One word keeps flashing in my mind as we study the several hundred years of repeatedly rehashed arguments between the eastern and western churches. And that word is *bananas* — b-a-n-a-n-a-s (to the rhythm of that one Gwen Stefani song). Anyhow, lame joke aside, it is not a stretch to say that this debate is a head-scratcher. But your comment, “there are theological, ecclesiastical, political, and military reasons why unification would be sought” is a good starting point for sorting through the confusion.
In fact, this same comment makes me wonder which one of those factors hold the most weight. Does it depend mostly on the subject at hand? For example, the filioque debate was directly a theological issue; therefore, it essentially bypassed the political reasons to accept the doctrine. However, was the ecclesiastical debate more rooted in politics and strategic alliances, so that the church as a whole had some degree of defense against invaders from other countries / cultures?
If we look at the ecclesiastical factor, for example, we can see similar reasons for why the eastern and western churches kept re-visiting ways to unite: Constantinople falls to the Venetians in 1204 (as part of the Crusades), Emperor Palaeologus takes back Constantinople in 1261, Palaeologus forms an alliance with Genoa to defend against another Venetian takeover, and Pope Gregory X not-so-coincidentally seeks to resolve western-eastern churches by holding the Council of Lyons (Irvin and Sunquist 440, 441). And from this came the flagship resolutions to the issues that had divided the two churches in the first place: the filioque, papal authority / primacy, and whether to use unleavened bread in the eucharist (Irvin and Sunquist 443).
The text in the Council of Lyons supports these agreements, though we may never know how sincere each side was in resolving their issues. However, considering that the issues kept reappearing – all the way into the fifteenth century – the head scratching continues. In the meantime, it does seem that, whatever the motivation, the two churches kept agreeing to western doctrines and ecclesiastical practices.
For instance, regarding the filioque, the Council of Lyons states that “We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principles….this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike.” In addition, the Council gives strong specifics on how to deal with church hierarchy and elected positions: “When opponents to elections….raise difficulties against the form of election…and for these reasons make an appeal, the appellants are to express in a public document or letter of appeal every individual objection they intend to make..” (Section II).
While the above is a small sample of the conditions discussed at the Council of Lyons, let’s compare the overarching points from this with the Council of Florence: Here again – and now about 200 years after the Council of Lyons – the eastern and western churches are once again at odds over, well, you guessed it: church hierarchy and the filioque.
And as with the Council of Lyons situation, hints of foreigners once again invading Constantinople made both the western and eastern churches uneasy about the future. In the thirteenth century, the Mongols and Normans were an ongoing threat looming in the distance, though Constantinople kept an even closer eye on their Sicilian neighbors, who were under Charles of Anjou’s reign (Irvin and Sunquist 442, 444).
Now, compare this to the fifteenth century where, once again, Constantinople is vulnerable to attack, except this time by the Turks. Also this time, it is Pope Eugenius IV who holds the Council of Florence to discuss, well, you guessed it: church hierarchy and the filioque (Coakley and Sterk 415). The one difference is that this meeting of the western and eastern churches was basically a last-ditch effort to unite the two.
Yet with just these two examples alone – the Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence – the knee-jerk reaction to this is that every time Byzantium was worried about a potential invasion, it conveniently seemed like a good time for the two churches to make peace. Call it a product of human nature if you will: We see this all the time in society: two parties lock horns over major points of division, but then suddenly are willing to bury the hatchet when faced with a mutual threat. It is sort of like political candidates who trash each other on the debate stage, but then later on form alliances to keep the situation from going nuclear.
B-a-n-a-n-a-s.
Works Cited
Irvin, Dale T., and Scott W. Sunquist. History of the World Christian Movement: Earliest Christianity to 1453. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2001.
Coakley, John W., and Andrea Sterk. Readings in World Christian History, Volume 1: Earliest Christianity to 1453. New York: Orbis Books, 2004.
The Second Council of Lyons (AD 1274) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum14.htm