union also benefited from the esteem in which the Franciscan John Parastron was held throughout Byzantine society.15 He was born in Constantinople, then under Latin rule, and knew Greek to perfection. He participated in the Orthodox liturgy and even advocated dropping the filioque from the Latin creed as the price of ending the schism between the two churches.

It took time for opposition to the union promulgated at Lyons on 6 July 1274 to gather force. The critical moment came in April 1277 when Michael Palaiologos and his son and heir Andronikos publicly proclaimed their adhesion to the union and recited the creed with the Latin addition of the filioque. It was becoming increasingly hard to trust the emperor's assurances that union would bring no substantial changes to Orthodox worship. As alarming were the activities ofJohn Bekkos, whom Michael Palaiologos had made patriarch in May 1275.16 Imprisonment for his initial opposition to union had given Bekkos the leisure to study the dogmatic differences separating the churches. He discovered more and more support in the Greek Fathers for the compromise position sketched earlier by Nikephoros Blemmydes. This led him to ponder the historical circumstances of the split from the Roman Church. He became convinced that the culprit was the patriarch Photios. He was dismissive of the latter's Mystagogia, which provided the theological foundations of Byzantine criticism of Latin teaching on the Trinity. To Bekkos's way of thinking, Photios had allowed his ambition to destroy the harmonious relations that had existed between Rome and Constantinople in an earlier period. Bekkos sought to restore concord. To do so it was essential that the Orthodox Church accepted the patristic view that on the procession of the Holy Spirit there was no essential difference between the two churches.

Bekkos was working within the Orthodox tradition. His knowledge of Latin culture and theology was minimal. He believed that he was recovering the authentic Orthodox teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit, which had been lost through Photios. He insisted that he was as devoted and loyal to Byzantium as it was possible to be. He could not understand why his opponents treated him as a traitor. This was a line of thought expressed over the years by many Latin sympathisers, along with their dismay at the violence of the popular hatred of the Latins. The union of Lyons set in motion a struggle within Byzantium that was superficially about the Latins but really about

15 Georges Pachymeres, Relations historiques, ed. A. Failler (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1984), 11, v.xi; 475-6.

16 H. Chadwick, East and West: the making of a rift in the church: from Apostolic times until the Council of Florence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 246-57; G. Richter, 'Johannes Bekkos und sein Verhältnis zur römischen Kirche', BF 15 (1990), 167-217.

0 0

Post a comment