Ferrara-Florence Cathedral - a representative forum of world Christian churches, whose work began in 1438 and lasted for 7 years - demonstrated the intransigence of the positions taken by representatives of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Despite the fact that the result of his work was a union - a document declaring the unity of these two directions - subsequent events showed that the split in Christianity only worsened.

Pope Eugene IV's initiative

Ferrara-Florence Cathedral 1438-1445 took place in three stages. Having begun his work in the Italian city of Ferrara, he then moved to Florence, and ended in Rome. It was organized as an alternative to another Ecumenical Council, which was held at that time in the Swiss city of Basel and convened by Pope Martin V, who, under the guise of fighting Protestantism and reuniting the Eastern and Western Churches, wanted to achieve supreme power within the Great Roman Empire.

Having convened a very representative forum, in which many European monarchs became participants, the pontiff unexpectedly died, and his successor, the newly elected Pope Eugene IV, devoured by no less ambition, but having a different political orientation, decided to get down to business, starting everything from scratch.

Enlisting the support of the Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaiologos and choosing the city of Ferrara, the main administrative center of the province of the same name, as the site of an alternative cathedral, he convened all the highest church hierarchs who had not previously responded to the invitation of his predecessor, Martin V. Thus, both of these councils were held simultaneously .

Participants of the Council and their tasks

The composition of the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral was very representative. Suffice it to say that, in addition to the delegation of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, headed by Patriarch Joseph II, the metropolitans and authorized representatives of most local churches, as well as the most authoritative theologians, took part in its work. In total, more than 700 delegates gathered in Ferrara. Among them was a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church specially chosen to carry out this mission - Metropolitan Isidor of Kyiv and All Russia.

The elimination of dogmatic differences between the Western and Eastern churches became the official goal of the convening of the Ferrara-Florence Council. Briefly, his task was as follows: to force the Orthodox Churches to bring the main provisions of their dogma into line with Catholic dogmas. First of all, it was about the so-called filioque - a change made by Rome to the "Creed" - the official formula of religion, developed in 451 at the Nicaean Ecumenical Council.

According to the Western version, the Holy Spirit comes not only from God the Father, as is commonly believed in Orthodoxy, but also from God the Son. In addition, other issues of both dogmatic and liturgical (liturgical) nature were subject to discussion. However, the main purpose of the council and its political background was to establish the supremacy of the Roman pope over the entire Ecumenical Church.

Newly minted theologians

The Catholic hierarchs considered the representatives of the Byzantine delegation to be their main opponents, although they had an extremely superficial idea of ​​them, believing that they would have to deal with venerable theologians. In fact, most of its members had a very superficial religious education and were not capable of conducting serious discussions.

As evidenced by a number of historical documents of that era, experiencing an extreme shortage of qualified church hierarchs, Patriarch Joseph II, by order of the emperor, was forced literally on the eve of his departure to elevate to the rank of bishops some secular intellectuals who had the widest range of knowledge, but at the same time were poorly versed in matters of faith. . It is for this reason that the envoys of Constantinople could not compete with the Roman theologians.

Deceived Bishops

Despite the high status of the delegates and the depth of theological problems that need to be considered, the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral began with the most banal scandal. As it turned out after the very first meetings, its organizers did not at all intend to fulfill their earlier obligations to support the delegations of Orthodox churches, as a result of which they were left without money and found themselves in an extremely difficult situation.

It is known, for example, that many members of the retinue had to literally pawn or sell their own things. When they had eaten away their property and were ready, leaving everything, to flee to Byzantium, the pope, wanting to prevent them, moved the meetings of the council away from the border - to Florence, arguing that the local authorities had sufficient funds to support the Orthodox.

A document that deepened dogmatic contradictions

One of the main events in the history of the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral was the signing by the Patriarch of Constantinople and members of his delegation of oros - a dogmatic definition, according to which all the innovations proposed by the Catholic Church were unconditionally accepted.

The only concession to Orthodoxy was the permission not to introduce worship according to the Latin model, and also to preserve the previously established church customs. Many historians believe that the desire to leave the country as soon as possible could push the Byzantines to violate the interests of the Eastern Church, where they actually starved for a long time without receiving a salary, and were deprived of the most necessary means of subsistence.

The death of the Byzantine patriarch

As for Patriarch Joseph II himself, he did not live to see the signing of the Union of Florence and died, having only time to draw up a document confirming his full agreement with the decision of the council. Many historians see the reason for such apostasy in the fact that the pope guaranteed military support to him and to the Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaiologos, who sent him, in the event of a Muslim attack on Constantinople.

In an atmosphere of intrigue and deceit

Subsequently, it turned out that this was the same deception as the promise to support the delegation at the expense of the Vatican. As a result, the Byzantines covered themselves with indelible shame, and their capital was captured by the Turks in 1453. By the way, among the representatives of the local Orthodox churches, not everyone went on about the Roman pontiff. The metropolitans of Iversky, Stavropol, Ephesus, Gazsky and a number of others defiantly left the cathedral in protest against the decisions being imposed on them.

It would be appropriate to note that the newly elected Sophronius I Siropoulos, who became the successor of the unexpectedly deceased Joseph II, later wrote that in order to sign the notorious oros by the Orthodox delegates, the pope did not disdain intrigues and outright deception - things incompatible with his high status.

In particular, a number of representatives of the Eastern Churches put their signatures under the document, without being able to get acquainted with its contents in detail. In addition, there were cases of outright intimidation and blackmail. These and many other procedural violations caused even the delegates representing the interests of the British monarch to leave Italy, refusing to recognize the Union of Florence, which, in their opinion, was illegal and could have the most negative consequences.

Universal hatred against apostates

In the Orthodox world, everything that happened at the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral was initially followed with great caution, while the date of the signing of the oros - July 5, 1439 - was recognized as a black day in the history of most Eastern churches. This shameful document, which became the fruit of the lawless actions of the Pope, formed the basis of the final union, which actually declared the primacy of the Catholic Church and caused deep indignation among Orthodox Christians.

Returning from Rome in January 1445, the Byzantine deputies were greeted with general contempt. It is known, for example, that the clergy of Hagia Sophia, the main church in Constantinople, categorically refused to participate in joint services with those who put their signatures under the union. Moreover, the apostasy of the patriarch and members of the episcopate became the cause of acute social tension in the country. Simple clergy and laity did not even want to prayerfully remember the name of the emperor himself, which was unheard of insolence.

Replacing the patriarch

In order to avoid conflict and the inevitable bloodshed in such cases, John VIII made the only reasonable decision in this situation about the need for the resignation of the former patriarch and the election of a new one. However, this good undertaking was drowned in a sea of ​​intrigue. As a result, Metropolitan Mitrofan became the head of the Church of Constantinople, and consequently of the entire Orthodox world, who did not tarnish himself by signing the shameful union, but was its secret supporter. According to historians, this choice was one of the reasons for the tragedy that broke out in 1453, when hordes of the Turkish Sultan Mehmed II appeared under the walls of the Byzantine capital.

Despite opposition from the majority of clergy and ordinary laity, the union adopted at the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral received official status, and on December 12, 1452, it was read out in the walls of Hagia Sophia. The metropolitans who were present at the same time were forced to seal the document with their signatures, but soon most of them backpedaled, saying that they had done this under pressure from the emperor.

Formation of Uniate churches

Ferrara-Florence Cathedral entered the history of Catholicism as a very important and significant event. In addition to the union with the Byzantines, who subsequently refused to fulfill their obligations, similar agreements were signed at it with representatives of many other Orthodox churches, which to this day recognize their legal force.

It is also important that the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral and the consequences of its decisions served as an impetus for the formation of a number of Uniate Greek Catholic churches, one of which, founded in the Commonwealth, united many residents of the southwestern regions of Russia. According to its status, it is a local Catholic church, using the Greek ritual in worship. In general, for the country, the most important consequence of the signing of the union was the withdrawal of the Russian Orthodox Church from subordination to the Patriarch of Constantinople and the proclamation of its autocephaly (independence).

Ordeals of Metropolitan Isidore

Just as the members of the delegation of Constantinople, returning from Italy, were greeted with the indignation of their compatriots, so the envoy of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Isidore of Kyiv, who signed the union, was expected in Moscow by a very cold reception. The Grand Duke Vasily II, who ruled at that time, was extremely outraged by his apostasy and direct betrayal of the interests of the state.

By his order, the disgraced bishop was taken into custody and imprisoned in the dungeon of the Chudov Monastery, from where, however, he successfully fled first to Tver, and then to Hungary. There is an opinion among researchers that the Grand Duke himself contributed to the success of the escape, wishing to establish contact with the Hungarian king Vladislav III, who shortly before that had proclaimed in his country, as well as in Poland controlled by him, the equality of the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

During the construction of one of the most famous cathedrals in Florence, Santa Maria del Fiore, all the architects of the basilica had to overcome a sufficient number of bureaucratic procedures: since the money for the construction of the temple was taken from the state treasury, the work was controlled by officials at all stages of the project.

Architects were constantly forced to take part in competitions and convince the jury that they were right. Among the members of the commission were not only specialists, but also respected citizens of the city, who knew absolutely nothing about construction and used this moment to solve political and private issues that interested them. Some architects were philosophical about this situation, others were very nervous about it, but the cathedral turned out to be so magnificent that the Florentines can rightfully be proud of it.

Santa Maria del Fiore is located in the heart of Florence, on Piazza Duomo, 232 kilometers north of the capital of Italy, Rome, at Via della Canonica, 1, 50122 Firenze, Italy. On the geographical map this architectural monument can be found at the following coordinates: 43°46′ 23.64″ s. sh., 11° 15′23.57″ E d.

Santa Maria del Fiore (translated from Italian as "Flower of St. Mary") is considered the fifth largest basilica in the world and the most famous architectural monument dating back to the early Italian Renaissance. The Ferrara-Florence Cathedral is remarkable in that it is not only the main temple of Florence and one of the largest basilicas in the country, but also has the world's largest brick dome built by Brunelleschi.

The decision to build a temple in the center of the city, which with all its appearance would symbolize the wealth and prosperity of Florence, was made by the locals at the end of the thirteenth century. Considering that the small basilica of Santa Reparata was already located on the square, the appearance of which did not correspond to the new status of the city, the Florentines decided to dismantle it. And in its place to build a cathedral, dedicate it to the Mother of God and call it “The Flower of St. Mary”: here they decided to play with the name of the city, focusing on the fact that “fiore” means “flower”, hinting at its meaning as “blooming”, “prosperous”.

Construction

The construction of the Basilica of Santa Maria del Fiore began in 1296 and lasted about one hundred and forty years ( construction works were not fully completed and continued in the nineteenth century, when the facade of the building acquired a modern look).

The first architect of the basilica was one of the most eminent architects of his time, Arnolfo di Cambio, who decided to combine Gothic and Norman styles in the architecture of the church.

Under his leadership, the naves were built, and an octagonal drum was erected on the eastern side of the temple, which later was to become the basis for the construction of the dome. Unfortunately, his participation ended there: the architect died in 1302, after which there was a thirty-year pause in construction.

Construction work was resumed in 1334, when Giotto di Bondone was chosen as the architect, who concentrated all his activities on the bell tower. Despite the fact that he died three years after this event, and Francesco Talenti completed Giotto's project in 1359, she went down in history as Giotto's Campanile.

So, changing architect after architect, a hundred years after the first stone was laid in the foundation, the temple was practically completed, when construction was stopped again in 1380: the craftsmen encountered an unexpected technical problem that they could not resolve for two decades.

Dome

When it came to building the dome, it was discovered big number errors in calculations that arose due to the fact that the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral was built in different time under the direction of various architects. The situation was further complicated by the fact that officials refused to pay for the installation of scaffolding from the city treasury - despite the fact that the Florentines attached special importance to the dome of the cathedral: it was supposed to become not only a symbol of their city, but of the entire republic.

Therefore, for this work, the architect was chosen with special care. Given the fact that the base of the dome was supposed to be about 42 meters, there were no especially willing to take on such work.

In 1418, the city authorities announced a competition for the best design of the dome. The contestant must be a resident of Florence (it was a purely patriotic case). After going through many proposals, the members of the commission settled on two options - on the projects of Brunelleschi and Ghiberti (Brunelleschi's idea to build a brick dome of the Florence Cathedral using a two-layer frame reinforced with ribs made a sensation).

Since the jury could not give preference to one of these projects, Ghiberti and Brunelleschi received an offer to work on the dome together. Interestingly, until this moment, Brunelleschi did not show himself as an architect, and he was more known as a sculptor, jeweler, master of musical instruments and watchmaker. Over time, all the main work fell on the shoulders of Brunelleschi: Ghiberti, who had a lot of private orders, gradually stopped appearing at the construction site.

When Brunelleschi completed the construction of the octagonal dome, the one covered with dark red tiles, with eight main ribs that took on the main load, with a huge white marble lantern, completed after Brunelleschi's death, was a real masterpiece of engineering and almost immediately became a symbol of the city .

Despite the fact that the Basilica of Santa Maria del Fiore was officially opened and consecrated by Pope Eugene IV on August 30, 1436, the dome of the Florence Cathedral was not yet completed and was being completed.

Description of the temple

The huge temple complex of Santa Maria del Fiore occupied most of the Duomo Square, consists of a temple, a baptistery and the Giotto bell tower located on the opposite side of the dome, in the niches of which sixteen sculptures of the prophets were installed. The height of Giotto's Campanile is almost 85 meters, the length is -15 (it is interesting that when Giotto began to build it, the bell tower was more likely conceived as a decorative building and was not intended for daily use).

• The area of ​​the temple is 8300 m2 and it can accommodate about 90 thousand people;
• The length of the cathedral is 153 meters;
• Width in the transept - 90 m;
• The total height together with the cross is 114 m;
• The height of the vaults is 45 m;
• The height of the dome from the inside is 90 meters;
• The diameter of the dome is 42 m.

The walls of the temple and Kamanila Giotto are lined on the outside with panels of green and marble marble. pink flowers with white border. The red-brown dome with white ribs, together with the three small domes on the side, harmoniously combine with each other, giving the basilica an elegant and airy look.

The basilica was built in the shape of a Catholic cross, with a dome on the east side and Giotto's bell tower on the west side. Inside it there are three naves, one semicircular apse and two side transepts. Interestingly, the architect Brunelleschi designed the dome in such a way that at noon on June 21, the longest day of the year, the sun's rays, passing through the dome of the temple, fell on the marble medallion located on the floor.

Everyone who was inside the temple for the first time is surprised at first by the emptiness of the interior design, but after looking closely, it becomes clear that there are many real works of art here: eminent painters and sculptors of Italy worked on the interior of the cathedral, who created many interesting paintings, stained-glass windows and sculptures here ( among them is a painting depicting Dante reading the Divine Comedy, and on the inside of the dome you can see frescoes depicting the Last Judgment).

Also noteworthy is the unusual clock, the hands of which move in the opposite direction, the dial is divided into 24 divisions, and portraits of the four evangelists are located along the edges. It is interesting that in addition to the sculptural compositions depicting scenes from the Bible, here you can also see the two creators of the basilica - the bust of Brunelleschi and the bas-relief of Giotto (both of them were buried on the territory of Santa Maria del Fiore).

The role of the cathedral in the life of society

Santa Maria del Fiore has witnessed many historical events throughout its history. So, in the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral, representatives of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in 1439 signed a temporary union. After the return of the Byzantine delegation to Constantinople, the people refused to attend the services of those who "fell into Latinism", the priests publicly repented and renounced the agreement.

Also, the Ferraro-Florence Cathedral was a witness to the “Pazzi conspiracy”, when in 1478 the conspirators killed Giuliano Medici, and Lorenzo barely escaped death (according to one version, he managed to hide in the temple, according to another, he left through the underground passage). Here, one of the most famous preachers of his time, Savanarola, preached about the renewal of the church, whose denunciatory speeches and calls for asceticism could not please Pope Borgia, as a result of which the preacher was first accused of heresy, then forced to undergo a trial by fire, and when it did not take place, they hanged him in Piazza della Signoria and burned the body.

How to get there

Those who wish to see Santa Maria del Fiore with its famous dome and Giotto's bell tower, when planning a trip, should take into account that it is not recommended to go to Florence in July or August - at this time it is very hot and stuffy, and the streets are crowded with tourists. It is also better to avoid trips in November - this month is unnecessarily rainy. The best time to visit the city is March, April, September and October.

Florence can be reached by plane (the airport is located 5 kilometers from the city center), train (a ticket from Rome will cost 33 euros, and the trip will take an hour and a half), bus or car. Since the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore is located in the very center of Florence, getting to it on your own is quite easy: all you need to do is take a bus, rent a bike near the station or walk.

Autar: Marozava S.V.,
Dadana: 21-11-2010 ,
Krynica: website.

florence cathedral, or the Ferraro-Florence Cathedral - the ecumenical council of 1438-1439, at which the Florentine Union of 1439 was concluded. Convened by Pope Eugene IV. Opened in Ferrara in 1438. In April - October, preliminary private meetings and negotiations were held between representatives of the Latin and Greek parties. On 8.X.1438 the cathedral sessions were solemnly opened.

The delegation of the Kyiv Metropolis (at that time united within the Moscow state and the GDL) included the Bishop of Suzdal Abraham, Grigory Bolgarinovich, the author of the Tale of the Florentine Cathedral, the monk Simeon from Suzdal, and others. The delegation was headed by the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia Isidor.

The participants of the cathedral were divided into 2 camps: opponents and supporters of unification with the Roman Church. The union was supported by the Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaiologos, the patriarchs of Tsargorod Joseph II, Isidore of Kyiv, Bessarion of Nicaea, and a number of other metropolitans and bishops. The opposition was led by the Ephesian Metropolitan Marko Evgenik.

Since an epidemic raged in Ferrara and due to financial difficulties in February 1439, the cathedral was moved to Florence.

Dogmatic bickering continued for a long time, in which one side vainly expected concessions from the other. The most active supporters of the union with Rome at the council turned out to be Metropolitan Bessarion of Nicaea and Metropolitan Isidore, who had come from Muscovite Russia and saw no other way to save the Byzantine Empire from the Turks than in alliance with the papacy. They persuaded the emperor and the dying patriarch Joseph to make concessions. Bishop of Meton, who participated in the council, wrote that Isidore was the first to begin to prove the need for accepting the union on the terms proposed by the pope, and decisively influenced the emperor in this sense, using his enormous authority. Pressure was put on other Greek hierarchs. The only Russian bishop brought by Isidore to the cathedral, Abraham of Suzdal, was also forced, after a week of imprisonment in prison, to attach his signature to the act of the Union of Florence.

On July 5, 1439, an act of union was signed. The Council ended on July 6, 1439 with the solemn promulgation of the unification of East and West in the church sphere.

One of the companions of Metropolitan Isidore, the Suzdal hieromonk Simeon, on official instructions, kept a record of the conciliar acts. Reworked in Novgorod and Moscow, after a quarrel with Isidore, this entry formed the basis of The Tale of the Eighth (Florence) Council. In it, he departs from the objective impartiality inherent in the protocol. What happened at the Council of Florence was perceived in Moscow as a betrayal of the Orthodox faith by the Byzantine emperor, the Tsargorod patriarch, and the money-hungry Greeks.

Over time, the Florentine Cathedral was reflected in a number of works by Moscow scribes, where the apostasy of the Greeks is sharply opposed to the steadfastness in the Orthodox faith of the Moscow prince. Their authors began to explain the fall in 1453 under the blows of the Turks of the Byzantine Empire, the death of the "royal city" (Tsargorod) with their renunciation of their faith. The well-known theory "Moscow - the third Rome" developed by Philotheus of Pskov was based on two positions: the betrayal of the Greek faith at the Florence Cathedral and the defeat in 1453 of Greek weapons under the second Rome, which was considered Tsargrad-Constantinople.

Literature:

1. Bely A.V. The Union of Flarents of 1439 // Religion and Churches in Belarus: Encyclopedic Davednik. - Mn., 2001. - S. 340.

2. Martos A. Belarus in the historical state and church life. - Reprint. Buenos Aires, 1966. - Mn., 1990. - S. 111-112.

3. Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian church. - Reprint. Paris, 1959. - M., 1991. - T. 1. - S. 349-354.

4. Gudzyak B. Kriza and reform: Metropolis of Kiev, Tsargorod Patriarchate and the genesis of the Beresteysk Univ.: Per. from English - Lviv, 2000.

5. Halecki O. From Florence to Brest (1439-1596). second edition. — Hamden, 1968.

6. Gill J. The Council of Florence. - Cambridge, 1982.

By the time the council was convened, Plifon was already in very advanced years: he was under 80. In Renaissance Italy, he was treated as a living classic, and everywhere he was accompanied by crowds of admirers. The philosopher uttered pearls of wisdom, which were immediately written down after him; he bathed in the rays of his glory and enjoyed everyone's attention.

2. Serious difficulties in conducting the discussion were caused by profound differences between Greek and Latin methodologies. On the one hand, as the Byzantine Thomist George Scholarius openly admitted, the poor dialectical training of his compatriots could not be compared with the refined syllogisms in the argument of the Latins, and they simply knew how to argue much better than the Greeks.

On the other hand, being the heirs of Latin scholasticism, Western theologians approached every issue from a philosophical and dialectical point of view, often at the expense of a biblical and patristic perspective. For the Orthodox, who have never viewed theology as an exclusively scholastic or scientific discipline, this approach was a serious problem. Even Isidore of Kyiv, an ardent admirer of Latin learning and theology, was forced to admit that the unusual philosophical categories and arguments used by the Latins at the council rather deepened the schism, increased and intensified the differences.

So, the Byzantine delegation in Ferrara only formally represented the Oriental and for the most part was not theologically prepared for a serious discussion. In addition, it was divided among themselves by another factor weakening it. This division can be illustrated by two of its most prominent members.

Bessarion, who, like his main protagonist Mark of Ephesus, studied with Plethon, was selflessly devoted to the Greek classical tradition. The preservation of this sacred heritage became the main concern of his life. Feeling that the last days of the Empire were approaching, the ardent humanist came to the conclusion that this was above all the mission of the Latin West. Considering his passionate love of antiquity and his philosophical orientation, not to mention his conviction that it would be impossible for Christianity to survive under Islamic domination, one can understand why he was fairly easily convinced of the correctness of the Latin position. In 1439 he signed the union.

He also managed to convince a number of council delegates of the rightness of his choice, including Isidore, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia. It is significant that long before 1453 both Bessarion and Isidore emigrated to Italy, officially converted to Catholicism and took high positions in the papal curia. Both became not only papal legates, but even cardinals.

The Byzantine humanists at the council treated St. Mark of Ephesus, a representative of the Palamite hesychast tradition. He was also disliked by those who wanted to accept the union in exchange for political gain.

Yes, indeed, St. The brand had a different value system. To this day, one can often hear accusations of fanaticism and ultraconservatism leveled against him by liberal historians and theologians. A modern Roman Catholic historian no doubt expressed the widely held opinion when he wrote the following words: "If one single reason for the failure of the Council of Florence could be singled out, it is Mark Eugenicus, Metropolitan of Ephesus."

And yet, St. Mark sincerely strove for unity, otherwise he would not have gone to the cathedral. But he was also convinced that in order to achieve unity, Rome must yield on a number of points, in particular, to abandon unilateral innovations, such as the filioque's illegal interpolation and the new scholastic doctrine of purgatory. And he was deeply disappointed by what he saw in Florence. St. Mark refused to sign the union of 1439 and upon his return to Constantinople became the leader of the Orthodox. After the death of St. Mark in 1445, this leadership passed to his student George Scholarius.

3. One of the main sources of knowledge about the cathedral is the memoirs of Deacon Sylvester Siropolus, the great ecclesiarch of St. Sophia of Constantinople. In them you can find not only a story about the cathedral itself, but also a lot of everyday information and other very characteristic sketches made by an extremely perceptive observer and participant in the events. Both the Greek and Latin transcripts of the cathedral have been lost. There is only their reconstruction, relatively recently (1953) created by the Jesuit historian J. Gill. From sources contemporary to the cathedral, one can also point to its history, written by the zealous Uniate Dorotheus, Metropolitan of Mytilene (he even received a monetary reward from the pope for his work), and the autobiographical work of St. Mark of Ephesus "Exposition of the Most Holy Metropolitan of Ephesus on how he received the episcopal dignity, and an explanation of the cathedral that was in Florence."

The cathedral could not begin for a long time. Although its official opening took place on April 9, 1438 (a month after the Byzantines arrived in Ferrara), the emperor immediately requested a delay in order to await the arrival of secular rulers. In addition, questions of protocol were delayed, for example, who should call the council the pope or the emperor? Whose throne should be higher? From the very beginning, the Pope demanded that Patriarch Joseph, at the first meeting, kiss his shoe according to the Latin custom, and only after the firm refusal of the Greek side withdrew his demand.

Only at the beginning of June were appointed two commissions of ten people from each side, which began to discuss the question of purgatory. The other thirteen sessions, from October 8 to December 13, were devoted to the interpolation of the Creed. During these meetings, Mark Eugenicus was the main representative of the Byzantine side, and Andrew of Rhodes and Cardinal Cesarini of the Latin.

As noted above, George Scholarius honestly admitted that his compatriots could not be compared with the Latins either in erudition or in dialectical skill. Patriarch Joseph was already at a very advanced age by that time. The illegitimate son of a Bulgarian tsar and a Greek aristocrat, he was a good-natured old man who was not distinguished by either outstanding mental abilities or good health and did not have any weight or authority. So he failed to rally the Greek delegation into a single entity. Each spoke on his own, in contrast to the Latin side, which acted as a single cohesive team. Moreover, the Greeks were often at odds with each other. Their task was complicated by the position of the emperor. Despite his desire not to lower the dignity of his imperial majesty and his Church, he came to the cathedral to achieve union at any cost. John VIII was sufficiently versed in theology to understand that unity was impossible to achieve on a number of fundamental issues. He simply forbade his delegation to discuss such issues as the hypostases of the Holy Trinity, the difference between essence and energies, etc. When, when discussing the issue of filioque, one of the members of the Latin delegation raised the issue of the energies of God, St. Mark of Ephesus answered him with embarrassment that he had no authority to discuss this issue. It is hard to imagine how a council could come to genuine unity, at which it was impossible to discuss the main issues that were main reason separation.

Eventually the Greeks surrendered. The following issues for discussion were on the officially approved agenda of the council:

1) purgatory;

2) the procession of the Holy Spirit;

3) the role of the pope;

4) leavened or unleavened bread of the Eucharist and other liturgical distinctions (for example, Epiclesis, etc.).

Other issues, such as priesthood marriage and the possibility of divorce, were decided to be discussed later. It was agreed that the basis for discussions would be: Scripture, the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, the works of the Fathers of the Church, recognized as saints both in the West and in the East. The Greeks, after some pressure, agreed to a kind of "zero option": every Latin father was considered equal in authority with a Greek father. Thus the Latins gained another advantage, for they knew both Latin and Greek fathers, while the Greeks generally knew only their own.

According to the prominent American Orthodox historian J. Erickson, “in the discussions, both sides failed to get closer to the serious dogmatic issues that separated them. The Latins did not want to notice not only the main intuitions and fears of the Greek patristic tradition, but also many aspects of the Latin tradition. By misjudging the significance and weight of their often dubious sources, they were only trying to cram someone else's theology into the Procrustean bed of their own system" (Filioque and the fathers at the Council of Florence).

So, the commissions worked from October 8 to December 13, 1438. In the meantime, they managed to agree that the pope would open the cathedral, but, as it were, with the sanction of the emperor. The first meeting took place on January 8, 1439. But by that time, the papal treasury was completely empty. In December, an epidemic of pestilence broke out in Ferrara, which provided a convenient excuse to transfer the conciliar meetings to Florence, which offered its hospitality. So the Greeks were still cut off from the sea. In Florence, for the first time, private discussions and negotiations on commissions on subjects for conciliar consideration resumed.

The conciliar sessions proper took place from March 2 to August 26, 1439. The first eight sessions (March 2–24) concentrated exclusively on the trinitarian implications of the filioque. The meetings were accompanied by heated debates about the authenticity of the patristic texts used by each of the parties.

But this was not the only source of tension. Various not-too-beautiful scenes took place at the meetings of the cathedral. The Georgian bishop accused its participants of paganism, since, in his opinion, the council discussed mainly the pagans Plato and Aristotle, hitherto unknown to him. Vissarion publicly called Mark of Ephesus demoniac, to which he replied: “You are a bastard, which is proved by your behavior!” Some Greek bishops helpfully reported to the pope that Mark called him a heretic. Looking ahead, we can say that the stubbornness and obstinacy of the Ephesian Metropolitan aroused such anger from the emperor that he finally ordered him to be placed in custody and not to release the final negotiations at the council for the whole time.

All this led the cathedral to another dead end, and from March 24 to May 27, work again took place only in commissions. The Roman curia, suffering from lack of money and irritated by the intractability of the Greeks, stopped giving them subsidies for maintenance, and they began to suffer hardships. At the same time, the highest Catholic prelates made great efforts to charm the Greeks and win them over to their side.

Vissarion made friends with many humanists, with whom he was related by love for Greek antiquity. Only Mark of Ephesus did not give up. Plethon had long ceased to go to cathedral meetings that interested him little: he lectured at various educational institutions and in the circles of his fans and enjoyed the attention and fame. The ruler of Florence, Cosimo de' Medici, founded the Platonic Academy in his honor.

At the end of May, Patriarch Joseph surrendered and decided to sign everything. However, on June 10, he died. One member of the Greek delegation sarcastically said that, as a decent person who had lost the remnants of his prestige, there was simply nothing else for him to do. He was buried in the same church where the council met, Santa Maria Novella. His tomb is still there today.

And the work of the cathedral continued. St. By that time, Mark was already in custody and did not take part in the discussions. Over the past six weeks, a range of issues have been discussed, including the supremacy of the pope, the Eucharist, and purgatory again.

Only after all these discussions, on July 6, 1439, Cardinal Giulio Cesarini and Metropolitan Bessarion of Nicaea proclaimed the unification of the Churches in Greek and Latin.

4. As can be seen from the above, there were very few plenary sessions at the Ferrara-Florence Council. Much of the important work has been done in small groups and commissions. It was at these meetings that experts from both sides discussed, corrected, and finally approved the points that made up the decision of the council adopted in July 1439, which was called Laetentur caeli. Only the introduction and conclusion of this document were written additionally.

The terms of the association were as follows:

1 . Purgatory. Although the doctrine of purifying fire seemed to the Byzantines to be very secondary, at the insistence of the Latins, the doctrine of purgatory became the first item on the agenda of the Ferrara-Florence Council and was discussed at great length by both sides. A significant part of the Laetentur caeli is also dedicated to him. This question illustrates the fundamentally different approach on both sides to the doctrine of salvation.

Unlike other issues discussed at the council, the problem of purgatory was relatively new. Only in the XIII century. the Byzantines first learned about this Latin teaching. The first discussion on this topic known to us took place in 1235 in Otranto (Apulia) between the Metropolitan of Corfu George Bardanes and a certain Franciscan named Bartholomew. As is clear from the latter's account of this meeting, the metropolitan did not like the new doctrine of the "third place" and the "cleansing fire" at all. It was Bishop George who created the neologism "porgatorion" (purgatory) to denote this teaching. At first, the Greeks equated it with the heresy of universal salvation (apokatastasis), but soon they had a number of cases to understand it better.

In 1254 Pope Innocent IV attempted to impose this teaching on the Orthodox of Cyprus. His official letter, dated March 6, 1254, is called "certificate of the birth of purgatory as a doctrinally determined place."

The next step in the history of purgatory was the infamous Council of Lyon (1274), at which Byzantine envoys were ordered to accept this creed on behalf of Emperor Michael VIII. The formula contained in this imperial confession of faith is later included in the theological definition of the council.

Apparently, by 1438 the Latin theology of purgatory, into which the souls who had time to repent, but who had not had time to do all the expiatory works for their lifetime sins, fell, was already quite well developed. The Western delegates at the Ferrara-Florence Council asserted that this teaching was apostolic, patristic, and obligatory for the entire Church. For them, purgatory was a place in other world where souls go to do redemptive work through punishment for their unredeemed sins. Although the guilt of sin, they believed, ended with death, the punishment had to be paid one way or another.

This doctrine cannot be understood outside the legalistic Latin system, which uses legal concepts to explain eschatological realities. Behind this doctrine lies the legalistic conviction that divine justice requires satisfaction. That is why souls after death must suffer expiatory punishments for the "cancellation" of their sins.

This eschatology, painted to the smallest detail, was based primarily on the authority of Rome, scholastic theology, and on a number of provisions of some Latin fathers, especially St. Ambrose of Milan and St. Gregory the Great. So the Latins had something to refer to. In contrast, the Greek patristic literature, as a rule, passes over in silence the specific questions of the posthumous fate of a person, quite reasonably considering it impious to try to penetrate the secrets of the Divine economy.

In this regard, the Byzantines had to formulate an answer to the doctrine of purgatory right at the council. St. Mark of Ephesus argued that neither the liturgy of the Church, nor the fathers, nor the Scriptures give grounds for the idea of ​​purgatory. He noted that the practice and tradition of the Church are silent both about the intermediate state or place for souls after death, and about material fire, not to mention the scholastic distinction between guilt and punishment. Undoubtedly, it was not easy for the Byzantines to understand the legalistic and rationalistic model of redemption contained in the Latin teaching, which did not fit at all with their understanding of the meaning of salvation as communion with God, as personal spiritual growth that continues in the next life.

The final definition of the 1439 council regarding purgatory was largely Latin in content. According to him, some souls "are cleansed through a purifying punishment after death", others, already cleansed, ascend to heaven, and still others, if they are unbaptized or die in a state of mortal sin, "immediately descend into hell."

Nevertheless, this formal definition is a slightly softened version of Western teaching. It did not include two provisions to which the Greeks objected particularly sharply. This is the position of material fire and the very idea of ​​a place or state of purification, which is called purgatory.

So this point cannot be recognized as an unconditional victory of the Latins. The issue remained vague and unconvincing for both sides.

The doctrine of purgatory, as formulated in the formula of the union of 1439, became the theological foundation of the doctrine of indulgences. And the widespread trade in indulgences that developed later (which supposedly could shorten the time spent in purgatory) was largely the fruit of the definitions developed in Florence.

2 . A similar failure characterizes the clause of the agreement concerning the even more dubious doctrine of the filioque.

Discussions about the Filioque touched on two aspects of this problem: how legitimate was the papal interpolation into the conciliar and how theologically correct was the very theory of the double procession of the Holy Spirit.

The Byzantines opened the discussion with the announcement of the irrefutable fact that the extra phrase inserted into the Symbol by the Latin West was an illegal interpolation; moreover, the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus clearly decreed that nothing could be added to or subtracted from the Symbol. The Latins replied that the fathers of the Council of Ephesus did not mean a change in words, but a change in meaning, while the Latin insertion not only did not change the meaning of the Symbol, but even clarified it.

Unable to reach an agreement on the first point, the parties proceeded to discuss the very content of the exercise. The Latins, as always, vehemently assured that their understanding of the problem did not imply "two principles" or "two sources" in the Godhead. But the Greeks were not convinced by their assurances.

In the end, the Byzantine unionists, seeking to find a way out of the impasse, proposed to take as a basis the agreement that supposedly existed on this issue among the fathers of the Church. For this, the following “brilliant” argument was used: if both the Greek and Latin Fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit, they could not be mistaken about His procession. Their trinitarian theology must be identical to each other: even if they expressed it differently, they actually meant the same thing. The origin of a filio was thus declared to be the same as that of per filium. Both formulas became expressions of the same dogmatic truth. In the end, this highly controversial axiom was taken as a basis.

Mark Eugenic, for his part, was convinced that necessary condition for true unification is the exclusion of the Latin interpolation from the Creed and, accordingly, the rejection of the anathemas of the Council of Lyon (1274) against those who rejected the truth of the filioque. Nothing of the kind was decided in 1439. It turned out the opposite: at the end of discussions on this topic, the Orthodox were offered to accept the Latin teaching. They were not offered an alternative. Thus the filioque was held to be theologically correct and "legitimately and justifiably inserted" into . Still, the council did not oblige the Christian East to use interpolation. The final formula was that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from "a single principle" and that the Greek Fathers, when they said "through the Son", really meant "and from the Son."

Thus, it can be stated that the problem of the filioque in Florence remained unresolved. The council's decision on this matter also did nothing to bring the unification of the Churches closer.

3 . Question about papal authority discussed only at the last few sessions of the Council, immediately before the signing of the July Union. This fact in itself is significant. Although the Byzantine participants in the council were aware of what was happening in Basel, apparently they did not care too much. In any case, they (again in the absence of St. Mark of Ephesus) failed to make critical arguments against the concept of papal power put forward by Western canonists and apologists for the papacy. The timidly expressed views of the Byzantines were based on ideas that were very far from the real papal power that developed towards the end of the Middle Ages. It seems that the Greeks were concerned only with the preservation of the theory of pentarchy. In this they went along.

With regard to papal authority, the council adopted the following decision: as the successor of St. Peter the Bishop of Rome "is the supreme hierarch of the whole world", "the vicar of Christ" and "the head of the whole Church". “The Pope has full power (“plena potestas” is the battle cry of Western anti-consiliarists; its use in the decrees of the Council of Florence was a powerful blow to the Council of Basel. A.D.) to lead and manage all and all Christians, as (“quemadmodum et” or according to -Greek "κάθοντρόπον" i.e. "to the extent to which") this was established by the ecumenical councils and determined in the holy canons; the Patriarch of Constantinople is the second after the most holy Roman hierarch (thus, only at the Council of Florence did the Roman Church officially recognize the second place of the See of Constantinople for the first time in its history. A.D.), Alexandria is in third place, Antioch is in fourth, Jerusalem is fifth in this order. They all retain all their rights and privileges.”

Interestingly, the last phrases of this provision are not contained in the Latin version of the cathedral document; they can only be found in the original Greek. This means that the Byzantines eventually managed to force the Latins to accept part of their ideas. Nevertheless, the Byzantine definition of the rights and privileges of the four eastern patriarchates is rather amorphous and could be interpreted by the Latins very broadly, while the portrait of the pope who nurtures the Ecumenical, directs and manages it is very specific. This is a maximalist interpretation of Roman supremacy.

Of course, the definition of 1439 regarding papal authority was directed mainly against Western conciliarism. As such, it proclaimed the end of this movement. The conciliar sovereignty and supremacy proclaimed twenty-five years ago at Constanta received a mortal blow in Florence in the "infallible document" of the Laetentur caeli. As a contemporary Roman Catholic historian writes, “Florence, by its very existence, was a counterbalance to the cathedral in Basel, which in the end outweighed it. By doing this, Florence put an end to the development of the conciliarist movement in the West, which threatened to change the very fabric of the Church. The great achievement of the Council of Florence for the West was that it ensured the victory of the popes in the struggle against consiliarism and the survival of the traditional order of the Church.

True, in fairness it should be noted that less than a century after this triumphant "achievement" it was challenged and rejected by the Protestant Reformation. And developed by the cathedral in 1438-1439. the theology of purgatory (and, accordingly, of indulgences), and the theory of papal power, contributed to the development of events that led to the refusal in 1617 of Martin Luther and his disciples of the entire post-Gregorian (Hildebrand) papal structure.

As for the Byzantines, in addition to the theory of pentarchy, they still managed to slip a certain ambiguity into the formulation of papal authority. According to it, the pope "leads and governs all and all Christians" only "to the extent to which" it was established by the Ecumenical Councils and defined in the holy canons. Thus, thanks to the celebrated Greek ingenuity, the concept of papal authority, certainly against the wishes of the Latin delegation and Pope Eugene himself, was accepted with a very significant reservation. True, this trick of the Greeks was nothing more than a "fig in your pocket": after all, in the West there were many Ecumenical Councils, including, for example, Lyon, and this place was understood here in a completely different way than in the East. Nevertheless, in the end, the Latins saw through this ambiguity and, after the fact, rewrote the officially adopted conciliar decree. Instead of the controversial "quemadmodum et" in the Latin text of the document, "quemadmodum etiam" was put, i.e. "as well as". However, the Greek text remained unchanged.

4 . In addition to the three doctrinal definitions of the papacy, the filioque, and purgatory, which were worked out in detail in the Laetentur caeli, the fourth item on the council's agenda, the question of rite and liturgical differences, was briefly mentioned in it. On this point, the council decided that ceremonial differences could not serve as an obstacle to unity, so the use of unleavened bread or leavened bread in the Eucharist was recognized as equivalent. The Greek and Latin rites were declared to be of equal value, and each could retain its own rite. The question of the epiclesis was passed over in silence.

And that was it. The decision of the council was proposed for signing. By then, the Greeks were most anxious to finally return home, and besides, the Latins kept them on a short leash through controlled provisioning and the constant reduction of life's amenities. In fairness, it must be said that no one was offered to sign the decree by force. Of course, the Greeks experienced some pressure, but still, in principle, freedom of speech and action remained with them. Nevertheless, the decree was signed by everyone, except for the Georgian delegation (it left without waiting for the end of the council), St. Mark of Ephesus, Metropolitan Isaiah of Stavropol and Plethon, who, for all his dislike of the Greek Church, found the Latin Church even more hostile and intolerant of free thought. Our compatriot Abraham of Suzdal, who did not know Greek and, apparently, did not really understand what was at stake, left his autograph in Slavic after the signature of his metropolitan: "Abraham, the humble Bishop of Suzhdal."

According to legend, when Pope Eugene heard that Mark of Ephesus had not signed the union, he exclaimed: “So nothing has been achieved!”

5. So, the Ferraro-Florence Cathedral actually ended in a complete failure. The agreement that had been so laboriously given was completely empty and did not solve anything. It was not even a compromise, but only an evasive and ambiguous definition, in principle incapable of resolving the real differences and disagreements between the two sides. It seems that all participants in these events soon realized this. As Deacon Sylvester Siropoulos wrote, everyone had only one desire to return home as soon as possible.

The only historical achievement of the Council of Florence was the defeat it inflicted on conciliarism. The nightmare of conciliarism was finally buried for papism on January 18, 1460, when the bull Execrabilis was published, officially forbidding the appeal of the popes. Ecumenical Council. But this ban was already a formal and symbolic act: the conciliarist movement gave up its breath in 1439, when the decree of the Council of Florence turned the Council of Basel into an illegal assembly. This was followed by the rejection of Basel by most governments in Europe. The Basel Cathedral ended in failure. And without a council, the reform of the Catholic Church became unrealistic. Rome managed to prevent the reform, but, as noted above, in response, he soon received the Reformation.

The Act of Unity was solemnly read in the collegiate church of Florence in Greek and Latin. As a sign of unity, the Greeks and Latins embraced and kissed. Liturgy was served together. After that, the pope found ships for the Greeks, and they were finally able to go home. Isidore of Moscow and Vissarion of Nicaea were in no hurry to leave and stayed for some time in Italy. In the end, as mentioned above, both were elevated to the rank of cardinals.

The pope undertook to keep 300 soldiers and 2 galleys in Constantinople, and in case of special need to send the emperor 20 galleys for six months or 10 galleys for a year. In addition, in case of extreme danger, he undertook to raise European sovereigns to crusade. And finally, in order to revive the economic life of the city, he undertook to send all pilgrims to the East through Constantinople.

Such was the price of the union, but her dads could not pay either. None of the promises were kept. If a successful crusade followed immediately after the union, perhaps she would have had supporters in Byzantium. But there was no trip...

The union was immediately and unanimously rejected by practically all the clergy and people. The bishops returning from Florence, going ashore in Constantinople, immediately rejected the union and disavowed their signatures, citing imperial pressure, due to which they placed them under a conciliar definition. There is no need to repeat that they were cunning: as we have seen, Mark of Ephesus, who withstood pressure and did not sign the union, returned home unharmed. The emperor, seeing resistance, did not proclaim the union in St. Sophia.

To Vissarion and his humanist friends in Italy, who were doing everything possible to get help for their compatriots, the mood that prevailed in Constantinople seemed wild, stupid and limited. They were convinced that an alliance with the West would bring Byzantium such a surge of new cultural and political forces that it would be able to get back on its feet. But practice has shown how deeply they were mistaken ...

Plethon (this is a pseudonym taken by the philosopher in consonance with Plato) left his native Constantinople and settled in Mistra, where he founded the Platonic Academy and wrote his main work on the restructuring of the state on the principles of Plato's teachings: in his opinion, this was the only way to revive the Greek world. He called himself a Hellenic and was proud of it, declaring that he moved to the Peloponnese, because there the purest Greek race was preserved. Plethon put forward a lot of proposals and ideas in the social, economic and military areas, of which almost nothing had any practical value. In the field of religion, Plethon preached the cosmology of Plato with an admixture of Epicureanism and Zoroastrianism. Formally, he considered himself a Christian, but rarely turned to Christianity as such and liked to identify God with Zeus. He proposed to organize a secret pagan community centered in Mistra, which would be the core of the liberation of the Greek nation and its return to its former glory. Plethon's religious views have never been published. The manuscript in which he outlined them, after the fall of Constantinople, fell into the hands of his student and opponent George Scholarius (at that time he had already become Patriarch Gennady), who, having read it with horror, immediately burned the manuscript. Only a few fragments of the manuscript have survived to this day. The school of Plethon in Mistra was famous all over the world. Students came to him from all over to learn from his wisdom. Let us recall that Vissarion, and George Scholarius, and Mark of Ephesus were his students. The philosopher died in Mistra around 1452. In 1465, the Italian dynasty of Malatesta temporarily conquered Sparta from the Turks and transferred the ashes of Plethon to Rimini, where he rests now in the church of St. Francis.

He could not tolerate his Orthodox subjects obeying the Metropolitan of Moscow, while Lithuania was in constant enmity with Moscow, and finally achieved that for southwestern Russia, subject to him, the Patriarch of Constantinople appointed a Metropolitan Cyprian separate from Moscow. So the Orthodox Russian Church was divided into two metropolises: Kyiv and Moscow. They joined together, then separated again. Metropolitans were sent from Byzantium and were usually of Greek origin. Isidore was the last Greek metropolitan of Moscow.

The offensive of the Turks on Byzantium and the question of the union of Orthodoxy with Catholicism

Byzantium was then living out its last days; almost all of her possessions have already fallen into the hands of the Turks; only the capital with a small area remained in the power of the emperor. The days of Byzantium were numbered; only one hope supported the emperor - the hope for Western Europe. There was a time (XI-XIII century), she sent hundreds of thousands of her soldiers to fight the East. Her brave fighters went under the banner of the cross to fight not for life, but for death with the merciless enemies of Christianity - Muslims, to fight for the desecrated shrine, for the oppressed Christians, for the liberation of the Holy Land. And the crusaders did not shed their blood in vain. They managed to snatch St. earth; but the time of ardent enthusiasm has passed, the peoples of Western Europe have lost interest in their work!..

The Turks gradually took away from them that holy land, which their ancestors had watered with their blood and littered with their bones. The semi-savage horde of Turks in the 13th century moved out of Central Asia and began to push the eastern Byzantine possessions. Weak, pampered Byzantines were unable to fight against their warlike neighbors; one after another the Byzantine regions fell into the hands of the Turks; their strength became more and more formidable ... The war with the Gentiles, robbery and extermination were not only a favorite, but even a sacred thing for the Turks: they were Mohammedans, and Mohammed commanded his followers to force Mohammedanism everywhere and exterminate all the Gentiles with fire and sword . In the middle of the XIV century, Turkish banners fluttered already on the European coast, and in 1361 Adrianople turned into the capital of the Turkish Sultan Murad I. another terrible massacre - on the Kosovo field. Here the southern Slavs - Serbs and Bulgarians - fought desperately with the battle-hardened hordes of Murad for their freedom; here he buried her for a long time!..

The Turks took possession of almost the entire Balkan Peninsula. The queue was behind Constantinople ... But the emperor thought that not everything was lost yet; what else might help. Where was it to be expected from, if not from the Christian West, which had already tested its strength in the struggle against the Muslim East, and tested it with success? And how could the emperor not count on the help of the West? After all, it would seem that it was inconvenient for Western sovereigns to let into Europe, in their close neighborhood, a strong semi-savage horde, for which there was no covenant higher than the extermination or enslavement of Christians. But here's the problem: for four centuries the enmity between the Eastern and Western churches has already lasted. Discord and enmity appeared most of all because the Roman patriarch, or pope, the lord of an enviable church, considering himself the main vicar of Christ on earth, wanted to be recognized by all Christians as the only supreme pastor of the whole christian church who is given the power by God himself to "bind and loose." Great was the power of the popes - the mighty sovereigns of the West bowed their heads to these proud successors of the humble Christ; but the Byzantine patriarchs did not bow, and the other Eastern patriarchs followed them...

Since the 11th century (disputes and disagreements had already existed before), this church schism began, and enmity arose first between the pope and the Eastern patriarchs, then it passed to other clergy, and finally to the laity. That was the hindrance to the union of Western European sovereigns with Byzantium. The emperor understood that only the patronage of Rome could help him in the fight against the Turks. Although the popes at that time were no longer as powerful as before, their voice still had power with Western sovereigns. Pope in Rome was then Eugene IV. He promised Emperor John to raise the whole of Europe against the Turks, but only if the Eastern Church concluded union with the western one and merge into one with it. The Pope proposed to convene a council of the highest clergy of the Western and Eastern Church in order to sort out and settle all the disagreements between the Greek Church and the Roman Church by common forces. The emperor consulted with the patriarchs on what to do. Some did not like this cathedral at all, but everyone understood what a service the pope could render to perishing Byzantium, and therefore agreed.

Convocation of a council in Florence for the purpose of concluding a union

It was decided to come to the council to conclude a union in Italy. At first, the cathedral met in something like Ferrara, but then moved to Florence. In addition to the emperor and the pope, the council was attended by many metropolitans and bishops of the east and west. Metropolitan Isidor of Moscow also went there. He was a very learned and eloquent man; he was a Greek by birth and wholeheartedly desired the unification of the churches: it seemed to him the only way to save his fatherland. But it was difficult to expect anything good from the Florence Cathedral and the impending union. Already at the opening of the cathedral, disputes began about the place: the emperor wanted, like the emperor Constantine the Great Moon at the Council of Nicaea in 325, to take first place, but the pope did not concede, insisting that he, as the head of the church, deserves primacy. Finally, the dispute was settled on the fact that in the middle of the church, against the altar, the Gospel should lie; that on the right side the pope occupies the first place among the Catholics, and below him there is a throne for the absent German emperor; so that the Byzantine emperor sits on the left side, also on the throne, but further from the altar of the pope. Then, more learned and eloquent persons were chosen for the debate on the union on the part of the Western and Eastern clergy. The Greeks chose milestones of saints: Mark of Ephesus, Russian Metropolitan Isidore and Vissarion of Nicaea.

The main dispute was about the procession of the Holy Spirit. Our co-religionists, the Greeks, held the doctrine that The Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Romans added: and Son. At the same time, they referred to some ancient manuscripts, and the Greeks claimed that they were fake. Fifteen times the Council of Florence met to debate this question. The controversy became heated. Mark of Ephesus especially ardently opposed the Latin heresy, which did not allow the Orthodox to agree to the union. The emperor and the pope tried by all means to contain the strife; they say that even threats and bribery were used. Finally, the Greeks yielded - they agreed to conclude the Union of Florence, recognizing the teaching of the Western Church about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and also that, in addition to hell and paradise, there is also a purgatory where souls are cleansed of sins for the transition to paradise. The conditions of the Union of Florence also recognized that unleavened bread and leavened bread could equally be used during the priesthood, and most importantly, what the pope wanted, they recognized that he was the vicar of Christ and the head of the entire Christian church, and the Byzantine patriarch must obey him.

Union of Florence

On July 6, 1439, the pope celebrated Mass with unusual solemnity in the main Florence Cathedral. With a huge gathering of people, the pope blessed the emperor, bishops, dignitaries. Tears of joy shone in his eyes when, on his orders, the charter (letter) of the Union of Florence, the union of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, was read loudly from the pulpit.

“Let heaven and earth rejoice! - stated in the charter of the Florentine Union. - The barrier between the eastern and western churches was crumbling. The world has returned to the cornerstone of Christ: two peoples already form one; the dark cloud of sorrow and strife has vanished; the quiet light of harmony shines again! ..

May our mother church rejoice, seeing her children, after a long time! separation united again by love; thank the Almighty, who dried her bitter tears for them!” etc.

How could dad not be happy?! A great deed would be accomplished if the Union of Florence would restore the unity of the Christian Church. But the Western clergy did not make concessions; the pope cared too much about his power and earthly greatness, and only reluctantly, not out of conviction, but out of necessity, did the emperor and the eastern bishops sign the charter of the Union of Florence (and Mark of Ephesus even refused to sign it), - that's why the whole thing turned out to be fragile, and no one benefited from it. In Constantinople, when they learned about the terms of the Union of Florence, a great excitement arose: the people saw in such a union a betrayal of Orthodoxy, a betrayal ...

Russia and the Union of Florence, the exile of Metropolitan Isidore

The Russian Metropolitan Isidore also returned to his metropolis, strongly advocating union at the council. Even from the road, he sent a circular message about the Union of Florence throughout the Russian lands, urging Christians, Catholics and Orthodox to visit Orthodox and Catholic churches indifferently, to partake equally in both. Finally he arrived in Moscow. The clergy and a huge crowd of people were waiting for him in the Assumption Cathedral. Isidore appeared. A Latin cross was carried before him. Everyone was surprised by this custom, unprecedented in Russia. The solemn service began. Everyone is even more amazed: the metropolitan commemorates the pope instead of the ecumenical patriarchs! At the end of the service, the deacon loudly reads the letter of the Union of Florence. The clergy and laity do not know what to do: unprecedented innovations are being introduced, a departure from antiquity is clearly visible; but all this was done by the council, which is called ecumenical, it is mentioned that the charter of the Union of Florence was signed by the Byzantine emperor, who has always been considered the main pillar of Orthodoxy; the signatures of many Orthodox bishops are mentioned... They don't know what to think, what to say. But Grand Duke right there, in the church, he called Isidore a Latin charmer and ordered him to be put under guard. A council of Russian bishops was convened in 1441 to sort out this matter. Here Isidore was condemned as an apostate from Orthodoxy. He, however, managed to escape from custody to Rome. Thus the Union of Florence failed. This attempt to unite the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church ended in failure.

Independence of the Russian Church after the Union of Florence

After the overthrow of Isidore, the Grand Duke sent ambassadors to Greece with a request to appoint a new metropolitan; but when he learned that in fact the emperor and the patriarch had accepted the Union of Florence, he returned his embassy back. In 1448, Jonah was appointed metropolitan by a council of Russian pastors. Isidore was the last Greek metropolitan. After him, only Russians were elected to the Moscow metropolitans.