Neither Greek nor Latin, but Catholic: Aspects of the

Theology of Union of John Plousiadenos

Charles C. Yost

Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies, Volume 1, Number 1, 2018, pp. 43-59

(Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/joc.2018.0003

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/702315

Access provided by University of Notre Dame (4 Sep 2018 18:26 GMT)

 Neither Greek nor Latin, but Catholic:
Aspects of the Theology of Union
of John Plousiadenos

Charles C. Yost

D
uring the spring and summer of 1461, the Venetian senate considered the
case of a brilliant priest native to its colony of Crete. This priest, John Plousi-
adenos, along with twelve of his clerical confreres, apparently languished in
poverty, to the brink of starvation. The reason for the clerics’ plight is indicated by a
record, dated March 30, 1461, of the judgment by the Venetian authorities favoring
these priests. This document indicates that they, seemingly alone, “in the time of
union”—that is, the union proclaimed at the Council of Florence in 1439—“were
made catholics (effecti fuerunt catolici) and have steadfastly remained and persisted,
for which reason they have been excluded by the remaining schismatic priests of this
island from every gift, whence they are not able to live.”1

I am especially grateful to Professors Yury Avvakumov, John Monfasani, Chris Schabel, and the
two anonymous peer reviewers for their comments and suggestions.
1. Hippolyte Noiret, ed., Documents inédits pour servir a l’histoire de la domination vénitenne
en Crète de 1380 a 1485 (Paris: Thorin & fils, 1892), 461: “Capta.—Comparuit coram dominio nostro
presbiter Johannes Plagudino Cretensis, qui una cum aliis XII presbyteris, ex universa illa insula,
tempore unionis, effecti fuerunt Catolici (sic) et continue prestiterunt et persistunt, ob quam causam
a ceteris presbiteris sismaticis illius insule ab omni emolumento excluduntur, unde vivere non pos-
sunt, et instituit idem presbiter Johannes se conferre in curiam ad Summum Pontificum (sic).” Cf.
French translation/summary by Freddy Thiriet, ed., Régestes des Délibérations du sénat de Venise con-
cernant la Romanie, vol. 3, 1431–1463, Documents et recherches sur l’économie des pays byzantins,
islamiques et slaves et leurs relations commerciales au Moyen Âge, 4 (Paris: Mouton, 1961), 235–236
(#3128); see also Noiret, Documents inédits, 462 (= Thiriet, Régestes des Délibérations, vol. 3 (#3134)).
On this episode, see Manoussos Manoussacas, “Recherches sur la vie de Jean Plousiadénos (Joseph
de Méthone) (1429?–1500),” Revue des études byzantines 17 (1959), esp. 33–37. For a brief, and rather
dismissive, description of these priests: Nicolaos B. Tomadakis, “La politica religiosa di Venezia a
Creta verso i Cretesi Ortodossi dal XIII al XV secolo,” in Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, vol.
1.2, Storia, dirrito, economia, ed. Agostino Pertusi (Florence: Olschki, 1973), 789.

Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies 1.1: 43–59 © 2018 Johns Hopkins University Press
44   JOURNAL OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Despite the words of the Venetian authorities, Plousiadenos had not always been
a friend of Rome or the Florentine Union. Born circa 1426–28,2 Plousiadenos himself
claims to have been brought up in what he calls “the prejudice of his ancestors”:3 a
hereditary hatred of the Latins. As a youth residing in Constantinople, then seething
with the controversy over union unleashed by Florence, Plousiadenos’ opposition to
compromise with the Latins boiled over in an attack on the patriarch of Constanti-
nople, Gregory III (who accepted the Florentine union). Plousiadenos came to regret
this attack after being convinced that the theology of Florence agreed with that of
the church fathers, and he was transformed into an advocate of the union, to whose
service he dedicated his intelligence and fervor. Ordained a priest by 1451,4 Plousiad-
enos wrote homilies, theological treatises, and liturgical hymns, among other textual
genera—a varied corpus attesting to his multifaceted talents.5 However, his status as a

2. 1426 is the year of birth that has been advanced by Eleftherios Despotakis, whereas scholars
(e.g., Manoussacas, “Recherches sur la vie,” 29) have generally reckoned his birth year as c. 1429/30, on
the basis of Plousiadenos’ own claim that “in the time of the Council [of Florence] . . . I was an infant
(βρέφη) and not yet ten years old” (see John Plousiadenos, Disceptatio inter Pium quemdam, Publica-
num, Rhacendytam, et unum ex duodecim sacerdotibus qui unionem amplexi fuerant, praesentibus et
aliis tribus, Auditore videlicet, Teste et Dicaeocrita de differentiis inter graecos et latinos, et de sacrosancta
synodo Florentina, Patrologia cursus completus, series Graeca, vol. 159, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne (Paris,
1866), 1017D. (Henceforth, PG). Based on a document identifying Plousiadenos as a priest as early
as 1451, and because the Venetian regime had decreed twenty-five as the minimum age for Greeks to
receive priesthood on Crete, Despotakis suggested Plousiadenos’ year of birth as approximately 1426. If
Plousiadenos had been born as late as 1429/30, he would have been only about twenty-one or twenty-­
two by the time he is documented as a priest in 1451, thus violating the Venetian decree. Hence the
date of c. 1426 (see Eleftherios Despotakis, “Some Observations on the Διάλεξις of John Plousiadenos
(1426?–1500),” Byzantion: Revue internationale des études byzantines 86 (2016), 133–34). However, John
Monfasani has pointed out that when Plousiadenos wrote of his age “in the time of the council,” by
this phrase Plousiadenos may have meant the year that the Greeks first departed Constantinople for
the West, (that is 1437, not the year the decree of union was signed, 1439). Of course, this would make
him only twenty-two or twenty-three by 1451, still in apparent violation of the minimum age for Holy
Orders for Cretans established by Venice. (For this decree, see Freddy Thiriet, Délibérations des assem-
blées vénitennes concernant la Romanie, vol. 1, 1160–1363, Documents et recherches sur l’économie des
pays byzantins, islamiques et slaves et leurs relations commerciales au Moyen Âge, 8 (Paris: Mouton,
La Haye, 1966), 253 (#668); the Latin text is found in the appendix of that volume, 322). Monfasani,
however, questions whether it can be taken for granted that this decree was observed in the case of
Plousiadenos. Monfasani suggested “c. 1426–28,” as written above, as a plausible range for Plousiadenos’
birth. (Professor Monfasani conveyed his views to me via emails on August 29 and 31, 2017).
3. Plousiadenos, Disceptatio PG 159:1017D: “. . . ἡ καινὴ καὶ ματαία πρόληψις, ἣν ἐκ προγόνων
ἔχοντες. . . .”
4. Despotakis, “Some Observations,” 134.
5. For his edited works, see PG 159, col. 959–1395; Manoussos Manoussakas, “Ίωάννου
Πλουσιαδηνοῦ ἐγκύκλιος ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τοὺς ἱερεῖς τοῦ Χάνδακος,” Κρητικὰ Χρονικά 11 (1957):
302–7; Basilios Laourdas, “Κρητικὰ Παλαιολογραφικὰ: [#] 12: Ἰωάννου τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ ὑποθῆκαι
πρὸς τοὺς ἱερεῖς τῆς Κρήτης,” Κρητικὰ Χρονικά 5 (1951), 252–58; Manoussos Manoussakas, “Ἀρχιερεῖς
Μεθώνης, Κορώνης, καὶ Μονεμβασίας γύρω στὰ 1500,” Πελοποννησιακά, 3–4 (1960): 136–37; Rafaelle
Cantarella, “Canone greco inedito di Giuseppe vescovo di Methone (Giovanni Plousiadeno: sec. XV) in
onore di San Tommaso d’Aquino,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 4 (1934), 153–85; Panos Basile-
iou, “Ὁ αὐτόγραφος «Θρῆνος τῆς Θεοτόκου» τοῦ Ἰωάννη Πλουσιαδηνοῦ,” Ἑλληνικά 32 (1982), 278–
84; Georg Hofmann, “Wie stand es mit der Frage der Kircheneinheit auf Kreta im XV. Jahrhundert?”
 Charles C. Yost / Theology of Union of John Plousiadenos    45

“unionist priest” (ἱερεὺς ἑνωτικός)6 earned him—along with his fellow unionists—the
hatred of an influential faction of Greek priests and monks hostile to the union. They
persuaded the laity to shun the ministrations of these “unionist priests” and thereby
deprived the group of the material support that they might have received in exchange
for providing the sacraments. Despite these difficult circumstances, Plousiadenos
managed to secure financial support for himself and his colleagues thanks to the inter-
ventions of Venice, the pope, and Cardinal Bessarion. Much later, in 1491, Plousiad-
enos was elevated to the metropolitan see of Venetian-controlled Methone, in which
capacity he took the name Joseph. He died there during the Turkish conquest of 1500.7

Orientalia Christiana Periodica 10 (1944), 110–11; Manoussos Manoussakas, “Ἀνέκδοτοι στίχοι καὶ
νέος κῶδιξ τοῦ Ἰωάννου Πλουσιαδηνοῦ,” Ἀθήνα 68 (1965): 49–72 (see in particular 54–59; 63–64; 65;
68; 69–71). And for lists of his known works (including unpublished works)—more or less thorough—
see items in n. 7 below.
6. See, e.g. PG 159, col. 1005D–1008A.
7. On the life and works of Plousiadenos, see esp.: Manoussacas, “Recherches sur la vie” and Des-
potakis, “Some Observations” (cited above); Erich Trapp, ed., Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiol-
ogenzeit, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik, fasc. 10 (Vienna: Verlag der Österre-
ichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1990), #23385; Hans-Georg Beck, Kirche und theologische Lit-
eratur im Byzantinischen Reich, Byzantinisches Handbuch im Rahmen des Handbuchs der Altertum-
wissenschaft, 2.1 (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1959), 771–72; Martin Jugie, Theologia dogmatica christianorum
orientalium ab ecclesia catholica dissidentium, vol. 1, Theologiae dogmaticae Graeco-russorum: Origo,
historia, fontes (Paris: Letouzey, 1926), 486–87; Gerhard Podskalsky, Griechische Theologie in der Zeit
der Türkenherrschaft (1453–1821): Die Orthodoxie im Spannungsfeld der nachreformatorischen Kon-
fessionen des Westens (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1988), 83–84; Pyrros Bamichas, “Plousiadenos, Joannes,”
in Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online (Oxford University Press, accessed Nov. 29, 2017); Louis
Petit, “Joseph de Méthone,” in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 8.2 (Paris: Librairie Letouzey,
1925), col. 1526–29; Vitalien Laurent, “Joseph, évêque de Méthone (Pélponnèse),” in Catholicisme: Hier,
aujourd’hui, demain, vol. 6, Interrogatoire—Latran, ed. G. Jacquemet (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1966), col.
1003-1004; Daniel Stiernon, “Joseph, évêque de Méthone,” in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, fasc. LVII–
LVIII “Joseph-Kyspenning” (Paris: Beauchesne, 1974), col. 1365–71; Joseph Gill, “Joseph of Methone,”
in The New Catholic Encyclopedia (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1967; repr.,
Palatine: Jack Heraty & Associates, 1981); Sebastian Kolditz, “Ioannes Plusiadenos (um 1429–1500),”
Lexikon der byzantinischen Autoren (forthcoming); Georg Hofmann, “Wie stand es mit der Frage der
Kircheneinheit auf Kreta im XV. Jahrhundert?” Orientalia Christiana periodica 10 (1944), see 105–
11; Manoussakas, “Ἀρχιερεῖς Μεθώνης,” 95–147 (cited above); Zacharias N. Tsirpanlēs, “Ὁ Ἰωάννης
Πλουσιαδηνὸς καὶ ἡ σιναϊτικὴ ἐκκλησία τοῦ Χριστοῦ Κεφαλᾶ στὸ Χάνδακα: Δυὸ ἀνέκδοτα βενετικὰ
ἔγγραφα τοῦ 1481,” Θησαυρίσματα 3 (1964): 1–28; H. D. Saffrey, “Pie II et les prêtres uniates en Crète au
XVe siècle,” Θησαυρίσματα 16 (1979): 39–53; Zacharias N. Tsirpanlēs, Τὸ Κληροδότημα τοῦ καρδιναλίου
Βησσαρίωνος γιὰ τοὺς φιλενωτικοὺς τῆς Βενετοκρατουμένης Κρήτης (1439–17ος αἰ.), Ἐπιστημονικὴ
Ἐπετηρὶς Φιλοσοφικῆς Σχολῆς, vol. 12 (Τhessaloniki: Ἀριστοτέλειον Πανεπιστήμιον Θεσσαλονίκης,
1967), 69–77, 81–116 (for a French summary of this book, see 371–77); PG 159:957–60 (Here, Migne
indicates that this “Notitia” is copied from “Fabricii Biblioth[eca] Gr[aeca] ed. Harles, tom. XI, p. 458”);
John Monfasani, “The Pro-Latin Apologetics of the Greek Émigrés to Quattrocento Italy,” in Byzantine
Theology and its Philosophical Background, ed. Antonio Rigo, with Pavel Ermilov and Michele Trizio,
Byzantios: Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 162–65, 184; Kat-
erina B. Korre, “Η Μεθώνη του 1500 μέσα από τη δραστηριότητα του φιλενωτικού επισκόπου Ιωάννη
Πλουσιαδηνού (1492–1500),” in De Veneciis ad Mothonam: Έλληνες και Βενετοί στη Μεθώνη τα
χρόνια της Βενετοκρατίας: Πρακτικά της διεθνούς επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Μεθώνη 19–20 Μαρτίου
2012, ed. Gogo Varzelioti and Angelike Panopoulou (Athens: Ελληνικό Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών και
Μεταβυζαντινών Σπουδών), 2012), 127–52. Also see Theodoros N. Zissis, “Die Glaubwürdigkeit der
46   JOURNAL OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDIES

As sources emanating from the Venetian state, no less than his own writings,
bear witness, Plousiadenos faced formidable opposition as a “priest of the union”
among his fellow Cretans.8 What anti-unionist concerns and perspectives on the
unionists might have undergirded this antipathy? In what follows, I offer a brief
consideration of such concerns and perspectives as articulated by, first, Mark Euge-
nikos—the archetypal antagonist of Florence whom Plousiadenos regarded as the
spiritual father of the anti-unionist cause9—and, then, Plousiadenos himself—whose
writings on the subject give insight into his own understanding of the anti-unionist
perspective. This consideration of the anti-unionist position provides essential con-
text for grasping the significance of Plousiadenos’ own theology of union.
Mark Eugenikos, metropolitan of Ephesus, directly attacked the unionists in his
so-called Encyclical Letter against the Greco-Latins and the Decree of the Florentine
Synod.10 Mark refers to them as “those justly called Greco-Latins (Γραικολατῖνοι),
called by many Latin-minded (Λατινόφρονες). These half-breed men like the myth-
ical centaurs. . . .” He remarks critically that “with the Latins, they confess that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son . . . with us they say that He proceeds from the
Father . . . with them they say the unleavened bread is the Body of Christ, with us
they would not dare to partake of [the unleavened bread].”11 Behind this complaint

Schriften von Johannes Plousiadenos (Joseph von Methone), Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik
32.4 (1982): 347–55 for a negative perspective. For Plousiadenos’ own account of his attack on the patri-
arch and his transformation, see Disceptatio PG 159:1017A–1020B. On the situation in post-Florence
Constantinople, besides Manoussacas, “Rercherches sur la vie,” 29–30 and Despotakis, “Some Observa-
tions,” 130, see also, e.g., Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1959), 349–58, 364–88; Donald M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453, 2d ed. (Cam-
bridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993; 2002), 359–60, 371–72; and more recently
Marie-Hélène Blanchet, “La reaction byzantine à l’Union de Florence (1439): le discours antiromain
de la Synaxe des orthodoxes,” in Marie-Hélène Blanchet and Frédéric Gabriel, eds., Réduire le schisme?
Ecclésiologies et politiques de l’union entre Orient et Occident (XIIIe-XVIIIe siècle), Collège de France–
CNRS Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 39 (Paris: Association
des amis du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance, 2013), 181–96. On the struggles of Plousiade-
nos and his companions in the face of opposition from their countrymen, besides the Venetian docu-
ments cited above in n. 1, there are many testimonies in Plousiadenos’ own writings. See, e.g., PG vol.
159:961CD, 1005D–1008A; Laourdas, “Κρητικὰ Παλαιολογραφικὰ,” passim.
8. Regarding the phrase “priest of the union,” see, e.g., Plousiadenos, Disceptatio, PG 159:1001D:
“οἱ τῆς ἑνώσεως ἱερεῖς.”
9. Alice-Mary Talbot, “Eugenikos, Mark,” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. Alexander
P. Kazhdan (Oxford University Press, 2005), Oxford Reference (henceforth, ODB); Constantine N.
Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence: A Historical Re-evaluation of his Personality,
Βυζαντινά κείμενα και μελέται, 14 (Thessaloniki: Κέντρον Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, 1974; repr., New York:
Kentron Byzantinōn Ereunōn 1979). Plousiadenos felt the need to compose a treatise refuting the
deceased Mark: Refutatio Marci Ephesini, PG 159:1023–1094; see also, Disceptatio, PG 159, e.g., 976C,
980CD, 985AB, 989C–993D.
10. Marci Ephesii epistola encyclica contra Graeco–Latinos ac decretum synodi Florentiae, in Marci
Eugenici metropolitae Ephesi Opera anti-unionistica, ed. and trans. Louis Petit, Concilium Florentinum:
Documenta et scriptores, ser. A (Rome: Pontificium institutum orientalium studiorum, 1977), 141–51.
11. Marci Ephesii epistola, 142: “. . . καὶ διὰ τοῦτ’ ἂν δικαίως κληθέντες Γραικολατῖνοι, καλούμενοι
δ’ οὖν ὑπὸ τῶν πολλῶν Λατινόφρονες. Οὗτοι τοίνυν οἱ μιξόθηρες ἄνθρωποι κατὰ τοὺς ἐν μύθοις
ἱπποκενταύρους μετὰ τῶν Λατίνων μὲν ὁμολογοῦσι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεσθαι . . .
 Charles C. Yost / Theology of Union of John Plousiadenos    47

about shifty behavior on the part of the unionists is a deeper criticism: they, like
their Florentine Union, fail to offer any true rapprochement between the Latins and
Greeks, who remain estranged. The unionists in fact embody this failure. Despite
professing the beliefs of the Latins (whom Mark certainly considered to be here-
tics),12 whenamong the Greeks, the unionists behave as if nothing has changed. So,
too, after Florence, the Greek and Latin churches have kept to their own distinctive
liturgies and rituals as before—a fact that in Mark’s view belied the reality of eccle-
siastical union.13 Mark accuses the unionists of believing Latin doctrines contrary
to their pretenses of fidelity to the Greeks’ ancestral faith. But what middle ground
can there be, Mark asks, between those who, in accord with Florence and the Latins,
believe in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and those
who, in accord with patristic tradition, deny it?14 A chasm still yawned between
the Greeks and Latins that the intellectual acrobatics of the unionists could not
bridge;15 rather they, neither fully Latin nor truly Greek but monstrous hybrids, are
themselves lost in that chasm.
Mark’s views are worth comparing to the anti-unionist perspective as charac-
terized by Plousiadenos in the opening exchanges of his Dialogue on the Florentine
Union,16 where the unionists are presented as transgressors of the boundary between
Latins and Greeks. In the opening of the Dialogue, a character known as “the Pub-
lican” refers to the unionist priests of Crete as those who “being Latin-minded
(λατινοφρονήσαντες) endeavor even to make others believe the beliefs of the Lat-
ins.” The Publican says that he was “taught” by the anti-unionists of Crete “to shun
these twelve unionist priests as men who have abandoned our faith and have been
united to the Latins.” The language of identity and alienation should be noted here.
“Latin-minded” Greeks like Plousiadenos are said to have departed from the “faith,”

μεθ’ ἡμῶν δὲ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεσθαι λέγουσι . . . καὶ μετ’ ἐκείνων μὲν τὸ ἄζυμον σῶμα τοῦ
Χριστοῦ λέγουσι, μεθ’ ἡμῶν δὲ αὐτοῦ μεταλαμβάνειν οὐκ ἂν τολμήσαιεν.”
12. Marci Ephesii epistola, 144–46.
13. Joseph Macha, Ecclesiastical Unification: A Theoretical Framework together with Case Studies from
the History of Latin–Byzantine Relations, Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 198 (Rome: Pontificium insti-
tutum orientalium studiorum, 1974), 139–40, draws attention to this aspect of Mark’s thought and states
that his view that continuing liturgical diversity belied the union “was a very powerful argument with the
Greeks” in the post–Florentine context, though most of the Greeks at Florence had little trouble accepting
the council’s decree approving the Eucharist in both leavened and unleavened bread (see, e.g., in Macha,
124 and Gill, Council of Florence (272). The key passage demonstrating Mark’s view is in Epistola encyclica,
142–43: “Τίνα δὲ καὶ τρόπον αὐτοῖς [Λατίνοις] ἡνώθησαν [οἱ Λατινόφρονες], ἐπισκεπτέον· πᾶν γὰρ τὸ
ἑτέρῳ ἑνούμενον δι’ ἑνὸς τινος μέσου πάντως ἑνοῦται. Τῇ μὲν οὖν δόξῃ τῇ περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος
ἔδοξαν ἑνωθῆναι, σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀποφηνάμενοι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦτο ἔχειν τὴν ὕπαρξιν· τὰ δ΄ ἄλλα πάντα
διάφορα, καὶ οὐδὲν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἓν οὐδὲ μέσον οὐδὲ κοινόν, ἀλλὰ δύο μὲν σύμβολα καὶ παρηλλαγμένα
λέγεται πάλιν, ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον· διτταὶ δὲ καὶ διάφοροι λειτουργίαι τελοῦνται, ἡ μὲν δι’ ἐνζύμου θυσίας,
ἡ δὲ δι’ ἀζύμου· διττὰ δὲ βαπτίσματα . . . διττὰ δὲ τὰ ἔθη πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι παρηλλαγμένα, νηστεῖαί τε καὶ
ἐκκλησιαστικαὶ τάξεις καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον. Τίς οὖν ἡ ἕνωσις, ὅταν μὴ φανερὸν καὶ ἐπίδηλον σημεῖον ἔχη.”
14. Marci Ephesii epistola, see esp. 146–48.
15. In Marci Ephesii epistola, chaps. 3–5, Mark lists three propositions used by unionists to shore
up their position, and proceeds to refute each.
16. Plousiadenos, Disceptatio, PG 159:959–1024. On this text, see Despotakis, “A Few Observations.”
48   JOURNAL OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDIES

which is described as a property of a particular group (“our faith”). The Publican’s

interlocutor, a “simple layman,” fleshes out the Publican’s implicit association of the
(orthodox) faith with the Greeks and the identity transformation imputed to the
unionists latent in the assertion that they are “Latin-minded” when he replies: “I did
not know that priests had abandoned the faith of the Greeks and become Latins. But
you tell me that they are Latin-minded and have abandoned our faith.”17
A few observations on these passages from Mark’s letter and Plousiadenos’ Dia-
logue. In the first place, they project a dichotomy in which “Latins” and “Greeks” are
completely alien to each other. The names “Latins” and “Greeks,” while being ethnic or
cultural terms, convey distinct theological identities: The flipside of Greek is “ortho-
dox” and of Latin is “heterodox.” The Greek unionists are presented as transgressing
this boundary of alterity separating their native party from the heterodox-Latins and
thereby suffering loss of their identity as “orthodox-Greeks,” whether they are con-
sidered as having “become Latins” (as expressed in Plousiadenos’ Dialogue) or some
strange tertium quid (as expressed by Mark). This identity transformation is certainly
a theological transformation—from orthodox to heterodox—but also carries conno-
tations of ethno–cultural betrayal (from Greek to Latin or semi-Latin).
Had Plousiadenos himself suffered such a fate? Among the aspects of his thought
and work that bear upon the question of the validity of this anti-unionist critique, I
restrict myself to raising one question here. Did Plousiadenos envision that Greeks
united to Rome would maintain their own ancestral and distinctive liturgical forms,
or rather did he aspire to yoke them to the Latin rite, that is to “Latinize” them?
We may suspect the latter if we consider the evidence of a Greek manuscript in the
Biblioteca dell’Archiginnasio in Bologna (shelfmark A.8), which preserves a com-
posite text by Plousiadenos including the Gospel readings and sermons for Lent and
the beginning of Easter.18 I refer to this as his “Pastoral Book.” The opening rubric
reads: “Gospel [readings] for Holy and Great Lent according to the order (τάξιν) of

17. For the characters of this text, their names and titles, see the beginning of the work itself in
Plousiadenos, Disceptatio, PG 159:961–962A; for the passage in question, see col. 961C–D: “Τελ[ώνης].
Αὐτοὶ Λατινοφρονήσαντες, βιάζονται καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ποιῆσαι τὰ τῶν Λατίνων φρονῆσαι. . . . Ἐδίδασκον
ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν Λατινοφρόνων τούτων δώδεκα ἱερέων, ὡς τὴν ἡμετέραν πίστιν ἀφέντων, καὶ ἑνωθέντων
Λατίνοις. . . . Εὐλ[αβής]. Ἰερεῖς ἐγὼ οὐκ ἔγνων ἐᾶσαι τὴν τῶν Γραικῶν πίστιν, καὶ Λατίνους γενέσθαι.
Σὺ δέ μοι Λατινόφρονας καὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν πίστιν ἀφέντας λέγεις. . . .” In this Dialogue, “Εὐλαβής” is the
title of the above-mentioned “simple layman.”
18. A digitized version of this MS is found online: “Miscellanea sacra, del sec. XV,” Scaffali Online:
Biblioteca dell’Archiginnasio, http://badigit.comune.bologna.it/books/A08/scorri.asp?Id=1. I have
also consulted this MS in person. Components of this text are sometimes designated as the “Catalogus
didascaliarum Romanorum” (specifically, this refers to the “index” (πίναξ) recapitulating the “prokei-
menon” and incipit of the sermon proper to each liturgical day covered by the text (see f. 22r–24v))
and as the “Homiliae in dies quadragesimales ieiunii” (the sermons themselves): see, e.g., “Recherche
générale, résultats de recherche,” Pinakes: Textes et manuscrits grecs, Institut de recherche et d’histoire
des textes (CNRS, 2016), pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr (search under “Auteur,” search-term: “Iohannes Plusiade-
nus”); Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 487; PLP #23385; and other lists of Plousiadenos’ works compiled by
scholars as cited above in footnote 7. Cf. Stiernon, “Joseph, évêque de Méthone,” col. 1367; Petit, “Joseph
de Méthone,” col. 1528; see also Manoussacas, “Recherche sur la vies,” 31–32 n. 28.
 Charles C. Yost / Theology of Union of John Plousiadenos    49

the Roman Church.”19 Lent is indicated as beginning on Wednesday, after the Latin
fashion, instead of the preceding Monday, according to the Byzantine tradition.20
Then, consider the following excerpt from the first sermon: “It is asked if we are all
subjected beneath the penalty of mortal sin unless we fast during Lent; Saint Thomas
responds in the ‘secunda secundae,’ in the 147th distinction. . . .”21 In the same passage
in which Plousiadenos cites Thomas Aquinas as a “saint” and refers to “the penalty of
mortal sin” (ποίνην ἁμαρτίας θανασίμου), we might also note how its very mode of
expression, in which an impersonal question (“it is asked”) is followed by the answer
or response, bears the mark of Latin Scholasticism.
It is improbable that Plousiadenos did not intend to use this text among the
flocks to whom he ministered.22 Would such an intention mean that he aspired to
“Latinize” them, or that Plousiadenos himself was “Latinized”? On the other hand,
in a “fearful oath”23 borrowed in large part (though with some important modifica-
tion) from John Bekkos, unionist patriarch of the thirteenth century,24 Plousiadenos
seems to reject any kind of union prejudicial to the ancestral traditions of Greek
Christians. (I have put the words taken from Bekkos in bold type):

But whoever has come to this ecclesiastical peace, and embraced the decree of
the synod in Florence, as though despising our [i.e., Greek] customs and doc-
trines, as though considering the Roman Church to worship more piously at

19. “Miscellanea sacra,” f. 2r = pg. 8: “Εὐαγγέλια τῆς ἁγίας καὶ μ[ε]γ[ά]λ[η]ς τεσσαρακοστῆς (repre-
sented by “μ’” with a numeric dash and suspension mark) κ[α]τ[ὰ] τὴν τάξϊν τ[ῆ]ς ῥωμαϊκῆς ἐκκλησΐας.”
20. “Miscellanea sacra,” f. 2r = , where the first reading is listed for the “fourth day of the first
week [of Lent]”: “τῆ τετάρτη (represented by a “δ’” with a numeric dash and suspension mark) τ[ῆ]ς
πρώτ[ης] ἑβδομάδ[ος] . . .”
21. “Miscellanea sacra,” f. 28v = pg. 61: “ἐρωτᾶται· ἐὰν ὑπὸ ποινὴν ἁμαρτίας θανασίμου ἐσμὲν οἱ
πάντες κεκρατημένοι· ἂν μὴ νηστεύσωμεν ἐν τῇ τεσσαρακοστῇ· ἀποκρίνεται ὁ ἅγιος θω-μᾶς ἐν τῷ βω’
τοῦ δευτέρου ἐν διαλέξει · ρη’ μζη’.” There has been some disagreement about the relationship of Plousi-
adenos’ sermons to Latin sermons. Stiernon, “Joseph, évêque de Méthone,” col. 1367 characterizes the
sermons of Plousiadenos thus: “A partir du texte biblique tiré de la lecture prévue par l’ordo romain, le
prédicateur développe son sujet en s’inspirant des prônes latins (c’est dans ce sens qu’il faut comprendre
le rômaikos stylos du titre),” although Stiernon denies that they are “pures «traductions du latin»” as
Vitalien Laurent, “Joseph, évêque de Méthone,” 1003, maintained (see also Kolditz, “Ioannes Plusiadenos
(um 1429–1500)”).
22. See, e.g., “Miscellanea sacra,” f. 26r = , where the priest is scripted as addressing “the people.”
Among the various contexts of his life in which Plousiadenos may have had occasion to employ such
a text (above all, Venetian Crete), we learn from a petition sent in 1498 to the Venetian Council of
Ten on behalf of the Greek Christian community of Methone, where Plousiadenos then presided as
bishop under the name of Joseph, that Plousiadenos (prior to his episcopal election) had allegedly
distinguished himself by his preaching, particularly at Methone, where he staged a preaching campaign
during all of Lent and enkindled his listeners there “in the fire of his charity” (for this document see
Korre, “Η Μεθώνη του 1500,” 147–48 (the document is preceded by Korre’s brief description).
23. John Plousiadnenos, Expositio pro sancta et oecumenica synodo florentina quod legitime congre-
gata est, et defensio quinque capitum quae in decreto ejus continentur, PG 159:1113A: “φοβερὸν ὅρκον”
24. See Alice-Mary Talbot, “John XI Bekkos,” ODB; Alexandra Riebe, Rom in Gemeinschaft mit
Konstantinopel: Patriarch Johannes XI. Bekkos als Verteidiger der Kirchenunion von Lyon (1274) (Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz, 2005).
50   JOURNAL OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDIES

all than our Eastern [Church], and does not, rather, consider rendering the same
reverence to both [Churches] existing as one Church, and [both Churches] pro-
claiming one faith and piety, let him be cut off from the Kingdom of Christ,
and let him be numbered with the traitor Judas and his companions and the
crucifiers of the Savior.25

This juxtaposition between the Pastoral Book and the “curse against Latinizing”
seems to present a clash of words and deeds and rouses suspicions that Plousiadenos
deserved to bear the slur “Latin-minded.” An intriguing solution to this tantalizing
conundrum would require critical and concentrated study of the Pastoral Book as
well as more space than is currently at my disposal if I am also to provide a more
holistic overview of the thought of John Plousiadenos as unionist theologian. As
Plousiadenos is still little known, even to scholars of Byzantine theology, at present
I have chosen to focus on the “bigger picture” while reserving for another time the
problem posed by the Pastoral Book, a problem whose significance would be less
appreciated without a more adequate introduction to the thought of the man whom
it concerns. Therefore, this article will focus on key passages in Plousiadenos’ writings
that, against the backdrop of the critical views of adversaries as considered above,
reveal his theology of union and his own critique of the anti-unionist mentality.
Let us return to the Dialogue. At its conclusion, Plousiadenos himself—who fea-
tures as a character in the text—addresses a final supplication to his anti-unionist
interlocutor that might be understood as a rejoinder to the accusation that by union
Plousiadenos had transgressed the boundary separating the Greeks from the Lat-
ins: “We beseech you to abandon irrational stubbornness and vain prejudice and be
united to the Church of God, so that we both might arrive in the unity of faith, and
be enlisted in the choirs of saints with all God-pleasing men and women forever.
Amen.”26 One of these phrases is lifted from the fourth chapter of Paul’s epistle to the

25. Here is a fuller quotation: (Plousiadenos, Expositio, PG 159:1112C): “ὅμως οὐ διὰ τοῦτο
πείσουσιν ἡμᾶς σιωπῆσαι, πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ὁρῶντας, τὸν παντεπίσκοπον ὀφθαλμὸν, καὶ πρὸς τὸ
ἀδέκαστον ἐνατενίζοντας ἐκεῖνο δικαιωτήριον, ἐν ᾦ οὐδὲν ἡμᾶς βλάψει ἡ ἀλόγως ἐνταῦθα
χεομένη κατηγορία. Οὐ χρεία γὰρ κατηγόρων ἐκεῖ, ὡς οὐδὲ ἡ τῶν παραλόγως χαριζομένων
βοηθήσειε σύστασις· οὐ χρεία γὰρ συνηγόρων ἐκεῖ. Πρὸς γοῦν τὸ ἀλάθητον ἐκεῖνο δικαιωτήριον
ἀποβλέποντες, ἥκιστα τῶν λοιδοριῶν φροντίζομεν· ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τὴν δόξαν ἡμῶν γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ
καὶ παῤῥησίᾳ κηρύξομεν. Τοῦτο δὲ μόνον πάντας εἰδέναι θέλω περὶ ἡμῶν, ὡς πᾶν εἰ τι παρ’ ἡμῶν
ἐπράχθη ἤ ἐῤῥέθη, καὶ τὰ παρόντα, ἐπὶ συστάσει τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς εἰρήνης πέπρακται· Κύριος οἴδε·
καὶ οὐκ ἐπ’ ἀθετήσει οὐδενὸς τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐθῶν καὶ δογμάτων. Ἀλλ’ ὅστις ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν
ταύτην ἦλθεν εἰρήνην, καὶ τὸν τῆς ἐν Φλωρεντίᾳ συνόδου ὅρον ἐδέξατο, ὡς τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐθῶν καὶ
δογμάτων κατεγνωκὼς, καὶ ὡς τὴν Ῥωμαϊκὴν Ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβεύειν διεγνωκὼς εὐσεβέστερόν τι τῆς
ἀνατολικῆς τε καὶ ἡμετέρας, καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον ἐγνωκὼς τὸ αὐτὸ σέβας ἀπονέμειν ἀμφοτέραις ὡς μιᾷ
οὔσαις Ἐκκλησίᾳ, καὶ μίαν κηρυττούσαις πίστιν τε καὶ εὐσέβειαν, ἔκπτωτος εἴη τῆς Χριστοῦ βασιλείας,
καὶ τῷ προδότῃ Ἰούδᾳ καὶ τοῖς κοινωνοῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ σταυρωταῖς τοῦ Σωτῆρος συντεταγμένος.” Cf.
John Bekkos, De unione ecclesiarum veteris et novae Romae, PG 141:20C–21A.
26. Plousiadenos, Disceptatio, PG 159:1021D–1024A: “Δεόμεθα δὲ καὶ ὑμῶν, ἐᾶσαι τὸ πεῖσμα καὶ
τὴν ματαίαν πρόληψιν, καὶ ἑνωθῆναι τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἵνα ἀμφότεροι καταντήσωμεν εἰς τὴν
 Charles C. Yost / Theology of Union of John Plousiadenos    51

Ephesians, in which the apostle invokes “the unity of faith” as the goal toward which
diverse groups of Christians strive through their integration into the “Body of Christ,”
which is thereby brought “to . . . [its] fulfillment.”27 At the beginning of the Dialogue,
faith was presented as the possession of a particular people, the Greeks. Now, at the
end of the same Dialogue, faith is represented as something belonging to neither Lat-
ins nor Greeks, but as possessing unity as a quality essential to itself within the context
of the “Church of God,” itself the object of Plousiadenos’ exhortation to unity.
But what is this “Church of God”? Is it the Roman Church? Plousiadenos would
answer necessarily yes, but not necessarily the Roman Church exclusively. For Plousi-
adenos, the Church of God is presumably nothing less than the “catholic Church,” that
is, the “Body of Christ,” membership in which—again, according to Plousiadenos—
requires subordination to its divinely established head: The Roman Church. Indeed,
Plousiadenos presents this subordination as the criterion of the unity of the Body of
Christ.28 At the same time, this catholic Church, though identified with the Roman
Church in a special way,29 is not necessarily restricted to it. The Florentine Union,
which entailed the recognition of papal primacy,30 accomplished (or, should have
accomplished) the reintegration of the Greek Church into the Church of God such
that Plousiadenos could refer, as quoted above, to “both [Greek and Latin Churches]
existing as one Church.”31 This statement, which is not derived from Bekkos but origi-
nates with Plousiadenos himself, shows how in his understanding the Church of God
entails and transcends the particular churches of the Latins and Greeks—at least in
theory. Plousiadenos knew only too well that many of his countrymen still opposed

ἑνότητα τῆς πίστεως, καὶ συγκαταριθμηθῶμεν τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων χοροῖς μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἀπ’ αἰῶνος τῶν
Θεῷ εὐαρεστησάντων. Ἀμήν.”
27. Ephes. 4:11–13 in The Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., ed. Kurt Aland et al. (Stuttgart: Würt-
temberg Bible Society, 1968), 672: “καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ
εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους, πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων εἰς ἔργον διακονίας,
εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, μέχρι καταντήσωμεν οἱ πάντες εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς πίστεως καὶ
τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. . . .”
28. See esp. Plousiadenos, Expositio, PG 159:1352C–1353D, but also see 1353D–1358A; 1380D,
1388D–1389D, on submission to the pope as a requirement for salvation. See also Manuel Candal, “La
‘Apologia’ del Plusiadeno a favor del Concilio de Florencia,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 21 (1955),
55–56.
29. See, again, esp. Plousiadenos, Expositio, PG 159:1353C–1358A: Plousiadenos argues here for
the identification the catholic Church with the “Western” or “Latin Church,” but, considered within its
greater context (1352C–1358A), Plousiadenos is clearly presuming that the “Western/Latin Church” is
led by the Roman See, as opposed to the “Eastern/Greek Church,” whose separation from the “Western
Church” is likewise presumed in this passage. The fact of this separation prevents the “Eastern/Greek
Church” from being included in the concept of “catholic Church.” Again, see Candal, “La ‘Apologia,’” 56.
30. Plousiadenos, Expositio, PG 159:1309–1310: “Ἀπολογία περὶ τοῦ πέμπτου κεφαλαίου τῶν ἐν τῷ
ὅρῳ τῆς συνόδου Ὅτι δικαίως ἐῤῥέθη καὶ ἀληθῶς, ὡς ὁ πάπας ἐστὶ κεφαλῂ (sic) πάσης τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ
Ἐκκλησίας” (which thesis Plousiadenos defends at 1309–1389D).
31. See above, and, on Plousiadenos’s appraisal of the achievement of Florence, see his Canon in
octavam synodum Florentiae, PG 159:1095–1102B and his Synaxarium sanctae et oecumenicae synodi,
PG 159:1101B–1106C.
52   JOURNAL OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDIES

the Florentine Union.32 Nevertheless, he believed that their incorporation into the
one Church of God would only be accomplished if they accepted that Church’s one
faith which Florence, an “ecumenical council,” had clarified. Hence Plousiadenos’
characteristic identification of Florence, the “Church of Christ,” and orthodoxy.33
For Plousiadenos, union certainly meant union with the Latins, but it was not
limited merely to the acceptance of the Latins as Christian brothers; it also had as its
object something beyond Latins and Greeks: “For we have examined all the saints,”
Plousiadenos says elsewhere, speaking of himself, “and persuaded by and obedient
to their words, we were united to the Latins; nay, not the Latins, but to the unbro-
ken and true faith of Peter, and the sanctifying teaching of those theologians and
divinely inspired men presiding at that synod [of Florence].”34 As was the case with
the “Church of God” in the Dialogue, the “faith” is here identified neither exclusively
nor explicitly as Latin or Greek. For Plousiadenos, as we shall see, the orthodox faith
did not belong to these peoples; rather, these peoples belonged to the faith.
An illustration of Plousiadenos’ view of the transcendence of the orthodox faith
comes from one of his defenses of the Filioque, the controversial doctrine of the
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son that had been approved
at the Council of Florence. The context for the passage in question is Plousiadenos’s
Refutation of Mark of Ephesus, in which Plousiadenos presents passages from an
anti-Florentine text by Mark, after which passages Plousiadenos offers his rebuttals.35
In one such excerpt from Mark’s text, Mark claims to have “demonstrate[d] that the
novel Latin doctrine [of the Filioque] is altogether forbidden.”36 In his response,

32. For this rejection, Plousiadenos claimed that the Greeks had earned divine retribution in the
form of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople (Plousiadenos, Expositio, PG 159:1365C–1368C;
Candal, “La ‘Apologia,’” 56 and n. 1).
33. See, e.g., Plousiadenos, Refutatio, PG 159:1092A, 1092D, 1093A, 1041AB; Plousiadenos, Exposi-
tio, PG 159:1113A, 1115A–1116A; Plousiadenos, Disceptatio, PG 159:1020AB, 1024A.
34. Plousiadenos, Expositio, PG 159:1124D: “Εἴδομεν γὰρ τοὺς ἁγίους πάντας, καὶ τοῖς λόγοις
αὐτῶν πεισθέντες καὶ ἐξακολουθήσαντες, Λατίνοις ἡνώθημεν· μᾶλλον δὲ οὐ Λατίνοις, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἀῤῥαγεῖ
καὶ ἀληθεῖ πίστει τοῦ Πέτρου, καὶ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ τῶν θεολόγων καὶ θεηγόρων ἐκείνων
ἀνδρῶν, τῶν ἐν τῇ συνόδῳ ταύτῃ, διαπρεψάντων. . . .” I refrain from going into detail about the phrase
“faith of Peter” here, but a “proximity search” of the terms “faith” and “Peter” in the TLG database shows
that such a phrase can be found both in the so-called Acta Graeca of Florence (as Joseph Gill, their edi-
tor, referred to them) and in the writings of Chrysostom, among other places. Given Plousiadenos’ role
as compiler of the Acta Graeca (on this role and the Acta, see esp. the scholarship of Joseph Gill: Council
of Florence, viii–ix; Personalities of the Council of Florence: And Other Essays (New York: Barnes & Noble,
1965), chap. 11: “The Sources of the ‘Acta’ of the Council of Florence”; and Gill’s edition of the Acta
Graeca: Quae supersunt actorum graecorum concilii florentini necnon descriptionis cuiusdam eiusdem,
Concilium Florentinum: Documenta et scriptores, ser. B, vol. 5, fasc. 1 and 2 (Rome: Pontificium institu-
tum orientalium studiorum, 1953), i, xi n. 29), it seems likely that he was deriving this concept from that
source, but this does not necessarily exclude his encountering it through other (Greek) sources (e.g.,
Chrysostom); moreover, this phrase in the Acta Graeca probably has a patristic basis.
35. John Plousiadenos, Refutatio Marci Ephesini, PG 159:1023–1106.
36. Plousiadenos, Refutatio Marci Ephesini, PG 159:1060C: “Παρὰ μὲν τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν ἀρξάμενος
λόγων, διὰ δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν διαδεξαμένων αὐτοὺς κατελθὼν ἄχρι καὶ τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς
 Charles C. Yost / Theology of Union of John Plousiadenos    53

Plousiadenos takes issue not simply with the claim that the Filioque is “novel” or
“forbidden” but that it is “Latin.”

Indeed, you neither demonstrated nor will ever demonstrate that “the doctrine of
the Latins” is novel and forbidden . . . because this doctrine is not new, but [this
doctrine] existed and was sung in the Roman Church from [the time of] the sec-
ond [ecumenical] synod; neither is it Latin (Λατινικόν) or Greek (Γραικικόν), for
the faith is not piecemeal, but [the doctrine] is Christian (Χριστιανικόν); for all
the Greek and Latin teachers thought the same thing; unless you want to appear
so absurd as to insult the Eastern saints and Latin teachers.37

Besides presuming the doctrinal harmony of the Greek and Latin saints, the so-called
consensus patrum, a hermeneutic so critical at Florence,38 Plousiadenos here empha-
sizes the universal, or “catholic,” nature of faith as “Christian” and transcending the
Greek/Latin dichotomy. As a part of this faith, the Filioque is not the exclusive prop-
erty of the Latins. It is a “Christian dogma.”
Plousiadenos drives at the same point in a different treatise, in his opening
remarks of his defense of the Eucharist in unleavened bread. While introducing this
topic, after he reproduces the text of the Florentine decree regarding the Eucharist,
Plousiadenos writes that his comments here will not be his own, but will be taken
from the holy fathers and Scriptures,

So that it might be shown in all things that we seek peace and truth, and we do
not wish to divide the one Christ (into two), so that we say this [Christ] is Greek,
that [Christ] is Latin; but neither do we say that the mystery of the New Testa-
ment, of the holy consecration, is twofold, so that the Body of the Lord Itself is
divided into two, saying the one is leavened, the other unleavened; but both of
these we confess to be the Body of Christ, and we proclaim to be the Body of

τρίτης συνόδου, κατὰ μέρος τε ἐξεργαζόμενος ἕκαστον τῶν ῥητῶν, καὶ συλλογιζόμενος ἐφ’ ἑκάστῳ, καὶ
συμπεραίνων ὅπερ ἀποδεικνύναι προκείμενον εἶχον, ὡς πανταχοῦ τοῦ καινοῦ τῶν Λατίνων δόγματος
ἀπηγορευμένου.”
37. Plousiadenos, Refutation Marci Ephesini, PG 159:1061B–C: “Καινὸν δὲ καὶ ἀπηγορευμένον
τὸ τῶν Λατίνων δόγμα οὔτε μὴν ἔδειξας οὔτε δείξεις ποτὲ, οὔτε σὺ οὔτ’ ἄλλος τις ὑψηλότερός σου
καὶ λογιώτερος· ὅτι οὐ καινὸν τοῦτο τὸ δόγμα ὑπάρχει, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῆς δευτέρας συνόδου ἐστί τε καὶ
ψάλλεται ἐν τῇ Ῥωμαϊκῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ· οὐδὲ Λατινικόν ἐστι ἢ Γραικικὸν, οὐ γὰρ ἐν μέρει ἡ πίστις, ἀλλὰ
Χριστιανικόν· πάντες γὰρ οἱ διδάσκαλοι Γραικοὶ καὶ Λατῖνοι τὸ αὐτὸ φρονοῦσιν· εἰ μὴ τοσοῦτον
ἀτοπώτατος βούλει φανῆναι, ὤστε καὶ τοὺς ἀνατολικοὺς ἁγίους καὶ διδασκάλους Λατίνους ἀποκαλεῖν.”
38. Regarding which, see, e.g., Monfasani, “Pro-Latin Apologetics,” passim, esp. 181; Gill, Council
of Florence, 255–256, 261; for critical perspectives, Aristeides Papadakis with John Meyendorff, The
Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church 1071–1453 (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1994), 402, 407; Nicolas Constas, “Tongues of Fire Confounded,” in Conciliation and Confession:
The Struggle for Unity in the Age of Reform, 1415–1648, ed. Howard P. Louthan and Randall C. Zachman
(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), 42–43.
54   JOURNAL OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Christ, reckoning them to be one and the same thing, even if consecrated differ-
ently by either side.39

Though he asserts that as a matter of historical fact Christ sacrificed in unleavened

bread, Plousiadenos maintains the reality of the Eucharist as the Body of Christ as
transcending the material difference between leavened and unleavened bread.40 This
perspective, of Plousiadenos and of Florence, contrasts with Mark Eugenikos’s pre-
sumption that a diversity of rites undermined the supposed unity of the churches.
The derivation of an ecclesiological insight from this unionist perspective on ritual
does not seem farfetched: one and the same Body of Christ is constituted by leav-
ened or unleavened bread, Byzantine or Latin liturgical rites; the reality of the Body
of Christ is not constrained to one quality of bread or rite, and thus transcends both
without excluding either; so, too, one and the same Church, the Body of Christ,
comprises Latins as well as Greeks, but is not restricted to or exclusively identified
with either.
But, for Plousiadenos, the Filioque and the unleavened Eucharist were but two
instances in which the wholesale rejection of the Latins as “theological others” by
the Greeks was made manifest. Plousiadenos addresses this rejection in the broadest
parameters when dealing with his adversaries’ disingenuous appeals to morality in
their objections to papal primacy:

You do not wish to obey him [the pope] not because he is a sinner, but because
he is a Latin, and because of the shaving of the beard . . . you shun him not as a
sinner, since neither are you sinless, but because he is a Latin, and you hold him

39. Plousiadenos, Expositio, PG 159: 1189A (Plousiadenos quotes the relevant part of the Floren-
tine decree) and for the quote see 1192A: “ . . . ἵνα δειχθῇ διὰ πάντων, ὅτι τὴν εἰρήνην καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν
ζητοῦμεν, καὶ οὐ βουλόμεθα τὸν ἕνα Χριστὸν διαιρεῖν, ὥστε τὸν μὲν λέγειν Γραικὸν, τὸν δὲ Λατῖνον·
ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὸ μυστήριον τῆς Νέας Διαθήκης, τὸ τῆς ἱερᾶς τελετῆς διττὸν λέγομεν· ὥστε αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα
Κυρίου μερίζειν εἰς δύο· καὶ τὸ μὲν ἔνζυμον λέγειν, τὸ δ’ ἄζυμον· ἀλλ’ ἑκάτερον τούτων, σῶμα Χριστοῦ
ὁμολογοῦμεν, καὶ σῶμα Χριστοῦ κηρύττομεν, ἕν καὶ ταυτὸ λογιζόμενοι, εἰ καὶ διαφόρως τελεῖται ἐν
ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς μέρεσιν.” My translation above reflects the influence of a textual variant differing
from the PG text. This textual variant is found in a MS located at the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan
(shelfmark: H. 41 sup.), the microfilm of which (located at the University of Notre Dame) I have con-
sulted. Several scholars have suggested, with varying degrees of certainty, that this MS is an autograph of
Plousiadenos: Candal, “La ‘Apologia’,” 38 n. 1, assumes as much; “probablement un autographe de Plousi-
adénos” according to Manoussacas, “Recherches sur la vie,” 31. n. 23; “un autographe probablement”
according to Petit, “Joseph de Methone,” col. 1527. (Linos Politis, “Eine Schreiberschule im Kloster τῶν
Ὁδηγῶν,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 51 (1958): 278, merely refers to Petit’s speculation on the MS, but
Politis makes Petit seem less certain: “Nach L. Petit . . . vielleicht autograph).” More recently, S. T. Mar-
tinelli, “Per un repertorio dei copisti greci in Ambrosiana,” in Miscellanea Graecolatina, Ambrosiana
graecolatina, vol. 1, ed. Federico Gallo (Milan: Biblioteca ambrosiana; Rome: Bulzoni, 2013), 139 (and
see 136 n. 81), tentatively, but inconclusively, suggests that Plousiadenos wrote the MS (my thanks to
Prof. John Monfasani for this reference). I provide the relevant variant reading of MS H. 41 sup. f. 45v:
“καὶ οὐ βουλόμεθα τὸν ἕνα Χ[ριστὸ]ν διαιρεῖν εἰς δύο.”
40. See Plousiadenos, Expositio, PG 159:1189A–1228A passim.
 Charles C. Yost / Theology of Union of John Plousiadenos    55

as heterodox; for you consider the Latins as aliens to the faith; and you teach the
more simple to flee from them as from the face of a serpent. And this is clear, for
if anyone of the Latins is revealed as a saint, you would not wish to invoke him;
but rather you blaspheme; but as regards the Greeks, even if they are most intem-
perate and stupid, if only they should speak against the Latins, you regard them
as holier than all. . . .

Returning to the pope, Plousiadenos succinctly summarizes the attitude of his adver-
saries when he writes, “you do not hold him to be a Christian at all, since he is a
Latin.”41 Here Plousiadenos is confronting the anti-unionist perspectives, as consid-
ered earlier, and the associations and disjunctions characterizing those perspectives.
By pinpointing his opponents’ association between “Latinness” and alienation from
“the faith,” Plousiadenos gestures to the “photographic negative” of the worldview
entailed by the aforementioned phrase “faith of the Greeks.” While assuming a dis-
junction between Latins (“others”) and Greeks (“us”), this view presents orthodoxy
as a special property of the Greeks to the extent that the Latin, a term connoting
ethno–cultural foreignness, is seen as theologically “other,” as “heterodox” or not
Christian at all.
The fault-line between orthodox-Greeks and the heretic-Latins marks the broad
division entailing a multiplicity of distinctions that carves up the Christian theo-
logical universe into corresponding provinces of identity and alterity, or Greek and
Latin. The Latins have their (heretical) “beliefs,” we have orthodoxy; they pretend
that a wafer is the Body of Christ, we have the Eucharist in leavened bread; they have
their “church,” we have ours. Regarding the saints, Plousiadenos sees no real commit-
ment to the hermeneutic of consensus patrum in his adversaries but only a spirit of
violent partisanship that exalts the antagonists of the Latins while disdaining their
so-called saints.
This is the work of a mentality that, in Plousiadenos’ view, would divide one
faith, one Eucharist, one Church—the mentality of the “schismatics,” as Plousiadenos
called his adversaries. In his view, the “schismatics,” the divided and the dividers, are
pitted against those united to the one universal Church, the “unionists” (ἑνωτικοί) or
“catholics” (καθολικοί). The latter term, “catholic,” was hurled as an insult at Plousi-
adenos, but he gladly owned it: “We are catholics and we want to be called catholics,
even if you give us this name sarcastically and consider it an insult; for believing in

41. Plousiadenos, Expositio, PG 159:1357A–C: “οὐ γὰρ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν οὐ θέλετε
ὑπακούειν ἐκείνῳ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ εἶναι Λατῖνον, καὶ διὰ τὸ κείρειν τὸν πώγωνα· εἰ γὰρ ἐφεύγετε ἐκεῖνον
διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἐφεύγετε ἂν ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς, ἁμαρτωλοὺς ὄντας. Οὐκοῦν οὐχ ὡς ἁμαρτωλὸν φεύγετε,
ὅτι οὐδ’ ὑμεῖς ἀναμάρτητοι τυγχάνετε, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐστὶ Λατῖνος, καὶ ὡς ἑτερόδοξον ἔχετε· τοὺς γὰρ
Λατίνους ὑμεῖς ὡς ἀλλοτρίους τῆς πίστεως ἡγεῖσθε· καὶ φεύγειν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ὡς ἀπὸ προσώπου ὄφεως,
τοὺς ἁπλουστέρους διδάσκετε. Καὶ τοῦτο δῆλον· εἰ γάρ τις Λατίνων φαίνεται ἅγιος, οὐ θέλετε κἂν
τοῦτον προσαγορεῦσαι· ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον καὶ βλασφημεῖτε· τοὺς δὲ Γραικοὺς, εἰ καὶ ἀσελγέστατοι εἶεν καὶ
μωρότατοι, μόνον εἰ λέγοιεν κατὰ Λατίνων, ἔχετε αὐτοὺς ἁγιωτέρους πάντων . . . οὐ γὰρ ἔχετε αὐτὸν
ὅλως Χριστιανὸν, διὰ τὸ εἶναι Λατῖνον. . . .” See also Candal, “La ‘Apologia’,” 54–55.
56   JOURNAL OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDIES

one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, we are and are called catholics; and we call
those [who] are not called ‘catholics,’ or not following her [i.e. the Church], ‘schis-
matics’ and, I think, justly.”42 This vision, and the theological identity conveyed by the
term “catholic,” transcends the Latin/Greek dichotomy. It is the vision of a “catholic
orthodoxy.” For Plousiadenos, the criterion for determining whether one is theolog-
ically “other” is union with the creedal Church, which need not—or, rather, should
not—exclude the membership of the Greek Church.43 The condition for this mem-
bership is the acceptance of union with “the unbroken and true faith of Peter,” pro-
fessed by the ancient fathers, Latin and Greek, but belonging exclusively to neither.
The quaestio disputata between the John Plousiadenos and Mark Eugenikos is
this: what is to be the true principle of union between Latins and Greeks? In other
words, how are they to be united? Mark explicitly raised the question. He also insin-
uates the answer. After all, how exactly, Mark asked, had Florence united the Latins
and Greeks when they remained so evidently divided in their worship of God? “Two-
fold and different” are their “liturgies . . . two-fold the baptisms . . . all customs are
two-fold and mutually deviating in every respect.” The Christians of East and West
have gone on living their separate ritual lives, “union” notwithstanding.44
By presenting ritual difference as undermining union, then, Mark has implied
that union’s true principle is, precisely, ritual. To be united, Greeks and Latins must
observe one rite. Mark’s answer, far from being extraordinary, exemplifies an atti-
tude toward ritual difference that has long been associated with Byzantium. The
nineteenth-century Russian philosopher Vladimir Soloviev coined the term “Byzan-
tinism” to describe a mentality of (in the words of Yury Avvakumov) “theologically
supported intolerance toward foreign liturgical rites” resulting from a failure to sep-
arate the accidental, non-essential aspects of sacramental rituals from the transcen-
dent truths to which those rituals supposedly point, a tendency he considered a leg-
acy of the Greek Middle Ages. Avvakumov has reprised Soloviev’s concept in his own
interpretation of the historic East–West conflicts.45 In Avvakumov’s usage, as rite is

42. Plousiadenos, Expositio, PG 159:1281B–C: “ Ὧ καθολικοὶ, ἐὰν, ὡς λέγετε.  .  .  . Καὶ ἡμεῖς

πρὸς αὐτούς· Καθολικοί ἐσμεν, καὶ καθολικοὶ βουλόμεθα λέγεσθαι, εἰ καὶ ὑμεῖς τὸ ὅνομα τοῦτο
κατ’ εἰρωνείαν ἡμῖν προφέρετε, καὶ ὕβριν λογίζεσθε· πιστεύοντες γὰρ εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ
ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν, καθολικοί ἐσμεν, καὶ λεγόμεθα· καὶ τοὺς μὴ λεγομένους καθολικοὺς, ἤτοι
τοὺς μὴ ἑπομένους αὐτῇ, σχισματικοὺς καλοῦμεν, καὶ, οἶμαι, δικαίως.”
43. Plousiadenos, Expositio, PG 159:1112C. (See Greek text above, n. 25.)
44. Mark Eugenikos, Epistola encyclica, 142–43 (see n. 13 above).
45. Georgij Avvakumov, “Die Fragen des Ritus als Streit- und Kontroversgegenstand. Zur Typolo-
gie der Kulturkonflikte zwischen dem lateinischen Westen und dem byzantinisch–slavischen Osten im
Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit,” in Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichtsschreibung in Nordost- und Ostmitteleu-
ropa: Initiativen, Methoden, Theorien, ed. Rainer Bendel, Religions- und Kulturgeschichte in Ostmittel-
und Südosteuropa, vol. 2 (Berlin: Lit, 2006), 191–233 passim, esp. 197–205, 223–27 (the quotation is
from 226); also Georgij Avvakumov, “‘Unio Ecclesiarum’ und die geistigen Grundlagen der Neuzeit: Zur
ökumenischen Bedeutung der Unionstheologie,” Ostkirchliche Studien 57 (2008): 45–56, esp. see 49–51;
Georgij Avvakumov, Die Enstehung des Unionsgedankens: Die lateinische Theologie des Hochmittelalters
in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Ritus der Ostkirche, Veröffentlichungen des Grabmann-Institutes
 Charles C. Yost / Theology of Union of John Plousiadenos    57

the manifestation, par excellence, of a distinctive Christian culture, the rejection of a

particular rite because of its foreignness represents “intolerance” toward the foreign
culture it manifests.46 This vital connection between cultural identity and rite means
that this mentality of “intolerance” called “Byzantinism” is invigorated by an existen-
tial imperative: if distinctive ritual forms are understood, implicitly, as manifesting
one’s own membership in a distinctive group, a group from which one derives a sense
of self-meaning, then fearing the loss of these ancestral rites as the loss of one’s own
identity is only natural.47
Considered under the lens of Byzantinism, the sentiments expressed in Mark’s
encyclical and in the Dialogue become more meaningful. If practicing the Greek rite
is essential to one’s Greek identity and if uniformity of rite is the only true term of
union, then Greeks such as Plousiadenos, if they are truly united to the Latins, must
have “lost the mentality of their fathers,” which they have exchanged for a “Latin
mind.” What they have “lost,” in other words, is their identity as Greeks. If, on the
other hand, the unionists maintain their ancestral rites while validating alien rites as
orthodox, then they betray their Greek identity in vain since they cannot but fail to
mediate between Churches that remain divided by, precisely, rite.
Against Byzantinism, Avvakumov has counter-posed the mentality of “Union-
ism.” This mentality, which accepts the possibility of different rites (hence different
cultures) within one Church, depends upon “distinguishing between the essential
and inessential elements of Christian belief.”48 And it is through this mentality, or at

zur Erforschung der mittelalterlichen Theologie und Philosophie, vol. 47 (Munich: Akademie Verlag,
2002), e.g., 87–116, 377–381 (for Avvakumov’s treatment of the Byzantine attitude toward Latin liturgi-
cal difference, including certain exceptional “tolerantere Ansichten.”)
46. Yury P. Avvakumov, “Western ‘Confessions’ and Eastern Christianity,” in The Cambridge History
of Reformation Theology, c. 1500–c. 1675, ed. Nelson H. Minnich and Kenneth Appold (Cambridge
University Press, forthcoming). Also, for the close association of “rite” and “culture”: Avvakumov, “‘Unio
Ecclesiarum,” 45–46, 49, 54; Avvakumov, Die Enstehung, passim, e.g., 11–26 (cf. “kulturellen Eigenart”
(pg. 21) and “rituellen Eigenart” (pg. 24), which seem to be used interchangeably), 377–81; Avvakumov,
“Die Fragen,” passim.
47. Avvakumov, “Die Fragen,” 226–27. Highly relevant to this entire discussion are the studies of
Tia M. Kolbaba in which she discusses, among other things, the interpenetration of rite and culture, the
unstable boundary between the “essential” and the “non-essential” elements of Christian observance,
and the projection of an idealized group-identity against the threats perceived from “outsiders” as seen
in Byzantine anti-Latin polemic: see, e.g., The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (Urbana: University
of Illinois Press, 2000), passim, but esp. 1–7, 88–144, 163–73 ; “Byzantine Perceptions of Latin Religious
‘Errors’: Themes and Changes from 859 to 1350,” in The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and
the Muslim World, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou and Roy P. Mottahedeh (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, 2001), 117–144; “Latin and Greek Christians,” in Cambridge History of
Christianity, ed. Thomas F. X. Noble and Julia M. H. Smith (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 213–29
(esp. 227–29); “Meletios Homologetes: On the Customs of the Italians,” Revue des études byzantines 55
(1997): 137–68.
48. Avvakumov, “Die Fragen,” 223–27; Die Enstehung, 11–26, 368–71, 380; “‘Unio Ecclesiarum’,”
49–51, 53–56. (In these last two contributions, Avvakumov uses the terms “Unionsgedanken” and
“Unionstheologie” more or less equivalently to “Unionismus.”)
58   JOURNAL OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDIES

least a logic akin to it, that we come to another answer, differing from that of Mark,
to the question of the principle of union. This is the answer of John Plousiadenos. At
the heart of his theology of union is an appeal to one universal faith professed by one
universal Church. It is this faith and Church, which Plousiadenos strives to present
as transcending the differences between Latin and Greek, that constitute the true
principle of unity—not rite. Faced with these differences, what were the prospects of
the Florentine Union unless Plousiadenos could convince his countrymen that they
belonged to a Church and a faith that could not be restricted to the Greeks—their
rite or even their saints—exclusively? Of course, for Plousiadenos this universal faith
included the Filioque and this universal Church was ruled by the Roman pontiff—
hence his attempts, however convincing, to present the former as a “catholic (and not
Latin) doctrine” and to present the latter as the condition for the unity of the catholic
Church while addressing head-on the anti-Latin prejudice that he saw as truly moti-
vating his adversaries. The alternative form of union, along the lines of Byzantinism,
would mean nothing other than “absorption” of one people by another through the
imposition of a single rite, one manifestation of a single cultural identity, upon all.49
It was this mentality that the pre-Florentine unionist Manuel Kalekas was getting at
when he remarked that his fellow Greeks, who call the Latins “heretics” because they
fast differently, “desire, were it allowed, to force all the nations of the whole world
to observe one custom, and for all people alike to use the same customs which they
use. But they do not realize that they themselves are liable to be complained about
by many others in just this same way, neither is it possible for the same standard of
mores to obtain among all [peoples]. Nothing, however, whether difference of lan-
guage or customs or anything of this sort which is not common to all, prevents us or
them from being led under one faith.”50
Plousiadenos’ elaboration of a catholic Christianity was the antidote he con-
sciously applied to the sort of mentality criticized by Kalekas and which he knew
intimately. Fundamental to his effort is Unionism’s distinction between the “ines-
sential,” culturally conditioned aspects of Christian observance and the universal
binding truths transcending them. It was only by means of such a distinction that
Plousiadenos could proclaim, with St. Paul, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”51 for

49. Avvakumov, “‘Unio Ecclesiarum’,” 55; Die Enstehung, 25–26. On rite and cultural/group identity,
see items by Avvakumov and Kolbaba as cited above in ns. 46 and 47.
50. Manuel Kalekas, Contra graecorum errores libri quatuor, PG 152:215CD: “ . . . Volunt enim, si
fas sit, omnes totius orbis gentes, sub unam inducere consuetudinem, et quibus ipsi utuntur, omnes
similiter uti: nescientes, se ipsos etiam a plurimis in hujusmodi posse reprehendi: neque possibile est
eamdem apud omnes morum normam obtinere. Nihil tamen aut nostros, aut illos, vel linguarum dif-
ferentia, vel morum, vel hujusmodi quidquam, quod non sit commune omnibus, prohibet, sub unam
adduci fidem.” (This is the translation of Ambrose Traversari—see PG 152, pg. 1 and col. 11–12 and Ray-
mond-Joseph Loenertz, Correspondance de Manuel Calecas, Studi e Testi, 152 (Vatican City: Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, 1950), 46 n. 1). On Manuel, see Loenertz, 16–46 and Alice-Mary Talbot, “Kalekas,
Manuel,” ODB.
51. Eph 4:5, ed. Aland et al., 671.
 Charles C. Yost / Theology of Union of John Plousiadenos    59

Latins and Greeks both, rather than sunder them apart upon the rock of ritual and
cultural difference along the parallel lines that, as far as Mark of Ephesus could see,
never intersect.52
In short, John Plousiadenos challenged his countrymen not to think of them-
selves as “Greek Christians” before they thought of themselves as “catholic Christians.”
Plousiadenos’ transcendent turn even preoccupied his poetic meditations, such as
when he observed in the crucifixion of Christ a marvelous mystery: “[Your] undefiled
feet appear pierced with nails; but by Your wisdom, You stood with them not sepa-
rated, but both together, so that You might unite the two peoples in one faith.”53

MEDIEVAL INSTITUTE
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME

52. Cf. Mark’s quote in n. 13 above.

53. Basileiou, “Ὁ αὐτόγραφος «Θρῆνος τῆς Θεοτόκου»,” 279 (lns. 23–26): “οἱ πόδες οἱ ἀμόλυντοι
καὶ μὲ τὰ καφία/προσηλωμένοι φαίνονται· ἀλλὰ τῇ σῇ σοφίᾳ/οὐ χωρισμένους ἔστησας, ἀλλὰ ὁμοῦ
τοὺς δύο/ἵνα ἑνώσης ἐν μιᾷ πίστει λαοὺς τοὺς δύο.”