This 1959 book provides a detailed study of the Council of Florence (originally known as the Council of Basel).

The Epiclesis Debate at the Council of Florence is the first in-depth investigation into both the Greek and the Latin sides of the debate about the moment of Eucharistic transubstantiation at the Council of Florence. Christiaan Kappes examines the life and times of the central figures of the debate, Mark Eugenicus and John Torquemada, and assesses their doctrinal authority. Kappes presents a patristic and Scholastic analysis of Torquemada’s Florentine writings, revealing heretofore-unknown features of the debate and the full background to its treatises. The most important feature of the investigation involves Eugenicus. Kappes investigates his theological method and sources for the first time to give an accurate appraisal of the strength of Mark’s theological positions in the context of his own time and contemporary methods. The investigation into both traditions allows for an informed evaluation of more recent developments in the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in light of these historical sources. Kappes provides a historically contextual and contemporary proposal for solutions to the former impasse in light of the principles rediscovered within Eugenicus’s works. This monograph speaks to contemporary theological debates surrounding transubstantiation and related theological matters, and provides a historical framework to understand these debates. The Epiclesis Debate at the Council of Florence will interest specialists in theology, especially those with a background in and familiarity with the council and related historical themes, and is essential for any ecumenical library.

In 1439, by the Decree of the Council of Florence, the Union between "Latin" Roman Catholic West and "Greek" Orthodox East was officially proclaimed. Yet, this Union did not last. Although it was the beginning of what we call today the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches -- which claim more faithful than most Protestant ecclesiastical bodies -- the majority of the Eastern Orthodox Christians rejected the Union. Sergey Dezhnyuk proposes that this rejection reflected the fact that at the Council of Florence the genuine meeting of the Christian East and West did not occur. There was an appearance of the dialogue. Nevertheless, due to the truly abysmal philological and theological gaps between two camps, neither of them truly understood the position of the counterpart. Even when "Latins" and "Greeks" where speaking in the same language, the meaning of the terms they utilized was often incompatible. With the addition of political pressure and realities of the imminent threat of the conquest of Constantinople by the Osman forces, there was no chance for the Christian East and West to present their perspective views, have constructive dialogue, and come to some workable compromise. Although such theme is present in some works on the Council of Florence, the majority of academic research tends to blame the failure of the Union of Florence to one or another side of the great divide. This book points that the Union was achieved only "on the paper." It also examines the variety of the underlying reasons behind such outcome.

The greatest Christian split of all has been that between east and west, between Roman Catholic and eastern Orthodox, which is still apparent today. Henry Chadwick provides a compelling and balanced account of the emergence of divisions between Rome and Constantinople. Starting with the roots of the divergence in Apostolic times, he takes the story right up to the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century.