St. Mark of Ephesus

[theidler]

I’m sorry if I came off as being combative. My objection is that even in some Catholic scholarship (like the passages I posted above, written by a Roman Catholic priest and historian), Photius has been shown to be completely undeserving of the mythology which has been created around his person in the West. He did have a heated dispute with Pope Nicholas I over many issues (the filioque being one), and maybe even excommunicated him.

However, he was by all means a canonically elected patriarch who was unjustly deposed in favor of his predecessor deposed predecessor Ignatius, who reconciled with Ignatius even after he had been unjustly deposed for Ignatius’ reinstatement, who was canonically reinstated by a council ten years after the council which deposed him (his reinstatement was also accepted by Pope John VIII), and who died at peace with the Church. I think the picture of him being a man who fomented schism is a rather unjust assessment, because many of his actions suggest the contrary. Had the East-West schism not occurred, he might have be remembered rather differently by the West, in my honest opinion.

I obviously would not expect a Catholic of any sort to really have a good understanding of St. Mark of Ephesus, but for Photius, a man who lived before the East-West schism and died at peace with the Church (both East and West), I often wonder why he is so maligned by the West. If I recall, some Eastern Catholics actually do also venerate St. Photius, so I think they might be able to pitch in with their thoughts/feelings on whether the idea of Photius being a power-hungry schismatic is perhaps a bit blown out of proportion.

That’s alright friend
I am interested in reading up on Mark of Ephesus while I study the Christian East, but you are correct in that I do not know much of him other than some accounts of the Council of Florence and his death bed words.
You may very well be right on Photius as well - of this I have no knowledge to add, and you are far ahead of me in that area. I find it interesting that he died reconciled to the Church in the West as well - that is comforting, as unity between East and West is something I greatly hope to see in my lifetime, and this is but a small glimmer of hope in the process, if it is indeed true.

 

[Cavaradossi]

That’s alright friend
I am interested in reading up on Mark of Ephesus while I study the Christian East, but you are correct in that I do not know much of him other than some accounts of the Council of Florence and his death bed words.
You may very well be right on Photius as well - of this I have no knowledge to add, and you are far ahead of me in that area. I find it interesting that he died reconciled to the Church in the West as well - that is comforting, as unity between East and West is something I greatly hope to see in my lifetime, and this is but a small glimmer of hope in the process, if it is indeed true.

I honestly don’t know much about Mark of Ephesus either, aside from his status as the only bishop who attended Florence but refused to sign. I think that had it not been for his resistance at Florence, he probably would not be remembered in the Orthodox Church as he is today.

 

[theidler]

I honestly don’t know much about Mark of Ephesus either, aside from his status as the only bishop who attended Florence but refused to sign. I think that had it not been for his resistance at Florence, he probably would not be remembered in the Orthodox Church as he is today.

Again, I would assume that you would know far better than I. It is interesting to ponder the notion though - for us in the West, we honor St. Gemma Galgani for her holiness of life, but not for her visions and mystical experiences(mods, correct me if I am wrong!). But I would assume that in the East this is the same - therefore, Mark of Ephesus must have had a holiness of life that made him a saint in your tradition, yes? But then again, the Christian East has a different way of recognizing saints don’t they??

 

[Cavaradossi]

Again, I would assume that you would know far better than I. It is interesting to ponder the notion though - for us in the West, we honor St. Gemma Galgani for her holiness of life, but not for her visions and mystical experiences(mods, correct me if I am wrong!). But I would assume that in the East this is the same - therefore, Mark of Ephesus must have had a holiness of life that made him a saint in your tradition, yes? But then again, the Christian East has a different way of recognizing saints don’t they??

Well, there are also miracles attributed to his relics, which just like in the West makes a pretty good case for canonization in the East. There’s really not that big of a difference in how saints are recognized, except that it is a more localized process in the East.

 

[Mickey]

If I recall, some Eastern Catholics actually do also venerate St. Photius.

You recall correctly. St Photius the Great is venerated by Byzantine Catholics…and I believe other Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[theidler]

You recall correctly. St Photius the Great is venerated by Byzantine Catholics…and I believe other Eastern Catholic Churches.

That’s confusing for me how that would work in a certain sense - if Photius died reconciled to the West as well, then I am not certain what the issue is between us Catholics and the Orthodox. If Eastern Catholics are Catholic, and they venerate Photius, then why is there a separation between us as brothers in Christ? Surely the filioque cannot be the reason, as so very many probably aren’t even going to be able to wrap their heads around such heavy theological issues.
I personally think the saints of the East and West embrace in heaven, whilst we (not us, but in a general sense) bicker below. It’s truly sad beyond belief.

I think this is where the beauty of simple faith in and love of Christ comes in - all the theology in the world cannot substitute for a simple love of Christ. Just my thoughts - forgive me for my ignorance of your tradition and saints if I have shown any.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

can someone explain to me two people:

1. st. photios ( historically, etc.)
   2)Gregory palamas (teachings)

Much obliged

 

[theidler]

can someone explain to me two people:

1. st. photios ( historically, etc.)
   2)Gregory palamas (teachings)

Much obliged

I’ll let my Orthodox friends do that:thumbsup:

 

[Mickey]

if Photius died reconciled to the West as well, then I am not certain what the issue is between us Catholics and the Orthodox. If Eastern Catholics are Catholic, and they venerate Photius, then why is there a separation between us as brothers in Christ?

Hi brother. With all due respect…St Photius is a great saint in the Orthodox and some Eastern Catholic Churches…could you please use the title of “St” when you address him? Thank you.

Surely the filioque cannot be the reason

Could be?

 

[Searching_Heart]

“As for Gregory Palamas, I quite enjoy his writings - the ‘scholastic’ philosopher he debated was Barlaam, and he didn’t sound like much of a philosopher to me. Palamas writing is far beyond my skill to understand, but he is interesting to say the least, especially in terms of theology. I think he is probably the best theologian in the East, although theologian in the East is probably much different than theologian in the West.”

We seek - whether in the East or in the West, a theology of heart - do we not?

 

[theidler]

Hi brother. With all due respect…St Photius is a great saint in the Orthodox and some Eastern Catholic Churches…could you please use the title of “St” when you address him? Thank you.
Could be?

My apologies friend. I meant no offense.

 

[Mickey]

My apologies friend. I meant no offense.

I know.

 

[Searching_Heart]

Do Byzantine Catholics venerate icons and relics of St. Mark of Ephesus and do they commemorate him in their liturgies by chanting his troparion and kontakion? I’m particularly concerned about the latter. Here is the text of the kontakion:

"As one clad in invincible armour, thou didst cast down the pride of the Western rebellion. Thou didst become an instrument of the Comforter and shone forth as Orthodoxy’s defender. Therefore we cry to thee: Rejoice, O Mark, boast of the Orthodox!"

Maybe there was pride and rebellion on both sides! Lhm

 

[BertBlyleven]

Maybe there was pride and rebellion on both sides! Lhm

I think that pride is referring to a doctrine (the Filioque). But yes, there was and still is much pride on both sides.

What I am most surpised about is Orthodox rejection/condemnation of the West came not out of a council, but out of the influence and polemics of Mark of Ephesus and others. Never before in the East had such a now “universal” view hinged on one bishop, as Mark was I believe the only bishop to reject union at Florence. During the time of Mark, intercommunion was still common between Latins and Orthodox, even in Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe.

If Mark is right, God bless him. If he is wrong, Lord have mercy on him.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think that pride is referring to a doctrine (the Filioque). But yes, there was and still is much pride on both sides.

What I am most surpised about is Orthodox rejection/condemnation of the West came not out of a council, but out of the influence and polemics of Mark of Ephesus and others. Never before in the East had such a now “universal” view hinged on one bishop, as Mark was I believe the only bishop to reject union at Florence. During the time of Mark, intercommunion was still common between Latins and Orthodox, even in Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe.

If Mark is right, God bless him. If he is wrong, Lord have mercy on him.

Actually, he was not the only bishop to disapprove of Florence; he just happened to be the only one present who did not sign (the Eastern bishops numbered less than thirty at Florence). It was met with much disapproval in the East and many bishops recanted upon coming home, leaving the Church split between unionists and anti-unionists, much like in the wake of Lyons.

A for the Russians, they did not have intercommunion with the Latins by the time of Florence. In fact, there is the story of Isidore of Kiev, a metropolitan who accepted Florence. Upon returning home, he found that his fellow bishops and Grand Duke Vasily II of Moscow disapproved. He was deposed by his synod and imprisoned by the Grand Duke for his acceptance of Florence.

 

[dvdjs]

A for the Russians, they did not have intercommunion with the Latins by the time of Florence. In fact, there is the story of Isidore of Kiev, a metropolitan who accepted Florence. Upon returning home, he found that his fellow bishops and Grand Duke Vasily II of Moscow disapproved. He was deposed by his synod and imprisoned by the Grand Duke for his acceptance of Florence.

An interesting story; history is a bit different.

On the Indiana list a certain poster wrote:

A historical fact-of-note:
When Metropolitan Isidore returned to Russia after the Council of Florence, where he signed for the Union with the Pope, it was the faithful, THE PEOPLE, of Russia that reacted to this betrayal! He was banished from Russia by the people. He had to run for his life. He was banished not by the Synod of bishops, but by the Russian people.

Bishop Tikhon, then Bishop of the OCADOW replied:

Not true. Metropolitan Isidore took some time travelling around when he got back from Florence. In Lithuania and Kiev the main reaction was to refuse to recognize him as a Cardinal or Roman legate, but “only” as the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia. He was in Kholm on the 27th of July, 1440. And when he finally got to Moscow, March 19, 1441, preceded by his notorious Latin cross, he went to the Kremlin and served Divine Liturgy in the presence of the Great Prince, the Bishops and clergy and the nobility and government sorts. At the Liturgy, instead of commemorating the Constantinopolitan Patriarch, he commemorated the Pope of Rome, Eugene. At the end of the Liturgy, he had his Protodeacon in Stikharion and Orarion go out on the Amvon and proclaim the Act of Union, signed on the 5th of July 1439. This means he joined the Unia in 1439. He came back to Russian territory one year after that, and travelled around for a couple years before this Liturgy in the Kremlin. After the Protodeacon got through, Isidore presented a personal letter from the Pope, asking him to help Isidore introduce the Union. Everybody was surprised: so much so, that not one boyar, prince, or bishop advised the Great Prince one word. The Prince didn’t know what to do either. He considered the matter all by himself for THREE days and finally, on the 4th day, he commanded that Isidore should be thrown into prison. With that, as the Chronicle goes, all the boyars and the bishops and the princes and the multitude of the people, suddenly recalled their Greek heritage, the docrines, the holy writings and began to call Isidore a heretic.

It seems obvious that after Isidore’s return from Florence more than a year before, there could have been no “shock” or horrified sudden reaction of the people. Contrary to what [the poster] wrote, it was the firm stand of no other than the Great Prince that was responsible for Isidore’s rejection. Isidore was “jailed” (house arrest) in the Chudov monastery, a small council condemned him as a heretic and sentenced him, but there began to be talk of a larger council that might condemn him to be burned at the stake. So Isidore “escaped” the night of 15 September 1441, and when the Prince heard it he commanded that he be not be pursued and allowed to flee. Now that shows that [the] claim that “the people” drove him out of Russia ([this] legend began in around the 17 century), is not a fact at all, let alone “A Historical Fact of Note.” “The People” did not banish Isidore. The Great Prince arrested him (eventually) and locked him up, condemned him, and let him escape and flee. Them’s the facts, folks.

See Volume Two, “Moscow Period from the Mongol Onslaught until Metropolitan Markary, Inclusive”, of Golubinski’s HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH.

The rejection of Florence in Moscow was the unilateral decision of the Great Prince.

I would also like to ask for some documentation about the lack of intercommunion. If by “Russian” you mean Muscovites, I imagine that this might be so, but the situation in the south and west of Rus was considerably more fluid.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

In his talk in the role of the papacy in the Church, Fr. Robert Taft points out that, like St. Mark of Ephesus, plenty of Roman saints have been canonized simply for the opposition to a perceived danger in their times.

As to the question of whether or not Mark of Ephesus is venerated by Eastern Catholics and his feast day celebrated liturgically, that’s a good question. I’ll have to look into that one. I believe my own parish has an icon of him on our walls though.

 

[Mickey]

Actually, he was not the only bishop to disapprove of Florence; he just happened to be the only one present who did not sign (the Eastern bishops numbered less than thirty at Florence). It was met with much disapproval in the East and many bishops recanted upon coming home, leaving the Church split between unionists and anti-unionists, much like in the wake of Lyons.

A for the Russians, they did not have intercommunion with the Latins by the time of Florence. In fact, there is the story of Isidore of Kiev, a metropolitan who accepted Florence. Upon returning home, he found that his fellow bishops and Grand Duke Vasily II of Moscow disapproved. He was deposed by his synod and imprisoned by the Grand Duke for his acceptance of Florence.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

 

[Ghosty]

In his talk in the role of the papacy in the Church, Fr. Robert Taft points out that, like St. Mark of Ephesus, plenty of Roman saints have been canonized simply for the opposition to a perceived danger in their times.

As to the question of whether or not Mark of Ephesus is venerated by Eastern Catholics and his feast day celebrated liturgically, that’s a good question. I’ll have to look into that one. I believe my own parish has an icon of him on our walls though.

The difference is that, from a Catholic perspective, Mark was opposed to something that is not an error, and is in fact accepted within the Church. That makes his veneration in the Catholic Church a bit less likely.

But yes, many Saints are commemorated simply because of their opposition to something; that in itself would not be a reason to blacklist Mark of Ephesus.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Actually, he was not the only bishop to disapprove of Florence; he just happened to be the only one present who did not sign (the Eastern bishops numbered less than thirty at Florence). It was met with much disapproval in the East and many bishops recanted upon coming home, leaving the Church split between unionists and anti-unionists, much like in the wake of Lyons.

A for the Russians, they did not have intercommunion with the Latins by the time of Florence. In fact, there is the story of Isidore of Kiev, a metropolitan who accepted Florence. Upon returning home, he found that his fellow bishops and Grand Duke Vasily II of Moscow disapproved. He was deposed by his synod and imprisoned by the Grand Duke for his acceptance of Florence.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!