Interdenominational Unification Efforts in the Early Modern Period@Interdenominational Unification Efforts@(BE)@vorankündigung

Introduction

Since the 16th century, the search for ecclesiastical "unity" has been overshadowed by schisms within the Western church tradition. From the perspective of the Reformers, all attempts to carry out necessary reforms within ecclesiastical unity ultimately failed. Even the reformist movements among themselves were not always able to preserve their unity. The result was a lasting schism and confessionalization of church life. The now confessionally understood "Catholic Church" responded to this development with increasing centralization in the person of the Pope, who became the guarantor of church unity. Communion with the Pope was transformed into a criterion of true faith and thus a condition of salvation. The "unions" of certain parts of the Eastern church tradition with the institutionalized papal church, beginning in the late 16th century, were shaped by a Catholic, anti-Reformation, pope-centered ecclesiology. As a result, they did not lead to the desired Unio but provoked new divisions and permanently discredited the previously attractive and dynamic concept of "unio." In Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, this concept was replaced by the reproach of "uniatism," primarily raised by the Eastern side against the Church of Rome. While "union" refers to the unity of the church through mutual recognition of the fullness of the church in the diversity of Eastern and Western traditions, "uniatism" refers to the unilateral conversion of individual believers (proselytism) or parts of the church through their submission to papal jurisdiction and adaptation to the Western form of church life. Today's ecumenical movement calls its goal "unity," "visible unity," "communio," "koinonia," "concord," "reconciled diversity," or similar terms. The word "union," which is still used in political contexts, has virtually disappeared from the ecumenical vocabulary. ­­

After an introduction to the basis of church unions at the Council of Ferrara/Florence (1438/39), the following union efforts are presented: the Union in the Principality of Moldavia , the Brest Union, the Union of the Uskok Bishopric of Marča Prince of Transylvania Gabriel Bethlen (1580–1629) with the Reformed Church, the Union of the Lemberg and Transylvanian Armenians, the Union of Užgorod, the Transylvanian Church Union, and the unions "pro foro interno," which were not publicly announced.

The Council of Ferrara/Florence (1438/1439)

The Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438/39) is indispensable for understanding the ecclesiastical unions from their own motives, because the bull of union "Laetentur Caeli" was not immediately accepted by the Greeks. However, it repeatedly evoked a remembrance of the common church in both East and West.

In 1071, Byzantium suffered a major defeat at the hands of the Seljuk Turks at Mantzikert. The Crusades began in response to the Byzantine emperor's call for military support in the struggle for free access to the holy places in Palestine. But they soon became linked to Western political expansionist interests and to ecclesiastical efforts to "Latinize" the Christian East. Initially, no separate patriarchates were established for the Latin Christians, but Latin clergy were elevated to the existing Greek patriarchal seats. The Western rulers of the time were interested not only in increasing their own influence but also in reuniting the Greek and Latin Christians,¹ who had grown apart. Both sides regretted the differences in ecclesiastical traditions, but recognized the sacramental life of the other. The existing differences were not regarded as a division of faith that would prevent mutual recognition as one church of God. Therefore, church unity was initially sought through common church leadership, and common (Latin) church superiors were appointed.² After the time of the Crusades, this unity ended again, and suspicion arose that the schism might actually affect the faith itself.³ An investigation of this issue took place at the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438/1439, which aimed to resolve the schism⁴ by addressing four central issues: 1) the filioque,⁵ 2) purgatory, 3) the question of the Eucharist (leavened or unleavened bread), and 4) the primacy of the pope and the dignity of the other patriarchs.⁶ The main focus of the council was on the filioque. As with purgatory and the question of the Eucharist, a theological compatibility of the teachings of East and West was established.

The brevity of the debate on the papal ministry is remarkable. In the joint decision of the Council "Laetentur Caeli" of July 6, 1439, we read:

The Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Bishop have primacy over the whole world, and he, the Roman Pontiff, is the successor of blessed Peter, the first of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, as well as father and teacher of all Christians. To him, in Blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ has given full authority to feed, govern, and direct the universal Church, as is also contained in the acts of the ecumenical synods and the sacred canons.⁷

But the second part of the same decision was decisive for the church unions: "We also renew the order of the other venerable patriarchs, as handed down in the canons: The Patriarch of Constantinople is second after His Holiness, the Bishop of Rome; the third is the Patriarch of Alexandria; the fourth is the Patriarch of Antioch; and the fifth is the Patriarch of Jerusalem, with all their privileges and rights preserved."

Since in the 15th century there was no longer a common emperor for Greeks and Latins who could have ensured that the decisions of the council would be accepted everywhere, as the emperors had de facto done in the old ecumenical councils, a pastoral effort on the part of the hierarchs would have been necessary to achieve broad acceptance in the churches.⁸ In the West, the Council also attracted little further attention: It was only after more than a century that Pope Gregor XIII. (1502–1585) had the Greek acts of Florence printed, more or less unofficially and anonymously, and distributed free of charge among Greek monks.⁹ This explains why some Eastern hierarchs, in connection with the unions of the 16th to 18th centuries, were able to rely on the decisions of the Council of Florence. In Rome, the acts of the Council ended up in the archives. It was only during the aforementioned unions that the Council was recalled, though it was almost contradicted by the new circumstances.¹⁰

The church unions of the early modern period

An attempt at union in the Principality of Moldova

In the Principality of Moldavia, Iacob Eraclide (1520–1563), a staunch supporter of the Reformation, came to the throne in 1561 and sought to lead the Principality into the Reformation.¹¹ He opened a Protestant school and appointed a Polish Protestant pastor. However, his reign soon ended, and the traditionalist Movileşti family¹² gained dominance. A new prince invited the Jesuits, who had been successful in countering the Reformation in Poland, to Moldavia. Cooperation with the Jesuits must have gone well, as there was soon a call for closer union with the Latin Church. Documents sent from Moldavia to Rome prove that the edition of the Council Acts of Gregory XIII was known there, though Rome's response indicated that it was unknown in the Eternal City at the time. There were no further repercussions in Moldavia because the matter could not be pursued further due to a military invasion by the Tatars.

The Brest Union

Among the "Ruthenians," i.e., the "Greeks" with the Church Slavonic liturgy in Poland-Lithuania, the message of the Western reformers was particularly appealing to higher circles, as the need for reform in church life was also evident here.¹³ During a visit, Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople (1536–1595) called on Kiev to hold regular synods for renewal in accordance with canonical regulations. The move toward the Church of Rome was decided at the Kiev Synod of 1595 and thus became part of the broader synodal reform efforts. The request for admission or renewal of ecclesiastical communio, based on the Union of Florence, was accompanied by a list of 33 points reflecting the decisions of the Union of Florence. These points emphasized the legitimacy of differences in theology and church life and also demanded political equality. The papal nuncio in Poland transmitted the 33 points to Rome and wrote to the Kiev Synod on August 1, 1595:

Of those points which concern the Pope, some relate to divine dogmas, while others pertain to questions of ius humanum. As for the matters concerning divine dogmas, since they are in accord with the Catholic faith, and as they do not stem from human desires but from divine revelation, and since the Ecumenical Council of Florence decreed that the whole Church should believe them, it is clear that the Pope will approve and accept them.¹⁴

The Kiev Synod sent two bishops as delegates to Rome, and Pope Clement VIII (1536–1605)[] formalized the union at Christmas in 1595.¹⁵ In fact, the 33 points were neither rejected nor accepted; they were simply not mentioned.

The response from Rome came in the form of the papal bull Magnus Dominus, in which Pope Clement VIII reinterpreted the reconciliation achieved at the Council of Florence as a "return" (reversio) to the true Church. He repeatedly stated that the Ruthenians had to erase the errors of faith from their time without a pope. He compelled them to profess the filioque and accept many other Latin doctrines, including those from the Council of Trent. A synod, comparable to the regional synods of the Latins, was to proclaim the union, and the pope appointed the members of this body, disregarding the already established Ruthenian synod. This action was in clear contradiction to the decisions made at Florence, which stipulated that the "privileges and rights" of the Eastern Churches were to be respected. This led to a schism within the Ruthenian Church and, under confusing circumstances, to the establishment of a non-unitary counter-hierarchy. With the creation of the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (propaganda fide) in 1622, the decree of 1595 was even extended, giving this authority full control over the ecclesiastical life of the Ruthenians united with Rome. Twice (in the years 1624–1629 and 1636–1648), the Ruthenians attempted to avert their subordination to the Roman Curia and unite the two Ruthenian hierarchies. The first attempt failed because the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith refused to relinquish its interference in the affairs of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The second attempt occurred when Petro S. Mohyla (ca. 1596–1647)[] secured equal rights for opponents of the union in Poland-Lithuania and became their first metropolitan recognized by the king. In 1644, he sent a memorandum to Rome, declaring that the opponents of the union and the party of the Ruthenians united with Rome were by no means separated in faith. It was a misconduct on the Roman side in concluding the union, not a theological contradiction, that had prevented the church union and led to new, much worse tensions. Instead of preserving the two communities and connecting them with a common bond according to the old term "union" (unio), what was sought was a fusion (unitas), i.e., a transformation of the Greek religious community into a Roman one, a transsubstantiatio [religionis] Graecae in Romanam.¹⁶ Therefore, the result of this process should not be called a union at all.

A solution could only be found

if either one side yields to the other or something new is inspired by the Holy Spirit [...] Such a middle way is indeed possible: everyone may recognize the primacy required by the Apostolic See, but otherwise, none of one's own principles or doctrines should be altered or abandoned, as a union, not a mutatio, is sought. But this is the essence and nature of a union: to unite two things while preserving each in its original integrity – what existed before should remain, and what did not exist should be entirely removed.¹⁷

The memorandum was not discussed in Rome, and the negotiations came to an abrupt end, as Petro S. Mohyla died relatively young, and Kiev was soon occupied by Russia.

The Union of the Uskok Bishopric of Marča

The upheavals caused by the Ottoman expansion led to the displacement of various population groups in Southeastern Europe.¹⁸ As a result, the so-called Uskoks, refugees with a Greek church tradition and a Slavic or Romanian mother tongue, arrived in the Habsburg part of Hungary. In their former homeland, they had been under the authority of the Patriarch of Peč and had survived several battles with Turkish marauders. Due to their military prowess, they were welcomed by the authorities of Inner Austria, their new homeland, and settled in the border area as fortified farmers. They were granted the continuation of their traditional religious life and their connection with the Patriarch of Peč. The monastery of Marča was built for their pastoral care and soon became the center of a small diocese.

At the beginning of the17th century, after the union with the Ruthenians but before the establishment of the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, the new settlers agreed to a union with the Catholic State Church of Austria. Alongside theological motives, there was a desire to integrate the refugees well into their new homeland and to ease the secular obligations of the church leaders, who also served as leaders for the stateless nations of Southeastern Europe. In addition to providing pastoral care, they were responsible for the secular well-being of the people. In this context, the Bishops of Marča recognized that the property structure in the new homeland necessitated close economic ties with the Diocese of Zagreb. The small diocese of Marča also established a spiritual relationship with the state church in the Habsburg Empire and with the broader Western tradition.

The diocese of Marča was recognized as being in union with the Western Church through several documents and by the professions of faith made by its bishops upon taking office. It was able to continue all its customs, both ecclesiastical and secular, unchanged, and initially, the union with Zagreb did not entail a break with Peč. Well into the middle of the 17th century, the diocese of Marča remained in communion with both the Pope and the Patriarchs of Peč, but by the last third of the 17th century, this gradually became untenable. From an anachronistic perspective, the sincerity of the union was ultimately questioned by the bishops of Marča in the 20th century.

Attempts by the Transylvanian Prince Gabriel Bethlen to unite with the Reformed Church

At the beginning of the 17th century, Transylvania belonged to the Ottoman sphere of influence but enjoyed a large degree of autonomy within it.¹⁹ Prince Gabriel Bethlen (1580–1629), a Reformed Hungarian nobleman, aimed to turn the country into a firmly united polity with a Reformed confession. The Reformed Hungarians were the leading force in the principality but were by no means the majority. The laws of the land obliged the prince to respect two other Reformed confessions, the Lutherans and the Unitarians, as well as the already marginalized Catholics. Thus, the only possibility for expanding his "ruling church" was at the expense of the religious community of the Transylvanian Romanian Christians of Byzantine tradition, since their religion was not protected by the law of the land. Consequently, he sought to unite the Romanian Diocese of Transylvania with the Reformed Church, following the model of the Brest Union. In a letter dated September 2, 1629, the then Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris (1572–1638), urged the prince to abandon his plan:

We do not deny that the religion followed by Your Highness and the majority of the population is Christian and not pagan, but it differs from the faith professed by the Oriental Church, of which we are the chief priests in this country, in quite essential points, even more so than the faith handed down in Rome, which, as Your Highness also rightly considers, is full of errors.²⁰

Gabriel Bethlen's attempt to secure the help, or at least the tacit acquiescence, of the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Calvinization of the Romanians in Transylvania failed. He died unexpectedly on November 15, 1629, shortly after corresponding with the Patriarch. His successor,  George Rákóczy (1593–1648), pursued the spread of Calvinism among the Romanians with even greater determination, using state pressure in his efforts to convert his subjects to Calvinism.²¹

The Union of Lviv and Transylvanian Armenians

The first documented Armenian bishop based in Lviv appeared in 1364 and was confirmed in 1367 by King Casimir III of Poland (1310–1370)[].²² He and several of his successors were under the jurisdiction of the head of the Church of Sis (Cilicia), called the Catholicos. However, around the middle of the 15th century, the Armenians in Poland shifted their allegiance from Sis to the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin. The union of the Armenians of Galicia with the Church of Rome was initiated under Bishop Nikola Torosowicz (1605–1681),²³ who took office as a young man in 1626 with the support of Catholicos Melchizedek of the Church of Etchmiadzin and held the position for more than 50 years. During the Ottoman-Persian wars of the late 16th and early 17th centuries, Etchmiadzin was successively occupied by both sides, and Catholicos Melchizedek sought protection and financial aid, including from Rome. He also visited the Armenians in Poland, and it suited him that Bishop Nikola could establish contacts with the Latins, through whom he expected support from Rome and the Polish king. But neither the person of the new bishop nor his openness to Rome received widespread approval among the Armenians in Poland. In 1653, Torosowicz described his ambivalent position in a letter to the Warsaw nuncio, portraying himself as a Uniate bishop leading a diocese that was far from Uniate. It was only under pressure from the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith that the Armenian bishop was compelled to sever the connection between the Armenians of Galicia and Etchmiadzin and to adapt to the Latin rite. In 1674, the Congregation appointed Vartan Hunanian (1644–1715) as coadjutor with the right of succession. After the death of Bishop Nikola, Hunanian took over the diocese and consolidated the union among the Armenians of Galicia.

Armenians had also lived in the Principality of Moldova for centuries. During the turbulent second half of the 17th century, some of them left their host country, with a portion heading to Poland and the majority crossing the Carpathians to Transylvania. In Moldavia, Armenian ecclesiastical life had been centered around the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin, and they had consequently been in schism with the Latins. However, this attracted little attention, as the Latins held minimal significance in Moldavia at that time. In Transylvania, the immigrants became Uniate, that is, Catholics of the Armenian rite, because the clergy of the immigrated Armenians received the necessary pastoral support from the Armenian bishop in Lviv. As a result, the Armenians of Transylvania gradually integrated into the Uniate Church along with the Armenians of Galicia.

The Union of Užgorod

In the 17th century, the Calvinist princes of Transylvania brought parts of Upper Hungary under their rule, and, as in Transylvania, they aimed to encourage the Greek believers there to accept Calvinism.²⁴ These believers had a bishop at the St. Nicholas Monastery near Mukachevo. The earliest known certificate of this bishop dates from 1491, though the source does not clarify whether there was a formal bishopric at that time or only itinerant Greek bishops. After the fall of the Hungarian kingdom in 1491, the western part of the Mukachevo diocese quickly came under Habsburg control, while the eastern part eventually fell to the princes of Transylvania. To escape the pressure to convert to Calvinism, the bishops of Mukachevo and a significant portion of their priests sought support from the Church of the Habsburg Empire. Finally, in 1646, they entered into sacramental communion with the Church of Austria in what became known as the Union of Uzhgorod.²⁵

Bishop Vasilij Tarasovič of Mukachevo, who supported union with the Austrian Church and therefore faced difficulties from the Transylvanian prince, died in May 1651. He had proposed the monk-priest Peter Parfenij Petrovič, who was united with Rome through the Union of Brest, as his successor. However, the prince of Transylvania backed a candidate for bishop who was inclined towards Calvinism. In response, the priesthood of the Mukachevo diocese, which favored the Union, decided to secure a bishop's consecration for Peter Parfenij as quickly as possible. They sent him to the then capital of Transylvania to be consecrated by the non-uniate bishop Simion Ştefan (died 1656). The consecration took place in August 1651. The Hungarian primate, György Lippay (1600–1666), immediately informed Rome and requested recognition of the new bishop, which was granted only after the death of Pope Innocent X (1574–1655) in June 1655 by Alexander VII (1599–1667). The delay was not due to the consecration by a "schismatic" donor, but rather because Rome lacked proof that a bishopric of Mukachevo had been legally established.

The Transylvanian Church Union

The negotiations for union with Rome, mentioned above, were initiated by the concerned Greek churches.²⁶ The Latins, however, proposed the idea of union to the Romanians of Transylvania. After Transylvania came under Austrian rule, Austria sought to unite the Romanians with its State Church, driven by both spiritual and social-political motives, which provoked determined resistance from those opposed to Austrian influence.

The union talks were initiated by Jesuits who had arrived in Transylvania with the Austrian army, serving as military chaplains and caring for local Latin Christians. The union of the Romanians with the Latins was intended to bind the newly acquired country more closely to Austria and to strengthen the Latin Church, which, although granted extensive rights, was de facto marginalized. By counting the Romanians among their ranks, the Latin Church aimed to boost its influence. The effort to achieve unity was guided by the desire to fully implement the catechetical and pastoral practices of the Latins following the Council of Trent.²⁷ To ensure this, the Jesuits, whether from Vienna or Rome, received specific instructions for their mission.

According to the decree of the Council of Florence, Greek Catholics who are willing to return to the Catholic Church must explicitly condemn the following dogmatic errors by means of a creed: 1. The Roman Pope is not the universal head of the Church spread throughout the world; 2. Unleavened bread is not sufficient matter for the sacrament of the Eucharist; 3. There is no third place besides heaven, the place of the blessed, and hell, the dungeon of the damned, where souls in need of further penance are held and purified; 4. The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, does not proceed simultaneously from the Father and the Son.²⁸

The reference to the Council of Florence is questionable, although the list does indeed summarize the four topics discussed at Florence. Nonetheless, the focus here is not on the Eastern Churches as a whole but on individual Christians who are willing to enter into union. It is no longer about uniting entire ecclesial communities but rather about the conversion of individual believers. Furthermore, the form of the statement differs significantly from that of the Council of Florence, as the content of the confession is not presented in a positive form. Instead, as was common in post-Tridentine controversial theology, the emphasis is on a renunciation of dissent. The Council Fathers at Florence had declared the positions of both the Latins and the Greeks on the four issues to be orthodox and had considered both sides justified in retaining their doctrines and customs. The only remnant of the original intent is that the Greeks are not allowed to condemn Latin doctrines and customs. However, it is not mentioned that the Union of Florence had ordered the Latins to recognize the Greek traditions. On this basis, Cardinal Sigismund of Kollonitsch (1677–1751) placed the Uniate Romanians under the jurisdiction of the Latin Primate of Hungary, treating them as if they were part of his vicar bishopric – disregarding the decisions of Florence, which had explicitly forbidden the Latins from interfering in the jurisdiction of the Greeks.

The Jesuits first negotiated with Theofil, Bishop of the Romanians of Transylvania, conveying the proposals from Rome and Vienna, and Theofil convinced his synod to agree to the union. However, the Transylvanian estates, concerned about strengthening the Catholic presence in Transylvania, managed to secure a resolution from Vienna in April 1698. This allowed Romanian priests in Transylvania to enter into a "union" with any of the four "recognized" religions in the country – Latin, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anti-Trinitarian/Unitarian. Only the "union" with the Latins required full religious unity; in the other cases, civil affiliation was sufficient to grant equality under public law. On this basis, Theophil's successor, Atanasie Anghel (died 1713), renewed the decision for union at the Transylvanian Synod on October 7, 1698. Complaints were not lacking, and Bishop Atanasie addressed them in a letter dated October 26, 1700, to Cardinal Kollonitsch:

He remarked it would take too long to recount the hostilities and difficulties our Church has faced since we declared ourselves Uniates of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Some priests have been expelled from their parishes, others have been beaten, others imprisoned, some have had their cattle taken away, and – by far the worst – churches and bell towers have been torn down and destroyed from the ground up, which never happened before the union. We have submitted complaints to the exalted government many times, but no remedy has ever been found …²⁹

Unions pro foro interno

The term "ecclesiastical union" explicitly signifies the declared unity of entire ecclesiastical communities. In the bull Magnus Dominus, however the Pope listed the Ruthenian bishops as individuals, with no mention of the Kiev Synod, which had sought church unity. When the Transylvanian Church Union was concluded, the Austrian authorities also focused solely on individuals willing to unite, rather than the ecclesiastical community as a whole. Moreover, the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith repeatedly sent missionaries to the Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th centuries. Latin churches were legally permitted there only if they were built for Western foreigners. Both spiritual and secular factors heightened the respect for missionaries among Christians of the Eastern tradition, and over time, they began to operate, even within "schismatic" parishes, despite not being officially regulated by canon law. The growing connections between Rome and the Greek Churches led to individual hierarchs, theologians, and notables entering into union with the Pope pro foro interno, meaning a process valid only for the realm of conscience and hidden from the public. Pro foro externo, that is, for the public, they remained in their Church, which was not in union with Rome. These were by no means isolated cases; even some patriarchs of Constantinople were among them. Thus, the union shifted from being an agreement between churches to a process of individual submission to the Roman See.

Outlook

The process of confessionalization, which transformed the "Latins" and "Greeks" within the one Church of Jesus Christ into distinct confessional entities known as the "Catholic Church" and the "Orthodox Church," was largely completed by the 18th century. In 1729, the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith issued a decree strictly forbidding any communion between the Pope's followers and Christians separated from the Pope in prayer, worship, or even the sacraments, declaring any violation of this provision to be a sin that could only be forgiven through confession. In 1755, the Greek Patriarchs – without the consent of the Moscow Patriarchate – passed a resolution classifying even Latins as unbaptized.³⁰ This reference to the Council of Florence illustrates how far the development has departed from the earlier belief in the unity of the Church.

Nonetheless, looking back to the 15th-century Council does not offer a viable solution, as the changed historical conditions have also shaped the understanding of any possible "union." For the Western churches, the controversial issues have become a hermeneutical presupposition due to the Reformation. The Eastern churches lost their common ground as "Greeks" following the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the reconstitution of the patriarchate under the Millet system in the Ottoman Empire, and the rise of national church autocephaly movements since the 19th century. It is no coincidence that recent conflicts in Ukraine reference a contested interpretation of the Council of Florence and the "Union."³¹ A common reappraisal of history is an indispensable part of any attempt to find a new understanding of the "union" of the Church in East and West.

In 1993, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, in an officially adopted document, referred to "uniatism" as "an outdated method of union" and declared that: The form of ecclesiastical union known as "uniatism" cannot be "considered in the future either as a method to be followed or as a model for the unity of our churches" (No. 12).³² This declaration was not accepted because Orthodox circles did not fully recognize the ecclesiality of the Catholic tradition, and the mutual designation as "sister churches" was not approved. Today, the international Orthodox-Catholic dialogue is preparing to revisit the original question of the failed consensus. Having reached agreement in the dialogue Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church, in Chieti in September 2016, the Commission is now working on issues of the second millennium, among which the assessment of "church unions" plays a central role.

Barbara Hallensleben / Ernst Christoph Suttner

Appendix

Literature

[Anonymus]: Pontificio Consiglio per la Promozione dell'Unità dei Cristiani: Documenti di dialogo, 1982–2016. URL: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/it/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo.html [2024-12-02]

[Anonymus]: Заявление Священного Синода Русской Православной Церкви в связи с незаконным вторжением Константинопольского Патриархата на каноническую территорию Русской Православной Церкви (Declaration by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church concerning the unlawful encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Russian Church), n. p, 2018: URL: https://mospat.ru/ru/2018/09/14/news163803/ [2020-12-02]

Alzati, Cesare: Terra romena tra oriente e occidente: Chiese ed etnie nel tardo '500, Milano 1982.

Avvakumov, Georgij: Die Entstehung des Unionsgedankens: Die lateinische Theologie des Hochmittelalters in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Ritus der Ostkirche, Berlin 2002 (publications of the Grabmann Institute 47). URL: https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050050072 [2024-12-02]

Gill, Joseph: Geschichte der ökumenischen Konzilien, aus dem Französischen übersetzt von Karlhermann Bergner, Mainz 1967, vol. 9: Constance and Basel-Florence.

Gudziak, Boris A. : Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest, Cambridge, MA 1998.

Halecki, Oskar: From Florence to Brest (1439-1596): Sacrum Poloniae Millennium, Rome 1958.

Ikić, Niko: Der Begriff "Union" im Entstehungsprozess der unierten Diözese von Marča (Križevci), St. Ottilien 1989.

Lacko, Michael: Unio Užhorodensis Ruthenorum Carpaticorum cum Ecclesia catholica (Orientalia Christiana Analecta), Rome1955.

Marte, Johann et al. (eds. ): Die Union der Rumänen Siebenbürgens mit der Kirche von Rom, Bukarest 2010–2015, vol. 1–2.

Marte, Johann et al. (eds. ): Die Brester Union: Forschungsresultate einer interkonfessionellen und internationalen Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wiener Stiftung Pro Oriente, Würzburg 2010, vol. 1: Vorgeschichte und Ereignisse der Jahre 1595/96.

Nilles, Nikolaus: Symbolae ad illustrandam historiam ecclesiae orientalis in terris coronae S. Stephani, Innsbruck 1885. URL: https://archive. org/details/symbolaeadillus00nillgoog [2020-12-02]

Pâclişeanu, Zenobie: Istoria Bisericii Române Unite, ed. îngrijită de Ioan Tîmbus, Tărgu–Lăpuş 2006.

Păcurariu, Mircea: Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, pentru Institutele Teologice, Bukarest 1980–1981, vol. 2.

Pelesz, Julian: Geschichte der Union der ruthenischen Kirche mit Rom, Wien 1880, vol. 2. URL: https://archive. org/details/geschichtederun01pelegoog [2020-12-02]

Peri, Vittorio: Ricerche sull'editio princeps degli atti greci del concilio di Firenze, Città del Vaticano 1975 (Studi e Testi 275)

Periş, Lucian: Prezenţe catolice în Transilvania, Moldova şi Ţara Românească 1601–1698, Blaj 2005.

Periş, Lucian: Le missioni Gesuite in Transilvania e Moldavia nel Seicento, Cluj-Napoca 1998.

Petrowicz, Grzegorz: L'Unione degli Armeni di Polonia con la Santa Sede: 1626–1686, Rom 1950 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta).

Petrowicz, Grzegorz: La Chiesa Armena in Polonia e nei paesi limitrofi: 1350–1624, Rom 1971.

Podskalsky, Gerhard: Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Türkenherrschaft, Munich 1988. URL: http://mdz-nbn-resolving. de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb00042248-8 [2020-12-02]

Suttner, Ernst Christoph: Das Konzil von Ferrara/Florenz im Dienst der Kircheneinheit, in: Ostkirchliche Studien 68 (2019), pp. 327–341.

Suttner, Ernst Christoph: Quellen zur Geschichte der Kirchenunionen des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts, Münster 2017 (Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia 54).

Suttner, Ernst Christoph: Gegensätzliches Verständnis ekklesiologischer Gegebenheiten beim Vorbereiten, Abschließen bzw. Bekämpfen der Siebenbürger Kirchenunion, in: Johan Marte et al. (eds. ): Die Union der Rumänen Siebenbürgens mit der Kirche von Rom, vol. 2, Bucharest 2015, pp. 54-95. URL: https://www.unifr.ch/orthodoxia/de/assets/public/files/Dokumentation/Suttner/Beitrag%20Suttner%20f%C3%BCr%20Siebenb%C3%BCrgen%20Band%20II.pdf [2020-12-02]

Suttner, Ernst Christoph: Staaten und Kirchen in der Völkerwelt des östlichen Europa, Fribourg 2007 (Studia Oecumenica Friburgensia 49).

Suttner, Ernst Christoph: Die eine Taufe zur Vergebung der Sünden, in: Nikolaus Rappert (ed. ): Kirche in einer zueinander rückenden Welt, Würzburg 2003, pp. 279-282. URL: https://www.unifr.ch/orthodoxia/de/assets/public/files/Dokumentation/Suttner/TAUFE.pdf [2020-12-02]

Suttner, Ernst Christoph: Kirche in einer zueinander rückenden Welt: Neuere Aufsätze von Ernst Christoph Suttner zu Theologie, Geschichte und Spiritualität des christlichen Ostens, hg. von Wolfgang Nikolaus Rappert, Würzburg 2003.

Suttner, Ernst Christoph: Kircheneinheit im 11. bis 13. Jahrhundert durch einen gemeinsamen Patriarchen und gemeinsame Bischöfe für Griechen und Lateiner, in: Ostkirchliche Studien 49 (2000), pp. 314-324. URL: https://www.unifr.ch/orthodoxia/de/assets/public/files/Dokumentation/Suttner/sofia.pdf [2020-12-02]

Theiner, Augustin: Vetera Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae gentiumque finitimarum historiam illustrantia, Rom 1860–1864, vol. 1–4. URL: http://mdz-nbn-resolving. de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10635861-5 (vol. 1) / URL: http://mdz-nbn-resolving. de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10635862-1 (vol. 2) / URL: http://mdz-nbn-resolving. de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10635863-6 (vol. 3) / URL: http://mdz-nbn-resolving. de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10635864-1 (vol. 4) [2020-12-02]

Vries de, Wilhelm: Rom und die Patriarchate des Ostens, München et al. 1963.

Welykyj, Anastasius G. : Documenta Unionis Berestensis eiusque auctorum, Rome 1970.

Wohlmuth, Josef (ed. ): Dekrete der ökumenischen Konzilien, Paderborn 2000, vol. 1–3.

Notes

1. ^{^} As in the sources of the historical period under discussion here, in this article the Christians with a church life of Western Church character are called "Latins," regardless of their mother tongue and national origin, and those with a Byzantine character are called "Greeks."
2. ^{^} Cf. Suttner, Kircheneinheit im 11. bis 13. Jahrhundert 2000, pp. 314–324.
3. ^{^} Cf. Canon 4 of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, entitled: "On the Pride of the Greeks against the Latins," and begins with the words: "To the Greeks who in our days return to apostolic obedience and endure with patience, as far as we are able in the Lord, we would give their customs and rites. But we neither wish nor are able to accommodate them in what is harmful to souls and detrimental to the honor of the Church. . .": Wohlmuth, Dekrete der ökumenischen Konzilien 2000, vol. 2, p. 235.
4. ^{^} The willingness to celebrate a council together is confirmed: The "schism" did not preclude the bishops of both sides from being considered the hierarchy of one church. In contrast, the bishops of the Orthodox churches were only invited as observers to the Second Vatican Council.
5. ^{^} That is, the Western insertion into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and from the Son" (Latin: filioque).
6. ^{^} Wohlmuth, Dekrete der ökumenischen Konzilien 2000, vol. 2, pp. 522–528.
7. ^{^} Wohlmuth, Dekrete der ökumenischen Konzilien 2000, vol. 2, p. 528, transl. by Christopher Reid.
8. ^{^} The lack of reception of the Council in the East, or rather the explicit rejection of its decrees, requires a thorough analysis that cannot be given here.
9. ^{^} Cf. Peri, Ricerche sull'editio princeps 1975, pp. 71–101.
10. ^{^} The sources used in the following can be found in full in the Latin original with German translation and commentary in Suttner, Quellen 2017. Cf. Suttner, Das Konzil 2019, pp. 327–341.
11. ^{^} Cf. Suttner, Quellen 2017, pp. 10–21.
12. ^{^} "Movileşti" is the plural of the Romanian family name "Movilă", which is usually written in the Slavicized form "Mogila" in German and "Mohyla" by the Ukrainians. Metropolitan Petro S. Mohyla or Petr Mogila came from this family.
13. ^{^} Cf. Suttner, Sources 2017, pp. 22–113.
14. ^{^} Welykyj, Documenta Unionis Berestensis 1970, pp. 112f., transl. by Christopher Reid.
15. ^{^} The Pope demanded that the delegates hold a synod in their homeland, during which they would formally promulgate what, according to the Roman understanding, had already been legally accomplished in Rome in 1595. The synod was held in Brest in 1596 and is regarded by Ukrainians as the formal conclusion of the union. This is why it is usually called the Brest Union and is dated 1596.
16. ^{^} Suttner, Quellen 2017, p. 97.
17. ^{^} Suttner, Quellen 2017, p. 106.
18. ^{^} Cf. Suttner, Quellen 2017, pp. 114–117.
19. ^{^} Cf. Suttner, Quellen 2017, pp. 118–125.
20. ^{^} Suttner, Quellen 2017, pp. 120f., transl. by Christopher Reid.
21. ^{^} Cf. Suttner, Kirche und Theologie bei den Rumänen 2009, pp. 74–87, pp. 120f.
22. ^{^} Cf. Suttner, Quellen 2017, pp. 126–132.
23. ^{^} In order to achieve a complete union of the Lviv Armenians, a lengthy process was required; cf. Petrowicz, L'unione 1950.
24. ^{^} Cf. Suttner, Quellen 2017, pp. 133–145.
25. ^{^} The union bears this name because it was concluded in the Habsburg town of Užgorod, west of Mukacheve, but it covered the entire territory of the Bishop of Mukacheve.
26. ^{^} Cf. Suttner, Quellen 2017, pp. 153–214.
27. ^{^} Cf. Suttner, Gegensätzliches Verständnis 2015, pp. 54–95.
28. ^{^} Suttner, Quellen 2017, pp. 160f., transl. by Christopher Reid. 
29. ^{^} Suttner, Quellen 2017, p. 189, transl. by Christopher Reid. 
30. ^{^} Cf. the section "Die griechische Orthodoxie entscheidet sich neu" in Suttner, Die eine Taufe 2003, pp. 279–282.
31. ^{^} The supreme body of the Moscow Patriarchate adopted a declaration at an extraordinary meeting on September 14 ([Anonymous], Заявление Священного 2018) in connection with "the unlawful encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Russian Church." It refers to the "sad consequences of the Council of Ferrara-Florence and the beginning of the union with Rome, which the Church of Constantinople initially accepted, but which the Russian Church immediately rejected. In 1448, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church, without the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople (who was then in union with Rome), appointed Iona as Metropolitan. Since that time, the Russian Orthodox Church has existed as an autocephalous church. A decade later, in 1458, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory III Mammas, who was in union with Rome, consecrated an independent metropolitan for Kiev, the Uniate Gregory the Bulgarian, and subjected to him territories now part of Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, and Russia." German translation by Barbara Hallensleben, in: KNA Ecumenical Information 38 (September 18, 2018), XVI. The Moscow Patriarchate justifies its autocephaly with the right to act independently on Kiev territory with the acceptance of the Union of Florence by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
    
32. ^{^} [Anonymous], Pontificio Consiglio n. d.