The Council of Florence was not Truly Ecumenical by Saint Gennadius Scholarius

A Contemporary Apologetic for Rejecting the Florentine Union with the Papists

[That which is written in parentheses is present in the source text. That which is written in brackets was added by the translator, Kaleb of Atlanta.]

Saint Gennadius Scholarius, Patriarch of Constantinople (12 Aug OC / 25 Aug NC)

A Brief Apology by Lord Gennadius Scholarius, explaining why the sensible Greeks do not accept the Council of Florence and the false union achieved there.

Written after the Death of Emperor John.¹

Chapter 1

Why and how the Latins decided to add to the Creed is a subject which perhaps deserves to be considered and examined in a separate study; but in any case, they added to the Creed a dogma which is of no small importance and deserves no small discussion. It is not a trivial question whether or not God the Word produces [προάγει] from Himself another Divine Hypostasis just as He Himself, being a Divine Hypostasis, is produced from God. Moreover, it was precisely because of this that the entire Asian² priesthood withdrew from communion with the Latins, although our Fathers had previously reproached the Latins for many other things — for example, for their introduction of unleavened bread. They did not withdraw immediately or suddenly, but only after they had become completely exhausted from many years of trying to correct them [the Latins] with embassies and letters and had lost hope of healing. It was precisely this addition to the Creed that proved to be the last straw. After it, Latin innovations could no longer be tolerated; it made the division proper and inevitable.

When the Latins made the addition, the Asian Patriarchs were astonished by three things:

1. First, that they dared to add something to the Creed, although the four Ecumenical Councils that followed the Third and its definitions had been wary of doing so³.
2. Second, they did it alone.
3. Third, the very provision they introduced into the Creed is extremely dubious. This is how far the Latins have come in their error!

Of course, those who introduced innovation without the majority of the Church must bear responsibility for the schism, and not those who did not wish to join them in introducing it and, as such, endanger themselves. A clear proof that the Latins themselves recognized their guilt is that they immediately ordained for themselves some four disguised patriarchs⁴, despite the fact that, in reality, the thrones were occupied by others and flourished with strength, fullness of wisdom, and all other blessings. If one bishop of Rome could introduce a new teaching, then what did he need these disguised patriarchs for? If the Bishop of Rome could single-handedly convene an Ecumenical Council and make a determination on matters of faith, then what use did he have for these inventions? But if he simply lost hope of cooperation and communication with the real Patriarchs, and therefore created “patriarchs” for himself, without having ecumenical authority, then it turns out that he did not make the addition in an ecumenical manner, and therefore acted badly. Perhaps this addition would have had at least some semblance of ecumenicity if the pope had first appointed these disguised patriarchs and only then made the insertion into the Creed. But in fact, first there was the addition and division, and only then he ordained patriarchs for himself, so that this action either simply makes no sense, or serves as a sentence for the Pope himself for the unlawful insertion into the Creed.

Let every thinking person consider how much love for discord is revealed in him and in this ordination of patriarchs itself. Where does the Roman bishop get the authority to ordain patriarchs? Never and under no circumstances, even if other Patriarchs disagree with him, regardless of whether rightly or wrongly, can he be allowed to transgress the limits of his authority. Moreover, the pope himself says that there were times when all the other Patriarchs held false doctrines, and he was the Ecumenical Pope and Patriarch. Was he then the only Patriarch and pastor of the Orthodox, or were there also disguised ones with him? [If he had tried to ordain other patriarchs], he too would have sinned in some way and fallen away from the truth, wanting to create something out of nothing.

In contrast to the reckless love for discord of the popes, the Patriarchs of the East, and the Emperors along with them, invariably showed fidelity to the truth and magnanimity in this matter. Of course, it is easier for the four Patriarchs to appoint one than vice versa; besides, they have more rights. However, they did not do this and did not call a council without him, at which a true decision would be made, opposite theirs. Although, of course, they could have done this calmly. On the contrary, they demanded that the insertion be considered by a general council after a long preliminary investigation, which was both reasonable and fair. They, however, as long as they saw that the Catholic Church was full of strength, wisdom, and everything else, did not dare to make such a judgment. But when it became clear to them that we had lost almost everything, while they themselves, on the contrary, had become strong in everything, when it began to seem to them that Heaven had withdrawn its right hand from us, and when they themselves wished it, only then did the Latins wish to stage a spectacle in which, under the guise of discussions and judgment, a universal confirmation of the insertion would be given. Then, finally, they hoped to get rid of the pangs of conscience, which cruelly reproached them. Even if we could prove that the addition was wrong, they certainly would not wish to remove it. They did not even think of giving us any opportunity to honestly defend our opinion; all they wanted was to get rid of the shame and reproaches for introducing a new doctrine, which rained down on them from all sides. That is why the Latins sought to legitimize their passion for innovations with concessions and consent on our part, so that they would henceforth remain free from accusations, whether from others or from their own conscience.

Chapter 2

Thus, the Council of Lyons was convened⁵. So it happened that our envoys who were present at this council made concessions contrary to all justice. The whole point was that the Emperor, who at that time was Michael, the ancestor of the subsequent Palaiologos Emperors, deceived the Church, arranging a union supposedly on the basis of economy, but he chose as ambassadors people who knew his deepest intentions, and they brought home from the council, not the economy that was wanted, but obvious Latinism and compliance with all Latin teachings. In this, they obeyed the one who sent them. Besides, they were supported by the gifts and honors with which they were showered at the council. I should also mention that the Emperor feared revenge from the Latins. Michael believed that they must have harboured a grudge against him since he had just taken Constantinople from them. He hoped, by betraying the truth, to secure his own dominion and the power of his descendants.

But after his death, the Church, moved by divine zeal, in a great and brilliant council⁶, gloriously annulled the Act of Lyons. The decrees of that great council are preserved among us to this day and reprove those who do not wish to think in accordance with it. As such, the dogmas of the fathers were again preached, and this continued until the need for help and the fear of the advancing enemy on our side came together (which is not to say that we were abandoned by God). On their side was the hope of Eugenius⁷ to regain the strength of the throne and to cancel the decisions of the council, which had been assembled against him in the city of Basel⁸ and had done everything to depose him. In this way, everything came to the convocation of that council in Italy.

As for this council, it is clear to every good conscience how it began, how it went, and how it ended. But if anyone wants to tell everything in detail, this requires not only long speeches but multi-volume books. With this work, we want, first of all, to give an apology before our God for why we do not wish to unite with the Latins now. We know that from the very beginning, they, and not our ancestors, were the cause of the schism; therefore, we want to be with the victims, with the offended, and not with the offenders. We know that even now, the Latins remain the culprits of the schism. No matter how the addition to the Creed was introduced, why do they not wish to remove it in order to reunite the Church? If the Pope alone could make an insertion, why cannot he, together with the others, remove it? If, as they say, necessity once forced them to make an addition to the Creed, then why do the Latins not remove it now that, after all, that need no longer exists, and there is another, much greater need?

Chapter 3

But concerning the need of which they speak, the Latins lie (the proof of this is the subject of a separate study). For they made an addition against the Orthodox, who objected to their new teaching and were in complete agreement with us, who love and honor the common faith, and the Latins slander both us and them, asserting that we have become either Nestorians or Arians. Where is Arianism or Nestorianism in this? It is the same as calling fire cold and expecting to be believed! So the insertion was made against us and against those Latins who agreed with us (for such, I think, were still many in those ancient times), and they still blame some kind of necessity for the offense they have inflicted on us, as if they were talking to fools! However, as already stated, in order to examine this issue in detail and prove all this, a separate study is needed.

The Pope is afraid of the Latin nations and does not want to tempt people, fearing that they would begin to say: “So what, those who lived after the insertion into the Creed believed wrongly and therefore went to perdition?” If this be so, then why should we not fear God and not be ashamed of our ancestors and subject them, who are innocent, to such blasphemy? After all, it turns out that they perished since they fought for so many centuries against the true addition and died in a terrible heresy against the article of the Creed about the Holy Ghost!⁹ If the length of time has made this innovation firm, so, my Lord God, why shouldn’t the past centuries strengthen us even more in our glorious struggle against it?

If, however, they are telling the truth, and the filioque is not an addition to the Creed, but an explanation, then it can be removed and nothing will be taken away from the Creed, for without this word, it will not suffer or be crippled in the least. Otherwise, it will be the case that they hope to deceive us by saying that this is not really an addition but an explanation. Perhaps they will answer this: If, for the sake of peace, they cannot remove this “explanation” from the Creed, then why did they dare to make an addition in the first place? We say, of course, and are firmly convinced that this is precisely an addition.

Or does someone perhaps suppose that this [Florentine] conciliar definition, in which many of us believe and adhere, can mean anything else than the confession of the same addition to the Creed, even if silently? Supposedly, this is how we must believe until another definition is adopted that would cancel this if we united with the Latins on these terms. Anyone who thinks that it is possible to somehow remain in communion with those who introduced falsehood and not share their guilt is simply a fool. If someone does not consider the commemoration of names during the celebration of the Sacrifice to be a complete union, communion, and a sign of complete agreement in dogmas, such a person, apparently, observes the laws of some completely different religion or has invented some kind of new Christianity of his own.

Now, they also say that the Latins approve of our faith (this completely captivates the majority of listeners). By “our faith,” they mean “who proceeds from the Father,” that which we confess every time in the Creed. Of course, they themselves believe this, only they add “and from the Son.” What then? We will explain that we say and believe that the Ghost proceeds “from the Father and not from the Son” just as they explain “and from the Son,” for this is the way they use the word “explain.” The difference is that they insert their “explanations” directly into the Creed, while we do this outside the Creed, and not on our own initiative, but only after we have discovered that our teachers actually judge precisely in this way. Since the Latins try to introduce explanations directly opposed to ours, we did not approve of this “explanation” of theirs before and will not approve of it now.

The Latins, therefore, say that they approve of our faith and believe in agreement with us only because they suppose that we have accepted their “explanations,” having rejected those expounded by our teachers and in which we have believed for centuries. In reality, every reasonable person understands that everything is precisely the opposite: in order to believe in a similar way to them, we would have to completely renounce our teaching; not rejecting “who proceeds from the Father,” since this position is common to both opinions, but rejecting, instead, “and not from the Son,” for this is precisely where we differ. So we openly tell the Latins what we understand by the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and what our ancestors and teachers understood by this: that He does not proceed from the Son. The whole struggle between us and the Latins is because of this.

Chapter 4

If, then, they should say that they themselves believe in this way, behold, we are ready to unite with them this very day. But the Latins will not say this and never have said it, so that if they were to assert that we believe similarly concerning the Holy Ghost, this is nothing more than sophistry, which is bound to captivate uneducated people.

If, however, it seems strange to them that we too introduce explanations, although we do so piously, without in any way touching the common confession, and under the pressure of real necessity and having before our eyes their example, who were the first to dare to do so, then let them themselves abolish their “explanation.” Let us, for the sake of good and love, rest from explanations. The question of whether the Son is the cause of the Ghost or not must either be openly examined by whoever wishes or let all equally remain silent about it. The whole Church together must make the Son of God the reconciler in this discord, for there is nothing more reliable, holier, or more perfect than His words¹⁰. Moreover, the Church has already done this (and done it well!) at the Second Council¹¹. We are obedient to the Church, and this is how Rome should also act. She will do so if only she wants to act as she should.

We see everywhere, then, that the guilt for the present strife lies, and has formerly lain, with the Latins. We are conscious that all truth is ours and our fathers’, and therefore we have the firm hope that, at the coming Judgment, we will not be accused of not wishing to remain in communion with the authors of such terrible events. Moreover, we have rules and models left to us by the saints, and these rules, which it would be impious to transgress, teach us how careful we must be in matters of faith. According to these rules, it is dangerous for our salvation and an obvious error to abandon the Gospel teaching, which says that the Ghost proceeds from the Father [John 15:26], that He is the Spirit of Truth [John 16:13], and is sent by Truth. Likewise, it would be dangerous to abandon the apostolic teaching, which says that the Ghost is the Spirit of God [Romans 8:14] from God the Father [1 Cor 2:12], that He is only the Spirit of the Son [Gal 4:6] and not “from the Son.” We cannot leave aside either the most detailed and careful interpretations of the holy Fathers on these words. We cannot leave aside the teaching of the First Council, which almost openly says that the Holy Ghost has existence only from the Father¹². We cannot reject the disclosure of the teaching of the First Council by the Second, at which the question of the Holy Ghost was investigated with all the necessary completeness and a sufficient and in no way defective definition was given both regarding the essence of the Holy Ghost and regarding the cause from which He proceeds¹³. We cannot reject the confirmation of this truth by other councils, the clear decisions of all our teachers, and, in addition to all of the above, the convincing and highly worthy arguments proceeding from the fundamental premises of faith. So it would be wrong to reject all this and prefer an opinion that is not supported by canonical Scripture, nor by the authority of antiquity, nor by our teachers, whose books we have and whose voices we heed¹⁴, and which is not proven by logical argumentation (except perhaps by sophistical argumentation or by arguments that do not proceed from general premises, but from some other ones, taken from who knows where).

However, they say that Blessed Augustine taught this, but we believe in the Church, which is built up by the canonical Scriptures and the general Councils of the faithful, which contributed to the strengthening of Christ’s Church, and not solely in Augustine or the Damascene¹⁵. We would not listen to the Damascene by himself in this matter if he did not adhere to the general opinion, which we see in all the others as well.

What then? Will our God, in His justice, condemn those who did not wish to abandon the common and universally professed faith for the sake of some private opinion not supported by the teachers? Does it not follow, then, that we will be punished because we did not listen to Gregory of Nyssa, who taught about the finitude of punishment because he is clothed with dignity and his authority is attested by the councils?¹⁶ What then, are we subject to terrible punishment because we did not wish to renounce the councils and the Scriptures and to listen to the martyr Dionysius of Alexandria¹⁷ and the great miracle worker and teacher of the faith — Gregory of Neocaesarea¹⁸, who in their writings expressed (due to the imprecision of expression) some heretical teachings, of which they were accused by the Great Basil¹⁹? Moreover, Blessed Augustine himself left us a perfectly clear rule and gave us instructions on how to use his writings and the writings of all other teachers²⁰. Therefore, it is impossible to think that we treat Augustine worse than the rest of the choir of teachers, since we follow the rule that he himself gave us and adhere to this principle quite consistently, which we are ready to prove not only to those who doubt among us, but also to the Latins and to everyone in general. However, we are convinced that Augustine himself agreed with our teachers. As for his words, which the Latins wrote out and show us, the Latins, by their own admission, wrote them out themselves, and interpret them as it suits them, and explain them as they themselves see fit. How shall we justify ourselves before God, that we have rejected what was commonly established and confirmed by custom, because a Latin showed us something of the kind in the Blessed Augustine, and we believed him without the slightest investigation, although the book belonged to a Latin, and not to us, and he himself interpreted it, and explained it, and verified his own interpretation? Moreover, not everything even agrees with each other; for example, the greatest contradiction is that the European Fathers, of whom Augustine was one, confessed in the Creed of the Seven Councils common to Christians of the same faith as the East. Let every person who wishes to judge correctly think about this!

Chapter 5

If this is the basis on which we all wished to establish unity with the Latins, how can we justify ourselves? How can we convince our contemporaries and our posterity that we are not matricidal²¹ and not wasteful spendthrifts who have squandered the faith handed down to us? Indeed, if we had cruelly killed any mortal thing similar to as has been done to the faith, then we would be subject to condemnation according to the appropriate laws and the sentence of all reasonable people!

Let us examine that if the question of our differences arose only now for the first time, then we should really investigate what the ancient Teachers thought about this. We know, however, that the schism has been going on for almost 500 years now, and during this time our fathers and teachers have investigated this question well, and their decisions are attested both by their deeds and by the blood they shed in the struggle with the Latin teachings; mountains of books and teachings have remained from them! Therefore, there is no need for us to become interpreters of the ancient Teachers ourselves. Rather, we must be good and diligent students of our fathers, who faithfully preserved the dogmas of those who came before them. For even if we were not one iota inferior to the fathers of any time either in wisdom or in virtue, it would still be impudence to interpret Scripture and the ancient fathers who lived before the schism differently than our fathers who lived it after the beginning of the schism, especially since they were not its cause. For as time went on, many teachers arose, and we can conclude that their wisdom and virtue increased, since the authority of a thousand is greater than that of ten times fewer, and time itself is capable of revealing in some way the most worthy. If it is obvious to us that the same people who have thought over a question many times are more likely to arrive at the right decision than those who have thought only once, how much more is this true in the case of inquiries lasting this long? From the time of the Latin revolt to this day, many generations have passed, and in each, there were tens of thousands of worthy and wise men, for our people were then numerous, powerful, and zealous in good works. We of today, however, who undertake to judge such things, some by our own audacity, others by necessity, are not even half as strong or numerous as the immediately preceding generation, the men we have seen and conversed with. Is it not then the utmost audacity and insanity for us, insignificant ones, to dispute the researches and judgments of so many times? For us to attempt to judge contrary to that faith in which we were brought up, which were defined by so many Fathers for so many centuries?

If we, nevertheless, wished to argue with those who are better than us, having ourselves a very poor idea of ​​everything, then why shouldn’t wise men and true sons of our Mother Church consider us fools and matricidal? Will not all future generations, however many there may be until the day of the coming Judgment, condemn us, who will have to remain in error, because we have fallen away from the truth? This is precisely what some people want and force us to do.

In disputing our wise predecessors, not only do we not rely on the judgments of each of our fathers individually, but we also disregard even what they have repeatedly done when assembled together. We have. thereby, rejected the Eighth Ecumenical Council²², which, according to the custom of Ecumenical Councils, confirmed the Seventh²³, erected a monument to Blessed Photius, rejected every addition to the Creed, whether in thought or word, condemned those who would ever dare to do such a thing²⁴, and all this in the presence of envoys from the Pope. The canons of this Council are in the canonical collections, and they have been lovingly received by the whole Orthodox Church. We disregard what was said and done under the Comneni²⁵, and what was done under Lascaris and Germanus²⁶, when Constantinople was in the hands of the Latins²⁷. However, under Andronicus II Palaiologos, an Ecumenical Council was assembled⁶ against the innovations that his father had devised and tried by all means to establish²⁸ (though he did not succeed in this, since God had revealed the truth by many signs and deeds). Will not this Council, composed of a sufficient number of Fathers, make even a stony heart flee from the present “union?” Will it allow even one pious and sensible man, who considers it necessary to preserve the laws of the Fathers, to follow the Florentine definitions?

Chapter 6

Suppose someone says that this was merely a local council. Well, if a Latin says so, “his own feathers will destroy him.”²⁹ How then do they call the councils they held after the schism “Ecumenical,” such as Toledo³⁰, Lyons⁵, and others without number³¹, although the four Patriarchs were not there and they did not make decisions jointly with the Pope? Perhaps he would answer that after we fell into schism, the remaining part of the Church continued to be Ecumenical and Catholic, since the nature of ecumenicity is not harmed by the falling away of the schismatics. An excellent point! We also, then, for the same reason, may utilize the title “Ecumenical” despite the fact that the Latins fell into schism. Moreover, as was shown at the beginning, we have much more right to judge this way. Since the Pope, having with him disguised patriarchs, dares to attribute himself the title of “Ecumenical,” then why should we not consider and call our councils Ecumenical, if there were absolutely true Patriarchs at them?

If a man who outwardly still seems to be one of us³² were to speak like this, he would perish even sooner: for the Latins unjustly take for themselves that which comes from the Mother. Nevertheless, in general, the Latins think quite correctly, but they are wrong in thinking that all these arguments can be applied to them. They quite rightly assert that the Church of Christ is those and only those people who think correctly about all things no matter how many there are who have fallen away, but this does not apply to them. It applies to us, for we did not fall away anywhere: they did. Our teaching, in comparison with the Latin, is not lacking in anything, unless, of course, they say at one time they themselves thought and professed a doctrine that was not entirely correct and corrected themselves only later, after the addition. Even so, there are among us, or rather, among those who are no longer ours, such people who are so mad and insolent in relation to the Mother that they bow down to the Latins for other reasons, and are ready to forget about the question in which the whole essence of the matter consists, if only imitation of the Latins promises them at least some benefit³³.

For many reasons, we are firmly convinced that the Council convened against Beccus⁶ was Ecumenical. Therefore, by virtue of the prohibition of that Council, we had no right to hold a subsequent council in Florence. However, at that time, everything around us urged us to remain silent. The Lord Himself sent many signs so that we would come to our senses and save ourselves from the shame and disasters that awaited us. These signs were so clear that we will not enumerate them here, but we turned away from every reasonable thought, from every divine sign, from every patristic warning. We were as if blind or deaf, and yet we held this council. Outwardly, “bodily” it was, perhaps, genuinely ecumenical, even though, strictly speaking, this was not the case since, at the same time, another council was taking place at which the Pope was the defendant⁸. It was precisely this council that we, having every reasonable and just reason for doing so, chose as more authoritative and with which we had initially agreed to meet. Spiritually, however, there was nothing Ecumenical about the council in Florence. However, we will not dwell on this; our task in this work is not to condemn individuals. Still yet, did not the Emperor’s envoys promise the Pope that after the arrival of the Greeks in Italy at the appointed time, the union would undoubtedly be concluded within two months? This provision was included in the decree, and then everything else was arranged in accordance with this. Can a reasonable person not understand what was behind all this? The Latins were not so stupid as to spend so much of their own money without having the firm confidence that everything would turn out as they wanted!

However, let us proceed straight to the conclusion of the whole matter. Let us leave aside all the intermediate events: everyone already knows about the tricks, about the negotiations and conspiracies under cover of night, about the lies, about the tricks, about the change of places. In the end, a decree was issued in which it was dogmatically determined that the Son of God is the “cause” [αἴτιός ἐστι] of the Holy Ghost, that He is His “beginning” [ἀρχή], that the Ghost has “being” from the Son [ὕπαρξιν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἔχει] and that the addition to the Creed was “lawful and reasonable.”³⁴

How do they prove this? Was not the exact opposite proved in Ferrara regarding the addition? Did not the Latins beg that the decrees prohibiting additions and the punishment for them not be read out loud?³⁵ Now, what should we have done? Should we not have torn our clothes, shouted, protested? Should we not have gone out to the crossroads and squares of Ferrara and read these decrees out there? For by this, we would have broken them, we would have shamed the criminals, we would have gained the upper hand and would have had the whole Latin people as our allies³⁶. Instead, we showed them indulgence and did not state anything openly. Instead, in the absence of the people, we read them out in a low voice for a few of them, those being the instigators of all the disasters, and yet we achieved nothing. As if a warrior, at the request of the enemy, threw off his strong armor and walked naked against the enemy’s arrows, so we gave ourselves up to be devoured by the Latin bishops when we listened to them and did not publicly proclaim the council’s excommunications. However, even so, they did not achieve victory. On the contrary, the Metropolitan of Ephesus of blessed memory³⁷ fought with them valiantly and nobly and refuted all their cunningly devised sophistries. This was even thought by those present at the council.

Chapter 7

So how did they come to decide that the addition to the Creed was legal and justified? More acutely, how could they not decide this if those who once made the addition were now the main authors of this decree? They drew up the definition according to their own whim, and they attracted our “defenders” to sign it by tricks that I cannot even describe. Where did they get the idea that the Son of God is the “cause” and “beginning” [αἴτιος καὶ ἀρχή] of the Holy Ghost and everything else that is also included in that decree? Where is this said in Scripture or in the books of the doctors of the Church? Not only was this definition in itself not to be accepted, but they also added that the Son of God is the cause of the Ghost “according to the Greeks” (κατὰ τοὺς Γραικούς). If they mean the Greek Doctors, then let them show them, for we will be convinced at the very moment they do. If, however, they are talking about some present-day Greeks, about the participants in the council, perhaps, or about someone else who themselves have invented such a teaching, then the theology of the Ecumenical Council should have professed a more ancient point of faith!

Where was the examination of these questions at the Council of Florence? Moreover, how does this decree of the Pope accord with the acts of the council? After all, it was he who was the legislator and not the council; just as before, he alone had introduced the insertion into the Creed. Can the answer be discovered from the debates, whether the first, which took place in Ferrara, or the later one in Florence? Or do they hope to avoid reproaches by distorting the very memories of this to suit themselves? At what meeting was this definition confirmed by the council? Did they not consult in corners with each one separately, persuading him to sign his name in various ways, which it would be indecent even to speak of, considering that many of our own people helped them to stage this spectacle? However, if we speak honestly, fear did everything in us, and the Latins only had to take advantage of the confusion of our defenders under the pressure of necessity. Some of them descended into the abyss of hell not so much because of the lack of arguments as from the fear of appearing to be the cause of a schism when the majority had already become traitors. Others, however, immediately yielded to the Latins in everything, without thinking at all about the consequences, confident that even if they, together with the Latins, made some further addition to the general faith, this would be accepted without hesitation. Moreover, the hope of a reward did not allow them to consider the matter properly. Therefore, even if our legates wanted to do something right, it was done in a manner clearly unbecoming for an Ecumenical Council.

Now, what ecumenical decree begins and ends thus? Was there ever an ecumenical decree in which the Creed had not been previously set forth and the preceding Council confirmed? That council of which we are now speaking, what preceding Council did it confirm? The Seventh? How so when their decrees are not merely dissimilar but rather directly opposed? However, let it be so. Perhaps he confirms not that, but the genuine Eighth Council: the one under Photius, the Ecumenical? Even in this, though, its decisions are also opposed to those of Florence! However, we will not speak of it in detail. It follows that there, the Latin Council of Lyons was confirmed, at which our envoys were present (bribed, as it later turned out), the very one that was condemned and deprived of force by the Great and True Council against Beccus. The latter was indeed, as pious reasoning shows, Ecumenical. If necessary, this can be demonstrated with great clarity. If we read the decree of this Council carefully, we can see how those who then intended to judge questions of faith proceeded to do so and what course of action they bequeathed to those who now wish to follow them. Well, let us not talk about that right now. Was there ever a single council, other than the Florentine, in which the faith was determined by the pope or another Patriarch, and not by the entire council? We need only compare the Council convened against Beccus in Constantinople with the Florentine council to see the difference. One agreed in everything with the faith of the other Ecumenical Councils, including the Eighth. The other contradicted them all, including the last. The Patriarch of Alexandria was also present at one³⁸, and the other Patriarchs approved and accepted its definition as pious and lawful. At another, the patriarchal locum tenens were present³⁹, but they were bound by letters and an oath: to allow the union only if the ancient decrees were preserved. If the Latins stubbornly insisted on their addition, they were charged to return without yielding to them in anything. Although the locum tenens arranged everything as they themselves saw fit, contrary to the will of those who sent them, the Patriarchs themselves remained with their previous judgment, and they repaid their “most honorable representatives” in due kind for betraying the patristic dogma, and to this day they do not cease to repay the same. All remained faithful to the decisions of the Council against Beccus, both those who made them and all who followed right up to the present turmoil. The decrees of the council in Florence were cancelled even by those who signed them: everyone came to their senses and returned to the teaching of the fathers, except for three or four stubborn people who remained in their own minds⁴⁰. Moreover, most did not deviate from these in their souls and thoughts but yielded under the influence of a momentary weakness, and therefore, their offense is, to some extent, excusable, and we must show them this indulgence. If some, fearing that it would seem to someone that they had changed their minds, continued to hide until the very end and did not refute the decree that they had passed against the patristic teaching, voluntarily deviating from the truth, then it might seem to them that the decisions of this assembly were lawful, since in addition to those who knew and were aware of everything, there were also those from whom the true essence of what was happening was hidden⁴¹.

Yet, if there existed those who renounced what they did and received honors and riches in return, their change would indeed be very suspicious. Now, they flee from the evil to which they have consented, although they have to endure grief and dishonor, which they prefer to the hushing up of the truth, their own destruction, and the corruption of others. Perhaps this should not be attributed entirely to the virtue of these people. Instead, on the contrary, all this is the work of the good Providence of God; for the Lord does not want us to fall away completely from the truth and the choir of the Fathers, and therefore the feat of these men. However, perhaps they themselves deserve some praise: after all, their will was inclined to the best.

Some say that those who apostatized from the union apostatized through ignorance; well then, if this is so, then the unification is not worth paying any attention to since it, too, was concluded by complete ignoramuses, and those who follow these definitions will necessarily err in that they obey the decrees of these ignoramuses. For the same people who, they say, through ignorance renounced the union also concluded it, or was the definition that the Son “is the cause of the Ghost” made by someone else? Without them, a council consisting only of Latins, we will not call Ecumenical! For they, even before the council in Florence, insisted on the addition which they themselves introduced, and showered a thousand ridicules on all who disagreed.

Chapter 8

Nevertheless, even together with the Latins, those three or four authors of all this who have remained faithful to the [Florentine] decrees to this day cannot be called a true council, since they acted in everything contrary to the will of the Patriarchs, whose representatives they were. No law allows us to obey them in this matter, even if they were in all other respects worthy men and worthy of some respect. However, there is no need to say anything about this.

Many call this council the Eighth, but it would be fair to call it the first, for it may perhaps be the beginning of a whole series of councils which will go from bad to worse, and it is torn out of the chain. It seems that since it is not at all fitting for it to be called Ecumenical, there is not the slightest reason to call it and count it among the Ecumenical Councils. How can it be the Eighth if the Eighth has already taken place? How can it be the Ninth when it contradicts the Eighth? However, it was not called the Ninth, and there was no reason to call it so, but it is called the Eighth, although it is not. We have already said much about this.

We see no reason to hold to what was done wrongly by some men who afterwards repented of it. Moreover, they acted wisely in repenting of it, but even their repentance itself does not teach us to follow the true doctrine in the matter concerning which they did what they did, even though those who did it now serve as preachers of this true doctrine. Even in human and temporal affairs, if one wishes to succeed, one must not act thus. Even more so in divine things, if we were even simply guided by the same principle, we should have to choose piety. Moreover, even we who are still alive who have done this evil have no need to slavishly hold to that in which we ourselves acknowledge that we have sinned; he who wants to force us to do so must be considered an enemy both of our and his own salvation. Those of us who are guilty of all that has happened, we present ourselves to the judgment of the Church. Let her do everything as she should and judge us without showing any love for humanity beyond what is prescribed by the canons. For happiness and hope that the Lord will forgive our sin, that very freedom of the Church which we have destroyed will be enough for us. Those who are not involved in these matters will surely then adhere unwaveringly to the paternal teaching, taught by the example of others.

Even if many councils have made incorrect decisions about what was discussed at them, this does not mean that their participants should maintain this error, never returning to the truth, or that other people should be indignant at them when they return, saying, “why do they not want to remain in a fall that is destructive both for themselves and for everyone else?” On the contrary, they themselves returned to the truth with joy, and others received both joy and significant benefit from the change in what had been done. Since this had already happened more than once and could be repeated in the future, the Church established a law about those to whom something of this kind happens, and it remains in use to this day. Both historical works and the words of the teachers are full of stories about such things; especially the great Gregory, praising the great Athanasius, tells of many such cases⁴².

The council, then, since everything took place in it in this way, cannot in any way compel us to unite with the Latins. For in reality, only a name remains there, which is waved before the noses of simpletons in order to frighten them; it can no longer make an impression on sensible and thinking people. How many people are needed, and how many times must they meet to convince a reasonable person that fire is not hot? How many councils of the faithful are needed to convince those who have not yet forgotten how to look and listen, for example, that the Father actually descended upon the Son of God when the Ghost descended upon Him in the form of a dove? Or, shall we say, that the breath upon the Apostles contained in itself the very nature of the Holy Ghost united in hypostasis, or as if it put a second soul into them, since, from ancient times, the Divine breath has acted in just this way⁴³? Perhaps these most noble men will find arguments to prove this and will even convince someone, but no reasonable person will abandon the Gospel teaching, which teaches supernatural dogmas, and will not reject the words of Christ and their own meaning in order to listen to some seemingly reasonable logical reasoning, to be carried away by an insatiable thirst for human conjectures and to move on to something else. The same is so for these councils, and if at these councils and everything else did not at all testify to their fidelity, who would dare to listen to them at all? This council was precisely such in everything, and it established laws on its own, abolishing all the others [councils].

Chapter 9

Perhaps, however, someone thinks that the Latins themselves are wiser than we are and therefore worthy of belief, even though it is obvious that they themselves alone have made a definition of the Ghost and are alone in adhering to it. This is perhaps an entirely different argument. In that case, it must be shown that this claim is also powerless before the truth.===

Let us suppose that if this dispute had arisen for the first time only now, we ourselves might think that, as some like to say, the Latins are wiser than we are and therefore see the truth more clearly in each dispute, and therefore we must obey them as teachers, no matter what they dictate. But in reality, everything is exactly the opposite: ignorant people made the addition, and only much later, after the addition, did they reach such a flourishing of science and can now defend it with their verbal intricacies. Our fathers, who then flourished both in wisdom and strength, objected to those who made the addition, considering both it and other things of theirs to be incorrect. Oh, it’s even funny: the modern Latins, with all their wisdom, defend the innovations introduced by their fathers, and we, so wretched and powerless in reason, destroy everything that our fathers, the wisest people, created through the noble sciences!

However, even if this question had indeed arisen recently, if we are conscious of our ignorance, we should not so much hasten, but rather, on the contrary, wait, fearing deception. It would be necessary to stand on the solid ground of that faith which was once common to us with the Latins and strive to blame all the dangers that have arisen from this madness and this schism, and in the confusion which their innovation has caused, those who were the cause of it all. We should not at all have decided to join in a doctrine that we are now incapable of even judging since the art of judging has dried up in us. If so many guiding signs have been left to us by the fathers, how shall we justify ourselves in entrusting the judgment of so important a matter to our own ignorance and in adopting decisions different from those of our fathers and teachers?

If we have already decided to listen to those who are wiser than ourselves in everything, leaving those who were wiser still and closer to us, then we must adopt the teaching of the Armenians, or, if someone prefers, the Persians. For, as we know for a fact, the Armenian church can boast of more than seventy teachers who have mastered the philosophy of Aristotle so well that not one of them is inferior in any way to the best Latin experts. Among the Persians, there are even more who have mastered physical and mathematical wisdom, as well as logical methods, very well. So we will have to join them if any of them tries to cast their verbal nets during an interview with us since they are wiser than us (and in this case, everything will certainly be so). Yet no sane and religious person would approve of this!

Chapter 10

In any case, we are content with the judgment of the Fathers against their impiety [the Persians and Armenians], since we know that our Fathers were the wisest of men and also very God-loving, and we stand firm. So why should we not stand in the same way with regard to all other differences, great and small, about which our fathers and teachers, after many years of research, have expressed the true doctrine? They have passed judgment on the Latins, which they once held, and have tried to convey it to us in their historical books so that we may sing in unison with them and not deviate from their melody.

If anyone says that the wisest of us have accepted the Latin doctrine, he lies. Matricide is not wiser than obedient sons. Perhaps, however, they are indeed wiser than those modern simpletons who are incapable of noticing the rottenness in them and therefore listen to them; yes, and indeed, perhaps, one can say that they are wiser than all: wiser in their villainous behavior. Christ has many disciples, but the name of Judas is among the first because, just as quickly as he appeared as the first of the believers in Christ, he likewise opposed them with his malice.

Do you know how many people were wiser than Cydonius⁴⁴ and Kalekas⁴⁵, both in other things and in Divine matters? None of them sharpened their tongues against the Mother. Moreover, during their lifetime, Kalekas and Cydonius themselves did not attack the Mother but kept silent, conscious of their ignorance. After all, whose disciples were they themselves⁴⁶? No one in former times dared to raise his hands against Mother Church. When everyone was reasonable, why fight with a shadow?

Moreover, everyone knows that Cydonius and his disciple, Kalekas, were expelled from the sacred enclosure because of another false teaching [and not Latinism]: they were adherents of the heresy of Barlaam and Acindynus⁴⁷. They had recourse to the Roman church and repaid her for receiving them by attacking their Mother with sophistical verbal tricks. Moreover, they wanted to present their defection in a plausible light and to make everyone understand that they did not necessarily choose that church because they had nowhere else to flee to but rather because they allegedly found it better than the one that had nursed them in all other respects. As for those who chose Latinism in the time of the Emperor Michael, they were carried away by human honors; we know that such things have happened in our own days. It is difficult for someone who has not been given a heroic and divine way of thinking by God to resist these charms.

The majority [of the wise men] themselves formerly held to a sound way of thinking and showed others the right way, correcting the harm that those corrupt people did. To this day, thanks to the instructions and labors of these noble men, the truth is preserved among our people, for which we owe them the greatest gratitude. We owe no greater gratitude even to those before who then erected walls, established the boundaries of piety, and established punishments for those who transgress them. The ancients did this for the sake of the freedom of future generations, and later ones saw error and deception in the words of people and did everything so that we would not suffer from them. If we were to tear down the walls that ensure our freedom and safety, we would be the most foolish of people. It would be no less foolish to surrender spiritual fortifications to the enemy, and even much more so since the danger here is greater.

It is clear from everything: this world will soon cease to exist; it will change. If not the entire universe, then at least our people and our Fatherland are already on their last legs (if the Lord does not stretch out His hand over us). Therefore, we do not want to throw down our shield at the very end of the battle, we do not want to be more cowardly than our ancestors. On the contrary, we must be more courageous than them and show this. This is what they entreat, praying for us. We have such great examples before us, but we must also fight for our faith amidst much greater dangers.

If someone says that one must choose the lesser of two evils and, fearing to become completely unfaithful, prefers to deviate only a little from the right faith under the pressure of circumstances, let him know that there is no difference here. The judgment for both of these offenses is the same. We know that every law judges one who has deviated from the right faith, even if only a little; this is obvious to a knowledgeable person. Both in the teaching about the Divine, and in everything in general, there is only one truth, but there is no end to the number of errors, in varying degrees and degrees, departing from the truth. The truth must lead to eternal life, for it is said: “the unclean shall not pass over it” (Is. 35:8), whether this uncleanness and stain of shame be in the mind or in the will. If he who deviates from the true faith in a small way is granted eternal life, then immediately after him, the next one will enter into life, who will deviate to the same extent from the one who brought this filth, and after him, another, and another… So that in the end all will receive eternal life, no matter how much they err, whether in small or great things. If this is impossible, however, then there is no way anyone who consciously deviates from the truth, even a little, can be saved. We stand on the firm foundation of faith, and we have no need to expose ourselves to such danger by deviating from it even in a small way.

Chapter 11

If anyone asks us (as many are now accustomed to do) whether we consider the Latins heretics, we will answer thus: It is not for us, when poverty and wretchedness reign in our affairs, to give such names to the church which has now come to such power and does not consider itself subject to our laws (just as we do not consider it subject to hers). It is enough for us to follow the dogmas and laws of our fathers without entering into conflicts with anyone else. What is the portion of the Latins: God knows and will reveal on the Last Day. Even if God allows them, having made an addition to the faith, to stand in the truth, our works will not be worthy of condemnation by the Divine Judge since we have followed so many teachers. If, however, the opinion of the Latins, as we suppose, turns out to be far from the truth, then how dangerous will it be for those who join the Latins to depart from the truest and most universal patristic teaching, and not even based on arguments of reason? For what arguments, invented by the present-day Latins, have convinced even one of ours to join them? No such arguments! The Uniates exhibit for all to see those ancient testimonies about which the Latins sing on every corner, and say that these are what convinced them⁴⁸. However, this has been beautifully refuted by our fathers and teachers.

As we have already said above, even a small falling away from the truth, in our opinion, casts down as deeply as great impiety, and both deprive one of eternal life. In addition, God Himself will take care of the fullness of faith, and our job is to take care of our own salvation.

Must we perhaps defend our faith in deeds so that it may be preserved for our posterity? Well then, let them threaten us with swords, let them lead us to the edge of the abyss, let them do whatever they like, and they will see that we are ready for anything if we know that at the cost of our physical death, the City can be saved from slavery. Or have we ever hesitated to do anything that the rulers of the City considered necessary for its salvation? Or is it not true that we, perhaps more than anyone else, were ready to give all when necessary? But we cannot agree to a small apostasy from the faith even if this, they say, will save the City and, with it, the faith as a whole. Moreover, we pray that those who have now agreed to this will repent and turn to the right way. If they persist in their opinion, we will never join them anyway. Even if it were possible, we would not want to benefit the whole earth if it were necessary to offend God and the truth for this and bring eternal torment upon our souls.

Moreover, we see now that our whole city is of one mind with us in this, except for a few shameless, impudent ones. People say that they are ready to suffer anything rather than abandon the teaching of their fathers, and fear of enemies seems to them to have no relation to questions of faith. Therefore, even those who are incapable of taking into account anything that every reasonable and sound believer should think about at least do not want to seem worse than all the people here. Was there ever a single people in the world that, in order to please strangers, at once renounced their entire faith and religion? Many have renounced their faith and gone over to the true one and made this choice amidst executions and dangers, joyfully leaving everything, but only for the sake of finding the truth [and not external benefits]. Let us be honest, if someone were to propose such thing [apostasy] to any people, would he not be stoned or burned? Therefore, of course, we are afraid that this matter might become the cause of many misfortunes from God for us and that the Deity will bring down all His punishment with even greater force on those who, being reasonable, could have corrected all this and did not. Those who dare apostatize are very few, and the majority of the City preserves prudence, stands reverently for the faith, and is ready to do everything so as not to betray it, and this instills hope in us.

But even if we turn out to be worse than all the nations and sell our faith for temporary benefits, what lasting and continuous help can the Latins give us? We do not see it, so let someone explain it to us clearly without talking about shadows and dreams! The fact that we listened to them has already turned out to be a disaster for us, as it seems, for God has abandoned us. We cannot rely on the expected help, in which those who speak of the union believe so much (or pretend to believe in order to mislead others), because we know too well the state of affairs here and are able to calculate what this help must be in order to ultimately free us from the fear that constantly weighs on us. Therefore, we must be afraid, if not of something else, then at least of the fact that it might turn out that we will go to a terrible deed and be deceived with the expectation of good (if, of course, it is possible to acquire at least some good through wickedness before God). After all, this is exactly what usually happens with those who act without God.

Chapter 12

Consider what help the Pope has given us since our representatives bowed their knees before him. This after we had sent him so many embassies and spent so much money on them, a sum that, if added up, he could never have sent us as help (as, in fact, he did not send). Each time, the embassies reported to him that our fate, as they say, hung by a thread. If God, looking mercifully upon us, had not delivered us from troubles, then, trusting in the Pope, we would have perished a hundred times already if it were possible to perish so many times in a row. If he did give us help in need, it was not from himself or from the Roman treasuries, but from what had once belonged to us anyway⁴⁹. All this was required to be returned to him after the “cessation of the schism,” and there was hope for this. Even if the Pope had not succeeded in persuading others to return the islands and Greek cities to us, he could at least have compensated us by expelling the pastors he had sent for the Churches we had captured. If the Pope had done only this, without doing anything else, if he had given us back the Churches we had captured in Corfu, Sicily, Crete, and the other islands which he had stolen from us, just as others had stolen the islands themselves, he might have seemed at least somewhat our friend and willing to help. The Pope, however, did not do even this but again reminded us that we had taken back the city of Patras⁵⁰. In order to soften his anger, the rulers of that city made concessions to him (perhaps even excessive ones), until God delivered their own city into the hands of the barbarians⁵¹, and thereby appeased the Pope’s anger, and at the same time pointed out to those who had been so obliging that God must be served and feared much more than human threats, especially if they are completely unjust. We should be afraid that something similar might happen to us, that it might turn out that, by our actions, we have forced God’s Providence to move even more enemies against us. For this is precisely how He deals with those who conceive evil, just as He assists and guides those who are pious and wise in their deeds.

The hope of Latin aid, then, has already thoroughly faded. If we nevertheless wish to escape slavery, we must preserve the faith which we have abandoned. We must propitiate the Deity with all other works. We must deliberate more and better on all our undertakings. It will be enough if we manage public affairs justly, wisely, and with equality, and thereby enjoy all that is due and rightfully due to them. We must spend on this only as much as is required for the expenses necessary for public affairs. In this way, we will provide for the needs of society and take care to preserve the forces and means at the same time, to find and increase which we must labor day and night. Above all, however, we must convene an assembly of representatives of every rank and class, and this assembly will, with God’s help, take care of the public good. Having secured these preliminary conditions, we must achieve peace with the Latins, and, if possible, with all people and nations; but we must not join in their lawlessness and injustice, turning completely to evil, but on the contrary, we must attract all the rest to our piety and justice, if they want to listen to us. If not, we will give them up to the coming Judgment. Let us then unite in justice among ourselves and not treat each other as the Latins once treated us. We asked them so many times to remove the addition and then to conduct the investigation, but they did not want to give in, and then, taking advantage of our helplessness, they tried to subjugate us once and for all and confirm this with a law. We must become one body under one Head: Christ, Whom we until recently honored in agreement, jointly retreat from what was undoubtedly done for good (one can object to this only out of love for the denial of the obvious), and give each other a fitting pledge of confidence. Then, we will be able to judge our disputes with the Latins openly and not secretly, truly and not hypocritically, for this is what the Church laws require. Then we will all be able to give them an answer with one accord, as befits Christians, children of one Mother. Then, all the blessings from God will be added to us, both those blessings that are good in themselves and external ones.

So, enough has been said. In whatever way God arranges everything for the good, we are ready to give an answer to anyone who asks us for an explanation, both in private conversation and openly, and to convince everyone who has been taught to think rightly and according to God about everything that was discussed above with God’s help.

Chapter 13

We have said all this many times to the late and most illustrious Emperor. He, as we know, was well aware of what he had done and accepted our answers favorably. Although nothing forced him to do so, he wished to preserve the paternal teaching, approved of those who worked for it, and was hostile to those who thought differently. We are all witnesses to this and know all this from his own lips, from his own words. However, the Emperor from the very beginning was “in great fear, where no fear was,” and did not want to seem unpleasant to the Latins by breaking the bad promises he had made to them. About the good of his soul — alas! — he forgot to think. Therefore, he did not want to openly work for the healing of his soul and to save many who were perishing in the meantime because of his hypocrisy⁵². However, we are very grateful to him for this, that he did not despise the accusations of conscience, as many of those in authority do, but put them above all need. Even if not openly, as he should have and as the Church law requires, but in other ways he showed that he regretted what he had done and realized that there was nothing good in his actions.

We will not speak of the confessions which he constantly made before the spiritual fathers during his illness. We will not speak of other evidence of his repentance. Only this: wishing to heal at least somewhat both his own fall and the fall of others who subscribed to the Florentine definitions, the Emperor gave us freedom in the palace called Xylala to meet frequently and give an answer to the Latin objections in the presence of the papal legate, who was repeating the great need of the Union⁵³. And when we gave him a mature and considered answer, he ordered us to sign this tome (in other words, the statement of faith). After signing it, he took it, did not answer anything and did not express any open emotion, but said to one of the most faithful people: “I feel that I have thrown off a heavy burden from my conscience, for instead of those evil signatures, I ordered these sacred men to subscribe to the dogmas of truth. Even if I cannot heal the wound I have inflicted on the soul in any other or better way, at least this path, in accordance with the circumstances of the time, I think, will seem sufficient to the Divine love for mankind.”

This is what he told them, and he did not wish to help the Church in any other way. Thus, pretending to Latinize, he left both the state and his life and was justly deprived of the Church honors that he had despised during his life. Whether Divine love for mankind will grant him anything more for his merciful attitude toward us and his inner repentance for the evil innovations he had committed, this is known, perhaps, only to God.

So, since that time, we have kept that tome, which is in agreement with the Holy and Catholic Council assembled against Beccus and which overthrew him by canonical order. This tome overthrows the evil definitions [of Florence] until God sends us something else for the public revelation of the truth.

To this, our God, be glory forever.

Amen.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[The translation of this work was done with machine assistance.]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. After the death of Emperor John VIII Palaiologos, that is, after 31 October 1448.
2. Saint Gennadius uses the word “Asian” [Ἀσίας] multiple times to mean “Eastern.”
3. Canon 7 of the Third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus (431), was interpreted by the East as prohibiting new changes to the Creed. Canon 7 is as follows:
   
   “When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.
   
   But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
   
   And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.”
   
   This is why the Ecumenical Councils that followed Ephesus maintained the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in its entirety without any further elaborations.
4. The “Latin Patriarchates” of Constantinople (established 1204), Alexandria (1276), Antioch (1101), and Jerusalem (1099).
5. The Second Council of Lyons in 1274.
6. The Council of Blachernae in 1285.
7. Pope Eugene IV (1383–1447; reigned 1431–1447).
8. The Council of Basel was convened in 1431, when the papacy was weak in the face of the “conciliar movement” in the West. It decreed that a council was superior to a Pope. When Pope Eugene IV was enthroned, he tried to dissolve the council but was overruled. Thus, he called Florence to “regain” the authority lost by the papacy.
9. This is sarcasm.
10. Referring to the words of Christ in John 15:26, “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.”
11. The Second Ecumenical Council, the First Council of Constantinople (381), expanded upon the Creed of the First Council, the First Council of Nicaea. The reason for this expansion is because the Creed of Nicaea concluded by saying, “and [we believe] in the Holy Ghost.” So the Second Council elaborated on our belief in the Holy Ghost with, “and [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
    
    Saint Gennadius says the Church obeyed the words of the Lord by this since it says, in accordance with John 15:26, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.
12. Referring to this passage from an account the Acts of Nicaea written by Gelasius of Cyzicus, which was also cited by Saint Mark of Ephesus:
    
    “From Him [the Son] do we all who believe receive the Holy Ghost, who is of one essence with the Father and the Son, who proceeds from the Father and is proper to the Son, as we have shown above.” (Gelasius Cyzicenus. Historia Сoncilii Nicaeni // PG. 85. Col. 1288)
13. Summarized, the definition of the Creed at the First Council of Constantinople was perfect, complete, and sufficient about the nature and origin of the Holy Ghost.
14. These criteria appear to reflect the general criteria by which the Orthodox determine dogma, which was orated in clear words by Saint Vincent of Lerins in The Commonitorium; that we determine dogma by Universality, Antiquity, and Consent.
    
    “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.” (Saint Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, Chapter 2, Paragraph 6. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm)
    
    In this, the words of Saint Gennadius have parallels. The Scriptures would be “Consent,” since the Scriptures are an organ of the Church and thus what is professed by Scripture is professed by the Church. Antiquity would, of course, be “Antiquity.” The teachers would be “Universality,” since a universal belief would be taught to modern believers by the pleroma of their teachers in past generations.
15. Saint Gennadius mentions Saint John of Damascus because he is the most often cited by polemicists when defending the Orthodox position on the procession of the Holy Ghost. While he is a hefty resource for the truth, we do not solely believe in his words. Rather, we believe in the consensus of the Fathers. If any one of them were to deviate from the consensus, his deviation would not be believed on the basis alone that he is a holy father.
    
    This is the cited teaching from Saint John of Damascus: “Further, it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Ghost as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Ghost as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. ‘For if any one has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His’ [Romans 8:9], says the divine apostle. And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. For He breathed upon His Disciples, says he, and said, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost’ [John 20:29]. It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further, we do not speak of the Son of the Ghost, or of the Son as derived from the Ghost.” (Saint John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 8, “Concerning the Holy Trinity.” https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm)
16. Saint Gennadius is saying that if we are condemned for not believing the filioque, even though it was taught by saints, we should also be condemned for not believing in universalism (apoktastasis), which is him being ironic since it would be ridiculous for us to be condemned in a system where all are released from condemnation. More than that, this is all hypothetical. This argument is made under the premise that Saint Augustine actually did teach the filioque as the Latins believed, and Saint Gregory of Nyssa actually did teach universalism, but it is not admitted that either father taught either belief, which he will explain later.
17. The Arians accused Saint Dionysius of Alexandria of believing in their position, and they cite these words of his:
    
    “that the Son of God is a creature and made, and not His own by nature, but in essence alien from the Father, just as the husbandman is from the vine, or the ship-builder from the boat, for that being a creature He was not before He came to be.” (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2810.htm)
    
    Saint Dionysius did write these words, but Saint Athansius the Great explains in “On the Opinion of Dionysius” that these words were limited, rash, and reactionary to the rise of Sabellianism (Modalism), using clouded language under compulsion in an attempt to rescue his flock from this heresy, and did not express his full belief concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son. He proves this by citing other letters of Saint Dionysius, which show that he did not profess the Arian belief. Saint Gennadius cites this example to show that you cannot look at a limited portion of the fathers to determine our belief. Just as you cannot cite one letter of Saint Dionysius alone to determine his whole belief, you cannot cite one father or two to determine the whole Christian Truth, but rather you must take the whole corpus of Dionysius and the whole breadth of the fathers respectively.
18. Saint Gregory of Neocaesarea also appeared to make Arian statements, but as explained by Saint Basil the Great, “But in his endeavour to convince the heathen, he deemed it needless to be nice about the words he employed; he judged it wiser sometimes to make concessions to the character of the subject who was being persuaded, so as not to run counter to the opportunity given him. This explains how it is that you may find there many expressions which now give great support to the heretics, as for instance “creature” and “thing made” and the like.” (Saint Basil the Great, Letter 210 to the notables of Neocæsarea, Paragraph 5. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202210.htm)
19. Saint Basil the Great, Letter 9 to Maximus the Philosopher.
    
    “I do not admire everything that is written; indeed of some things I totally disapprove. For it may be, that of the impiety of which we are now hearing so much, I mean the Anomoean, it is he, as far as I know, who first gave men the seeds.” (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202009.htm)
20. Saint Augustine routinely identifies himself as prone to error and calls his readers to submit to the belief of the Church.
    
    “Neither will I myself shrink from inquiry, if I am anywhere in doubt; nor be ashamed to learn, if I am anywhere in error. Further let me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring; wherever he recognizes himself to be in error, there to return to me; wherever he recognizes me to be so, there to call me back:” (Saint Augustine of Hippo, On the Trinity, Book 1, Chapters 2 and 3. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm)
21. Matricide: To kill one’s own mother. Saint Gennadius calls the uniates matricidal to say that they have killed the Mother of all Christians: the Orthodox Catholic Church. It is also an allusion to the Uniate Patriarch of Constantinople, Metrophanes (Matricide: μητραλοίας, Metrophanes: Μητροφάνης).
22. The Council of the Holy Wisdom in 879 convened under Saint Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. It is also known as the Photian Council.
23. The Eighth Ecumenical Council, Act V, Sections 3–10.
    
    “Photius, the Most Holy Patriarch, said, ‘Regarding the Holy and Ecumenical Council that was convened the second time in Nicaea of Bithynia under Hadrian, the Most Blessed Pope of Rome, and Tarasius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is among the saints, our own Church [Constantinople] has already called and proclaimed it as the Seventh and honors it with privileges equal to those of the other Six Holy and Ecumenical Councils, while the Church of the Romans and likewise also the thrones of the East similarly accept and respect its dogmas, but perhaps there is uncertainty in some about numbering it together with the other Six Holy and Ecumenical Councils and proclaiming it as the Seventh. There is such a rumor floating around, but till now we do not yet know the truth for certain.
    
    Now then, O sacred assembled choir of holy brethren, seeing that all good things have clearly been brought to an indisputable conclusion with the participation of the Most Holy Pope John, our brother and spiritual father, with the same most venerable representatives filling his place and the other hierarchical thrones sitting with us in council, if ye all agree, let not only this council be confirmed and ratified, just as its dogmas and decisions by all, but let it also be numbered together with the Six Holy and Ecumenical Councils, both becoming and being called the Seventh after them and holding equal privileges with the others.’
    
    Peter, the Most God-fearing priest and cardinal said, ‘Regardign the Holy Council that convened under the Most Holy Pope Hadrian and Tarasius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is now among the saints, on behalf of the holy and venerable icons, we wish to remind your holiness that, just as from ancient years, in agreement with the Holy Churches everywhere, the Holy Church of the Romans also embraced and accepted both its dogmas and decrees, so does she also think it right that this Council should be called the Seventh and numbered together with the other Six Holy and Ecumenical Councils. Whoever does not thus consider and call the Holy and Ecumenical Second Council of Nicaea the Seventh Council, let him be anathema.’
    
    The holy Council said, ‘It is fitting, together with the entire acceptance and union with the Church of the Romans which came to pass through the intercession of our Most Holy Patriarch Photius, that we agree with you on this matter as well, so that there may be among us no disagreement in this either. Whoever does not think thus and does not call the Holy and Ecumenical Second Council of Nicaea the Seventh Council, as the most God-fearing priest and cardinal said just now, let him be anathema.’
    
    Eugene, the most God-beloved bishop and representative of Old Rome said, ‘Whoever does not think consider the Ecumenical Council that was convened for the second time in Nicaea under the Most Holy Pope Hadrian and Tarasius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is among the saints, as the Holy and Seventh Council and does not honor it like the other Six Ecumenical Councils, let him be anathema.’
    
    Basil, the most God-beloved Bishop of Martyropolis and representative of Antioch said, ‘We both accepted and do now accept, in agreement with your holiness, the Holy and Ecumenical Second Council of Nicaea, calling it Seventh and Holy and numbering it and proclaiming it together with the Holy Six Ecumenical Councils before it; and we send to anathema those that do not think so.’
    
    Elijah, the most God-fearing priest and representative of Jerusalem, said, ‘If one does not accept the Holy and Ecumenical Council that was convened for the second time in Nicaea, he neither accepts the other Six Councils. For just as in those councils, all the hierarchical thrones came together, some in person while others through representatives, and presented the trustworthiness and certainty of the dogmas, so did this one also. A representative came from the Most Holy Pope of Rome and likewise also from our own thrones of the East, and its dogmas were akin and familiar and of the same faith as those of the Six Ecumenical Councils. So whoever does not accept this Council and does not call it the Seventh Ecumenical cancels the others also, even if he dare not say so. Therefore, if one does not accept this one like those Six Holy and Ecumenical Councils, let him be anathema.’
    
    The Holy Council said, ‘Anathema.’”
24. The Eighth Ecumenical Council, Act VI, Section 12.
    
    [The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is said, without the filioque]
    
    “Thus we believe; into this confession of the Faith were we baptizedl through it the word of truth has shown every heresy to be shattered and destroyed. Those who are of this mind we call brothers and fathers and fellow-heirs of the heavenly commonwealth. But should somone dare to compose another exposition besides this sacred Creed, which has come down even to us from our blessed and sacred Fathers, and call it a definition of faith, and thus steal for himself the dignity of the confession of those divine men and enfold it with his own inventions, and set it forth as a common lesson to the faithful or even to those returning from some heresy, and be so audacious as to utterly adulterate with spurious words or additions or subtractions the antiquity of this sacred and venerable definition, in accordance with the decree that has been declared already before us by the Holy and Ecumenical Councils, if he be one of the clergymen, we subject him to complete defrocking, but if he be of the laymen, we defer him to anathema.”
25. The 1157 Council of Constantinople under Emperor Manuel I Comnenus and Patriarch Michael III Anchialus. Emperor Manuel wanted the West to recognize his imperial authority and sought to achieve this by a union of the Churches of Rome and Constantinople.
26. The 1234 Council of Nymphaeum under Emperor and Saint John Doukas Vatatzes and Patriarch Germanus II. The Council achieved nothing but instead became a show of the Latins who claimed to excommunicate the Orthodox for rejecting the filioque. Saint Gennadius says “under Lascaris,” likely because Saint John’s first wife was Empress Irene Lascarina, and his only child was Emperor Theodore II Doukas Lascaris.
27. This rule is known to history as the “Latin Empire” (1204–1261).
28. Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos had tried to unify the Church with the papists at the 1274 Second Council of Lyons, but failed.
29. “πτεροῖς τοῖς ἰδίοις ἁλώσεται.” A Greek proverb referring to a bird of prey shot down by a feathered arrow while hunting. Thus, “his own feathers” have destroyed him.
30. Saint Gennadius makes a mistake in thinking that the Third Council of Toledo (589), which established the filioque in the Creed for the first time, was actually convened after the papal schism. Moreover, while this is the origin of the uncanonical papal impiety, they do not consider it to be Ecumenical.
31. By 1448, the papocracy considered as “Ecumenical” the following synods after the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787):
    
    - The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869), otherwise known as the Antiphotine Council. Not to be confused with the Fourth Council of Constantinople (879), otherwise known as the Council of the Holy Wisdom, which the Orthodox consider Ecumenical.
    - The First Council of the Lateran (1123)
    - The Second Council of the Lateran (1139)
    - The Third Council of the Lateran (1179)
    - The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215)
    - The First Council of Lyons (1245)
    - The Second Council of Lyons (1274)
    - The Council of Vienne (1311)
    - The Council of Constance (1414)
    - The Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431–1445)
    
    They would go on to establish four more “Ecumenical” synods after this point.
32. Referring to the “uniates,” who use the Constantinopolitan Liturgical Rite but profess papism.
33. Some became uniates for money, power, ordination, glory, resentment towards the Church hierarchy, or for the sake of the preservation of the Empire (which they never achieved). They did not once take into consideration whether or not the Pope actually possessed the authority he was claiming.
34. Let the Heavens Rejoice: The Bull of Union with the Greeks (Laetentur Caeli: Bulla Unionis Graecorum), Pope Eugenius IV, 6 July 1439.
    
    “In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the Holy Ghost is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, just like the Father. And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. We define also that the explanation of those words ‘and from the Son’ was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.”
35. Sylvester Syropoulos records in his Memories (6.29–30) that Andrew, the papal bishop of Rhodes, requested at the council in Ferrara that the decree prohibiting the additions to the Creed not be publicly proclaimed. He asked, “What will you gain if you proclaim anathema against us?”
36. According to Syropoulos, after reading the definitions of the ancient Ecumenical Councils on the prohibition of changes to the Creed, many Latin monastics were inclined to acknowledge the correctness of the Orthodox. (ibid. 6.32)
37. Saint Mark of Ephesus, who reposed on 23 June 1444.
38. Patriarch Athanasius III of Alexandria was present at the 1285 Council of Blachernae.
39. The representatives of the Orthodox Patriarchates at the council in Florence were as follows:
    
    - Alexandria: Metropolitan Anthony of Heraclea and Archimandrite Gregory Mammas
    - Antioch: Saint Mark of Ephesus and Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev
    - Jerusalem: Metropolitan Dionysius of Sardis (replaced by Dositheus of Monemvasia after his death)
40. See Saint Gennadius Scholarius, “Note on the Signatories of the Florentine Union” (Adnotatio in subscriptores decreti unionis Florentini), where he lists all the members of the Greek delegation and notes which of them signed the decree, which did not sign, and which of the signatories repented.
41. He means Metropolitan Anthony of Heraclea, who steadfastly defended Orthodoxy but signed the council in Florence under the manipulations of papal dignitaries while he was sick in bed at the time. He was told that they did not betray the faith, but he was obviously lied to. After Florence, he presided over the Liturgy in Venice and did not commemorate the Pope or say the filioque, as the council required.
42. Saint Gregory the Theologian, Oration 21 “On the Great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria,” Chapter 22.
    
    “The crowning feat of this faction was the council which sat first at Seleucia, the city of the holy and illustrious virgin Thecla, and afterwards at this mighty city, thus connecting their names, no longer with noble associations, but with these of deepest disgrace; whether we must call that council, which subverted and disturbed everything, a tower of Chalane, (Genesis 11:4) which deservedly confounded the tongues — would that theirs had been confounded for their harmony in evil! — or a Sanhedrin of Caiaphas where Christ was condemned, or some other like name. The ancient and pious doctrine which defended the Trinity was abolished, by setting up a palisade and battering down the Consubstantial: opening the door to impiety by means of what is written, using as their pretext, their reverence for Scripture and for the use of approved terms, but really introducing unscriptural Arianism.” (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310221.htm)
43. Genesis 2:7
    
    “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
44. Demetrius Cydonius (1398) was an anti-hesychast and a student of Latin philosophy. He strived to translate the works of Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, and Blessed Boethius to Greek. Demetrius converted to pope-worship in 1365.
45. Manuel Kalekas (1410) was a disciple of Demetrius Cydonius.
46. Demetrius Cydonius was a student of the hesychast theologian Archbishop Nilus Cabasilus and only began his Uniate activities after the latter had died in 1363.
47. Saint Gennadius subtly acknowledges the hesychastic theology of Saint Gregory Palamas to be the dogma of the Church and the teachings of Barlaam and Acindynus against this to be heresy.
48. Cardinal Bessarion, later Latin patriarch of Constantinople, said in a letter to Alexius Lascaris Philanthropinus, “It was not syllogisms… nor the force of rational arguments that led me to this faith, but the clear words of the Teachers. For when I saw and heard them, I immediately ceased to contend and dispute and yielded to the authority of those to whom these words belonged… I judged that the Holy Fathers, speaking as they did in the Holy Ghost, could not deviate from the truth, and I grieved that I had not heard these words before.” (Bessarion of Nicaea, De Spiritus Sancti processione ad Alexium Lascarim Philanthropinum).
49. All of the aid sent by the Pope was provided at the expense of continental Greece and its islands, territories previously captured by Western rulers.
50. In 1429–1430, the Despot of the Morea and future Emperor, Saint Constantine XI Dragaš Palaiologos, recaptured Patras from the Venetians and expelled the Latin bishop. This greatly outraged Pope Eugenius IV.
51. Patras remained in Greek hands until 1458, but as early as 1446, Sultan Murat II invaded the territory of the Despotate of Morea, ravaged it, took many prisoners, and forced its rulers to swear allegiance to him.
52. That is because the Emperor, recognizing the falsity of the union, nevertheless did not want to openly reject it.
53. In August 1444, a papal fleet of 25 galleys arrived in Constantinople and brought an embassy from Rome; Pope Eugenius’s nephew and legate, Cardinal Condulmaro, intended to achieve a solemn proclamation of the union in Constantinople (which didn’t happen until 12 December 1452). Along with him, Bishop Bartholomew Lapacchi also arrived in Constantinople. In the presence of the Emperor and other dignitaries, a series of 15 disputes on the question of the procession of the Holy Ghost were held between him and Saint Gennadius Scholarius.