St. Mark of Ephesus

[Phillip_Rolfes]

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!

There have been saints within the Roman Church who supported anti-Popes during the Great Western Schism. So it would seem that supporting or opposing a perceived error is not enough within the Catholic Church to keep one from becoming a saint.

A cursory glance at the Melkite Menalogion reveals that the Melkites do not revere St. Mark of Ephesus liturgically. I’ll have to check somewhere more detailed than my Publican’s Prayer Book, so I’m open to correction.

 

[Cavaradossi]

An interesting story; history is a bit different.

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.

Strange, I was under the impression that he was imprisoned not one but twice by the Great Prince Vasily II, about twenty years apart. I’ll have to look for some sources about that.

As for a lack of intercommunion, I’ll give that it’s possible that the southern and western parts of Rus’ had intercommunion, because of their proximity.

 

[Cavaradossi]

An interesting story; history is a bit different.

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.

He was also deposed, I believe by a synod of six bishops (of course, Grand Prince Vasily II had considerable influence over the synod, I’m sure).

 

[Celticnovice]

“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?

Me too! God bless St. Gregory Palamas

 

[dvdjs]

He was also deposed, I believe by a synod of six bishops (of course, Grand Prince Vasily II had considerable influence over the synod, I’m sure).

Normalije.

 

[Ghosty]

There have been saints within the Roman Church who supported anti-Popes during the Great Western Schism. So it would seem that supporting or opposing a perceived error is not enough within the Catholic Church to keep one from becoming a saint.

A cursory glance at the Melkite Menalogion reveals that the Melkites do not revere St. Mark of Ephesus liturgically. I’ll have to check somewhere more detailed than my Publican’s Prayer Book, so I’m open to correction.

The difference is that Mark is venerated for his error, not in spite of it. Had he not opposed reunion so vehemently he would hardly be remembered at all. He wasn’t a great theologian, nor an especially obviously holy man during life. He is honored for one major reason, and that reason is antithetical to Catholicism.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The difference is that Mark is venerated for his error, not in spite of it. Had he not opposed reunion so vehemently he would hardly be remembered at all. He wasn’t a great theologian, nor an especially obviously holy man during life. He is honored for one major reason, and that reason is antithetical to Catholicism.

Peace and God bless!

True. Point taken.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

St Mark of Ephesus is a canonized saint of the Orthodox Church - period. He is not in any EC calendar nor would he be. There are services to Orthodox saints that do offer thrusts at Catholics, to be sure.

I attended an akathist service at a Russian Orthodox Church in honour of the Pochaev icon that was visiting there. As I listened closely to the Slavonic chant of the Akathist, I noticed references to Eastern Catholics being “New Hagarenes” etc.

Even upon full reunion of our Churches, there is no need for all the Saints of one Church to be adopted by others. It would be good if both sides, Catholic and Orthodox change or remove hard thrusts at one another. The Ukrainian Catholic Studite Fathers have done this with the akathist to St Josaphat which they publish under a separate cover.

There are thrusts at Catholics in the Orthodox akathist to St Volodymyr the Great, for instance, which were removed by Russian Catholics before they published it - no Orthodox complained that I am aware of.

And I do have the icon of the Pillars of Orthodoxy (Sts Gregory Palamas, Photios the Great and Mark of Ephesus) on my icon wall. A Roman Catholic missionary from the Middle East, years ago, gave it to me and said that “we Catholics are entitled to venerate (Mark of Ephesus) privately.”

In fact, St Mark went to Florence as a unionist and was actually enthusiastic about the prospects of reunion. The only condition he regarded as necessary for union to be achieved is for Rome to remove the Filioque from the universal Nicene Creed.

Without that, he delivered a “non possumus” to the Latin party.

A shame. And there is the legend that the Pope himself, when he saw Mark leave Florence without signing the instrument of unity, was heard to remark “We have accomplished nothing.”

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

True. Point taken.

In actual fact, St Mark of Ephesus was a very ascetical man who prayed the Jesus Prayer constantly. There are other martyrs against union with Rome in Orthodoxy, such as the 26 Martyrs of Zographou monastery on Athos.

The fact that they were vehemently opposed to union with Rome (in their case, politically motivated and imposed by military force) does not make them “unholy.” If we say that, we are being “partisan to a fault.”

St Athanasius, the Abbot of Brest, opposed the Union of Brest on similar grounds. He was tortured by Roman Catholic gendarmes for several days and when he still wouldn’t sign the union of Brest, he was taken to a wood where he was forced to dig his own grave, he was then shot twice in the head and buried while still alive.

He was canonized a martyr and was actually popularly venerated by Eastern Catholics for having stood up to RC Poland.

Alex

 

[Cavaradossi]

St Mark of Ephesus is a canonized saint of the Orthodox Church - period. He is not in any EC calendar nor would he be. There are services to Orthodox saints that do offer thrusts at Catholics, to be sure.

I attended an akathist service at a Russian Orthodox Church in honour of the Pochaev icon that was visiting there. As I listened closely to the Slavonic chant of the Akathist, I noticed references to Eastern Catholics being “New Hagarenes” etc.

Even upon full reunion of our Churches, there is no need for all the Saints of one Church to be adopted by others. It would be good if both sides, Catholic and Orthodox change or remove hard thrusts at one another. The Ukrainian Catholic Studite Fathers have done this with the akathist to St Josaphat which they publish under a separate cover.

There are thrusts at Catholics in the Orthodox akathist to St Volodymyr the Great, for instance, which were removed by Russian Catholics before they published it - no Orthodox complained that I am aware of.

And I do have the icon of the Pillars of Orthodoxy (Sts Gregory Palamas, Photios the Great and Mark of Ephesus) on my icon wall. A Roman Catholic missionary from the Middle East, years ago, gave it to me and said that “we Catholics are entitled to venerate (Mark of Ephesus) privately.”

In fact, St Mark went to Florence as a unionist and was actually enthusiastic about the prospects of reunion. The only condition he regarded as necessary for union to be achieved is for Rome to remove the Filioque from the universal Nicene Creed.

Without that, he delivered a “non possumus” to the Latin party.

A shame. And there is the legend that the Pope himself, when he saw Mark leave Florence without signing the instrument of unity, was heard to remark “We have accomplished nothing.”

Alex

How would that work with Chalcedon, Dioscoros, and Flavian?

 

[Formosus]

How would that work with Chalcedon, Dioscoros, and Flavian?

I think that is an easier question then Mark of Ephesus to be quite honest. Simply put, there was so much confusion and inconsistency on what hypostasis and physis meant back then that both sides* of that debate were orthodox, while saying the same things. We have been taking the terminology for granted since Constantinople II, that its hard to remember that in Nicaea I, hypostasis was used as a synonym for ousia in the Trinity.

*well Dioscoros and his Patriarchate, not necessarily all the other heretics labeled monophysites.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

How would that work with Chalcedon, Dioscoros, and Flavian?

Excellent question - which was addressed at length by the ecumenical commission between the EO and the OO.

The theological report concluded that, for unity to be achieved, both sides would have to drop the censures against each other’s Saints and Teachers. (In fact, some suggested this to be an actual “formula for reunion” - the removal of all such condemnations).

Neither side would be required to accept those same Saints and Teachers into their calendars. This might occur over time in future. One example is St David of Garesja of Georgia, who was attacked by Greek theologians and was even called a “putrefaction from Georgia.”

Today, he is in the calendars of Orthodox Churches and few seeing his name there would suspect the nasty background involved.

Another example involves how a controversial Orthodox saint is dealt with within Orthodoxy itself - namely, St Andrew Boholiubsky.

He has been in the Ukrainian Orthodox calendar, but one would be hard-pressed to find him venerated by Ukrainians today. After all, as Prince, he did burn Kyiv and took the icon of Vyshorod (now called that of “Vladimir”).

There are many, many local and regional saints who are best left where they are in terms of the territory of their veneration. There is no reason why the reunion of Churches should affect the matter.

I’m sorry for my disjointed writing. I will offer as an excuse the pain in my foot as a result of an infection that is my constant, unwelcome friend.

Alex

 

[Mickey]

The difference is that Mark is venerated for his error, not in spite of it. Had he not opposed reunion so vehemently he would hardly be remembered at all. He wasn’t a great theologian, nor an especially obviously holy man during life!

How sad that you feel it is necessary to insult this great saint.

 

[Mickey]

In actual fact, St Mark of Ephesus was a very ascetical man who prayed the Jesus Prayer constantly.

Indeed.

 

[Ghosty]

How sad that you feel it is necessary to insult this great saint.

I haven’t insulted him at all. It’s a fact that he wasn’t a great theologian, and he wasn’t widely regarded for holiness. This doesn’t mean he was a fool or unholy, it just means he was a typical bishop with nothing setting him apart other than his reaction to Florence.

How that could be an insult is beyond me.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

How that could be an insult is beyond me.

That is a fairly dense response. The man is great saint in the Holy Orthodox Church. A pillar of Orthodoxy and great ascetic. And you decide to say that he is “venerated for error”…“not a great theologian”…and “not a holy man during his life.”

If that is not insulting…I do not know what is. I expect there would be some repercussions if a canonized Catholic saint was calumniated in such a manner on this forum.

The question was asked as to whether any Eastern Catholic Churches venerate him as a saint. You did not need to start your agenda of insults.

 

[Ghosty]

That is a fairly dense response. The man is great saint in the Holy Orthodox Church. A pillar of Orthodoxy and great ascetic. And you decide to say that he is “venerated for error”…“not a great theologian”…and “not a holy man during his life.”

If that is not insulting…I do not know what is. I expect there would be some repercussions if a canonized Catholic saint was calumniated in such a manner on this forum.

The question was asked as to whether any Eastern Catholic Churches venerate him as a saint. You did not need to start your agenda of insults.

I stand by everything I’ve said. I have not called him a fool, nor have I said he wasn’t a holy man. I’ve simply said that he was not regarded as either a great theologian or outstandingly holy. Had Florence not happened we wouldn’t even remember his name, but that isn’t a statement about his sanctity.

As for him being in error, what do you expect a Catholic to say? He didn’t just argue for dropping the filioque, as brother Alex asserted, but actually called it heresy. He was wrong, from the Catholic perspective, plain and simple. I can’t very well say he was correct in his assertions.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

I stand by everything I’ve said.

You hurled insults and it is very sad and uncharitable.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I stand by everything I’ve said. I have not called him a fool, nor have I said he wasn’t a holy man. I’ve simply said that he was not regarded as either a great theologian or outstandingly holy. Had Florence not happened we wouldn’t even remember his name, but that isn’t a statement about his sanctity.

As for him being in error, what do you expect a Catholic to say? He didn’t just argue for dropping the filioque, as brother Alex asserted, but actually called it heresy. He was wrong, from the Catholic perspective, plain and simple. I can’t very well say he was correct in his assertions.

Peace and God bless!

It is true that he regarded the Filioque as a heresy. So did and does the entire Orthodox East - he was simply defending the position of his Church.

The fact is that if the West had agreed to simply going back to the original Creed that the Roman Catholic Church had itself zealously guarded for so many centuries, then “God would have healed the heresy.”

I don’t believe that the Filioque is a heresy. I do believe it is a clumsy and theologically unnecessary construct that obfuscates Triadology - but the West will be the West. I do believe, with Mark and Orthodoxy and not a few Eastern Catholics - with some Roman Catholics - that the Filioque should simply be dropped from a Creed intended to express the universal faith of the entire Church.

Alex

 

[Mickey]

**Troparion (Tone 4)
**
By your profession of faith, O all-praised Mark
The Church has found you to be a zealot for truth.
You fought for the teaching of the Fathers;
You cast down the darkness of boastful pride.
Intercede with Christ God to grant forgiveness to those who honor you!

**Kontakion (Tone 3)
**
Clothed with invincible armor, O blessed one,
You cast down rebellious pride,
You served as the instrument of the Comforter,
And shone forth as the champion of Orthodoxy.
Therefore we cry to you: “Rejoice, Mark, the boast of the Orthodox!”