makes only slight reference to Oriental sources for papal claims. Interestingly, he also relies heavily on “Blessed Thomas [Aquinas].” Another example can be found in the Cardinal Archbishop of Tours (fl. 1447), who was important for writing a response in defense of Eugenius IV against the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges by Charles VII of France (7 July 1438). See ELIAS DE BOURDEILLES, Contra pragmaticam Gallorum sanctionem, Romae ante 1486 (incunabulum). Therein, Alexander Hales plays an important authoritative role (cf. Ibid., p. a4r, c2r) He also wrote a critique of the process against Joan of Arc. See ELIAS DE BOURDEILLES, «Super processu et sententia contra dictam Johannam prolata», in Procès en nullité de la condamnation de Jeanne d’Arc 2, ed. P. Duparc, Paris 1979, pp. 40-156. In the former, I have located four references to “blessed Thomas”. See ELIAS, Contra pragmaticam Gallorum sanctionem, ff. b5, c8 (right), and the two pages preceding c10. Elias recognized Duns´ Sentences commentary as a weighty authority in ELIAS, «Super processu et sententia…», pp. 50, 60. 42 This judgment is not an attempt to criticize Torquemada´s method as a Dominican who understandably takes a monolithic Thomistic approach to theological questions (not a vice in itself), but it intends to call into question the overall value of a work that seems immune to influence from either Greek or non-Thomist sources and writers to whom Torquemada would have been recently exposed during the Council. The index fontium of the Apparatus tells the story of someone who had predetermined the sources that constitute Christian tradition, in spite of the goldmine of writers 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. 12), Thomas’ position on laymen hearing sacramental confession in loco episcopi presbyterique is

200


ical questions from one perspective, and even more dangerous to approach them from the perspective of one man (whether it be with respect to Aquinas for Torquemada, or Torquemada for Florence: Time hominem unius libri!). Undoubtedly, Torquemada had much to offer to the Council Fathers for reflection. However, I dispute any claim that Torquemada ideally constitutes the locus of reflection for East and West on subjects ranging from God’s essence to the efficacy of prayers for the dead. While it may be true that the Filioque debate at Florence was almost entirely a Thomist-Greek battle of wills44, nonetheless, other areas of discussion actually resulted in significant concessions made to Greek sensibilities and allowed them to maintain all their theological values intact. Perhaps the fault in Florence did not lay in either the preparation or debates, rather it lay in the general disinterest to include all parties’ and individuals’ theological traditions into the debate setting. Suchwise, any agreement would have necessitated significant concessions on all sides and within both camps. Instead, the mode of argumentation and presentation of the “Latin” and “Greek” side was conspicuously narrowed to allow only a half dozen representative characters on each side to speak for the entirety of pluralistic traditions that could still be found alive and breathing within the spheres of influence of both Churches. This suggested formula for debate and discussion does not guarantee that something like the 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 not have been likely to return home with the impression that Aquinas was the unique expositor of Roman dogmas, neither would the Latins have gone home with the impression that Greeks did not appreciate the insights and genius of Thomas Aquinas. Instead, each side returned home with only recollections of a half-dozen less so. “Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod sicut Baptismus est sacramentum necessitatis, ita et poenitentia. Baptismus autem, qui est sacramentum necessitatis, habet duplicem ministrum: unum cui ex officio baptizare incumbit, scilicet sacerdotem; alium cui ratione necessitatis dispensatio Baptismi committitur. Et ita etiam minister poenitentiae, cui confessio est facienda ex officio, est sacerdos; sed in necessitate etiam laicus vicem sacerdotis supplet, ut ei confessio fieri possit. (Scriptum super Sententias, lib. 4, d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, qc. 2, corpus)” Contrast his teaching with: CONCILIUM TRIDENTINUM, «Teaching concerning the most holy sacraments of penance and last 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 a veritate evangelii penitus alienas doctrinas omnes, quae ad alios quosvis homines praeter episcopos 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 doctrine. 44 The notable exception being Aloysius Foroliviensis, OFM, who attempted to introduce Bonaventure (though not Scotus) into the discussion. See Quae supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini 1, 161-171. The Greek version of his speech contains three explicit references to Bonaventure and his works. N.B., he is incorrectly called “bishop John” in the Greek Acta. 201


larger than life figures who were often rigid in their opinions about what did and didn’t constitute the only orthodox approach to one valid theology for the entire Christian Church. Conclusions: towards a definition of Byzantine theology Now that two universally recognized “Byzantine” and “Orthodox” theologians and their appreciation for Latin Fathers has been taken into account, and now that their followers (viz., Macarius Makrês and Gennadius Scholarius) have been found to imitate their willingness to synthesize Scholasticism into their theological projects, a provisional answer to the question of what constitutes “Byzantine theology” is possible. After reflecting on the figures mentioned, Byzantine theology might be said to be an open system of Christian religious thought, which is ever conscious of its Greek patristic heritage. This consciousness expresses itself through constant and explicit reference to Greek Fathers, and ecclesiastical writers approved by them, as the principal sources of theological reflection (after Scripture and Liturgy) and as the ultimate hermeneutic authorities on Sacred Scripture. Furthermore, this consciousness of the patristic tradition simultaneously allows for the latent employment, or even toleration, of insights from unapproved Greek writers, insofar as they are reconcilable with the worldviews that are espoused by any approved Greek Fathers. This consciousness, too, may tolerate and incorporate other theological writers and traditions in order to enhance or defend the teaching of these approved Fathers, who themselves find their validation in the lived Byzantine liturgical tradition and, at times, are also affirmed by Ecumenical Councils. In short, Byzantine theology is an open system of thought capable of incorporating all human wisdom45 that can be made subservient to Holy Writ as interpreted in accord with and within the limits of the πατερικὸν φρόνηµα of approved Fathers of the living Byzantine liturgical tradition.

45

202

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

Finally, a definition of Byzantine and Orthodox theology (NICOLAUS 40.1 2013)

Recommend Documents