The Ecumenical Authority of the Council of Florence

Council of Florence in the Nuremberg Chronicle (1493)

It’s well known that the Catholic Church attempted to reunite with the Eastern Orthodox Church at the Council of Florence in the 15th century. Although there was still some disagreement in the end, as there was at all of the ecumenical councils, the representatives of the Orthodox Church overwhelmingly recanted their former views and embraced the Catholic faith, thereby ending the Great Schism. This is why the final bull of union was entitled, Laetentur caeli, “Let the heavens rejoice.” Unfortunately, due to a lack of historical and theological reflection on the Council of Florence, very few are aware of just how problematic this fact is for the truth claims of Eastern Orthodoxy. In this article, I will attempt demonstrate that, by Eastern Orthodoxy’s own canonical standards, the Council of Florence met all of the criteria for what constitutes a dogmatically binding Council. If successful, then this would prove that the Orthodox Church’s current resistance to the teachings of Florence is indeed a falsification of its claim to being the one Church of Christ.

To begin, it’s important to establish what Orthodoxy actually teaches makes a council “ecumenical.” While there are many lay-Orthodox who believe that a council must somehow be “received by the faithful” before it can be considered dogmatic, we can reject this notion on two grounds. First, the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15, after which all subsequent ecumenical councils are patterned, did not need to wait for its teachings to be “received” by the faithful before they were dogmatically binding. As soon as “the apostles and elders” decreed that their teachings “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28), St. Paul considered them to be “dogmas” (δόγματα) that must be accepted under pain of sin (Acts 16:4). This informs us that councils ratified by apostolic authority are dogmatically binding in and of themselves, not by virtue of some later group “receiving” their teachings.

Second, Orthodoxy’s own canonical tradition makes it clear that councils receive ecumenical (infallible) authority not by subsequent reception, but rather by the very authority of the bishops who ratify the council. For example, when contrasting its own authority with that of the heretical Council of Hieria, the Seventh Ecumenical Council ruled the following about what makes a council infallibly binding:

And how can a council be ‘great and ecumenical’ when it received neither recognition nor assent from the primates of the other churches, but they consigned it to anathema? It did not enjoy the cooperation of the then pope of Rome or his priests, neither by means of his representatives or an encyclical letter, as is the rule for councils; nor did it win the assent of the patriarchs of the east, of Alexandria, Antioch, and the holy city, or of their priests and bishops.

6th Session, Official Refutation of the Horos of Hieria, qtd. in Price, Richard. The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea 787, p. 442.

According to this council (which the Orthodox believe is ecumenical), all it takes for a council to be infallibly and irreversibly binding is for it to receive “the ratification of specific particular Churches of longstanding prestige and authority in the canonical tradition.”¹ This of course includes the approval of the Apostolic See, as well as the Patriarchal Sees of the East in communion with her. The renowned Eastern Orthodox canonist and saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite further confirms this in his discussion of ecumenical councils:

An Ecumenical Council is a Council that was convened by order of the emperor, issued a dogmatic definition of faith, its decisions are pious, Orthodox and agree with the Holy Scriptures and previous Ecumenical Councils. It must be unanimously accepted by all the patriarchs and hierarchs of the Catholic Church, present at the Council either in person or through their representatives, or, if they were absent, by expressing their consent by letters with signatures […] the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are equivalent to the decisions of the Holy Spirit of truth, for it is said: He will teach you everything and remind you of everything (John 14:26), which is especially true for the Ecumenical Councils.

Nicodemus, The Rudder. Rules of the Orthodox Church with interpretations. Volume 2. Rules of the Ecumenical Councils, n. 1.

Given how knowledgeable he was of the Eastern Orthodox canonical tradition, it’s no surprise that Nicodemus understands councils to be infallibly and irreversibly binding not when they receive some vague “consent of the faithful,” but rather when they receive the approval of the Church’s most important hierarchs, represented either personally, by legate, or by letter. As soon as this approval is given to a specific council, that council’s teachings immediately become de fide dogmas that must be believed under pain of mortal sin. This entails that absolutely no later authority can come back to the dogmatic decisions of ecumenical councils and revise them. For, if the Church were to do this, i.e. dogmatically decree something at an ecumenical council only to turn around a few decades or centuries later and try to take it back, this would falsify the Church’s claims to infallibility, full stop. 

With all of that said, it should be clear that if the Eastern Orthodox Church accepted the Council of Florence in the persons of her lawful hierarchs, whether they did this personally, by legate, or by letter, then she is dogmatically bound to accept Florence’s teachings even today; and if Orthodoxy refuses to embrace the dogmatic decrees of Florence after having ratified them, then she reveals that she has not inherited the charism of infallibility that all agree was present in the first millennium. As such, what follows will be an attempt to demonstrate that, given the historical evidence we possess, the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that the Council of Florence meets the criteria of an “ecumenical” council laid out by Eastern Orthodoxy. The following will largely be indebted to the excellent work of Fr. Thomas Crean in his book, Vindicating the Filioque: The Church Fathers at the Council of Florence.

The first important piece of information to note about the Council of Florence is that, at the time, everybody regarded it as an ecumenical council. For instance, in his letter to Pope Martin V, Emperor John VIII wrote the following concerning the soon to be held Florentine Council:

We say that it is necessary for all the holy patriarchs and all the bishops of our provinces to be present… When the sacred council shall have gathered according to the ancient manner and custom of the seven holy general councils of past times, and the truth shall have been sought for without strife, then let whatever shall be revealed in this holy council by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit be accepted by each side and let the furthest parts of the earth follow. In this way let there be a union of the churches that is firm and unbreakable.

Orientalia Documentica de Unione (ODM), 1:4, qtd. in Crean, Thomas. Vindicating the Filioque: The Church Fathers at the Council of Florence, pp. 364-365.

The Emperor’s goal in convening the Council of Florence was to get everybody to agree that, due to its ecumenical status, its decisions would be final; and at first this seems to have been successful. After feeling satisfied with the way Florence was being convened, the now infamous Mark of Ephesus wrote the following in a letter to Pope Eugene IV prior to the beginning of the council:

That which has been said for so long, that there was need of an ecumenical council for these matters [that divide the Greeks and Latins], we have today fulfilled.

AG, 29, qtd. in Crean, p. 378.

According to the Ephesine, everything about the Council of Florence’s structure was on par with the previous ecumenical councils. This is why, just before the public sessions began, both Mark of Ephesus and Isidore of Kiev jointly declared to the Pope:

Because there are present in this [synod] your Holiness and those who are with you, and also the emperor and the patriarch and the delegates of the Eastern patriarchs and the more distinguished section of the Eastern church, for this reason the ecumenical synod is complete and irreproachable.

The Memoirs of Sylvester Syropoulos on the Council of Florence (SYR), 304, qtd. in Crean, p. 378.

Like the Orthodox sources quoted above, Mark and Isidore both recognized that, since the Council of Florence had representation from the universal Church, it was indeed an ecumenical council that had the ability to speak with infallible authority. Even several years into the Council, the Greek delegates understood that if they actually came to an agreement with the Latins on the matter of the Filioque, this would definitively end all debate surrounding the issue. In May of 1439, for example, a Greek delegate named George Scholarios expressed that, whatever might happen, “I submit myself to the vote of this, our holy council, or rather, our ecumenical council,” going on to warn: “For what is worse than that one man, of whatever rank he may be, should resist an ecumenical council, given that such a council represents the whole Church of God?”² As we shall see later, Scholarios’ speak of “one man” who would fall under God’s condemnation for resisting the Ecumenical Council of Florence would eventually prove to be prophetic. 

Another witness to the ecumenical authority of the Florentine Council is, again, the Emperor who convened it. Speaking at the same time as George Scholarios, John VIII made it known that, “I hold this present holy and ecumenical council to be in no way inferior to any of those that has taken place in the past.”³ The Emperor then gave a very beautiful theological explanation for why it is the Church of God speaks infallibly in ecumenical councils:

I consider that holy Church cannot err in any way in [defining] sacred teachings, when she has considered them in a common council. For while it is possible for one man or two or three or even more of those who are now living to be deceived when they consider among themselves, it is entirely impossible for the whole Church to be deceived, concerning which our Lord said to Peter: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” If it were otherwise, the saving word would have failed, and our faith would have no firm support. But since both these ideas are absurd, the Church of God must needs be infallible, and we must follow her judgment, myself in the first place, who by the grace of God wear the imperial garb.

AG, 432, qtd. in Crean, p. 380.

I decided to include this quote just in case any of our Orthodox friends needed the reminder. Affirming the Church’s infallibility is an absolutely fundamental difference between the historic Christian faith and Protestant heresies. If Florence met the criteria for being an ecumenical council, then it must be upheld lest one undermine historic Christianity as a whole. This is certainly the mindset that the vast majority of participants in the Florentine Council had, including the Greek theological advisor George Amiroutzes who, just prior to the council’s final decree, stated: “I submit myself to the judgment of the Church and obey her in all things. And since she has so decided, I receive it as I do the decisions of the other councils. For it is impossible for the Church to be mistaken in these matters.”⁴

Further, it’s important to observe that, contrary to the claims of some, the conviction of the Greeks that they had participated in an ecumenical council did not dissipate after the council ended. For example, following the publication of the final Decree of Union in July of 1439, the then legate of Alexandria, Gregory Mammas, wrote to his patriarch, Philotheos, that the Council of Florence had truly been “an ecumenical council [which] took place in a canonical and legitimate manner.”⁵ The next year, Emperor John VIII would also inform Patriarch Philotheos that he may learn of the union that was achieved at Florence, “from the definition of the sacred and ecumenical synod.”⁶ Significantly, the Patriarch of Alexandria himself would eventually respond to this by declaring: 

We have sufficiently understood the decrees contained in that [letter] concerning the sacred and ecumenical council held with all the fathers representing the holy patriarchs… anyone who does not accept the things that have been decreed and defined in the holy council should be treated as a tyrant and a heretic, and should not be granted the communion of the holy Catholic Church.

ODM, 38:52-53, qtd. in Crean, p. 382.

Very strong language from one of the most prominent authorities in the Eastern Church at the time. What we can gather from all of this is that, prior to, during, and after the Council of Florence, absolutely nobody questioned whether or not this synod was ecumenical and canonical. To be sure, these claims would come later when the anti-unionist movement gained traction in Constantinople, however, at the time, the Florentine Council was clearly perceived as being on par with all of the previous ecumenical councils. Unlike what some would claim many years after the fact, there were no contemporaries of the council who claimed that the Greek delegates were coerced, bribed, tricked, or that they didn’t truly carry out the wills of their patriarchs. Instead, in July of 1439, the overwhelming majority of hierarchs were rejoicing that the Greek and Latin schism had finally come to an end.

This is why, decades after the council, Greek unionists such as John Plousiadenos would consistently appeal to the ecumenicity of Florence against those who decried the union. In his Refutio Marci Ephesi, Plousiadenos warns Mark of Ephesus that “the enemies of ecumenical councils receive no other name than that of heretics,”⁷ and that because “you separated yourself from the fathers of the sacred council, [you] are also separated from the sheepfold of Christ.”⁸ He then goes on to affirm:

It is impossible, certainly, for anyone to say that this council that was held in Florence was not ecumenical. For the pope was there, and the emperor was present, and the patriarchs, and the whole world was represented. And so we say that it was infallible… It is possible that a national council should go astray and fall into heresy. But an ecumenical council cannot be mistaken, as we have often said. If this is so, then since this was an ecumenical synod, how could the Church be found mistaken, she who never goes astray?

PG, 159:984C-D, qtd. in Crean, p. 385.

Of course, since all Christians in the 15th century believed in the irreformability of ecumenical councils, the anti-unionists were eventually forced to argue against the binding nature of Florence. These are the arguments to which we now turn.

The first and perhaps most pressing anti-unionist claim was and is that, despite the fact that all of the patriarchal legates signed off on the council’s decrees, they were acting contrary to the mind and will of their patriarchs, and so their signatures mean nothing. However, as will become a consistent trend in the anti-unionists’ rhetoric, this claim simply does not have strong evidence in its favor. 

John Eugenikos (c. 1454) was the first to wield this argument against the Council of Florence in his Antirrhetic, wherein he writes that the Greeks still have the “official letters of the patriarchs to their delegates” preserved “in their original state.”⁹ These official letters, he claims, categorically forbade any concessions to the Latins on the part of the Greeks, and so the argument runs that, because the Greek delegates did end up conceding basically everything to the Latins, their approval of Florence could not convey that of the patriarchs.’ However, there are three responses that can be given to this argument. First, while we don’t possess the original patriarchal letters, we do possess the testimony of the anti-unionist writer Sylvester Syropoulos who, despite having an incentive to agree John Eugenikos’ position, nonetheless said that these letters only forbade “disturb[ing] anything that we have received from the holy and ecumenical councils, and from the saints and teachers of the Church.”¹⁰ In other words, the original patriarchal letters only bound their delegates to adhere to the true faith of the Fathers, which they indeed did by accepting the Decree of Union.

Second, even if the patriarchs’ original letters did forbid their delegates from making any concessions whatsoever under any circumstances, it doesn’t matter because these letters were actually rescinded by the patriarchs prior to the council’s convocation. As Fr. Crean explains: “The emperor was persuaded by a Latin envoy, John of Ragusa, that the initial terms of reference for these [the patriarchs’] proxies were too limited and would hinder fruitful discussion; he therefore sent another messenger to the three patriarchs by means of whom new letters of authorization were confirmed.”¹¹ Thus, the actual content of the original patriarchal letters is irrelevant to expressing their mind and will since the patriarchs themselves altered these letters in order to be less restrictive on their delegates. 

Third, there’s no record in the Greek acta of the Council of Florence of anyone suggesting, whether in public or private, that the terms of the original letters would prevent the patriarchal legates from carrying out the will of their hierarchs by signing the Decree of Union. From a purely historical perspective, then, we must regard the delegates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as the proper and authoritative judges of what their patriarchs allowed them to do. As such, we can see that the patriarchal delegates who signed off on the Council of Florence did so with the same canonical authority as the patriarchal and papal legates who had signed off on the previous ecumenical councils. 

Moving forward, this naturally leads into the second most prominent anti-unionist claim which is that, after hearing of their legates’ acceptance of the Florentine union, the eastern patriarchs themselves rejected these decisions. If true, this could possibly impugn the ecumenical status of Florence since, ultimately, the decision to ratify a council belongs to the patriarchs who are the heads of their churches. However, like the previous claim, this one simply has no strong historical evidence going for it. Above we already quoted the words of Patriarch Philotheos of Alexandria who, upon hearing that his legate had signed onto the union, embraced it with joy. It’s also well known that, prior to his death, Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople accepted what would become the final decree of Florence to enact the union, a decision that would be carried on by his successor, Metrophanes II.¹² 

This, however, still leaves open the question of whether the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem accepted the Council of Florence. Indeed, many Orthodox believe that they have definitive evidence to the contrary. Towards the end of the Middle Ages and up until the 20th century, it was widely believed that the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem met in council in 1443 to condemn the Florentine union. But let’s suppose this were true, it really wouldn’t harm the ecumenical status of Florence since, in the words of John Plousiadenos, “The Church, once the synod is over, is not interested in what anyone may say or do or wish.”¹³ As noted above, ecumenical councils are irreformable in and of themselves, meaning that once they issue decrees, these decrees cannot be revised, even by the very men who initially made those decrees! If someone like Patriarch Philotheos ratified the Council of Florence, but then he or his successor walked this back several years later, Florence would still retain its canonical authority. 

Even aside from this, though, the simple fact is that there’s absolutely no evidence that any such patriarchal council was held in 1443. As Fr. Crean observes, both the internal and external evidence surrounding this council is very damning.¹⁴ For instance, the earliest known witness to this alleged synod is from 1648 meaning that, apparently, none of the anti-unionists contemporary with the Council of Florence were aware of a patriarchal condemnation occurring. This is despite the fact that such a condemnation would have been a huge apologetic that the anti-unionists could have wielded in their favor. In the words of Fr. Joseph Gill:

Time and again in their writings such an announcement [of a patriarchal condemnation of Florence] would have been the perfect culmination of long argumentation—and [yet] they had to be content with the condemnation of Beccus by the eastern patriarchs, which had taken place as much as a century and a half before, in 1285.

Gill, Personalities at the Council of Florence, 216.

This leads both Crean and Gill to suggest that the spurious condemnation of 1443 is likely the work of the 17th century Orthodox writer George Coresios, “who is known to have forged the acts of a ‘synod of Constantinople of 1450.’”¹⁵ Thus, here are the facts we’re left with: (1) the legates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem had complete authorization from their patriarchs to enact the union at Florence; (2) the explicit testimony of at least one of these patriarchs shows that he was in full agreement with the union; (3) there is zero evidence that any of the patriarchs refused to accept the decision of their legates; and (4) none of the anti-unionists after the Council of Florence could muster up real proof that the union did not have the acceptance of the eastern patriarchs. This, I would argue, is sufficient to demonstrate that the Council of Florence is truly ecumenical, even by Orthodox standards.

Indeed, contrast the ratification of the Council of Florence with that of the Council of Ephesus 431. The former was accepted by the emperor, the pope, the patriarch of Constantinople, the patriarch of Alexandria, the legates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, fifteen metropolitans, and, in total, over seven hundred Latin bishops and two hundred Greek bishops.¹⁶ And out of all the bishops present, only two of them, Mark of Ephesus and Isaias of Stauropolis, refused to sign the union.¹⁷ The Third Ecumenical Council, on the other hand, actually had a division between the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, with 198 bishops signing on to St. Cyril of Alexandria’s side, and 43 supporting John of Antioch’s. Yet astoundingly, this did not stop the Council of Chalcedon from declaring that St. Cyril’s teaching “was approved by all the holy bishops who assembled previously at Ephesus to condemn the same Nestorius, and was confirmed by the signatures of all.”¹⁸ For the Fathers of Chalcedon, Ephesus 431 simply being approved by the overwhelming majority of the bishops present was enough for it to be regarded as ecumenical. 

This same argument was even used by St. Athanasius the Great in his defense of the Council of Nicaea 325: “For this was why an ecumenical synod has been held at Nicea, 318 bishops assembling to discuss the faith on account of the Arian heresy, namely, in order that local synods should no more be held on the subject of the Faith… For if one compare number with number, these who met at Nicea are more than those at local synods, inasmuch as the whole is greater than the part.”¹⁹ Surely, if St. Athanasius were to look at the Council of Florence and see that every single bishop there except for two approved of it, he would deem it as having ecumenical authority. Thus, once again, I believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church should acknowledge Florence as a legitimate ecumenical synod that ended the Great Schism. In the words of the Latin Archbishop Fantinus Vallaresso, who was present throughout most of the conciliar discussions at Florence:

Any sensible man can thus see how great and how noteworthy was this ecumenical gathering, where so many distinguished fathers came together. We should particularly note this fact, as apt to disconcert the critics… for anyone who calls himself a Christian, the authority, faith, and reverence of the whole Church, which being gathered together so solemnly in a synodal manner has declared the truth of the Catholic faith, ought to be [sufficient for demonstrating the truth of Florence’s teachings].

Vallaresso, Libellus, 20, 24, qtd. in Crean, p. 388.

Contrary to popular belief, the only contemporaries of the Florentine Synod who believed that the council was a failure were the two who refused to sign it. For everyone else, whether Greek or Latin, Florence was truly an ecumenical council that had brought about an end to the Greek and Latin schism. 

It’s no wonder then that, over the years, Mark of Ephesus would grow more and more hostile to the entire concept of conciliar authority. Although the Ephesine initially rejoiced at the convocation of Florence and held it to be lawfully ecumenical, he later declared that it had always been unnecessary: “We did not have an incomplete faith until now, nor were we in need of a council or definition in order that we might learn something new.”²⁰ In his effort to deny the binding character of Florence, Mark even anticipates the rhetoric of the Protestant Reformation: “No one lords it over our faith, not an emperor, nor a high priest, nor a false synod, but only God.”²¹ Truly the words of a man who had been rebuked by the Church of God.

I’ll end this article by noting that, in my honest opinion, if one just looks at the general disposition that anti-unionists like Mark of Ephesus had, and compares it with the disposition of unionists like Bessarion of Nicaea, it’s just beyond question who was acting in good faith and who wasn’t. Like Mark, Bessarion went into the Council of Florence fully prepared to uphold the rights and beliefs of the Greek Church. “On arrival in the west, Mark Eugenikos was not obviously either more pro- or more anti-Latin than Bessarion.”²² However, Bessarion made it clear that the Greeks have arrived at the council “desiring only to find the truth, preferring even to possess this and be beaten, while disdaining to miss it and be victorious.”²³ And despite clearly rejecting the Latin position at first, over the course of the council, Bessarion genuinely found himself moved by John of Montenero’s case for the Filioque from patristic sources. In his own words:

When I saw and heard those [patristic authorities], then suddenly I left behind me all spirit of strife and contradiction, and I gave in to the authorities of those who had thus spoken… Not only did I given in, but I also gave thanks to our Savior, that he had granted me to hear and understand things that I had previously never heard.

Bessarion, Letter to Alexios Lascaris, qtd. in Crean, p. 418.

Those who, like Bessarion, became unionists at the Council of Florence didn’t do so because they were coerced or bribed, but rather because they were genuinely compelled by the testimonies of the Church Fathers. “It was not the syllogisms or the cogency of proofs or the force of arguments that led me to believe,” writes Bessarion, “but the plain words of the doctors. For I judged that the holy fathers, speaking as they did in the Holy Spirit, could not have departed from the truth.”²⁴ These are the words of a humble man, one who encouraged his Greek brothers to “do our duty as children, paying proper attention to our fathers, submitting our own will to them and receiving seeds [of truth] from them.”²⁵ Unionists like Bessarion arrived at the Council of Florence with an open mind, hungry for nothing but the truth, and ended up having their minds changed by the testimony of Holy Tradition. 

Contrast this with one of only two anti-unionists who came out of the Florentine Synod, the metropolitan of Ephesus Mark Eugenikos. Unlike Bessarion who was eager to accept the teachings of the Fathers, both East and West, Mark laid down a strict a priori principle that made it impossible for him to be reasoned with: “To the extent that the writings of the Western saints are in accord with the letter of Maximus to Marinus, I take them to be genuine; to the extent that they disagree with it, I do not accept them.”²⁶ As Fr. Crean documents:

It is, unfortunately, impossible to acquit the metropolitan of Ephesus of the charge of bad faith… His assertion that the Filioque was false was based, in Florence, on a few scriptural and patristic texts that admitted of either a Catholic or non-Catholic interpretation. Having failed to attend Montenero’s exposition of the Catholic case, he dismissed without study all of the Latin texts that told against him as inauthentic… Eugenikos did not scruple to [falsely] accuse his fellow bishops of having been won over by bribery; the patriarch himself had been ‘corrupted’ […] 

While none of Bessarion’s contemporaries denied his integrity, the same cannot be said for Eugenikos. Gregory Mammas, patriarch of Constantinople from the mid 1440s and delegate of the patriarch of Alexandria during the Council of Florence, suggests in his Responsio ad epistolam Marci Ephesini that Eugenikos’s intransigent attitude towards the union was due in part to disappointed expectations. He quotes Mark’s charge that his fellow bishops signed the decree from a desire to make money, and after having first pointed out that Mark himself received the same expenses from the Pope as everyone else, he recalls that Mark had had a portrait painted of Pope Eugenius and had written a letter to him in which he wrote among other things: “Father Abraham, lift up your hands and bless your children who have come to you from the East.” Was it because he was disappointed to receive no money from the Pope for doing this, Mammas wonders, that he is now accusing others of avarice?

Crean, pp. 425-426.

Which side of the Council of Florence truly produced saints of Jesus Christ? Was it the unionists who humbly submitted to the teachings of the Fathers, and embraced the infallible authority of the Church, or the anti-unionists who drew up whatever excuses they could in order to persist in schism?

1. Seraphim Hamilton, “What is an Ecumenical Council?”

2. AG, 430, qtd. in Crean, p. 379.

3. AG, 432, qtd. in Crean, pp. 379-380.

4. ODM, 32:39, qtd. in Crean, p. 381.

5. ODM, 34:42, qtd. in Crean, p. 381.

6. ODM, 33:40, qtd. in Crean, p. 381.

7. PG, 159:1092A, qtd. in Crean, p. 384.

8. PG, 159:1089D, qtd. in Crean, p. 384.

9. Antirrhetic, 11, qtd. in Crean, p. 401.

10. SYR, 166, qtd. in Crean, p. 402.

11. Crean, p. 373.

12. Crean, pp. 374-375.

13. PG, 159:993A, qtd. in Crean, p. 403.

14. See Crean, pp. 403-404.

15. Crean, p. 404.

16. Crean, p. 388.

17. Crean, p. 401.

18. Session 2, qtd. in Price, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, vol. 2, p. 13.

19. St. Athanasius, Letter to the Bishops of Africa, qtd. in NPNF-2, vol. 4.

20. Opera anti-unionistica Marci Ephesi (OAU), 170, qtd. in Crean, p. 424.

21. OAU, 170, qtd. in Crean, p. 425.

22. Angold, Michael. “Byzantium and the West,” 74, qtd. in Crean, p. 416.

23. AG, 38, qtd. in Crean, pp. 416-417.

24. De Spiritus Sancti Processione, qtd. in Ybarra, Erick. The Papacy, p. 19.

25. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 14-15, qtd. in Crean, p. 418.

26. SYR, 394, qtd. in Crean, p. 423.