No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Augustine as an Auctoritas in Juan de Torquemada's Apparatus Super Decretum Florentinum Unionis Graecorum (1441)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 August 2021
Abstract
This essay adds to our knowledge of the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1431–1449) as a complex but significant instance of the many efforts to bring union to the divided Latin West and Byzantine East. In this paper, I explore the role of Augustine as an auctoritas at Ferrara-Florence, examining Juan de Torquemada's Apparatus Super Decretum Florentinum Unionis Graecorum (1441), a programmatic theological treatise written to represent the Latins’ theological perspective as expressed in Laetentur caeli (“Let the heavens rejoice”), the papal bull disseminated by Pope Eugenius IV on July 6, 1439. I argue that Torquemada's use of Augustine corroborates the otherwise circumstantial probability that he composed the Apparatus to explain the theological terms on which Eugenius IV and the Latin papalists declared union with Byzantine Christians and simultaneously to defend the bull against the doubts held among conciliarists and their sympathizers around Europe. Showing how Torquemada used Augustine in this conciliar document also adds greater clarity to the reception of Augustine at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. More specifically, it helps explain the utility of Augustine in Torquemada's attempt to adjudicate the relations between the Latin West and Byzantine East on the one hand and papalist and conciliarist Latins on the other.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society of Church History
Footnotes
I am grateful for comments I received on this paper at the 2019 meeting of the American Society of Church History, and I would like to thank Fr. Yury Avvakumov, Andrea Riedl, and the reviewers of Church History for offering insightful feedback on earlier drafts.
References
1 Reception history is not the study of the original texts so much as the history of their subsequent interpretation, the life of the text in new and developing contexts. Its foremost subfield is the reception of the Bible. For two excellent resources on the Bible's reception history, see Lieb, Michael, Mason, Emma, Roberts, Jonathan, and Rowland, Christopher, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wischmeyer, Oda, ed., Handbuch der Bibelhermeneutiken: Von Origenes bis zur Gegenwart (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016)Google Scholar.
2 Saak, Eric Leland, “In the Wake of Lombard: The Reception of Augustine in the Early Thirteenth Century,” Augustinian Studies 46, no. 1 (2015): 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The rise in attention to the history of the interpretation of Augustine is evident in the production of numerous essays and monographs. See, e.g., Pollmann, Karla, “Alium sub meo nomine: Augustine between His Own Self-Fashioning and Later Reception,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 14, no. 2 (2010): 409–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pollmann, Karla and Gill, Meredith Jane, Augustine Beyond the Book: Intermediality, Transmediality, and Reception (Leiden: Brill, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Saak, Eric Leland, Creating Augustine: Interpreting Augustine and Augustinianism in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Saak, “In the Wake of Lombard,” 71–104; and Saak, Eric Leland, “The Reception of Augustine in the Later Middle Ages,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, ed. Backus, Irena, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1:367–404Google Scholar. See also Pollmann, Karla et al. , eds., The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 For exceptions to this general dearth of scholarship, see Sieben, Hermann Josef, “Augustinus-Rezeption in Konzilien: Von marginaler Zitation bis zu zentraler Aneignung theologischer Positionen,” Theologie und Philosophie 84 (2009): 161–198Google Scholar; Sieben, Hermann Josef, Studien zum Ökumenischen Konzil: Definitionen und Begriffe, Tagebücher und Augustinus-Rezeption (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2010)Google Scholar; Hermann Josef Sieben, “Church Councils,” trans. David Gilland, in Pollmann et al., The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, 2:786–793; Sieben, Hermann Josef, “Augustinus-Rezeption in Konzilien von den Lebzeiten des Kirchenvaters bis zum Zweiten Vatikanum,” in Augustinus: Studien zu Werk und Wirkgeschichte, ed. Sieben, H. J., Frankfurter Theologische Studien 69 (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2013), 277–323Google Scholar; Madoz, José, Le Symbole du Xle conciie de Tolede: Ses sources, sa date, sa valeur (Louvain: Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense bureaux, 1938)Google Scholar; Moran, José, “La presenza di San Agostino nel concilio Vaticano II,” Augustinianum 6 (1966): 460–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Schatz, Klaus, “Päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit und Geschichte in den Diskussionen des Ersten Vatikanums,” in Dogmengeschichte und katholische Theologie, ed. Löser, Werner, Lehmann, Karl, Lutz-Bachmann, Matthias (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1988), 187–250Google Scholar.
4 For the sake of simplicity and in alignment with many of the sources themselves, I use “Latins” to identify the Christians of the Roman Church and “Greeks” for Byzantine Christians.
5 By referring to the citation of earlier Christian authors and writings as an appeal to authority, I am speaking of the practice of later Christian authors citing a church father as agreeing with their position to employ the authority of the earlier figure in support of the position on which they are supposed to agree. Augustine functions in the West as the foremost teacher of the church after biblical apostles. Gustave Bardy, “Post apostolos ecclesiarum magister,” Revue du Moyen Âge latin 6 (1950): 313–316, describes Gottschalk of Orbais's (ca. 804–868) application to Augustine of the phrase “post apostolos ecclesiarum magister.”
6 By the “Council of Ferrara-Florence,” I refer to the council that grew out of a contingent present at the Council of Basel beginning in 1431, moved to Ferrara in 1437 to confer with Greeks about ecclesial union, and culminated in Florence during the summer of 1439.
7 For the Latin Acta, see Andreas de Sanctacroce, advocatus consistorialis: Acta Latina Concilii Florentini, ed. Georgius Hofmann, S, Concilium Florentinum: Documenta et Scriptores VI (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1955); and for the Greek Acta, see Quae supersunt actorum graecorum Concilii Florentini, ed. Joseph Gill, SJ, Concilium Florentinum: Documenta et Scriptores V/1–2 (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1953).
8 Iohannes de Torquemada, O.P. Apparatus super Decretum Florentinum Unionis Graecorum, ed. Emmanuel Candal, Concilium Florentinum: Documenta et Scriptores II/I (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1942) (hereafter Apparatus). Another reason it is useful to consult Torquemada's Apparatus is that, as Carol Richardson highlights, Torquemada and Nicholas of Cusa are the exceptions to the rule that “scarcity of evidence makes similar studies of cardinals in the first half of the fifteenth century impossible.” Carol Richardson, Reclaiming Rome: Cardinals in the Fifteenth Century, Brill's Studies in Intellectual History 173 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 28. We are able to locate Torquemada's text in the context of an amount of evidence sufficient to reconstruct his biography. For Torquemada's biography, see Thomas M. Izbicki, Protector of the Faith: Cardinal Johannes de Turrecremata and the Defense of the Institutional Church (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1981). On Torquemada's conciliar works and thought, see Karl Binder, Konzilgedanken bei Kardinal Juan de Torquemada O.P., Wiener Bietrage zur Theologie 49 (Vienna: Wiener Don-Verlag, 1976).
9 This section depends heavily on a few of the foremost historical reconstructions: Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959); Thomas M. Izbicki, “The Council of Ferrara-Florence and Dominican Papalism,” in Christian Unity: The Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438/9–1989, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991), 429–443; Izbicki, Protector of the Faith, 1–17; and Martin Anton Schmidt, “The Problem of Papal Primacy at the Council of Florence,” Church History 30, no. 1 (1961): 35–49. On the history of Greek and Latin relations in the centuries and events leading up to this council, see Gill, The Council of Florence, 1–45. Broader accounts of this period include Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 258–273; and A. Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources of History and a Debate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 321–344.
10 It was also at the Council of Constance that John Hus was condemned to death. Within this part of the council's proceedings, Augustine's authority played an important role, for Hus considered himself heir to his thought, which he made clear in his Summa de ecclesia. On Augustine's role in the thought of John Hus, see Paul de Vooght, “La Part de saint Augustin dans le De ecclesia de Huss,” in Hussiana, ed. Paul de Vooght (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1960), 66–92. According to Sieben, the authorities of the council “condemned a particular interpretation of Augustine, i.e. the one promulgated by Hus depending heavily on Wycliff.” Although Sieben submits that “in certain respects, therefore, the Council received Augustine through the traditional understanding of the Church,” the Council dictated that the proper interpretation of his writings must conform to its standpoint. Sieben, “Church Councils,” 2:789–790. In other words, Augustine was an auctoritas only inasmuch as he was shown to support the position advocated by the authorities of the council.
11 Izbicki, “The Council of Ferrara-Florence,” 429.
12 Izbicki, “The Council of Ferrara-Florence,” 431–432. In contrast, Richardson suggests that “Juan of Torquemada was consistently convinced of the supremacy of the pope over the council.” Richardson, Reclaiming Rome, 52. I follow Izbicki's more nuanced portrayal, especially when he concludes that Torquemada was not just “a champion of papal absolutism,” as some have characterized him, but “an active reformer, an opponent of heresy, and a patron of the arts, as well as a papal apologist.” Izbicki, Protector of the Faith, ix. Izbicki also submits that Torquemada “spoke for the deputation concerning the execution of reform decrees; he also served on special commissions on simony, liturgy, reunion with the Greeks, and the proposed canonization of Peter of Luxemburg. These actions reveal his complex attitude toward the council.” Izbicki, Protector of the Faith, 4.
13 The dynamics of the relationship between Torquemada and Basel's president, Cardinal Cesarini, are hard to determine. For a speculative attempt at explaining the development of their relationship at Basel, see Izbicki, “The Council of Ferrara-Florence,” 432n12.
14 Izbicki, Protector of the Faith, 9.
15 Schmidt, “The Problem of Papal Primacy,” 36.
16 Izbicki, Protector of the Faith, 9. There is a long and complicated history of reunion attempts and discussions about trying to achieve reunion before any of these more immediate discussions. For a brief summary of these as they relate to the Council of Florence, see Deno J. Genakoplos, “The Council of Florence (1438–1439) and the Problem of Union between the Greek and Latin Churches,” Church History 24, no. 4 (1955): 324–325, 336–337nn2–11.
17 The bishops at Basel decided on January 2, 1433, to send messengers with a letter inviting the Greeks to come to Basel for a council intended to unite the Latin and Greek churches. The messengers arrived by the end of the summer 1433. John VIII took the invitation quite seriously, as is shown by his sending three legates: Demetrius Palaeologus Metochites, Isidore superior of the monastery of St. Demetrius, and John Dishypatus. Gill, The Council of Florence, 54. While the legates were in Basel, the council produced on September 7, 1434, a joint decree, which shows the Greeks’ concern for the presence of the pope at such a council and the concern of the Latins at Basel to get the pope to agree to these terms. “Session 19,” in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: Volume One: Nicaea I to Lateran V, ed. Norman P. Tanner, SJ (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 478–482. For a fuller account of the relationship between the Latins and the Greeks at the Council of Basel, see Gill, The Council of Florence, 46–84.
18 While Augustine was not a beloved father of the church or read widely in Byzantium, there were translations of some of his writings in circulation, which originated in a similar context of pro-unionist efforts under Michael VIII Palailogos. Although Augustine's writings were virtually unknown to the Greeks from the fifth to the thirteenth century, Byzantine interest in translating Augustine's texts into Greek began with Maximus Planudes (ca. 1255–1305), who translated Augustine's De trinitate in the late thirteenth century. Manolis Papathomopoulos, Isabella Tsabari, and Gianpaolo Rigotti, Αὐγουστίνου Πɛρὶ Τρίαδος βιβλία πɛντɛκαίδɛκα ἅπɛρ ἐκ τῆς Λατίων διαλέκτου ɛἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα μɛτήνɛγκɛ Μάξιμος ὁ Πλανούδης (Athens: 1995). Likewise, Prochoros Kydones (ca. 1333–1370) translated Augustine's Epistulae 28, 82, 92, 132, 137, 138, 143, 147 (Vat. gr. 1102), the first part of Augustine's De libero arbitrio, a fragment of De vera religione, and a fragment of De beata uita. Prochoros's older brother, Demetrius Kydones (ca. 1324–1397/1398), also translated a series of extracts from Augustine's In Iohannis euangelium tractatus and Conta Iulianum. There were also pseudonymous works of Augustine in circulation, translated into Greek, such as Fulgentius of Ruspe's De fide ad Petrum, the anonymous Soliliquia sive Monologia, and an incomplete version of Prosper of Acquitaine's Liber Sententiorum. For further discussion, see Josef Lössl, “Augustine in Byzantium,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 51, no. 2 (2000): 267–295; and Josef Lössl, “Augustine's On the Trinity in Gregory Palamas's One Hundred and Fifty Chapters,” Augustinian Studies 30, no. 1 (1999): 61–82.
19 Gill, The Council of Florence, 19.
20 Gill, The Council of Florence, 174. In light of Eugenius's longstanding preference for Florence as the site of the council, it is possible the plague served only as a pretense to justify translating the council from Ferrara to Florence. For a useful description of a number of important characters involved at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, see Joseph Gill, Personalities of the Council of Florence and Other Essays (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964). For a more recent treatment of Ferrara-Florence, see Sebastian Kolditz, Johannes VIII. Palaiologos und das Konzil von Ferrara-Florenz (1438/39): Das byzantinische Kaisertum im Dialog mit dem Westen, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 60 (Stüttgart: Hiersemann, 2014).
21 Izbicki, Protector of the Faith, 12. This is to move all too quickly past the discord among the Greeks and their spokesmen, such as Mark of Ephesus, who never signed the union decree.
22 Schmidt, “The Problem of Papal Primacy,” 38.
23 Schmidt, “The Problem of Papal Primacy,” 38. Although 1439 marked the completion of the resolution between the Latins and the Greeks, the council continued at Florence until 1445. For a helpful description of Torquemada's reform efforts in the church and in the Dominican Order following the Council of Ferrara-Florence, see Richardson, Reclaiming Rome, 168–174.
24 Schmidt, “The Problem of Papal Primacy,” 38. An original statement about the pope's power to preside over ecumenical councils was removed and one on the hierarchy of the pentarchy added.
25 On the extent of the Greek bishops’ freedom at Ferrara-Florence, see Joseph Gill, “The Freedom of the Greeks in the Council of Florence,” University of Birmingham Historical Journal 12, no. 2 (1970): 226–236.
26 Izbicki, Protector of the Faith, 13.
27 The conciliarists, of course, considered Felix V to be the rightly elected pope, not the antipope.
28 Izbicki, Protector of the Faith, 13.
29 Izbicki, Protector of the Faith, 15.
30 Izbicki, “The Council of Ferrara-Florence,” 440.
31 For his delineation of the articles, see Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 34, p. 34, line 28–p. 35, line 10.
32 Candal, “Index Generalis,” in Torquemada, Apparatus, 147. All translations are my own.
33 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 33, p. 33, lines 16–18: “in infrascriptam sanctam et deo amabilem eodem sensu eademque mente unionem unanimiter concordarunt et consenserunt.”
34 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 34, p. 34, lines 26–28: “articulos fidei principales diffinitos et declaratos in presenti sacrasancta synodo, in quibus consistere dicebatur principalis controversia inter Latinos et Grecos.”
35 Although it is mentioned in a number of places, nowhere to my knowledge does it receive focused analysis. Whereas the Apparatus was a competent work for its papalist purposes and its conciliar occasion, it purposefully lacked the originality and power of the Summa de ecclesia (Lyon: 1496), in which Torquemada penned an exposition of the papalist position. The Summa de ecclesia not only showed his clear understanding of the conciliarists’ own position but also became the supreme and unmatched expression of late medieval ecclesiology. On this treatise, see Hermann Josef Sieben, Traktate und Theorien zum Konzil: vom begin des grossen schismas bis zum vorabend der Reformation (Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1983), 57–58.
36 Eric Leland Saak, “Augustine and his Late Medieval Reception (1200–1500),” in Pollmann et al., The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, 1:48.
37 Saak goes on to claim that “it was also in the later Middle Ages that we find a new understanding of Aug., whereby Aug. became the normative guide for one's intellectual and personal life, serving as the norma normans of one's identity.” Saak, “Augustine and his Late Medieval Reception,” 1:49.
38 Saak, “Augustine and his Late Medieval Reception,” 1:48
39 Saak, “Augustine and his Late Medieval Reception,” 1:48. Sieben has written the only essay that deals directly with Augustine's reception at Ferrara-Florence. Sieben, “Church Councils,” 786–793. The only exceptions are essays written more generally about theological themes or issues at the council, which discuss Augustine's function therein: André de Halleux, “Probèmes de Méthode dans les Discussions sur l'Eschatologie au Concile de Ferrare et Florence,” in Christian Unity: The Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438/9–1989, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991), 251–301. Sieben, in his discussion of appeals made to Augustine at the council, does not once cite Torquemada's Apparatus. He does, however, make some overarching claims about the function of Augustine as an auctoritas at the council, suggesting that he is for the Latins “the key witness” for discussions of the filioque. Sieben, “Church Councils,” 790.
40 Torquemada uses the word novissima, a standard term used to speak about last things during the late medieval period. According to Halleux, the discussions of the end times at Ferrara-Florence offer the most suitable case for the study of methodological problems, suggesting that “the eschatology of the intermediary state is rich with implications, soteriological and anthropological, moral and penitential, at the same time it conditions prayer for the deceased and the cult of the saints.” Halleux, “Probèmes de Méthode,” 251. For an account of the broader reception of Augustine's view of last things, see Gillian Rosemary Evans, “Augustine and the Last Things: The Aftermath,” in Saint Augustine and His Influence in the Middle Ages, ed. Edward B. King and Jacqueline T. Schaefer, Sewanee Medieval Studies 3 (Sewanee, Tenn.: Press of the University of the South, 1988), 79–89.
41 Sebastian Kolditz, “Deux exégèses d'un texte controversé: Ioannès Eugénikos et Juan de Torquemada sur le décret florentin de l'Union des Églises,” in Réduire le schism? Ecclésiologies et politiques de l'union entre orient et occident (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle), ed. Marie-Hélène Blanchet and Frédéric Gabriel (Paris: ACHDByz, 2013), 94–97, offers an instructive comparison of Torquemada's Apparatus and John Eugenikos's Antirrhetic of the decree of the council of Ferrara-Florence (Eleni Rossidou-Koutsou, 2006) on the Filioque at Ferrara-Florence.
42 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 37, p. 37, lines 12–14: “de scriptura sancta nullo modo disceptari et dubitari potest utrum verum et rectum sit quidquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit.” From Augustine, De baptismo 2.3.4. For the sake of clarity, I will identify the titles of the texts Torquemada cites from Augustine in the notes, but all quotations are as they appear in the Apparatus. This methodological appropriation of Augustine is similar to Cardinal Bessarion's reliance on Augustine for “the modus procendi of the Council's discussions.” Bessarion, Oratio dogmatica de unione, 136.7.
43 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 37, p. 37, lines 15–17: “ex declaratione sive approbatione universalis ecclesie . . . ex determinatione sedis apostolice.”
44 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 43, p. 42, lines 10–11: “cum venerit spiritus ille veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem non enim loquetur a semetipso, sed quecumque audiet loquetur.”
45 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 43, p. 42, lines 12–13: “Audire autem illi scire est, scire vero esse; quia ergo non est a semetipso, sed ab illo a quo procedit, a quo illi est essentia, ab illo scientia, ab illo audientia.”
46 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 43, p. 42, lines 15–16: “Ergo necessario concluditur quod veritas fidei est spiritum sanctum a filio procedere.” Torquemada also cites from Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus 99.5, to further unfurl Augustine's interpretation.
47 See Torquemada, Apparatus, pars. 47–52, p. 45, line 22–p. 49, line 26.
48 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 48, p. 46, line 29. He also cites once more the same passage from Fulgentius's De Fide ad Petrum 8.11.54 (qua Aug.), a statement Torquemada must take to be a strong witness to the Latin position on the filioque. Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 48, p. 50, lines 5–7: “Firmiter tene, et nullatenus dubites eundem spiritum, qui patris et filii unus spiritus est, de patre et filio procedere.”
49 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 52, p. 49, line 27.
50 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 53, p. 49, line 28–p. 50, line 16.
51 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 54, p. 52, lines 3–5: “sine initio temporis . . . sine mutabilitate nature . . . ex patre nativitas . . . ex utroque processio.”
52 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 63, p. 58, lines 28–31: “Fatendum est patrem et filium principium esse spiritu sancti, non duo principia; sed sicut pater et filius ad creaturam relative unus creator, unus dominus dicitur, sic relative ad spiritum sanctum unum principium.”
53 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 68, p. 62, line 27: “omnia quecumque habet pater meus, mea sunt.”
54 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 68, p. 62, lines 29–33: “Nichil patre minus habet ille, qui dicit: omnia, que habet pater meus mea sunt. Nam si minus habet in potestate quam pater, non sunt eius omnia, que habet pater. Si eius sunt omnia, que habet pater, tantam igitur habet potestatem filius, quantam habet pater. Equalis ergo est patri; non enim potest qui accipit inequalis esse ei qui dedit.”
55 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 68, p. 63, lines 9–14.
56 Sieben, “Church Councils, 790. For examples of Augustine being appropriated during the proceedings of the council, see Quae supersunt actorum graecorum Concilii Florentini 250, 252, 314, 385, 396, 412, etc.
57 On the topic of purgatory at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, see Adhémar d'Alès, “La question du Purgatoire au concile de Florence en 1438,” Gregorianum 3, no. 1 (1922): 9–50, esp. 22–31, where Adhémar considers Torquemada's view.
58 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 80, p. 72, lines 9–11: “auctoritate sacre scripture . . . testimonio sanctorum patrum, quos universalis ecclesia semper venerata est . . . ratione.”
59 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 81, p. 72, lines 20–22: “Non enim veraciter diceretur quod non eis remittatur nec in hoc seculo nec in futuro, nisi essent quibus, etsi non remittetur in isto, tamen remittetur in futuro.”
60 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 81, p. 72, lines 17–19: “Si quis dixerit [verbum] contra spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei, nec in hoc seculo nec in futuro.”
61 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 82, p. 73, lines 4–11.
62 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 84, p. 74, lines 11–13.
63 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 84, p. 74, lines 14–15: “Iniuria est pro martire orare in ecclesia, cuius debemus orationibus commendari.”
64 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 84, p. 74, lines 16–18: “qui sine fide operante per dilectionem eiusque sacramentis de corpore exierunt, frustra pietatis officia illis impenduntur.” Soon after this, Torquemada quotes from Augustine's De baptismo 3.16.21, on Prov. 10:12, without citing him. Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 86, p. 75, lines 30–31.
65 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 86, p. 76, line 2.
66 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 86, p. 76, lines 4–8.
67 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 87, p. 76, lines 10–14.
68 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 88, p. 76, lines 27–28: “In illo enim purgatorio igne, alii tardius, alii citius purgantur, secundum quod ista pereuntia magis vel minus amaverunt.”
69 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 90, p. 79, line 3: “Que est ista vis aque, ut corpus tangat et cor abluat.” From Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus 80.15.3.
70 Gill, The Council of Florence, 121.
71 See Gill, The Council of Florence, 120–125.
72 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 110, p. 92, line 14–p. 21, line 25.
73 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 111, p. 93, lines 3–7.
74 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 113, p. 94, lines 32–33: “mitissima pena eorum erit, qui preter peccatum, quod originale traxerunt, nullum insuper addiderunt.”
75 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 113, p. 95, lines 3–7.
76 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 113, p. 95, lines 20–22: “Nulla [preter] baptismum salus promittitur infantibus, quia infantes si per sacramentum, quod ad hoc divinitus est institutum, in credentium numerum non transeant, in tenebris manent.” From Augustine, De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo paruulorum ad Marcellinum 1.34–35.
77 Although my present focus is on the reception of Augustine, the role of the Greek fathers is equally important. Alexander Alexakis, “The Greek Patristic Testimonia Presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in Support of the Filioque Reconsidered,” Revue des études byzantines 58 (2000): 149–165, offers an excellent account of the citations of the Greek fathers vis-à-vis the question of the filioque at the Council of Florence; Hanns Christof Brennecke, Athanasius von Alexandrien auf dem Konzil von Florenz (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 1–27, considers the use of Athanasius in Greek and Latin sources and across the various topics considered among them; and Bernard Meunier, “Cyrille d'Alexandrie au Concile de Florence,” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 21 (1989): 147–174, highlights the presence of Cyril of Alexandria in and around Florence, with special attention to relevant florilegia.
78 See, e.g., Torquemada, Apparatus, pars. 47–52, p. 45, line 22–p. 49, line 26.
79 See, e.g., Torquemada, Apparatus, pars. 54–57, p. 51, line 19–p. 56, line 12; par. 67, p. 63, lines 9–23; par. 106, p. 88, line 24–p. 89, line 18.
80 Kolditz, “Deux exégèses,” 97–99, includes a helpful discussion of papal primacy and the patriarchate in Torquemada's Apparatus and Eugenikos's Antirrhetic.
81 For the outline of the eighth article, see Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 114, p. 96, line 25–p. 97, line 4. For an overview of Torquemada's understanding of papal authority vis-à-vis the authority of general councils, see Binder, Konzilsgedanken, 153–211. On Torquemada's belief in the primacy and authority of the pope, see Ulrich Horst, Juan de Torquemada under Thomas de Vio Cajetan: Zwei Protagonisten der päpistlichen Gewaltenfülle (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2012), 51–110.
82 On the somewhat ambivalent character of Torquemada's broader corpus on the question of whether the pope or a council of fathers has final authority, see Brian Tierney, “‘Only truth has authority’: the problem of ‘reception’ in the Decretists and in Johannes de Turrecremata,” in Law, Church, and Society: Essays in Honor of Stephen Kuttner, ed. Kenneth Pennington and Robert Somerville (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977), 69–96.
83 Augustine maintained that Christ made his commission to Peter as the representative of the church, but he reads Jesus's giving of the keys to Peter in Matt. 16:19 in the light of John 20:22–23, wherein Jesus gave the power to forgive to all his disciples, and Matt. 18:18, where the power was given to all Christians seeking or offering pardon. Departing from the composite view offered by Augustine's corpus, which gives this power to all members of Christ's body, Torquemada takes Augustine's In Iohannis euangelium tractatus 50.12 in the Apparatus and in the Summa de ecclesia to mean that Peter represented the church in the sense of his successors in the papal office. Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 125 p. 106, lines 9–10: “Petrus, cum claves accepit, ecclesiam sanctam significavit.” See Torquemada, Summa de ecclesia 1.93; 2.70–77; 3:15–16. Conciliarists interpreting Augustine to mean that Peter represented the authority of the whole church were closer to representing his historical position on the matter. For further discussion, see Thomas M. Izbicki, “A Papalist Reading of Gratian: Juan de Torquemada on c. Quodcunque [C. 24 q. 1 c. 6],” in Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Syracuse, 13–18 August 1996, ed. Kenneth Pennington, Stanley Chodorow, and Keith H. Kendall (Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, 2001), 603–634.
84 Schmidt, “The Problem of Papal Primacy,” 43. On Montenero's argument about papal primacy as well as its immediate reception, see Schmidt, “The Problem of Papal Primacy,” 40–43. On the relation between the authority of the office of Peter or the pope and that of the ecclesia or church councils in Torquemada and John of Ragusa, with specific reference to the councils of Piza, Constance, and Basel, see Thomas Prügl, “Modelle konziliarer Kontroverstheologie. Johannes von Ragusa und Johannes von Torquemada,” in Die Konzilien von Pisa (1409), Konstanz (1414–1418), und Basel (1431–1449): Institution und Personen, ed. Heribert Müller and Johannes Helmrath (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2007), 274–286.
85 On the role of Augustine in Greek Christianity during the patristic and medieval periods, see Aristotle Papanikolaou and George E. Demacopoulos, eds., Orthodox Readings of Augustine (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2008). Although it goes beyond the purview of this essay, it is worth noting the importance of Maximos Planoudes's translation of Augustine's De Trinitate into Greek (ca. 1280). Josef Lössl, “Augustine in Byzantium,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 51 (2000): 267–295, provides a helpful summary of the state of the question on Augustine's influence on fourteenth-century Greek Christianity, and a number of important studies have been conducted to establish the influence of Augustine on Gregory Palamas (1296–1359). Reinhard Flogaus, “Der heimliche Blick nach Westen: Zur Rezeption von Augustins De trinitate durch Gregorios Palamas,” Österreichisches Jahrbuch der Byzantinistik 46 (1996): 275–297; and Josef Lössl, “Augustine's On the Trinity in Gregory Palamas's One Hundred and Fifty Chapters,” Augustinian Studies 30, no. 1 (1999): 61–82. For the view that Augustine's theology constitutes a radical departure from the fathers of the church before him and that he never functions as a father of the church for Greek Christians (an argument with which I strongly disagree), see Michael Azkoul, The Influence of Augustine of Hippo on the Orthodox Church, Texts and Studies in Religion 56 (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1990); and on the opposite side is Seraphim Rose, The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church (Platina, Calif.: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1983).
86 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 98, p. 84, line 7: “deus omnem formam intellectus nostri subterfugit.”
87 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 98, p. 84, lines 7–8: “Ergo anima a corpore separata capax est ultime beatitudinis.”
88 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 99, p. 84, lines 9–10: “non solum originalium, sed etiam voluntariorum fit remissio peccatorum.”
89 For example, in the infamous controversy of 1054, typically identified as the origin of the schism between Greek and Latin Christians, the Greeks accused the Latin Church of associating too closely with the Jews by celebrating the Eucharist with azymes.
90 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 74, p. 67, lines 29–30: “si ad scripturas sanctas admissa fuerint . . . nichil in eis remanebit auctoritatis.”
91 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 77, p. 69, lines 7–8.
92 Torquemada, Apparatus, par. 77, p. 69, lines 13–14. At Ferrara-Florence, the debate over the Eucharist centered in large part around the efficacy of Christ's words in the consecration of the Eucharist. Latins emphasized the efficacy of Christ's words, and Greeks argued for the import of the priest's role.
93 For an essential monograph on the azymes controversy between the Greeks and Latins, see Yury P. Avvakumov, Die Entstehung des Unionsgedankens: Die lateinische Theologie des Hochmittelalters in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Ritus der Ostkirche (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2002).
94 Augustine presents a particular challenge in the area of inauthentic reception. As Robert Sturges writes, “In the European Middle Ages, an era pre-dating modern notions of intellectual property and copyright, texts composed by relatively obscure authors often came to be associated with more famous and respected names, thus gaining, at least in appearance, a greater degree of authority and intellectual cachet. Spiritual and devotional writings, in particular, might be taken more seriously if they were ascribed to well-known, authoritative religious figures like the great doctors of the Church. Different manuscripts may even ascribe the same work to different authors. The case of Aug. is typical of this tendency, in that numerous works, both Latin and vernacular, some composed long after his death, were ascribed to him over the course of the Middle Ages.” Robert Sturges, “Pseudo-Augustinian Writings,” in The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, 3:1612–1616. For a somewhat outdated survey of literature on this topic, see M. de Kroon, “Pseudo-Augustin im Mittelalter. Entwurf eines Forschungsberichts,” Augustiniana 22 (1972): 511–530.