1. VilIer, particularly 283f., 68ff., 83ff.

2. Ibid., 78.

3. Ibid., 83ff. Also Frommann, Th., KrhtischBeitrage zur Geschichte der Florentiner Kircheneinigung (Halle, 1872), 86ff.Google Scholar

4. In May of 1438, at the third conference held between the Latin and the Greek delegations, Cardinal Cesarini Indicated, as chief differences between the Churches, the same four points which finally were included in the decree of union: (A) the procession of the Holy Spirit, (B) the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, (C) the Purgatory, (D) the authority of the Pope (Gill, 116; HL, 967f.; HKFe, 417). During the following discussions and negotiations, two related probleme were added: (a) the addition of the fihioque to the Creed (Syropoulob, VII, 9, p. 199), and (b) the “form of the Eucharist”, i.e. the problem of the Greek epiclesis after the words of consecration (Gill, 266f.). After the settlement on (A), the Latins submitted cedulae (concise statements for the discussion and for the preparation of the decree of Union) on (C), (a), (B), and (D) (Gill, 267, 274, n. 1; HL, 1013f.; HKF1, 396f.). After agreement was reached, on June 27, 1439, Cesarini gave the Latin synod a retrospective account of all the negotiations (OF, VI, 253–256; Gill, 285f.). At first he listed (A), (a), (B), (C) and (D) as the traditional differences. His remarks about the last point begin as follows: “Ultima differentia fuit do primatu, et haee visa est quoad humanitatem difficiior, quia libenter subditi a capite deviant, et in rei veritate usque nune non bone senserunt do potestate Romani pontificis, dicentes, quod erat Ut caput quo ad unuin totum, ut decanus. Et auditis sacris seripturis et sacris eonciliis visa est veritas, quod sedes apoatolica et Romanus pontifex est successor Petri⃜” (CF, VI, 255). In his letters of July 7 (OF, 1/2, docements 178 193), Eugene IV mentioned only (A) and (D) as the outstanding features of the preceding day's union. The Greeks often gave expression to the opinion that (A), with the inclusion of (a), was the only serious issue between the Churches. See, e.g., Cecconi, 115f., with document LXXVIII; Gill, 386. In the debate about (a), on Nov. 15, 1438, Mark Eugenicus said that he would have preferred even the diseussioa of (D) to that of (A) and (a) (HL, 984). After the council, the Greek opponents of the union had different opinions about the importance of (D). See Viller, 80, n. 1; 83, n. 3; also Jugie, 366; and cf. below, note 56.

5. On June 12, 1439, after the Pope had spoken about (B), (C), (D), (a) and (b), the leading Greek prelates expressed their opinion as follows: (B) and (C) ore relatively unimportant; nor is there anything in (a) and (b) that could preclude the union. Only (D) was not mentioned (Gill, 272; HL, 1019f.). On June 9, at a similar occasion, the Greeks had avoided any discussion of (D) (HKF1, 396f.).

6. The orginal contention of the Greeks was not that a council was a “more direct” or “more certain” representation of the Church than the Church's hierarchical heads (see below, note 7), rather, that an equal participation of all churches or patriarehies was the only way in which a council would win recognition as having been ecumenical. Thus for the Greeks, before, during and after the Council of Ferrara and Florence, it was such ecumenicity which made a council superior to any decisions of the Roman Church or of the Pope. In this light, the question could be raised whether or not the Council of Ferrara and Florence had been or would be more than a Latin enterprise. Cf., e.g., Viller, 25; CF, V, 159f.; CF, VI, 51; Gill, 377. On this line, the Greek criticism of the self-sufficiency of the Pope could come close to ideas of Western coneiliarists, even of Marsilius of Padua (Viller, 25). On the other side, for Western conciliarism a reunited Church was by no means a presupposition for declaring a council as ecumenical or for proclaiming the council's superiority over the Pope. The causa unioizis was only one among other concerns of the Western reform councils, and not the primary one. Cf., e.g., Cecconi, 41. However, many conciliarists were zealous champions of the cause of union (Viller, 300, 30f.), and this led them, notably Cusanus, to a better appreciation of the Greek form of opposition against papal supremacy (Heiler, 300ff., particularly 306–312). See further below, note 10.

7. According to Tierney, Western conciliarism has its roots in the understanding of the Church as a corporation. This concept was developed by canonists of the 13th century. In this approach, it became possible to understand any “head” of a church, including the Pope, from a new angle, as the representative of a corporative authority which originally belonged to “all members” This had little to do with the traditional concept of the corpus mysticum, in which the Pope did not represent the members, but represented Christ, the invisible head, to the members. See particularly Tierney, 132ff. The leading thinkers of couciliarism had moments of keen awareness of the tension between those two different conceptions of the Church. However, they did not succeed in expressing their objections to papal primacy in theological terms. Their claim that a council had a priority in being assisted by the Holy Spirit and in interpreting God's law did not make up for the preponderance of juristic arguments (and sometimes of considerations of mere expediency) in their various and always shifting assessments of the Pope's role in the Church. Their theological consideration of Christ as the primary head of the Church put both council and Pope on a secondary level of representation. But in working out the reasons for the superiority of a council over a Pope, a quite different set of reasons was used. See Heinz- Mohr, 136ff., 149ff.

8. Thus written by Emperor John VIII as early as 1422 (Ceceoni, document IV; ef. documents XIV, XXXVII, LXVII, etc.). See also the explanation of the Greek delegation at Ferrara why public sessions should no longer be suspended (Gill, 128), despite the Emperor's opinion that the Western princes were not sufficiently represented (ef. Gill, 88, 106, 111f.).

9. See e.g., Cecconi, 76, 108, 154ff., with documents XXX, XXXII, LX, LXI, CVI, CVII; Gill, 66.

10. Cusanus' idea of concordia and his colicern with its best representation and symbolization was from the beginning prior to his conciliaristic theories. See Heinz- Mohr, particularly 140ff. Thus he could use the terminology of conciliarism in explaining the representative character of the papacy, without ever tluaking, though, that a council is the Church's representation in such an absolute degree that the papacy is its mere function without representative power of its own. To Cusanus, the Pope was always more than a mere member or, at best, a caput minsteriale of the Church (Ibid., 74, 164f.). His decision against the remonstrants of Basel was for the sake of “universa ⃜ ecelesia per orbem dispersa, quae schisma noluit et Graeeam unionem optavit“ (Ibid., 147). This very concern he had already expressed in his De concordantia catholica: “Inter pares apostolos Petrum ad praesidendum electum, ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio” (I, 6). This was certainly more than a mere adjustment of the inter pares to the traditional primacy of honor granted to the Pope. As important as that inter pares was, in Cusaeus' conciliaristic phase, it was overshadowed, in his later defense of the cause of Florence, by the emphasis on capite constituto. It even underwent a change of interpretation: now the unique role of Peter no longer had its relation to and counterpoise in possible other forms of representation of the Church, but only in the Church herself: “Petrus est eomplicatio ccelesiae; ocelesi est explicatio Petri” (Heiler, 317)Google Scholar. For Ousanus' development, see, besides the book of Heinz Mohr, Heiler, 300ff. For Cesarini, see CF, IV/2, xxxiiff. Even the Duke of Mi1aa was utterly unwilling to accept “another Pope” from the Council of Basel, as long as Eugene IV was alive (Gill, 140).

11. As far as they understood the ecnmenicity of the Councils of Constance and Basel independently of the Greek idea of an ecumenical council, they regarded the Pope as the head (however limited by the privileges of a council) of the whole Church. Thus they shared the traditional Western view of the union as a reductio to the Roman Church. See Viller, 304.

12. In the problem of Purgatory (with related esehatological questions), the Greeks were neither unanimous nor very definite. The problem of the matter of the Eucharist was not solved in terms of right or wrong. The other two problems (addition to the Creed, and form of the Eucharist) caused many difficulties, but were finally dropped from the list of those items which were to be defined in the decree of union.

13. June 9 until before June 16. See Gill, 266ff.; HL, 1012ff.; HKFI, 396ff.

14. Account of the Acta Latina: CF, VI, 231–236; also HPC, 41–47. The Acta Graeca only mention this and the following discourses, without quoting from them (CF, V/2, 448). The text of the original cedula can only be reconstructed f r o m the quotations in Montenero's discourse, according to the Aeta Latina.

15. CF, VI, 236–239; ef. CF, V/2, 448.

16. For the date, see Gill, 278, n. 2. Montenero'a second discourse is printed in CF, VI, 241–247. (also, with some confusions of pages and lines, HPC, 248–252). Cf. CF, V/2, 450f.

17. June 16–27: Gill, 273ff.; HL, 1020ff.; HKF1, 400ff. On June 22, a deadlock was reached, with the jurisdictional understanding of papal primacy and the right of convoking councils at stake. The Emperor threatened to leave the council. Gill, 282; HL, 1025.

18. June 27-July 4: Gill, 287ff.; HL, 1028ff., 1045f.; HKF1, 409ff. All of these formal difficulties had to do with the privileges of Pope, Emperor and patriarchs: who of them was to be mentioned in the initial words of the decree—whether, in the definition of the papal primacy, “the writings of the Saints” (i.e., of the Church Fathers) should not be replaced by the mentioning of the coadiliar canons (“the Emperor objecting that, if some Saints wrote in exaggeratedly honourable terms of a Pope, was that to count as the ground of a privilege” [Gill, 288J)—and finally, whether the decree should have “without infringement of all the privileges and right” (of the Eastern patriarchs), or the same without “all” In all these three oints, the Pope yielded to the wishes of the Greeks!

19. CF, V'2, 459–467; VI, 260–266; also HL, 1037–1044, Gill, 412–415, and (giving only the text of the four definitions) Denzinger, nr. 691–694. Cf. Gill, 291ff.; HL, 1030ff.

20. See above, notes 17 and 18.

21. See above, note 14, last sentence.

22. “… quemadmodum etiam in gestis ycumenicorum conciliorum et in saeris eanonibus continetur. Renovantes in- super ordinem traditum in canonibus caeterorum venerabilium patriarcharum, Ut patriarcha Constantinopolitanus seeundus sit post sanctissimum Romantnn pontificem, tertius vero Alexandrinus, quartus autem Antiochenus, et quintus Hierosolyniitanus, s 1 v i s videicet privilegiis omnibus et iuribus eorum.” See above, note 18, for the omnibus. The Greek equivalent of the etiain is Kai, and some renderings of the Latin text (though none of the official copies of the decree) have et instead of etiam. For the discussion of this and related problems, see HPC, 65ff.; HL, 1044ff.; Heiler, 297, n. 62a.

23. Denzinger, nr. 466.

24. Of course the dignity of “successor of Peter” is also expressed in both documents.

25. See Tierney, 179ff.

26. The title vicarius Christi sounded rather unfamiliar to the Greeks. However, it seems that Macarms of Ancyra, who questioned it, was rather an exception. See DThC, 373.

27. See HPC, 9ff.; CF, IV/2 (with bibliography and introduction).

28. See Mincuzzi, M., La dottrina teologica di Gioianni di Montenero, 0. P. (Bari, 1941Google Scholar; unfortunately not available to me).

29. Quite differently, of course, from Torqueiuada's use of Aquinas and other Western sources in his contesting the tenets of concilianism.

30. See above, note 7. Andrew da Santa Croce, in his Dialogus de primatu, with which he opens the Acta Latina (CF, VI, 2–24)Google Scholar, made the usefulness of this point very clear, as he used it for showing difficulties and inconsistencies of the conciliaristic theory. See, e.g., i.e. 4, 5, 14.

31. Quacst. (lncp. de vcriiate, q. 29, a. 4: “Ad seenndum dieendum, quod alii ministri ecelesiac non disponunt nec operantur ad spinitualem vitam quasi ex propria virtute, sed virtute aliena; Christus autem virtube propnia. Et inde est, quod Chnistus poterat per seipsum effectum sacramentorum praebere, quia tota efficacia sacramentorum in eo originaliter erat; non autem hoc possunt alii, qui sent eeelesiae ministri; unde non posstcnt dici capat, ni8i forte rat ione gubernationis, sicut quilibet prisweps thcitur caput” Here, as well as in Summa theol., III, q. 8, a. 6, at a certain moment in the movement of thought, it looks as if the possibility of z“heads other than Christ” should not only be explained in purely institutional, functional terms, but should also (more radically than in average concilianism!) be expressly excluded from theological legalization. But then it becomes clear that subordination is at the same time derivation and participation. Members of the one, principal head and foundation may become capita and fundamenta their turn, since there there is “auctonitas non solum principalis, sed etiam secundaria” (Ibid., ad 3). The papal hierarchy is considered as a likeness of the angelic hierarchy in its using intermediate, instrumental causes (Ibid., II-II, q. 112, a. 2, ad 2). In every given order it is true that “unitatis … congruentior causa est unus quam multi” (Summa contra gentes, IV, 76). Thus the papal monarchy has a ministerial relation to the monarchy of Christ, and this makes the Pope's office comparable with that of the Holy Spirit— the fiizoque and the papal pienitudo potestatis become analogous problems! (Contra errores Graecorusn, ed. Maudonnet, III, 322)Google Scholar. However, the ministry of the Pope is distinguished from that of the Holy Spirit by its own, inferior sphere of action: “secundum visibilem naturam” (Summa theol., III, q. 8Google Scholar, a. 1, ad 3). Thus there are never two beads on the same levei and with the same respect, unless there be confusion and schism (Ibid., II-II, q. 39, a. 1, reap.). The same principle of order is applicable to a bishop's relation to the Pope. (see below, note 33).

32. See Deuzinger, nr. 588, 621, 633, 635–639, 641, 643 646f., 650, 655,and particularly 653 and 654.

33. Cf. above, note 31. Summatheol, III, q. 8, a. 6, resp.Google Scholar: “Interior autem influxus gratiae non est ab aliquo, nisi a solo Christo, cuius humanitas cx hoc, quod est divinitati coniuncta, habet virtutem iustificandi; sed influxus in membra ecelesiae, quantum ad exteriorem gubernationem, potest allis convenive; et secundum hoc aiiqui aiii possant dici capita ecciesiac, secunclum iilud Amos 6: ‘Optimates capita populorum.’ Differenter tamon a Christo; primo quidein quantum ad hoc, quod Christus est caput omnium eorum, qui ad ecclesiam pertinent, secundum omnem locum et tempus et statum; alii autem ho,nines dicuntur capita secundum quaedain specialia la, sicut episcopi suarum ecelesiarum; vel etiam secundum determinatum tempus, siut papa est eaput totius eeclesiae, scilicet tempore sal pontificatus; et secundum deterininatum statum, prout seilicet. sunt in statu viatoris; alio modo, quia Christus est caput ecclesiae propria virtute et auctoritate, alii vero dicuntur capita, inquantum V i e e m gerunt Christi”

34. CF, VI, 232.

35. Ibid., 233.

36. See above, note 10.

37. CF. VI, 235.

38. Another example of Montenero's method in the same discourse: in his explanation of the word regendi (Ibid., 235), he used a paragraph of Leo I (Bermones, III, 3, PL 54: 146B-C) in which the principaliter regere of Christ is said to take place exclusively through Peter. However, Leo speaks only of a consortium of powers and gifts and of a hierarchy of original power followed by subsequent, derived powers, but not of different spheres of action and causality.

39. CF, VI, 244. Disposition of the whole discourse: Introductory, problem: The Greeks objected to Montenero's use of papal letters as testimonies. His answer: Only such letters were quoted as were received, with great reverence, by ecumenical councils. Due to their priority in the order of things, these letters were not oniy equal to the canons of the councils, but of greater authority. Ibid., 241f. Firgt problem: Question:Do the titles pater, doctor, and particularly caput, really imply more than reverence toward the Pope¶ Answer:They mean an order of obedience. The other words are to be explained in terms of the word caput. From this the jurisdictional character of the papacy follows necessarily. Ibid., 243f. Becond problem: The Greeks questioned the word convocandi (not only its possible interpretation). In his answer, Monte- nero questions the privileges of em perors and patriarchs, insofar as they would imply equality with or even superiority over the Pope. Ibid., 245–247.

40. Ibid., 245.

41. When he dealt with the question of whether the titles pater, doctor, and particularly caput were mere expressions of reverence toward the Pope or more than that (Ibid., 243f.), he expounded at first the superiority of Peter and hi successors over the apostles and their successors, then he discussed the relation between spiritual and secuar powers.

42. Athanasius, Chrysostom and Flavianus, the emperors who persecuted them, and the Popes who defended them are mentioned (Ibid., 244f.).

43. Cf. Gill, xiv, 104, 114f., 142, 171. Syropoulos is particularly rich in hints at this tension. Note especially his opinion that Patriarch Joseph II favoured the union in order to get relief from the tyranny of the Emperor (IV, 19, 92).

44. CF VI, 244.

45. Ibid., 245f.

46. “Postea Leo consensit at lustinianus postea [!] fecit legem, quod Constantinopolitana asset secunda, in titulo de sacrosanctis e c c l e s i i s, in lege Sancimus.” Ibid., 246.

47. “Ergo seeundum haec iura antiqua etiam lila ecclesia eat filia Romanas ecclesiae.”Ibid.

48. Ibid., 243.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid., 247.

52. Ibid.

53. Those of the Latin theologians who expounded the papal primacy against the condiliaristic theories had more opportunity of developing this way of argumentation. Cf. above, note 29. For Andrew da Santa Croce, see above, note 30. For Torquemada's way of argumentation, see, e.g., CF, IV/2, 15–17, 40, 65, and below, note 55. In hi discourse at the diet at Mains, Torquemada used, among other testimonies for the Pope being the “head” of the Church, Aquinas, , Summa theol., II-II, q. 39Google Scholar. See HPC, 26. It is interesting to note that the bull Unam sanctain of Boniface VIII (whieh Torquemada used several times in his discourses) is, to my knowledge, the first official document of the Roman Church in which (1) the Pope's headship in its relation to Christ's headship, and (2) the Pope's headship in its relation to the Church (or to the churches other than the Roman) are expressly connected and viewed together.

54. Cf. above, notes 7, 10, and 11.

55. For Torquemada's use of the Pseudo- Dionysian principle of regarding the earthly hierarchy as the image of the celestial hierarchy, see HPC, 16f.

56. See DThC, 357ff.; Jugie, 364ff.; by the same author, Theoiogta doginatica Christianorum Orientaliurn ab Ecciesia Catholica dissidentium, I, (Paris, 1926), 110ffGoogle Scholar; IV (Paris, 1931.), 320ff. One thing stands out dearly enough: the Greeks denied the privilege of infallibility to the Pope, whatever else they were thinking of his role in the Church. But the infallibility was not yet at stake in the time of the union of Florence, however much it was already then becoming visible as an implication of the Roman eeclesiology. (See CF, IV/2, xxxi, about Torquemada's use of that term.) Since in the Greek thinking the Church as corpus mysticum and the constitution of the Church were two separate loci, they were not able to deal with the Roman claims at their ecclesiological point of origin. With respect to questions of episcopal primacy, they used the word “head” in various ways. But I was not able to find any example where thig problem is judged in the light of the original headship of Christ —unless one wants to take the frequent denial of the title “head” to all ecclesiastical hierarchs as something more than a general humble insight into the secondarity of the locus de primatibus in comparison with the spiritual eeclesiology. For the whole question, see also Viller.