St.

Mark of Ephesus
(1392 - 1444)

Mark Eugenikos, Archbishop of Ephesus, was born Manuel to George and

Maria,
both of devout and well-known families in Constantinople, the capital
of the
Byzantine Empire and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox
Church.

Manuel's father died when he was 13, after which he dedicated himself
to his
scholarly pursuits. He became a brilliant student of theology and
rhetoric
and also distinguished himself by his kind manner and his holy life.
Both
the Patriarch (Euthymios II of Constantinople) and the Emperor (Manuel
II
Paleologos) took note of him, and at a young age he became principal
of the
Patriarchal School and personal secretary to the Emperor.

At age 26 he entered the monastery on the island of Antigone in the

Sea of
Marmara, where he subjected himself to a harsh asceticism. After two
years,
due to concerns about Turkish attacks, he relocated to the Monastery
of St.
George at Mangan, behind the fortified walls of the capital. There he
was
tonsured a monk and took the name Mark, after the Evangelist. At 28
he was
ordained a deacon and two years later a priest.

At that time the eastern part of the Byzantine Empire had been
conquered by
the Turks, and Emperor Manuel entered into negotiations with Pope
Martin V,
hoping to convene an ecumenical council to achieve a union of the two
churches, and thereby to gain the military assistance of the western
European
monarchs. These negotiations were interrupted, however, when the
emperor
suffered a stroke.

After the unsuccessful siege of Constantinople in 1422 by the Ottoman

Sultan
Murad II, the emperor's son and successor, John VIII Paleologos,
undertook
fresh negotiations with the new Pope, Eugene IV, and made preparations
for an
ecumenical council. The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem
declined to appear personally at the council, but grudgingly appointed
representatives. The Patriarch of Alexandria chose for one of his
representatives the priest-monk Mark Eugenikos, whose theological
works had
gained him fame throughout the empire.
Both the emperor and the patriarch (Joseph II of Constantinople)
wished for
Mark to be ordained a bishop in order to occupy the place of chief
theologian
of the Orthodox delegation at the council. At age 46 Mark was
elevated to
the rank of metropolitan (archbishop) of the See of Ephesus, which had
been
vacated by the death of Metropolitan Ioasaph. Speaking of his hopes
for the
council, St. Mark said:

I placed my hope in God and in the common saints shared between the
Eastern and Western Churches. Indeed, I believed all would proceed
well
with us and that we would achieve something great and worthy of all
our
labor and hopes.[1]

On November 27, 1437, seven hundred bishops, abbots, monks, priests,

and
laymen set sail for Italy. This Orthodox delegation included Emperor
John,
Patriarch Joseph, and twenty-two bishops, among which was Metropolitan
Mark
of Ephesus.

The first meeting of the council was held on Holy Wednesday, April 9,
1438,
at the Cathedral of St. George in Ferrara, Italy. After 14 sessions
in
Ferrara, the last of which was on December 13, Pope Eugene transferred
the
council to a new location (due to financial considerations) on January
12,
1439. The council reconvened in Florence on February 26 and was
concluded on
July 5.

This was not the first time that such a reunion had been attempted.
Negotiations to restore ecclesiastical communion between Rome and
Constantinople had been undertaken approximately 30 times since the
Great
Schism of 1054. The most notable of these prior attempts was at the
Council
of Lyons in 1274. It too was motivated in large part by the desire of
Emperor Michael VIII for military help from the papacy. Of that
council
Timothy Ware writes:

But the union proved no more than an agreement on paper, since it

was
fiercely rejected by the overwhelming majority of clergy and laity
in the
Byzantine Church, as well as by Bulgarian and the other Orthodox
countries. The general reaction to the Council of Lyons was summed
up in
words attributed to the Emperor's sister: "Better that my brother's
Empire
should perish, than the purity of the Orthodox faith."[2]
At Ferrara-Florence the primary issues in dispute were: (1) the
procession of
the Holy Spirit (that is, the addition by the Latin Church of the
filioque
clause to the Nicene Creed); (2) the primacy of the Pope; (3)
purgatory; and
(4) the use of unleavened bread (azymes) in the Eucharist. (There was
another important subject that some of the delegates wished to
discuss, the
distinction in Orthodox theology between the divine "essence" and the
divine
"energies," but the Byzantine Emperor, wanting to avoid further
impediments
to reunion, forbid the Greek participants to discuss this issue.)

The Filioque

Since the earliest days of the church, candidates for baptism into the
Christian community were required to profess the Christian faith in
the form
of a short doctrinal summary, a "creed" (from the Latin credo, "I
believe").

The First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea I, 325 A.D.) and the Second
Ecumenical
Council (Constantinople I, 381) adopted what came to be known as the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, or simply the Nicene Creed. This
creed was
based on the earlier baptismal creeds of the church, but was expanded
somewhat to clarify the church's teaching regarding the divinity of
Christ
and to combat the Aryan heresy spreading in the church at that time,
which
held that Christ was a created being rather than eternally God. The
Nicene
Creed was universally accepted in both east and west as the foremost
statement of Christian doctrine, "the symbol of faith." (For the text
of the
creed, see appendix.)

In 589 a local council in Toledo, Spain, added a phrase to the creed

so that
it said, "I believe... in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of
Life, who
proceeds from the Father and the Son" (filioque in Latin). This
addition was
made ostensibly as a further defense against Aryanism. Rome initially
rejected the change to the ancient creed. In fact, in the ninth
century,
Pope Leo III had the original creed, without the filioque, inscribed
on
silver plaques at St. Peter's Basilica. Soon after 1000 A.D.,
however, the
Church of Rome accepted the change.

The subject of the filioque occupied by far the greatest part of the
council's discussions. The following excerpt from "The Lives of the
Pillars
of Orthodoxy" describes the Orthodox objection to the filioque:
 Indeed, this was the most painful question between the Orthodox and
the
Latins. The Greeks, led by St. Mark, insisted that any
introduction into
the Creed -- Filioque or not -- was uncanonical. Some Popes prior
to
Eugene would not sanction this addition and, at other times, other
Popes
supported it. However, it gradually became a permanent part of the
Creed
in the West, and succeeding Popes reinforced this heretical
teaching,
declaring that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the hypostases of God
the
Father and God the Son, that is, His existence is from both
hypostases.
In an attempt to combat Arianism, the West created two causes in
the
Godhead. The Orthodox affirm that the Father is the only Source of
the
Son and the Spirit -- the One begotten eternally from Him and the
Other
proceeding eternally from Him. God, therefore, is One because the
Father
is the Source of Divinity and that which makes the unity.

The Filioque addition had been gradual, yet the Third and Fourth
Ecumenical Councils enacted a strict decree that, in the Creed, no
word
could be changed, added or subtracted -- not even a syllable. Upon
those
that dared to make alterations, terrible condemnations were laid.
[3]

St. Mark, against the strong objections of the Latins, insisted that
the
canons of the church pertaining to the disputed issues should be read
aloud
before anything else. He read the decrees of the Third, Fourth,
Fifth,
Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, as well as quotations from
various
saints, including several popes, all of which affirmed the original
creed and
forbid any changes to it.

Many of the Latin monks present at the council, after hearing the
decrees
and acts of the Ecumenical Councils, together with Mark's
explanation,
confessed that they never heard anything like it previously. They
exclaimed that the Greeks teach more correctly than their divines,
and
marveled at Mark of Ephesus.[4]

Nonetheless, the Latins offered several arguments in defense of the

filioque:
that the filioque was not an addition to the creed, but merely an
explanation; that the pope, as supreme head of the church, has the
authority
to make such an explanatory insertion into the creed; and that the
decrees of
the councils forbid only unorthodox changes to the creed.

A compromise was sought in a formula which the Greeks accepted, which

said
that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father through the Son."
However,
once the Greeks had accepted this formula, the Latins then insisted
that
"through the Son" and "from the Son" meant the same thing; therefore,
the
filioque should be accepted as it is: "from the Father and the Son"!
Archbishop Mark continued to insist on the distinction between "from
the Son"
and "through the Son," saying, "If we accept that the Holy Spirit
proceeds
also from the Son, then we abolish the monarchy in the Godhead and
accept two
causes of the Godhead."[5]

Papal authority

It is clear from the New Testament and other early Christian writings
from
the apostolic period that since the first century there have been
three
levels of ordination in the church: deacon, priest (or presbyter), and
bishop. (The term "diaconate" is used to refer to the office of
deacon or to
all deacons collectively; likewise, the "presbytery" refers to priests
and
the priesthood, and the "episcopate" to bishops and their office.)
The
bishop is the head of a local Christian community. He presides over
the
eucharistic worship of the church; he is ultimately responsible for
teaching
and defending true doctrine. Like a father in a family, he is the
symbol and
guardian of the church's unity and is responsible to maintain godly
discipline and order within the church entrusted to his care. In a
city or
region with more than one local parish, priests act under the
authority of
the bishop to preside over the eucharist and offer the other
sacraments at
each local parish, since the bishop cannot be at all of them
personally.
Deacons are servants ordained for ministry within the church. They
assist
the priest at the liturgy and serve the church in other capacities as
necessary. However, they cannot offer sacraments independently of the
priest
and have no special authority within the church with respect to
doctrine or
church order.

By the early fourth century, five cities in the Christian world had
taken on
a special role because of their importance in the Roman Empire. The
bishops
of these cities came to be called "patriarchs." Other bishops often
looked
to them for leadership and moral authority in doctrinal or
disciplinary
questions facing the church as a whole. Foremost among the five
patriarchs
was the bishop of Rome, the Pope. These patriarchates (and the
papacy) do
not represent a "fourth" degree of ordination within the church; the
patriarchs are still bishops. Differing interpretations of the role
of the
papacy in the church has been a major point of tension between the
Roman
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, especially after the Great
Schism of
1054.

The statement of the Roman position presented to the council read, "We
likewise define that the holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold
the
primacy throughout the world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is
the
successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true
vicar of
Christ. The Pope is the head of the entire Church, and the father and
teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in
blessed
Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed, rule and govern the universal
Church... Moreover, we renew the order of the other venerable
Patriarchs,
which was handed down in the sacred canons, that the Patriarch of
Constantinople will be the second after the holy Roman Pontiff.
Third,
indeed, is Alexandria; fourth, moreover, is Antioch, and fifth is
Jerusalem..."[6]

In contrast to the universal supremacy and immediate jurisdiction

which the
Roman Church ascribes to the papacy, St. Mark explained the Orthodox
view
succinctly when he wrote, "For us, the Pope is as one of the
Patriarchs --
and only if he is Orthodox"[7] (meaning, that he adheres to the
Orthodox
faith and does not depart from it).

Purgatory

The recently published "Catechism of the Catholic Church" defines the

Roman
Church's doctrine of purgatory as follows: "All who die in God's grace
and
friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of
their
eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to
achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church
gives
the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is
entirely
different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated
her
doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence
and
Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of
Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire..."[8]

The Orthodox objection to the doctrine of purgatory, expounded at the

council
by Metropolitan Bessarion of Nicaea and by Mark of Ephesus, is that
the Latin
doctrine rests on a distinction between a temporal and an eternal
fire, a
distinction which the Orthodox reject. "Bessarion continued by
explaining
that there is one eternal fire only. The temporal punishment of
sinful souls
consists in that they, for a time, depart into a place of darkness and
sorrow
where they are punished by being deprived of the Divine Light.
However, they
can be delivered from this place of darkness and sorrow through the
prayers
of the Church, the Holy Eucharist and deeds of charity done in their
name --
but not by fire."[9]

Thus, both churches affirm that the soul undergoes continued

purification
after death, but the Orthodox deny (or, at least, refuse to affirm)
that a
purgatorial fire is the means of such purification.

Azymes

Differing liturgical practices existed in the Latin West and the Greek
East.
One notable difference was the use of unleavened bread (azymes) in the
eucharist by the Latin church and the use of leavened bread in the
eastern
churches. Ware sums up the council's treatment of this issue: "The
Florentine Union was based on a twofold principle: unanimity in
matters of
doctrine; respect for the legitimate rites and traditions peculiar to
each
Church... so far as 'azymes' were concerned, no uniformity was
demanded:
Greeks were allowed to use leavened bread, while Latins were to
continue to
employ unleavened."[10]

St. Mark's defense of Orthodoxy

As the discussions dragged on, concern for theological understanding

and
agreement gave way to worldly motives on both sides: of the Pope (to
subject
the eastern churches to his ecclesiastical authority) and of the
Byzantine
Emperor (for military help from the west).

In an effort to expedite the talks and facilitate union, the Byzantine

Emperor John excluded the two most fierce defenders of the Orthodox
faith,
Mark of Ephesus and Anthony of Heraclea, confining Mark to his cell
and even
posting guards at his door to prevent him from leaving. A formula of
union
was drawn up in which the Orthodox accepted the Roman Church's
position on
every disputed point of doctrine. Even the Byzantine Patriarch Joseph
had a
private meeting with St. Mark to persuade him to sign the decree. But
Mark
was steadfast: "In matters of faith, there must be no concessions and
no
wavering."[11]

Eight days after urging the other Orthodox delegates to sign the
decree,
Patriarch Joseph died. Emperor John took over the direction of the
church,
an action which St. Mark condemned: "Let no one dominate in our faith:
neither emperor, nor hierarch, nor false council, nor anyone else, but
only
the one God, who both himself and through his disciples has handed it
down to
us."[12]

Both the pope and the Byzantine emperor sought to intimidate the
Orthodox
delegates into submission. The pope threatened to withhold military
aid
unless the Orthodox signed. The Orthodox delegation was out of food
and
money, and the Latins threatened to withhold payment of the promised
stipends
for travel and living expenses. Bribes were offered to Orthodox
delegates in
return for their signatures. One of the Russian bishops who did not
at first
sign the decree was arrested and imprisoned for a week until he agreed
to
sign. A few bishops and laymen feared for their lives and fled the
city. In
the end, Mark of Ephesus was the only Orthodox bishop who remained at
Florence but refused to sign the decree of union. "Orthodoxy was more
precious to Mark than the State; Orthodoxy was the eternal treasure,
the true
Church of those being saved. The Byzantine state is of the earth; it
was
born, flourished and would die. Yet Orthodoxy is eternal and must be
preserved as an eternal light."[13] But as to the other delegates,
"though
in their hearts many did not wish to sign, yet they trampled on their
Orthodox conscience for fear of death, for money, for food, or to
appease the
Emperor."[14]
In fairness, it should be said that not all of the delegates on the
Roman
side agreed with such tactics. One of the foremost of the Latin
theologians,
the Dominican provincial John de Montenero, repeatedly insisted that
Mark of
Ephesus be permitted to return to the talks, but the Byzantine Emperor
refused.

On July 5, 1439, the Florentine Union was confirmed. After the Greek
bishops
had signed the decree, while Pope Eugene was signing, he inquired
whether
Mark of Ephesus had signed. When he was told that Mark had not, he
exclaimed, "Then we have accomplished nothing!"[15] Nevertheless, a
service
celebrating the union was held the next day, and the Greeks then
returned to
Constantinople.

On February 1, 1440, ships carrying the Greeks sailed into the

Golden
Horn. Through the merchants that had been in Ferrara and Florence,
the
fame and achievements of Mark arrived before him in the capital.
After
reporting his valiant steadfastness, the people were waiting to
applaud
and cheer their hero...

One described the people's behavior towards Mark, thus: "The

Ephesian
beheld that the crowd glorified him because he did not sign. The
multitudes venerated him as the Israelites of old did Moses and
Aaron.
All lauded him and called him 'saint.'" Even those that were
against Mark
said, "He neither received gifts nor gold" from the Pope.

Horrified, the faithful avoided the bishops that had signed and
even cast
insults at them. The clergy that remained in Constantinople also
would
not concelebrate with the unionists. In due time, the eastern
Patriarchs
announced that they were not bound by anything that their
representatives
had signed. The venerable Mark was called a new St. Athanasios and
St.
John the Theologian. He was considered a confessor and martyr by
almost
the entire body of the Greek Church. He was met with universal
enthusiasm
and respect.[16]

St. Mark, though now suffering from terminal cancer, spent the
remaining four
years of his life speaking and writing against the false union. In
May 1440,
the day before the installation of the new pro-union Patriarch
Metrophanes II
of Cyzicus, Mark and Anthony of Heraclea fled the capital. Mark
returned to
his flock in Ephesus, which was now under Turkish rule. He traveled
throughout the region, visiting the churches and priests in his
diocese.
Shortly thereafter, because of his failing health and because he knew
that he
lacked approval to continue serving in Ephesus, he set sail for Mt.
Athos,
desiring monastic solitude. On the way, his ship stopped at the island
of
Limnos, which was still a Byzantine possession. Emperor John ordered
the
police to arrest him, and he remained confined there for two years.

In his "Encyclical to All Orthodox Christians on the Mainland and in

the
Islands" (1440-41), he set forth the Orthodox position against western
innovations with respect to the filioque, the divine essence and
energies,
purgatory, azymes, and the papacy.

After his release, he was too weak for the monastic asceticism of Mt.
Athos,
so he returned to his childhood home in Constantinople, where he died
on June
23, 1444, at the age of 52.

Timothy Ware summarizes the aftermath of the Council of Florence:

But the union of Florence, though celebrated throughout western

Europe --
bells were rung in all the parish churches of England -- proved no
more of
a reality in the east than its predecessor at Lyons. John VIII and
his
successor Constantine XI, the last Emperor of Byzantium and the
eightieth
in succession since Constantine the Great, both remained loyal to
the
union; but they were powerless to enforce it on their subjects, and
did
not even dare to proclaim it publicly at Constantinople until 1452.
Many
of those who signed at Florence revoked their signatures when they
reached
home. The decrees of the Council were never accepted by more than
a
minute fraction of the Byzantine clergy and people. The Grand Duke
Lucas
Notaras, echoing the words of the Emperor's sister after Lyons,
remarked:
"I would rather see the Muslim turban in the midst of the city than
the
Latin mitre."

John and Constantine had hoped that the Union of Florence would
secure
 them military help from the west, but small indeed was the help
which they
actually received. On 7 April 1453 the Turks began to attack
Constantinople by land and sea. Outnumbered by more than twenty to
one,
the Byzantines maintained a brilliant but hopeless defence for
seven long
weeks. In the early hours of 29 May the last Christian service was
held
in the great Church of the Holy Wisdom. It was a united service of
Orthodox and Roman Catholics, for at this moment of crisis the
supporters
and opponents of the Florentine Union forgot their differences.
The
Emperor went out after receiving communion, and died fighting on
the
walls. Later the same day the city fell to the Turks, and the most
glorious church in Christendom became a mosque.[17]

The first official repudiation of the Florentine Union came in April

1443
when the three Patriarchs Joachim of Jerusalem, Philotheos of
Alexandria, and
Dorotheos of Antioch met in Jerusalem and condemned the Council of
Florence
as "vile" and Patriarch Metrophanes of Constantinople as a heretic.
However,
the Byzantine Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and a few
other
clergy in the capital city remained loyal to the union. It was not
until the
Synod of 1472 that Patriarch Symeon I of Constantinople also
repudiated the
union.

In February 1734 the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople under

Patriarch Seraphim I canonized Mark of Ephesus as a saint, instituting
January 19th as the date of his commemoration:

All of us of the holy Eastern Church of Christ acknowledge the holy

Mark
Evgenikos of Ephesus. We honor and receive this saintly, God-
bearing and
righteous man as a zealot of ardent piety, who was a champion of
all our
sacred dogmas and correct piety. He is an emulator and equal to
the holy
theologians, and those that adorned the Church of ancient times.
[18]

A Model for Ecumenical Relations Today

The life of St. Mark of Ephesus and the history of the Council of
Florence
hold many lessons for those of us concerned with Christian unity and
ecumenical relations today.

Within six years after the Council of Florence, the Roman Church also
signed
decrees of union with the Armenians, the Coptic Church of Egypt, the
Ethiopians, the Syrian Church of Mesopotamia, the Nestorians of
Chaldea, and
the Maronites of Cyprus. One can only imagine that the ecumenical
fervor of
our own times would have paled beside this dramatic succession of
reunification agreements in the fifteenth century. Ironically, the
Orthodox
probably shot themselves in the foot by inadvertently strengthening
the power
of the papacy in this way. For at the same time that the Greeks were
signing
the decree of union with Pope Eugene at Florence, another council of
Latin
bishops at Basle had deposed him as pope and had issued a decree
severely
limiting the power of the papacy and declaring the pope to be subject
to the
decisions of general councils of the church. It is perhaps useless,
but
tempting nonetheless, to wonder "what might have been" had the
Byzantines not
been so eager to receive military aid from the west. Perhaps a Roman
Catholic Church with a much more balanced view of papal authority and
the
conciliarity of bishops would have been the result, and we might be
far
closer to true unity today. As it turned out, however, Pope Eugene
was
victorious over the conciliarist council at Basle, and Pope Felix V,
whom the
council had installed in his place, resigned.

Those involved in reunion efforts today should take note of these

events. By
rushing to conclude a premature decree of union, important
developments
within the churches involved might be thwarted. Thus, two churches
that are
courting one another would do well to heed Solomon's words: "Do not
arouse or
awaken love until it so desires."[19] The recent overtures of the
Pope and
the Ecumenical Patriarch toward each other have raised strong
criticism from
some quarters within the Orthodox Church. It is not at all
unrealistic to
imagine that a hasty decree of union between the Roman Catholic and
Orthodox
churches today, if it does not deal honestly with the underlying
theological
issues, would very likely result in a schism within the Orthodox
Church.

But does this mean that we should give up hope for any greater unity
and
abandon such efforts altogether? Not at all.

Before becoming Orthodox, I attended a Roman Catholic church for three

years,
went through the Catholic Church's adult catechism classes (RCIA, the
Rite of
Christian Initiation for Adults), and considered becoming Catholic. I
have
always had great respect for the Catholic Church's strong moral stand
on
issues related to marriage, family, sexuality, and the sanctity of
life. I
love the beauty and simplicity of the Roman liturgy. Some of my
Orthodox
friends joke that I am a "Roman spy" who has infiltrated the Orthodox
Church.
Indeed, it is my sincere hope that the Roman Catholic Church and the
Orthodox
Churches may be reunited one day.

Thus, my choice of St. Mark of Ephesus as a patron saint may seem

ironic to
some. After all, wasn't it he who so adamantly opposed reunion with
Rome at
the Council of Florence? Certainly there are some Orthodox who oppose
any
kind of ecumenical dialogue with other churches (either Roman Catholic
or
Protestant) and who have found St. Mark of Ephesus to be a rich source
of
quotations for their anti-Catholic polemics. For example, he said of
the
Latins, "They are not only schismatics, but heretics... Therefore, we
must
not have union, until they remove the addition [the filioque] from the
Symbol
and confess the Symbol as we do."[20] And, "If the Latins have not
departed
from the correct Faith, then we have cut them off unjustly. However,
if they
have departed from the Faith, regarding the theology of the Holy
Spirit, to
Whom to blaspheme is the greatest of all perils, clearly, they are
heretics,
and we have cut them off as heretics."[21]

To be sure, this is not the "nice" dialogue of ecumenical relations

today, in
which the only heresy is to call someone a heretic. But these
sometimes
harsh-sounding statements of St. Mark must be understood in the
context in
which they were made. St. Mark and the other Orthodox delegates went
to the
council with the hope of engaging in true theological dialogue and
coming to
a common understanding of the faith. Instead they found political
manipulation, intrigue, deception, bribery, and coercion. After many
months
of discussion, no progress had been made, and the Greeks who, like St.
Mark,
wished to preserve the purity of the Orthodox faith were
understandably
frustrated. "Saint Mark also made it clear that the Orthodox
hierarchs had
not come to Italy to sign a capitulation. The Orthodox would not sell
the
Faith for the benefit of their crumbling state. Their purpose in
attending
the council was for the confirmation of true doctrine."[22]

Contrast the later harsh statements of St. Mark about the Roman Church
with
his earlier, more hopeful statements about the possibility of reunion.
For
example, he had said at one of the council sessions, "We neither came
here to
contradict one another nor to display skills of refutation. We came
here
simply to discuss union peacefully and with love."[23] Similarly, his
closing words at the council in Ferrara, before it was transferred to
Florence:

We beseech you, fathers, brothers, honorable sirs, as we besought

you
earlier, in the bowels of compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ:
whoever
amongst us has love, though they are useless, pitiable, sinners and
hopeless, come back into good concord with us and the holy Fathers,
which
we possessed when East and West were the same, when there was no
schism
and we considered one another as brothers. Let us revere our
common
Fathers and honor their decrees and fear their threats; let us
preserve
the traditions. Let us all together, with the same Faith,
perceptions,
and dispositions, with one mind and heart, glorify the all-
honorable and
majestic name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now
and ever
and unto the ages of ages. Amen.[24]

One of the implications of St. Mark's statements is that the only

legitimate
reason for two Christian churches to be divided is a disagreement in
matters
of faith. We do not remain separated simply because we do not like
each
other, or because we have a different culture or language. Rather,
heresy
(deviation from orthodox doctrine) is the only excuse for schism.
And,
indeed, the doctrines of papal supremacy and infallibility and the
filioque
addition to the creed continue to be the two major obstacles to
reunion
between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches today.

How ironic, then, for those who oppose all ecumenical dialogue to
invoke St.
Mark of Ephesus, who devoted so much effort to such dialogue and who
was one
of the leading theologians at a council whose purpose was to reunite
the two
divided churches! The lesson we are to learn from the holy example of
St.
Mark of Ephesus is not to eschew discussions with other Christians;
rather,
it is that such discussion must take place in an atmosphere of mutual
love
and respect, free of coercion; and that the motivation must be real
unity of
faith, not political expediency.

It is unfortunately true that much of the ecumenical activity of this

century, as manifested by the World Council of Churches and the like,
has
often been characterized more by left-wing politics than by any real
concern
for Christian truth. For that reason, the very word "ecumenical" has
gotten
a bad rap among conservative, traditional Christians who wish to
preserve the
Christian revelation. In much of the ecumenical movement of recent
times we
see a reflection of the same mistakes of the Council of Florence: a
concern
with politics over faith and with outward appearances over truth. But
that
does not mean that all dialogue is inherently bad. If that were so,
the
Orthodox Church would not have canonized Mark of Ephesus as a saint.

In light of what we have learned from St. Mark and the Council of
Florence of
the fifteenth century and from the World Council of Churches and the
ecumenical movement of our own century, I would like to offer the
following
principles which should guide ecumenical dialogue between divided
churches:

1. Discussions must take place in an atmosphere of love and mutual

respect.
This requires a willingness to learn and understand the history,
traditions, and theological language of the other Christians from
whom we
have been separated.

2. The goal and precondition of union must be true mutual agreement in

matters of doctrine and unity in one common faith.

3. Respect for the legitimate rites of each church allows for

liturgical
diversity while insisting on doctrinal uniformity.

4. Political goals must not be permitted to cloud our theological

vision.

5. There must be no coercion, no efforts to bring one church under the

domination of another.

While there have been many examples of "bad" ecumenism that ignores
one or
more of these principles, I believe that a "good" ecumenism which
honors them
is possible, and I would like to offer two recent examples of this
"good"
kind of ecumenism.

One example is the 1994 document entitled "Evangelicals and Catholics

Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium" signed by 40
well-known Roman Catholic and evangelical Protestant clergy and lay
people.
The document was hopeful in its statements of mutual respect,
understanding,
and cooperation, while also being forthright about doctrinal
differences
which still pose an obstacle to full communion. There was no effort
here to
sweep such issues under the rug for the sake of an outward appearance
of
unity.

A second example is the recent Rose Hill/Touchstone conference

entitled "Not
of This World: An Ecumenical Conference for Traditional Christians."
About
150 clergy and lay people -- Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox
-- met
in Aiken, South Carolina, for a week to affirm their common commitment
to the
ancient faith, to oppose efforts within any church or denomination to
corrupt
that faith by theological liberalism and philosophical relativism, and
to
stand against the increasing secularization of our culture which is
hostile
to any public expression of religious faith or moral conviction.

One of the interesting characteristics of both of these examples was

the
substantial involvement of theologically educated lay people. These
were not
top-down efforts of an ecclesiastical hierarchy to impose union on an
unwilling laity. What ultimately caused the failure of the reunion
councils
of Lyons and Florence was the fact that they were signed by the
bishops for
political reasons, but were never accepted by the laity as a true
expression
of our common faith. By contrast, the examples of "good" ecumenism we
have
seen recently have been grass-roots movements of lay people who want
to seek
greater unity with our separated brothers. This is a positive sign.

Therefore, let us honor St. Mark's example of faith and piety. Let us
fear
God more than the threats of men. Let us love truth more than
political
gain. Let us pray for one another. Let us ask for the intercessions
of the
holy men and women who suffered to preserve the faith which we have
received.

O all-laudable and most divine Mark, in you the Church found a

great
 zealot by your confession of the holy and sacred faith: for you
championed
the doctrines which the Fathers taught, and cast down darkness'
boastful
pride. Wherefore, pray to Christ God for those that honor you,
that we be
granted the forgiveness of sins. (Dismissal Hymn, Tone Three) [25]

______________________________________________________________________
______

Appendix: the Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
of all
things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten,
begotten of
the Father before all ages, light of light, true God of true God,
begotten
not made, of one essence with the Father, through whom all things were
made,
who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was
incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And he was
crucified
for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; and on the
third
day he rose again according to the Scriptures; and he ascended into
heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father. And he will come again
in
glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no
end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from
the
Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshipped
and
glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

In one holy catholic and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism

for the
remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
life of
the world to come. Amen.

______________________________________________________________________
______

References

The Orthodox Church, 1st edition, revised; Timothy Ware; Penguin Books
Ltd;
Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England; 1963; pp. 70-71,80-81.

Bible and Church History; Vol. 3 of The Orthodox Faith: An Elementary

Handbook on the Orthodox Church, 2nd edition; Fr. Thomas Hopko;
Department
of Religious Education, Orthodox Church in America; New York; 1979;
 p. 179.

The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy: Saint Photius the Great,

Patriarch of
Constantinople, Saint Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica,
and
Saint Mark Evgenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus; Vol. 5 of hardbound
series
published by Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete; Buena
Vista,
Colorado; 1990; pp. 372-500.

Catechism of the Catholic Church; Liberia Editrice Vaticana; Liguori

Publications; Liguori, Missouri; 1994; pp. 268-269.

______________________________________________________________________
______

Endnotes

[1] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 385

[2] The Orthodox Church, p. 71
[3] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 418
[4] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 424
[5] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 450
[6] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, pp. 389-90
[7] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 490
[8] Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1030-31
[9] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 406
[10] The Orthodox Church, p. 80
[11] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 457
[12] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 462
[13] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, pp. 450-51
[14] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 465
[15] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 468
[16] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, pp. 477-78
[17] The Orthodox Church, pp. 80-81
[18] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 500
[19] Song of Solomon 3:5
[20] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 453
[21] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 488
[22] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 402
[23] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 432
[24] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 433
[25] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 372

______________________________________________________________________
______
This article is copyright 1995 by Mark Swearingen. All rights are
reserved
by the author.
https://web.archive.org/web/20010123192200/http://www.ephesus.com/Orthodox/St.Mark-
of-Ephesus.txt