St Mark of Ephesus and the false union of Florence

By ARCHIMANDRITE AMVROSSY POGODIN
M.Sc. Eccl., D.D.


St. Mark of Ephesus. Icon by Basil Lepouras after a fresco by Fotis Kontoglou. Courtesy of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, Mass.


A champion of Orthodoxy who stood alone against the shameful capitulation of Orthodox hierarchs to the Latin Church at the Council of Florence, St. Mark, in his uncompromising life and writings, expresses the conscience of Orthodoxy to our own times as well.

The author of this article, a Russian priest and scholar now serving in San Francisco, bere summarizes the important book be has written on St. Mark.;

___
1. St. Mark of Ephesus and the Union of Florence, Jordanville, N. Y., 1963 (in Russian).


I INTRODUCTION

II THE CRISIS OF BYZANTIUM

III THE LIFE OF ST. MARK BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE

IV THE OPENING OF THE COUNCIL

V THE DEBATES OF THE COUNCIL

VI THE CONCLUSION OF THE UNION

VII AFTER THE COUNCIL

VIII THE DEATH OF ST. MARK

IX COMMEMORATION AND MIRACLES OF ST. MARK


SAINT MARK OF EPHESUS 1391-1444

The earliest extant icon of the Saint, who is shown triumphing over the fallen Pope of Rome: "Mark has not signed, signed, therefore we have accomplished nothing."

Troparion, Tone 3 (Greek)

O all-laudable and most divine Mark,
In thee the Church found a great zealot
By thy confession of the Holy and Sacred Faith.
For thou didst champion the doctrines which the Fathers taught,
And didst cast down darkness' boastful pride.
Wherefore pray thou to Christ God for those who honor thee,
That He may grant us forgiveness of sins.


I INTRODUCTION

SAINT MARK EUGENIKOS, Metropolitan of Ephesus (1391–1444), is without question one of the greatest saints of the Orthodox Church, the greatest champion of Orthodoxy in the 15th century. We, sons of the Orthodox Church, owe to him the preservation of our Orthodox faith and great Orthodox culture with its sacred traditions.

When all the foundations of Byzantium were crumbling; when, in panic before the approach of the Turkish invasion, Byzantine diplomacy redoubled its efforts to find a possibility of union with Western powers for a battle against the common adversary of Christanity; and when, to do this, the Byzantine government, and even certain high representatives of the Orthodox Church, were ready to sacrifice as well Orthodoxy itself and renounce its sacred traditions simply to please the Vatican and thanks to this receive from the West military and financial aid for the battle with the Turks – then God sent the Holy Orthodox Church an invincible champion of the sacred dogmas of Orthodoxy and her Apostolic traditions, who by his flaming battle preserved for us the most precious inheritance that we possess from our fathers: Orthodoxy. This champion of Orthodoxy placed his battle for the preservation of Orthodoxy above the interests of his earthly government, saying that "the destruction of the Orthodox Faith would be the general perdition."a

Governments, as also the types of governmental authority, change in the arena of human history. However dear to us may be our earthly fatherland, for which we consider it a duty and honor to lay down our very life, if circumstances demand it – still, it too is transitory, like everything earthly. But on this earth there is something belonging to eternity: the Church. This is that sacred vessel on which we cross the sea of earthly life and reach the harbor of eternal life The Orthodox Church is the most precious thing our Redeemer has entrusted to us. Orthodoxy is maximal. No kind of compromise can be allowed in connection with its sacred dogmas and ecclesiology, which were formulated at the Ecumenical Councils.

Once the Churches of East and West were one. Those who have consciously torn the seamless garment of Christ's Church are, in the words of St. Mark, criminals worse even than those who crucified Christ.b But the tragic division of the Churches is an accomplished fact. To be sure, even today the Eastern and Western Churches are undoubtedly "Sisters," as St. Mark of Ephesus – and we, following him – calls and confesses them;c and without doubt the schism that occurred and continues to exist between the two Churches is profoundly saddening to the best sons of both Churches and causes deep suffering, as St. Mark of Ephesus also expressed it.d

May the former unity be restored? It is possible, more than desirable, and even indispensable. So thought St. Mark, and so also do we, sons of the Orthodox Church, think.e But how may this former unity be restored? The Union of Florence answered this question by forcing the Orthodox Church as such to dissappear and to become one of the branches of the so called Eastern Rite, i.e., a mask without a soul, a scarecrow that preserves the outward form, but in which there is no life. On their side the Greek representatives at the Council of Florence sought some kind of compromise concerning dogmas and ecclesiology between the two Churches; this compromise expressed itself in their readiness to apostatize from the traditions of the Orthodox Church and accept the later world view of the Western Church, foreign as it is to the Orthodox Church.

St. Mark of Ephesus, while believing in the possibility of the restoration of the former unity between the Eastern and Western Churches, rejected both paths: both the acceptance of Latin dogmatics and ecclesiology, and union on the basis of mutual compromise. He considered the Orthodox Faith to be perfect in all respects: this he expressed everywhere. Here we shall limit ourselves to a few citations from St. Mark's writings.

"Orthodoxy is that which has been entrusted (to us) by the Holy Apostles: therefore we must stand and hold firmly the traditions of Orthodoxy which we have received, both written and by word of mouth.''f "Everything that is done by us and has entered into custom, we possess in written testimonies, and in everything we follow the sacred teachers and ancient Apostolic traditions.'g "I beseech you, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to speak the same, and that there be no divisions among you, so as to preserve our true Faith handed down by the Fathers as a sound pledge, adding nothing and taking away nothing: for until now we have had a Faith in no respect deficient, and we need no Council or Act of Union in order to learn something newer – we, who are the sons and disciples of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Fathers who shone at them and after them. This is our boast: our Faith, the sound inheritance of our Fathers. With it we hope to come before God and receive remission of sins: but without it I know not what righteousness will deliver us from eternal torment.''h

When many decided to travel the path of compromise, seeking means for the Union of the Churches by erecting compromise dogmatic formulations, St. Mark of Ephesus stood decisively against this. He considered compromise in matters of faith inadmissable. When, still during the Council of Florence, St. Mark was requested to seek a compromise between the Greek and Latin conceptions of the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit, St. Mark indicated the impossibility of this (as related by Syropoulos: "Matters of faith do not admit of compromise (economy). This would be the same as to say: Cut off your head and go where you wish."i St. Mark plainly indicated the impossibility of compromise in matters of faith also in his Encyclical Letter and in his letter to George Scholarios, to whom he wrote: "That which concerns the Church, O man, is never put right through compromises: there is no mean between Truth and falsehood."j

St. Mark saw that a true union of the Churches must be upon the foundation of a single ecclesiastical world-view. Without this any union is artificial and unstable A Union concluded on paper is insufficient; such a Union (as indeed reality showed in connection with the Union of Florence) runs the risk of being a "false Union."k Therefore St. Mark saw a single path to the uniting of the Churches: this was the rejection by the Church of Rome of everything that contradicts the Church's common inheritance, received from the Holy Apostles and Fathers of East and West, which the Holy Orthodox Church steadfastly preserves. Only a common dogmatic foundation, and preferably also liturgical practice, can restore the former unity of East and West. It was to this that St. Mark called the fathers of the Latin Church at the Council of Florence.l

The Council of Florence did not go by the path which St. Mark indicated. The last grandiose attempt to unite the Eastern and Western Churches suffered failure: the Union concluded at this Council turned out to be "false," as it was designated by St. Mark of Ephesus and the whole conscience of the Orthodox Church, and it came to an end quite soon, leaving behind only a most bitter memory in the history of the Orthodox Church.

Is a union of Churches possible now, in our day? We strive for this and wish it with our whole heart. But is a union possible now, after further obstacles have been piled up in the course of so many centuries, in the form of new dogmas in the Roman Church, as well as the dogma of Papal Infallibility? Only the future can resolve this question. And we, maintaining good will toward the members of other confessions, leave it to Almighty God to lead His Orthodox Church as is pleasing to His holy will. It may be that a union of Churches will come to pass not on paper, not at the solemn sessions of an Ecumenical Council, but only in apocalyptic times, in the times of a purifying fire of persecution against all who call themselves Christians. It may be that Antichrist, by his evil appeal to all Churches to "coexist" with him in a frightful, blasphemous compromise between Christ and Belial, will take away the majority from all Churches, and that small number of people who preserve themselves faithful to Christ will find unity in the one Church of Christ. This idea, in the form of a prophecy, was expressed by the Russian philosopher Vladimir Soloviev in Three Conversations.

For us the future is veiled.

By God's mercy we have our priceless Orthodoxy, which is now a vivifying source not only for Orthodox people, but for Western peoples as well; and it was God's mercy that revealed St. Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus, as a champion of Orthodoxy who, by the aid of God and with the cooperation of a few fellow-champions, and depending upon monasticism and the best sons of the Greek people, defended Orthodoxy in, one may say, the most perilous moment of its existence. Orthodox theology has valued and values the significance of St. Mark of Ephesus. In due time history will do the same.

II THE CRISIS OF BYZANTIUM

At the end of the 14th and in the 15th centuries Byzantium represented no more than a pitiful remnant of a once great State. Of the former greatness and attainments of the many dynasties that had succeeded each other on the throne of Byzantium, not a trace remained. The whole State had been reduced to Consantinople with a small piece of land around it, a few separate small towns in Greece and islands in the Greek Archipelago. All the rest was already in the hands of the Turks, and partly of the Italians. Indeed, the State itself was in a condition of vassal dependence upon the Turkish Sultan. But even for this condition of semi-independence the end was nearing. The final hours of Constantinople approached; more than once it was on the verge of perishing from the Turks, but fate had spared it once again.

Byzantine diplomacy sought every way to save the State. Attempts were made to conclude treaties with the Turks, but these were unsuccessful; a treaty with the Tartars came to nothing; and Russia had not yet emerged into the arena of history as a great state. The only hope lay in the West. To draw near to the West, to become interested in its common battle with the enemies of Christians, the Turks: this became the aim and task of Byzantine diplomacy for the whole duration of the present period. Emperor Manuel II Paleologos traveled the whole of Europe in search of aid from the West.m He was received everywhere politely and with honor; he was given promises; but in actual fact he received nothing. Often, in fact, the opposite happened: certain Western powers took advantage of the weakness of Byzantium to make territorial acquisitions at her expense. For this reason a writer of the 15th century, Joseph Bryennios, warned his fellow countrymen not to place any hope in the West: "Let none," he wrote, "be deluded by deceptive hopes that allied Italian troops will come to us soon or late. Although they pretend that they will stand in our defense, still they will take arms only to destroy our city, our people, and our name."

But Manuel's son and successor, Emperor John VIII, having allied himself with the Italians by marriage, nonetheless believed it possible for Byzantium and the West to draw together and for the latter to be attracted to the side of Byzantium in the battle with the Turks. For this it was necessary above all to concern oneself with conciliating the Vatican. At that time conditions were favorable for this. The See of Rome was occupied by a man who was unusually well disposed toward Orthodoxy, and who was moreover free from extreme papism and ready to accept a Council as being above the Pope and the decisions of a Council as binding upon the Pope himself. When to this Pope, Martin V, a delegation from Constantinople appeared with the proposal of the Greeks for the convocation of an Ecumenical Council and consideration of the question of restoring the former unity of the Eastern and Western Churches, the Pope received the delegation with great joy and fully agreed to the convocation of a Council.

After this first step, however, the Byzantines did not go farther, and the matter was left for many years. Pope Martin V urged the Greeks. "I am an old man," he wrote the Emperor; "let us hasten to unite. For while I am alive, union will be attained easily, but after my death it will not be well concluded."n The words of Pope Martin were prophetic. He died before the Council for the reunion of the Churches was opened. Pope Eugenius IV, who succeeded him, was the direct opposite of the late Pope. A man of unusually strong will and with an extreme conception of papism, stubborn to the extreme in carrying out his will, he was one of the most powerful figures in the history of the papacy. Pope Eugenius did not understand and did not know the mentality of the Orthodox and, by applying strong pressure upon them and apparently subordinating the Orthodox Church to himself, he in actuality brought to naught the union of the two Churches.

Leaving aside many and interesting details, we may say that in November of 1437 the numerous Greek delegation, headed by Emperor John Paleologos and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph, left for Italy for the Council, which was to take place in Ferrara. Before leaving, the Emperor assembled a great council of clergy and his advisors. A participant at this council, the Emperor's secretary George Scholarios (the future Patriarch Gennadios of Constantinople), noted that if one were to look at the impending Council in Italy and the sought-for union with the Western Church purely from the viewpoint of political expediency to Byzantium, then such a union of Churches would be unstable and impermanent. Apparently fears concerning the preservation of the dignity of the Orthodox Church in the face of the powerful Latins were expressed also by Patriarch Joseph and other hierarchs; for the Emperor announced, even somewhat sharply, that he had considered everything and took all responsibility upon himself. In reality Emperor John was also the head of the Greek delegation and directed all negotiations with the Latins.

At the said council, assembled in Constantinople before the departure of the Greek delegation for Italy, there participated also the Metropolitan of Ephesus, Mark Eugenikos.

III THE LIFE OF ST. MARK BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE

St. Mark of Ephesus was born, lived the greater part of his life, and died in Constantinople. The principal biographer of St. Mark, his brother, John Eugenikos,o speaks thus: "This great lamp of life in the world, and light, and good salt, who was manifested to the Church of Christ as a valiant warrior for the Truth and a sun for the whole universe, shone out from the great and reigning city, this celebrated Constantinople: in it he was born, and raised, and educated, and finally, in departing to God, gave up to it his sacred body." The father of St. Mark was sakellios1 of the Church of Hagia Sophia, inspector of convents, and a professor. His mother was the daughter of a well-known physician. Both came from good and devout families.

___
1. Chamberlain.


Before becoming a monk, St. Mark bore the name of Manuel (Emmanuel). His biographer sees in this name a prophetic omen of the Saint's future activity in the salvation of Orthodoxy. He says: "And the child in his second birth in the Divine Spirit received the name of Manuel (yea, and how could it have been otherwise!): for he was worthy of the first of names, the name of the Lord, and thanks to him – God is with us, and piety, and the faith handed down by the Fathers."

The child Manuel studied with the best teachers and prospered in knowledge. In his thirteenth year he lost his father. He did not slacken because of this blow, but dedicated his mental powers even more fully to the study of the liberal arts with the best professors of that time; among these was George Gemistos, the celebrated philosopher. He surpassed all with his talents. Besides this, the youth was distinguished by his exceptional conduct. John Eugenikos speaks of it thus: "In a short time he acquired the greatest knowledge, thanks to extreme diligence and care and his marvellous mind. And then the conduct of the Saintgracious, and sedate, and befitting a kind old man, all the way to his manner of dress and his glance and the bend of his head, and to his surpassing and much adorned speech – made him a marvel not only for his fellow-students, but for his teachers themselves, and in general for everyone."

Having received a complete education, St. Mark himself became a professor, and young people flocked to him. Among his students were the renowned George Scholarios and Theodore Agalistos, who subsequently deeply valued the blessed influence on their souls of their holy teacher. For their instructor was adorned not only with knowledge of letters, but also in much greater measure with holiness of life and dedication to Holy Orthodoxy. In his funeral oration to his teacher, George Scholarios remarks: "We would not have been joined sufficiently to knowledge of the truth, if he had not sowed in us its first seeds by his teaching and his prayers, in which he often asked of God that we might bear fruit; and it was he more than anyone else who awakened in us zeal for the truth."p

St. Mark's biographers, John Eugenikos, the great orator Manuel,r and George Scholarios all note that even in these youthful years, and while still a layman, he led a monastic, ascetic life. He did not miss the Divine Liturgy a single day; he dedicated himself completely to the study of Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers; nights he spent in prayer and thought of God and study of the Divine Scriptures. And thus, in the words of George Scholarios, he was more truly one of the desert dwellers, even though he lived in the capital; he was foreign to its life, for nothing tied him to it.

These good qualities of the devout youth could not but attract to him the attention of Euthymios, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the devout and cultured Emperor Manuel. They drew him near to themselves. The Emperor even appointed him his personal secretary, entrusting to him the editing of his own writings. And thus the honor and good wishes of the world pursued the devout youth; a high calling and government employment already awaited him. Emperor Manuel's successor, Emperor John Paleologos, looked upon him with no less love; many of St. Mark's theological works were written at his request.s It was at the insistence of Emperor John that St. Mark subsequently accepted the See of Ephesus and departed with the Greek delegation for the Council in Italy, where he was to play such an exceptional role in the defense of Orthodoxy.

And thus a brilliant future awaited St. Mark in the world. But the world weighed upon him. He desired neither vain glory, nor the favor of the Court, nor riches that perish. The heart of the youth desired monastic perfection, which is to be attained in the eremitic life, in quietness of mind, in concentration of the soul and heart, in prayer and illumination proceeding from remembrance of God; it desired that monastic perfection which is unceasing and all embracing, which burns the passions and sanctifies and enlightens every movement of the soul, a man's every word and act. This remembrance of God makes a man already a partaker of the inexpressible Light, of the delight of paradise, as St. Gregory Palamas and his disciples taught. There is a firm foundation for stating that St. Mark as well as his disciple and spiritual son, George Scholarios, were Palamists both in theology and in their monastic life.t

What can be a greater good than unceasing joy in the Lord, than unceasing perception of the nearness of God to oneself? In the world it is impossible to possess this; before it comes it already leaves, and to preserve it amidst the unceasing churning of the mind among worldly objects is, alas, impossible. This is that "one thing needful," that "sitting at the feet of Jesus," which slays worldly cares.

And thus for the full attainment of this good, of which he had already tasted by his ascetic life while still a layman, St. Mark left everything – his city, his position and calling.. and departed for the monastic life to a starets-ascetic of whom history has preserved no more than the fact that he was a "marvellous" ascetic, Hegumen Simeon. A change in name followed this change in life: in his tonsure the 26-year-old youth Manuel received the name of Mark, and this name will be forever inscribed in gold letters in the history of the Church.

Of this John Eugenikos speaks thus: "And when he had attained the 26th year of his life, then, having magnanimously and freely distributed everything to the poor, he bowed beneath the yoke for which he had thirsted from childhood and embraced the desert, beloved of Elijah and John (the Baptist) and those who imitate them; possessing silence as the mother of inner quietness and peace and repose and ascent to God; leaving behind him inconsolable sorrow for his relatives, his household, his friends, the Emperor (who fondly loved him and was in need of his wisdom and learning), for the highest members of the clergy, for the multitude of young people whom he had raised and taught. In short, his departure from this life was considered a kind of bereavement for all his countrymen."

St. Mark did not remain long outside the capital. Soon, as a consequence of constant attacks by the Turks, St. Mark's preceptor, Hegumen Simeon, considered it necessary to remove their residence to Constantinople, which offered at least defence against the Turks and against thieves. In Constantinople at that time there was the renowned Mangani Monastery. Here St. Mark lived with his preceptor, who soon, however, departed to the Lord. Concerning the character of the Saint's monastic life his biographer speaks thus: "And then he was clothed in monastic habit in the holy and great Mangani Monastery, and gave himself up entirely to silence. To such an extent did he dislike leaving the monastery and his cell, to the disruption of silence and inner attention, that he did not show himself to acquaintances or even to blood relatives. Of one activity only did he weary neither day nor night: study of Divine Scriptures, whence he enriched himself with an abundance of understanding, as his written works reveal."u Having dedicated himself to extreme labor and fasting and sleeping on the floor and all-night standing... and endured wrestling against the spiritual foes and attained victory and been wonderfully raised to thought of God and to sacred illumination and divine radiance; when he had attained that which is greatest and of most service, having become entirely holy and God-seeing – only then did he accept the priestly dignity, with difficulty and against his will, after much insistence and entreaty."v Concerning St. Mark's service as a priest John Eugenikos relates that when he celebrated Divine Liturgy, he was filled with divine inspiration to such an extent that for spectators "when he offered the Bloodless Service to God, he appeared to be entirely outside himself, entirely dedicated to God, outside the earth, like some Angel in the flesh."

But now another labor approached for St. Mark. The time approached for the departure of Emperor John Paleologos with the delegates to the Council with the Latins for deliberation of the question of the union of the Churches.

It was precisely then, as I attempted to show in my book, that St. Mark was chosen Metropolitan of Ephesus He had to have this rank so as to occupy a suitable place among the Greek representatives, namely, the place of chief theologian of the Orthodox Church. The other outstanding thinker of this period, Bessarion, Metropolitan of Nicaea, was rather a humanist than a theologian. Although St Mark did not wish to accept this high rank, since he had fled from the world, still, being persuaded by many respected persons, undoubtedly including the Emperor and the Patriarch, that his knowledge was absolutely indispensable for the impending discussions with the Latins, and that for this reason he should occupy a suitable place which the Latins too would esteem (i.e., the rank of Metropolitan), he submitted to the decision of the council that elected him. St. Mark notes this quite briefly in his account of the Council of Florence: "Having accepted the office of bishop, which is beyond both my worth and my powers, at the command and for the need of the Church of Christ, I followed the Ecumenical Patriarch and the God-given Emperor to the Council in Italy."w George Scholarios thus speaks of this: "He accepted high ecclesiastical rank solely for the defense of the Church by his words; the whole power of his words was needed by the Church in order to restrain her from being led astray, a path to which innovators were already drawing her."x The same idea, only in more rhetorical form, is expressed by John Eugenikos when he speaks of the elevation of his holy brother to the rank of bishop.

And so St. Mark departed for Italy as one of the representatives of the Greek Church. Did he believe in the possibility of union with the Latins? Or, as some maintain, was he always opposed to union with the Church of Rome, and did he set as his goal the frustration of all discussions? St. Mark himself gives an answer to these questions, both in his excellent address directed to Pope Eugenius which he gave at the beginning of the Council of Florence, and in his short account of this Council. Yes, he profoundly believed in the possibility of restoring the former unity between the two Churches. He believed in this warmly and fervently, and he labored to exhaustion for this aim. We shall cite later the speech of St. Mark to Pope Eugenius. Here we shall quote further his short account of the Council. "I followed the Ecumenical Patriarch and the God-given Emperor to the Council in Italy, and considering neither my own infirmity, nor the difficulty and the vastness of the undertaking, but hoping in God and in those common Intercessors,; I believed that all would be well with us and that we would accomplish something great and worthy of our labor and hopes."

___
1. I.e., the Saints of the Eastern and Western Churches (A. A.).


With great elevation of soul the Greeks departed for Italy; and with no less spiritual elevation did the bishops, clergy, and people of Italy await them. All believed that the desired union of the Churches would be once more attained.

But very soon mournful reality replaced all the hopes of peace.

(To be concluded.)


REFERENCES

a Address of St. Mark before his death to George Scholarios. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, v. 161.

b Address of St. Mark to Pope Eugenius IV at the opening of the Council of Florence. Pt. 2.

c From the Acts of the Council of Florence (in Greek): Third Session, Oct. 14, 1438.

d Address to Pope Eugenius, pt. 2.

e Ibid., the whole address.

f Free translation from the Encyclical Letter, pt. 7.

g Letter to Presbyter George, from Metonia, pt. 2.

h Letter to the Pro hegumen of Vatoped Monastery.

i Cited in my book, p. 226.

j Letter to George Scholarios, pt. 2; cf. Encyclical Letter, pt. 5.

k Letter to Kyr Theophanes, pt. 2; Encyclical Letter, pt. 1. See "The Testimony of Andrew of Rhodes" in my book, p. 409.

l See the address of St. Mark to Pope Eugenius.

m See our extensive essay on Emperor Manuel II in Orthodox Path (in Russian) for 1966.

n Cited from J. Gill, The Council of Florence, Cambridge, 1959.

o Synaxarion to St. Mark in the service to him written by his brother John Eugenikos, printed in Russian translation in my book. An English translation has recently appeared in J. Gill, Personalities of the Council of Florence, Oxford, 1964.

p Printed in the Greek original and Russian translation by A. Norova, Paris, 1859.

r Synaxarion in the service (akolouthia) to St. Mark, published by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameis in Filologikos Syllos Parnassos Epetipis, v. 6, Athens, 1902.

s Titles of these will be given at the end of this article.

t See the excellent article of Fr. Alexander Schmeman in Orthodox Thought (in Russian), VIII, 1951.

u The Great Orator Manuel, op. cit.

v John Eugenikos, op. cit.

w "Account of the Metropolitan of Ephesus concerning the way in which he came to the episcopal dignity, and elucidation of the Council in Florence." Migne, Patrologia Graeca, v. 159. Mgr. Petit, Patrologia Orientalis, v. XVII.

x George Scholarios, in his funeral oration for St. Mark of Ephesus.


IV THE OPENING OF THE COUNCIL

AFTER A DIFFICULT VOYAGE of three months on the stormy Mediterranean Sea, the Greek delegation, in the ships and on the money of Pope Eugenius IV, arrived in Venice. Being met A there by the nobility and people of Venice, who had always been welldisposed to the Greeks, and likewise by the Papal representative Tarquinius, the Greek delegation directed its steps to Ferrara. The Greeks were received solemnly and cordially by the Pope, who took pains that they be comfortably lodged. After a series of elegant speeches and banquets, there followed a period of complete inactivity.

The opening of the Council, or rather, the beginning of negotiations between the Greeks and Latins over the question of the Union of the Churches, was held in the cathedral church of Ferrara on the ninth of April, 1438. It was accompanied by solemn Divine services and the reading of a Papal Bull and an Encyclical of the Patriarch. After the opening of the Council, however, there began a long period of inactivity. Emperor John Paleologos was waiting for the Western Princes to assemble, for in reality it was in order to meet them and to negotiate a military alliance against the Turks that he had devised this whole affair. But the political situation in the West was such that these Princes either were no longer living or could not come.

Meanwhile, the Pope insisted that negotiations proceed on the question of the Union. Finally there was organized a mixed committee of Latin and Greek theologians for explication of the points of divergence between the Eastern and Western Churches. On the Latin side were: Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini, a skillful diplomat; Cardinal Nicholas Albergati; Archbishop Andrew of Rhodes, a Greek who had gone over to the Latins, an erudite but not a profound theologian; the celebrated and profound Spanish theologian John Torquemada; later there was joined to these the experienced theologian Fra John of Ragusa. On the Greek side were: St. Mark of Ephesus, as exarch and head of debate; and Bessarion, Metropolitan of Nicaea, who at first supported St. Mark, but then became his opponent and acted for the harm of the Orthodox Church, ending his life as one of the leading cardinals of the Roman Church. There were other members, too, of the Greek delegation who participated in the committee, but they were not permitted to enter into the debates.

The actual heads of the committee were, for the Latins, the Pope, and for the Greeks, the Emperor. The Pope pursued his aim: to subject the Orthodox Church to himself; and the Emperor pursued his aim: to conclude an agreement profitable for the State. There were few who gave thought to the spiritual side of the question, which was of course more important than anything else in this world, since the matter was one of the possibility of the reunion of Churches.

For this reason especially remarkable was the address which St. Mark made to the Pope at the opening of the Council. This address proves that there is absolutely no foundation for the assertion that St. Mark was opposed in principle to the Union and set as his aim to sabotage the negotiations before they had even begun. On the contrary, St. Mark ardently desired union with the Latins, believed in its possibility, and sought it – but a genuine union, founded on unity of faith and of ancient Liturgical practice. But this address is important also because in it St. Mark considered it necessary to inform the Pope immediately that the Orthodox hierarchs had come to Italy not to sign a capitulation, and not to sell Orthodoxy for the benefit of their State; they had come rather as to an Ecumenical Council, for the confirmation of true doctrine. In addition, St. Mark made it clear that the purity of Orthodoxy must be preserved, and that the negotiations could end in failure if Rome did not agree to the well-known concessions, renouncing those innovations, unknown to the ancient Church, which had been introduced into the dogmatics and Liturgical practice of the Western Church and were the reason for the schism between the two Churches. Further, St. Mark indicated that the union of all Christians against the common enemy – the Turks – would be just as necessary for the West as it was for Byzantium.

The address begins as if with faith in the success of the negotiations; then a prayer to the Saviour follows for the successful conclusion of the Council's work; but gradually it is revealed to the spiritual eye of the Saint that his hopes would not be justified, that the evil habit of schism would triumph; and his address concludes, or rather breaks off, in a tone of despair.

St. Mark's address evoked extreme indignation among the Greeks, who did not wish the divergence between the Eastern and Western Churches to be spoken of at all. Probably the address was received with cold disdain by the Pope as well. St. Mark spoke the Truth and fought for the Truth, and it was precisely this that no one wished to admit, because for the good of the Church as such, whether Western or Eastern, no one gave any thought, and each side sought political advantage for itself.

V THE DEBATES OF THE COUNCIL

The commission of theologians of the Eastern and Western Churches did not have the possibility to work actively, since the Emperor John Paleologos did not permit his representatives to aggravate the questions of dogmatic divergences between the Churches, but wished to conclude the Union on the basis of certain vague general propositions. Therefore the Pope took the initiative into his own hands and authorized Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini to inform the Greeks that, in the opinion of the Latin Church, the divergences between the Churches were the following: 1 The teaching on the Procession of the Holy Spirit; 2 the question of unleavened bread for the Eucharist; 3 the doctrine of purgatory; 4 the primacy of the Pope of Rome. The Emperor forbade his representatives to touch the question of the divergence in the dogma of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. After a careful consideration of the situation, the Greeks decided that it would be best to approach the question of purgatory. They supposed that on this question they would easily find a "bridge" between the two Churches.

In the Orthodox Church, one may say, there exists no definite dogma on life after death. There is a general teaching of the Church, on the foundation of various expressions of the Holy Fathers, the texts of Church hymns, and visions from the Lives of Saints, but there is no definite dogma; therefore the Orthodox thought that with the Catholics too the teaching on Purgatory would not be "juridical," that is to say, a dogma, an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Too, they had not heard in what precisely the teaching on Purgatory consisted.

It was an unwise move: in the opinion of Catholic theologians themselves the dogma of purgatory was formulated only at this very same Council of Florence, and subsequently it produced great complications in the Western world itself.

However, the Orthodox supposed that they would find a means of drawing near to the Latins in just this question of the state of souls after death. If this teaching in the Roman Church were sound and could be accepted, then the Orthodox would be ready to accept it; but if it accorded neither with Holy Scripture, nor with the teaching of the Holy Fathers, then the Orthodox would help the Latins and indicate the lack of foundation for their idea of purgatory, and by their common labors they would come to the truth.

In the beginning of negotiations on the question of purgatory it appeared that the divergences between the Churches were so insignificant that a common mind would be easily found. But as the question deepened it became clear that no "bridge" could be found, and that the teaching on purgatory was completely unacceptable for the Orthodox.

Although in those fragments of the Acts of the Council of Florence that have been preserved, very little is said of the negotiations on the question of purgatory, still there have been preserved, and published by Mgr. L. Petit in volume 15 of the Patrologia Orientalis, documents relating to this period. All of these documents were translated by us into Russian and printed in our book: 1 Statement of the Latins on Purgatory. 2 First Treatise of St. Mark of Ephesus on Purgatorial Fire. 3 Reply of the Greeks to the Statement of the Latins. 4 Reply of the Latins to the Statement of the Greeks. 5 Second Treatise of St. Mark on Purgatorial Fire. 6 Replies of St. Mark to the Subsequent Questions of the Latins. 7 Ten Arguments of St. Mark Against the Existence of Purgatorial Fire.

The mentioned works of St Mark on purgatorial fire are superb and constitute the most complete treatment of this question in Orthodox literature. Western criticism has designated them as opus elegans, nec contemnendum: "an excellent work, not to be neglected."

After this first attempt to find a "bridge" between the Churches had failed, several months passed in inactivity, which weighed heavily on the Greeks. Finally the question of the Filioque was approached – the most painful question in the relations between the Orthodox and Latin Churches. The Orthodox considered that the Latins had acted uncanonically in inserting into the Symbol of Faith (the Creed), a holy object common to all of Christianity, some kind of dogmatic addition. The process of inserting this addition had been gradual, and in its origin had even had a positive, if mistaken, aim: in her battle with Arianism, which had kept up very long in the West, the Roman Church in Spain had begun to introduce it in order to show the Consubstantiality of God the Father and God the Son, as well as the fact that the Holy Spirit has an equal dependence upon Both Hypostases, and that All Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are Consubstantial and equally worthy of honor.

The Popes, however, had not sanctioned this uncanonical addition, and had sometimes even openly opposed it. But gradually the Filioque became a permanent part of the Creed in the West. In the polemics between Patriarch Photios and Pope Nicholas, among other questions, there was also the question of the Filioque At the time of the Great Schism in 1054 the Filioque was not mentioned. Succeeding Popes sanctioned the Filioque and Latin theologians reinforced it with the heretical teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Hypostases of God the Father and God the Son, i.e., has His Existence from Both Hypostases; and this made the situation for the union of the Churches very difficult.

It is well known to what extent the Orthodox Church has regarded and regards with caution questions of dogma. The slightest deviation from dogmas formulated at the period of the Ecumenical Councils threatens a fall into heresy. Therefore the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils enacted a most strict decree, that in the Symbol of Faith there could not be changed, added, or subtracted even a single word, even a single syllable; and upon those who would dare to do this they laid terrible condemnations. The correctness of the Holy Fathers of these Ecumenical Councils may be seen in the fact that the chief reason for the failure of the union of Churches at the Council of Florence was precisely the Filioque. St. Mark appealed with great entreaty both to Pope Eugenius and to the Cardinals, begging them to agree to remove the Filioque. But the Church of Rome did not do this. I will not weary the reader with the endless debates on this question. The question was deliberated at first in Ferrara, absolutely without result, and then in Florence. The Greeks indicated, citing decrees of Ecumenical Councils, that the introduction of the Filioque in itself was uncanonical, bnt the Latins affirmed that this addition expressed a sound dogmatic idea. Syropoulos informs us that once there came to the debates between the Greeks and the Latins a group of Catholic monk-hermits, who after listening to the debates declared, in the hearing of all, that the Greeks were right and that without question they had preserved the correct faith. At this the Catholic authorities ejected them, reviled them as "ignoramuses," and confined them in a monastery, forbidding them to speak. And so these monk ascetics sensed the truth!

Inasmuch as the Latins asked that the question of the Filioque be examined from the dogmatic point of view, i.e., that the dogma of the Procession of the Holy Spirit be examined, the Greeks, despite the unwillingness of St. Mark and many of the other Greek hierarchs, went on to this question. It was at about this time, because of the plague raging in Ferrara, that the Council was transferred to Florence.

In Florence the situation changed sharply. Here, in St. Mark's expression, "the Latins threw off their masks." Severe pressure was brought to bear on the Orthodox delegation; it was demanded that they capitulate to the Catholic Church, that they accept all her doctrines and complete administrative submission to the Vatican, in effect the selfliquidation of Orthodoxy. The Greeks found themselves in an exceptionally difficult situation; they did not receive sufficient money for subsistence and literally suffered from hunger. Both St. Mark and Syropoulos write of the fact that the Greeks were exhausted from hunger; both explain this as Vatican politics, a means of forcing the Greeks to surrender. On the other hand, the Vatican's own financial difficulties at that time may also have been partly to blame.

As for returning to Greece, the Greeks had no means to do so, and the Pope alone could call ships and send them home. To the demand of Emperor John Paleologos that the Pope send the Greeks home, the Pope replied: "First we must conclude the Union, and then part."

But besides their personal suffering, the Greek delegation was burdened yet further with care for the State, for the people, who were on the verge of destruction, and whom they had to help by attracting the West to the aid of perishing Byzantium. Many in the Greek delegation thought that the salvation of Byzantium could be attained only through union with the Church of Rome, and that it was necessary to agree to everything, only to please Rome.

St. Mark of Ephesus, however, at first enjoying the support of several hierarchs, but then being left completely alone, viewed the situation in another light: the fate of the Orthodox Church was in grave danger. Otthodoxy is more precious than Byzantium itself: Orthodoxy is an eternal treasure, the Church of those being saved, while the State is of the earth, even though infinitely dear. When it becomes imperative to chose between Orthodoxy and the Byzantine State, then one must preserve Orthodoxy. Byzantium, as a State, was born, flourished, and will die; but Orthodoxy is eternal and must be preserved as an eternal light not only for all succeeding ages of this world's existence, but also for eternity.

A division arose among the Greeks: Cardinals (then still Metropolitans of the Orthodox Church) Bessarion and Isidore, and Protosyncellus Gregory Mammas (later Uniate Patriarch of Constantinople) stepped out against St Mark. He was subjected to manifest insults. The Emperor dismissed St. Mark from all debates (which St Mark himself had already abandoned, seeing the impossibility of speaking with the loquacious Latin theologian-erudites, who would accept no arguments of any kind). The Emperor subjected St. Mark to house arrest, and Patriarch Joseph not only did not support St. Mark, but even demanded that he unite with the group that was prepared to sell Orthodoxy.

St. Mark in his battle was completely alone; he feared for his very life, as we may see from a source hostile to him, where he is quoted as saying: "I feared that the Latins would lay murderous hands upon me." From these painful sufferings St. Mark's very disease (he apparently suffered from cancer of the intestine) worsened. But this exhausted, fatallyill man, who found himself persecuted and in disgrace, represented in his person the Orthodox Church; he was a spiritual giant, with whom (unless it be St. Maximus the Confessor) there is none to compare.

St. Mark is the author of a series of theological works devoted to the question of the Filioque, which we have printed in Russian translation in our book. In these works St. Mark shows the uncanonicity of the insertion of the Filioque into the Symbol of Faith; he brings forth numerous (more than a hundred) citations from the Holy Scriptures, from decrees of Ecumenical Councils, and from the Holy Fathers, from which it is evident that the Holy Spirit has His Existence only from God the Father, and is only "sent" by the Son at times and according to the need of the Church (as for instance on the day of Pentecost, upon the Holy Apostles); finally, in a comprehensive theological work, built also upon philosophical principles, St. Mark demonstrates that the Holy Spirit has His Existence only from God the Father, and shows the total unacceptability of the Latin teaching on the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Hypostases of God the Father and God the Son. To this question St. Mark returned both in his "Confession" and his "Encyclical Letter."


VI THE CONCLUSION OF THE UNION

TO THE OTHER afflictions which the Orthodox delegation suffered in Florence was added the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch was found dead in his room. On the table lay (supposedly) his testament, Extrema Sententia, consisting in all of some lines in which he declared that he accepted everything that the Church of Rome confesses. And then: "In like manner I acknowledge the Holy Father of Fathers, the Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Pope of Old Rome. Likewise, I acknowledge purgatory. In affirmation of this, I affix my signature."

There is no doubt whatever that Patriarch Joseph did not write this document. The German scholar Frommann, who made a detailed investigation of the "Testament" of Patriarch Joseph, says: "This document is so Latinized and corresponds so little to the opinion expressed by the Patriarch several days before, that its spuriousness is evident."a The "Testament" appears in the history of the Council of Florence quite late; contemporaries of the Council knew nothing of it.

And so the Greek delegation lost its Patriarch. Although the Patriarch was no pillar of Orthodoxy, and though one may reproach him in much, still one cannot deny that with his whole soul he grieved for Orthodoxy and never allowed himself or anyone else to injure St. Mark. Being already in deep old age,b he lacked the energy to defend the Church of which he was head, but history cannot reproach him for betraying the Church. Death spared him from the many and grievous humiliations which the Orthodox Church subsequently had to endure. And on the other hand the absence of his signature on the Act of Union later gave occasion for the defenders of Orthodoxy to contest the pretension of the Council of Florence to the significance and title of "Ecumenical Council," because the Act of every Ecumenical Council must be signed first of all by the Patriarchs.

After the death of the Patriarch, as Syropoulos informs us, Emperor John Paleologos took the direction of the Church into his own hands. This anticanonical situation, although often encountered in Byzantine history, as well in a positive as in a negative manifestation, was strictly condemned by St. Mark in one of his epistles, where he says: "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."c

Let us set forth in brief the further history of the negotiations between the Orthodox and the Latins or, to speak more truly, the history of the capitulation of the Orthodox. The Orthodox were obliged to accept the Latin teaching of the Filioque and acknowledge the Latin dogma of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, in the sense of His Existence, from the Two Hypostases. Then the Orthodox were obliged to declare that the Filioque, as an addition within the Symbol of Faith, had always been a canonical and blessed act. By this alone there were reduced to naught all the objections of the Greeks from the time of Patriarch Photios, as well as the works of St. Mark of Ephesus and the interdictions for changing the Symbol of Faith which had been made at the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. One should also note that not all the Roman Popes had approved of the Filioque, and several had considered its introduction into the Symbol of Faith completely uncanonical. But now all this was forgotten. Everything was sacrificed to the demands of Pope Eugenius and his cardinals.

Further, it was demanded of the Orthodox to accept the Latin teaching concerning the consecration of the Holy Gifts and renounce their own as expressed in the performance of the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Church.d Besides, this was expressed by the Latins in disdainful declarations concerning the Liturgical practice of the Eastern Church.

Finally, the Orthodox were obliged to sign and acknowledge a confession of Papism, expressed thus: "We decree that the Holy Apostolic Throne and Roman Pontiff possess a primacy over the whole earth, and that this Roman Pontiff is the Successor of the blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the whole Church, Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; and that our Lord Jesus Christ in the person of St. Peter has given him full authority to shepherd, direct, and rule the whole Church, as is likewise contained in the acts of the Ecumenical Councils and in the holy canons."e The Orthodox were likewise forced to acknowledge purgatory.

And so Orthodoxy was to cease to exist. Something even more painful was the fact that Orthodoxy had been sold, and not merely betrayed. For when a majority of the Orthodox delegates had found that the Vatican's demands were completely unacceptable, certain warm partisans of the Union had asked the Pope to inform them openly what advantages Byzantium would derive from the Union. The Pope grasped the "business" side of the question and offered the following: (1) The Vatican would provide the means to send the Greeks back to Constantinople. (2) 300 (!) soldiers would be maintained at Papal expense in Constantinople for the defense of the capital against the Turks (3) Two ships would be maintained on the Bosphorus for defense of the city. (4) A crusade would go through Constantinople. (5) The Pope would summon the Western sovereigns to the aid of Byzantium. The last two promises were purely theoretical. However, when the negotiations came to a dead end, and the Emperor himself was ready to break off further negotiations, the whole affair was settled by four metropolitans, partisans of the Union, and the affair was concluded with a lavish entertainment given by the Pope; theological disputes concerning the privileges of the See of Rome were conducted over wineglasses.

The end came at last. An Act of Union was drawn up in which the Orthodox renounced their Orthodoxy and accepted all the Latin formulas and innovations which had only just appeared in the bosom of the Latin Church, such as the teaching on purgatory. They accepted also an extreme form of Papism, by this act renouncing the ecclesiology that was the essence of the Orthodox Church. All the Orthodox delegates accepted and signed the Union, whether for themselves or, in the case of some, for the Eastern Patriarchs, by whom they had been entrusted to represent them. The signing, on July 5, 1439, was accompanied by a triumphant service, and after the solemn declaration of the Union, read in Latin and Greek, the Greek delegates kissed the Pope's knee.

Administratively speaking, the whole Orthodox Church signed: Emperor John, the metropolitans and representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, the Metropolitan of Kiev Isidore, and the Russian Bishop Abraham. Only one hierarch did not sign. It would be superfluous to mention his name: St. Mark of Ephesus. But no one paid the least attention to him. What was one man, and he humiliated and fatally ill, in comparison with the all-powerful Vatican, headed by the mighty Pope Eugenius IV? What was this one Greek in comparison with the whole multitude of Greek dignitaries headed by Emperor John, and the Greek metropolitans? There is a Russian proverb: "One alone on the field is no warrior." However, in this one man was represented the whole might of the Orthodox Church. This one man represented in himself the whole Orthodox Church. He was a giant of giants, bearing in himself all the sanctity of Orthodoxy and all its might! And this is why, when Pope Eugenius was solemnly shown by his cardinals the Act of Union, signed by all the Greek delegates, he said, not finding on it the signature of St. Mark: "And so we have accomplished nothing." All the success of the Vatican was illusory and short-lived. The Pope attempted by every means to compel St. Mark to sign the Union, a fact that is attested both by Andrew of Rhodesf and Syropoulos.g The Pope demanded that St. Mark be deprived of his rank then and there for his refusal to sign the Act of Union. But Emperor John did not allow him to be harmed, because in the depths of his heart he respected St. Mark.

Syropoulos relates the final meeting of St Mark with the Pope. "The Pope asked of the Emperor that St. Mark appear before him. The Emperor, having summoned him beforehand, persuaded him, saying: 'When the Pope asks you to appear before him already two and three times, you must go to him; but have no fear, for I have spoken and requested and arranged with the Pope so that you will be given no offense or injury. And so, go and listen to everything he says, and reply openly in whatever manner will seem to you the most suitable.' And so Mark went to appear before the Pope, and finding him sitting informally in his own quarters with his cardinals and six bishops, he was uncertain in what fashion he should express respect to the Pope. Seeing that all who surrounded the Pope were sitting, he said: 'I have been suffering from a kidney ailment and severe gout and have not the strength to stand,' and proceeded to sit in his place. The Pope spoke long with Mark; his aim was to persuade him also to follow the decision of the Council and affirm the Union, and if he refused to do this, then he should know that he would be subject to the same interdictions which previous Ecumenical Councils laid upon the obstinate, who, deprived of every gift of the Church, were cast out as heretics. To the Pope's words Mark gave an extensive, commanding reply. Concerning the interdictions with which the Pope threatened him, he said: 'The Councils of the Church have condemned as rebels those who have transgressed against some dogma and have preached thus and fought for this, for which reason also they are called "heretics"; and from the beginning the Church has condemned the heresy itself, and only then has it condemned the leaders of the heresy and its defenders. But I have by no means preached my own teaching, nor have I introduced anything new in the Church, nor defended any foreign and false doctrine; but I have held only that teaching which the Church received in perfect form from our Saviour, and in which it has steadfastly remained to this day: the teaching which the Holy Church of Rome, before the schism that occurred between us, possessed no less than our Eastern Church; the teaching which, as holy, you formerly were wont to praise, and often at this very Council you mentioned with respect and honor, and which no one could reproach or dispute. And if I hold it and do not allow myself to depart from it, what Council will subject me to the interdiction to which heretics are subject? What sound and pious mind will act thus with me? For first of all one must condemn the teaching which I hold; but if you acknowledge it as pious and Orthodox, then why am I deserving of punishment?' Having said this and more of the like, and listened to the Pope, he returned to his quarters.'"h

VII AFTER THE COUNCIL

St. Mark returned to Constantinople with Emperor John on February 1, 1440. What a sorrowful return it was! No sooner had the Emperor managed to set foot on land than he was informed of the death of his beloved wife; after this the Emperor out of sorrow did not leave his quarters for three months. None of the hierarchs would agree to accept the post of Patriarch of Constantinople, knowing that this post would oblige one to proceed with the Union. The people who met them, as the Greek historian Doukas testifies, asked the Orthodox delegates who had signed the Union: "How did the Council go? Were we victorious?" To which the hierarchs replied: "No! We sold our faith, we bartered piety for impiety (i.e., Orthodox doctrine for heresy) and have become azymites." The people asked then: "Why did you sign?" "From fear of the Latins." "Did the Latins then beat you or put you in prison?" "No. But our right hand signed: let it be cut off! Our tongue confessed: let it be torn out!''i

A painful silence set in. Despite the Great Lent, the season most filled with prayer, churches were empty and there were no services: no one wished to serve with those who had signed the Union. In Constantinople revolution was ripening. St. Mark alone was pure in heart and had no reproach on his conscience. But he too suffered immeasurably. Around him united all the zealots for Orthodoxy, especially the monks of the Holy Mountain (Athos) and the ordinary village priests. The whole episcopate, the whole court – all was in the hands of the Uniates, in absolute submission to the representatives of the Vatican, who came often to inspect how the Union was being carried out among the people. The Church was in extreme danger; as St. Mark wrote: "the night of Union encompassed the Church.''j

St Mark became weak in body, but in spirit he burned, and because of this, as John Eugenikos writes, "by Divine Providence he miraculously escaped danger, and the radiant one radiantly returned and was preserved for the fatherland, being met by a universal enthusiasm and respect."k The Byzantine people did not accept the Union: while all the exhortations of the partisans of the Union were ignored, the flaming sermons of St. Mark found an enthusiastic response, as Professor Ostrogorsky notes.l Contemporaries of these events, passionate Uniates, note with indignation and perplexity St. Mark's activity for the harm of the Union. Thus Joseph, Bishop of Methonensis, writes: "Having returned to Constantinople, Ephesus disturbed and confused the Eastern Church by his writings and addresses directed against the decrees of the Council of Florence.'"m Andrew of Rhodes calls the letters of St. Mark, which he sent out for the strengthening of Orthodoxy, "most noxious" and "seductive."n And present-day Church historians, both Orthodox and Latin, acknowledge that the shattering of the Union of Florence was due to the writings and activity of St. Mark.°

St. Mark did not remain long in Constantinople, but soon, without informing the Emperor, left for Ephesus, his see, which it is possible he had not yet visited, since immediately after his consecration in Constantinople he had left for the Council in Italy.p Two reasons, it would appear, impelled St. Mark to leave Constantinople for Ephesus: pastoral concern for his flock, which found itself under the Turks in the most woeful circumstances; and the desire to urite spiritually around himself those who were zealous for Orthodoxy, in so far as in Constantinople he had actually been under house arrest. It would appear that it is precisely from Ephesus that St. Mark sent his letters, his confession of faith, and his account of his activity at the Council of Florence. All these documents are to be found in my book in Russian translation.

Concerning the activity of St. Mark in Ephesus, John Eugenikos writes briefly thus: "Actively travelling everywhere throughout the regions of the great Evangelist and Theologian John, and doing this over long periods and with labor and difficulty, being sick in body; visiting the suffering holy churches, and especially constructing the church of the metropoly with the adjoining buildings; ordaining priests; helping those suffering injustice, whether by reason of persecution, or of some trial from the side of the unrighteous; defending widows and orphans; shaming, interdicting, comforting, exhorting, appealing, strengthening: he was, according to the divine Apostle, everything for everyone."q John Eugenikos further relates that inasmuch as the Saint had sufficiently sacrificed himself for his flock, while his constant desire had been monastic solitude and reclusion, he finally desired to go to the Holy Mountain. But there was yet another reason, a more weighty one, about which John Eugenikos was silent for political reasons; St Mark himself relates this in one of his letters: he had no mandate from the authorities and for this reason his stay in Ephesus was as it were illegal, and he was compelled to leave his flock, this time forever.r

The ship on which St. Mark sailed to Athos put in at the island of Limnos, one of the few islands that still belonged to Byzantium. Here St. Mark was recognized by the police authorities and, by a directive which they already possessed from Emperor John Paleologos, was arrested and imprisoned. For the space of two years St Mark suffered in confinement. John Eugenikos thus informs us of this period in the Saint's life: "Here who would not deservedly marvel, or would not acknowledge the greatness of soul and enduring of misfortunes which he showed: suffering in the burning sun and struggling with privations of the most necessary things and tormented by diseases that came one upon the other, or enduring painful confinement while the fleet of the impious Moslems surrounded the island and inflicted destruction."s Once the island was threatened by imminent disaster from a Turkish fleet which surrounded the island. But the danger unexpectedly passed, and the saved inhabitants ascribed their salvation to the prayers of St. Mark, imprisoned in the fortress.t

St. Mark never complained about his miserable condition; only in one letter can we see how he suffered and how he was wanting in support from people. He writes thus to the Pro-hegumenos of Vatoped Monastery: "We have found great consolation from your brothers who are here, the most honorable ecclesiarch and the great economos and others, whom we have seen as inspired images of your love and piety; for they have shown us love and have calmed and strengthened us. May the Lord grant you a worthy reward for their labor and love!"u

Finding himself in such painful circumstances, St. Mark continued his battle for the Church, as he writes in one of his letters: "I have been arrested. But the word of God and the power of Truth cannot be bound, but all the stronger flow and prosper, and many of the brethren, encouraged by my exile, overthrow the reproaches of the lawless and the violators of the Orthodox Faith and the customs of the fatherland."v He knew that his confession was indispensable, because, as he wrote: "If there had been no persecution, the martyrs would not have shone, nor would the confessors have received the crown of victory from Christ and by their exploits strengthened and gladdened the Orthodox Church.''w In two years Emperor John ordered St. Mark released and allowed to go where he wished. This liberation occurred on the day when the Seven Martyr-youths of Ephesus are commemorated, and St. Mark dedicated to them a poem of thanksgiving.x St. Mark no longer had the physical strength for ascetic labors on the Holy Mountain; he had become quite feeble, and so he left for his home in Constantinople.

The last year and one-half or two years of his holy life St. Mark spent in painful circumstances of disease and persecution by the Uniate episcopate and Court. At this time he restored many to Orthodoxy by his personal influence.y Especially beneficial for the Church was the return of George Scholarios, who subsequently occupied the position of leader in the battle for Orthodoxy; after the fall of Constantinople he was elected Patriarch of Constantinople.

During this time, i.e., the last two years of St. Mark's life, much happened. The Eastern Patriarchs condemned the Council of Florence and named it "tyrannical and foul," and refused to recognize the Union. When Metropolitan Isidore, one of the most unprincipled betrayers of Orthodoxy, appeared in Moscow preceded by the Papal cross, he was arrested by the Grand Prince of Moscow Vassily Vassilievich, and subsequently he was helped to flee to Rome, where he received a cardinal's hat. A tradition is preserved that St Mark was much gladdened by the conduct of the Grand Prince of Moscow and set him up as an example to the Byzantine authorities."z

In Constantinople itself, however, the Union was being significantly strengthened. One may say that the Union not only became the State Church of Byzantium, but also gradually took possession, through the episcopate, of the whole of Church life. Only certain individuals, grouped around St. Mark, represented at that time the Orthodox Church. Permanent representatives of the Vatican, including Cardinal Isidore, saw to the official loyalty to the Union of the Byzantine Church and Court, placing in connection with this the fulfillment also of the Papal promises to Byzantium. The danger to the Church was immense, and St. Mark was aware of this. He was aware that before everything else should be placed the battle for Orthodoxy, for, as he said, "murdered souls which have been tempted concerning the sacrament of Faith."aa And he, the leader of the battle, marching at the head of the army, was scarcely able to walk, exhausted by disease and harrassed by the wiles of men. But the power of God is accomplished in weakness!

VIII THE DEATH OF ST. MARK

St. Mark died on June 23, 1444,bb at the age of 52. George Scholarios writes thus of St. Mark's death: "But our sorrow was increased yet more by the fact that he was taken away from our embrace before he had grown old in the virtues which he had acquired, before we could sufficiently enjoy his presence, in the full power of this passing life! No defect nor cunning had the power to shake his mind, nor to lead astray his soul, so strongly was it nourished and tempered by virtue! Even if the vault of heaven should fall, even then the righteousness of this man would not be shaken, his strength would not fail, his soul would not be moved, and his thought would not be impaired by such difficult trials."cc

He suffered terribly for fourteen days before his death. Of St. Mark's death itself there has been preserved the account of his brother, the Nomophilax John, who relates: "Thus, having lived with love of God and in everything excelled in his sojourn from his youth to the divine Skhema: in the most holy Skhema, in the degrees of priestly service, in the hierarchal dignity, in arguments concerning the Orthodox Faith and in devout and passionless confession, – having attained fifty-two years of bodily age, in the month of June on the twenty-third day he departed rejoicing to Him to Whom he wished, according to Paul, to be dissolved to be with Him, Whom he glorified by good works, Whom he theologized in Orthodox fashion, Whom he pleased his whole life long. He was sick for fourteen days, and the disease itself, as he himself said, had upon him the same effect as those iron instruments of torture applied by executioners to the holy martyrs, and which as it were girdled his ribs and internal organs, pressed upon them and remained attached in such a state and caused absolutely unbearable pain; so that it happened that what men could not do with his sacred martyr's body was fulfilled by disease, according to the unutterable judgement of Providence, in order that this Confessor of Truth and Martyr and Conqueror of all possible sufferings and Victor should appear before God after going through every misery, and that even to his last breath, as gold tried in the furnace, and in order that thanks to this he might receive yet greater honor and rewards eternally from the just judge.'"dd

Although his agony was painful in the extreme, death itself came easily, and the Saint joyfully gave to God his blessed and radiant spirit. John Eugenikos tells us this: "Long before his death he gave instructions and like a father gave commands to those present concerning the correction of the Church and our piety and open preservation of the true dogmas of the Church, and concerning turning away from innovation; and adding his final words: 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, into Thy hands I commit my spirit,' he thus departed to God."ee Before the end, on the very day of his death, St. Mark gave over to his former student and spiritual son the leadership of the Orthodox Church, although George Scholarios was at that time still a secular prince. St. Mark was buried in the Mangana Monastery in Constantinople. "Amidst a throng of people and guards with numerous marks of respect, there was placed in the sacred monastery of Mangana dedicated to the divine Martyr George, with honor, as a treasure, the sacred and greatly honored vessel of a sanctified soul and a temple to the glory of God, Who is glorified and wondrous in His Saints "ff

From the funeral address of George Scholarios we may see the depth of the sorrow that overcame Orthodox people with the loss of such a great pillar of the Church and such a good and noble man, such a meek and approachable and such a learned man, who, in the expression of John Eugenikos, drew all to himself as a magnet attracts iron.gg But the triumph of Orthodoxy was accomplished only after the death of St. Mark. The successor of Emperor John, his brother Constantine, openly announced his desire to preserve Orthodoxy in its purity.hh Not long before the Fall of Constantinople a Council was convoked at which the Union and its promoters were triumphantly condemned and the Union itself overthrown, and the memory of St. Mark honored by all. This Council was more nominal than actual, and was composed of a quite small number of participants; historically it did not present itself as much, but as an expression of the Orthodox Church it has a great significance as the triumphant conclusion of the battle that St. Mark waged, as a Council of the Orthodox Church, however small she may have been at that time.ii

IX COMMEMORATION AND MIRACLES OF ST. MARK

The solemn commemoration of St. Mark of Ephesus belonged at first to the family Eugenikos. Every year, probably on the day of the Saint's death, the Eugenikos family celebrated a "Service" (Akolouthia) and a synaxarion was read consisting of a short Life of the Saint. It should be noted that in Byzantium the Akolouthia was not necessarily connected with a canonization of the dead; it was simply a eulogy of the dead. Akolouthii were written by students to their teachers, to their benefactors and to people close to them, who were of righteous life. These Akolouthii were for domestic use, and they exist for many who were never canonized by the Church; there is one dedicated to Emperor Manuel II Paleologos that was probably written by St Mark himself.jj

And so the solemn commemoration of St. Mark of Ephesus was celebrated at first in the Eugenikos family circle. A wider glorification of St. Mark was aided by George Scholarios in his capacity of Patriarch of Constantinople Decades passed, and then centuries, and the memory of St. Mark ever more broadly became glorified among devout people, in holy monasteries and churches; and finally, nearly 300 years after the death of the Saint, in 1734, the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople, under the presidency of Patriarch Seraphim, brought out a decree of canonization of St. Mark of Ephesus. January 19 was instituted as the date of the Saint's commemorationkk As a result, to the two ancient services that already existed (translated in our book into Church Slavonic for use in Church services)ll were added six more services, but they are inferior to the ancient services to the Saint.

In the book of Doukake, Iaspis Tou Noetou Paradeisou for the month of January there is found the following miracle performed by St. Mark many years after his death. "A very honorable man named Demetrios Zourbaios had a sister who became grievously ill. Wherefore he called in all the doctors of Mesolongion and spent much money on them. They, however, brought no benefit to his sister, but rather she became worse. For three days she lost all speech and movement, being totally unconscious, so that even the doctors decided that she was going to die. Then he and the rest of her relatives began preparing the necessities for the funeral. But, most unexpectedly, they heard a voice and a great groan coming from her, and turning towards them she said, 'Why don't you change my clothes, since I have been drenched?' Her brother became overjoyed upon hearing her speak, and running to her he asked what was the matter and how she became so wet. She answered, 'A certain bishop came here, took me by my hand, and led me to a fountain and put me inside a cistern. After he had washed me, he said to me, "Return now; you no longer have any illness.'"' But her brother again asked her, 'Why didn't you ask him that granted you your health who he was?' And she said, 'I asked him, "Who are you, your holiness?" and he told me, "I am the Metropolitan of Ephesus, Mark Eugenikos.'"' And having said these things, she arose immediately from the bed without any remnant of illness. When they took her to change her clothes, they were all amazed O, the wonder! – seeing that not only were her clothes soaked, but even the bed and the other blankets upon which she had lain. After this miracle, the above mentioned woman made an icon of St. Mark for a memorial of the miracle, and having lived piously for fifteen more years, she departed to the Lord.mm

To this article is appended an extremely valuable document: the appeal of St. Mark to those present on the very day of his death, his special exhortation to George Scholarios, in which he begs him to take upon himself the leadership of the Orthodox Church, and the reply of George Scholarios to St. Mark.nn

We shall conclude our short sketch of the life and activity of St. Mark of Ephesus with the invocation with which the ancient biographer of the Saint ends his Synaxarion:

By the prayers of St. Mark, Christ our God, and all Thy holy Fathers, Teachers and Theologians, preserve Thy Church in Orthodox confession unto the ages!


REFERENCES

a After Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VII, pt. II, pp. 1015sq.

b See the address of St. Mark to Pope Eugenius, pt. I; in our book, p. 40.

c Epistle of St. Mark to the abbot of Vatoped Monastery, pt. 2; in our book, p. 354

d Although this was not included in the Act of Union itself, nonetheless the Orthodox were required to sign a special document concerning this St. Mark wrote a special tractate (Rus. tr. in our book, pp. 295-301), in which he demonstrates the correctness of the Orthodox tradition, founded on Apostolic and Patristic tradition.

e The Act of Union; Rus. tr. in our book, p. 306.

f The Testimony of Archbp. Andrew of Rhodes concerning St. Mark of Ephesus; Rus tr. of the Latin text in our book, pp 109-110.

g See the narrative included below from the book of Syropoulos, True History .., sec X, ch. 12, ed. Creighton, pp, 299-300; Rus. tr. in our book, pp 312-3.

h See preceding note.

i In our book, p. 300.

j Epistle of St. Mark to George Scholarios, pt. 2; Rus. tr. in our book, p. 341.

k From the Synaxarion to St. Mark, p. 322 in our book.

l Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Oxford, 1956, p. 500.

m Josephi Methonensis Episcopi Synaxarium Concil. Florentini. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 159, col. 1105.

n See note f.

o Vogt, Dictionnaire de la Theologie Catholique, vol. 6, p 37. Buzzone in Dizionario Ecclesiastico, 1955, p. 821. Meyer in Realencyclopaedie fuer Protestant. Theologie und Kirche, vol. 12, pp. 287-8. Pandelakis in Megale Ellenike Egkuklopaideia, Athens, vol. 11, p 105-6; etc.

p I maintain this opinion in my book, pp 28.9.

q Rus. tr. of the Synaxarion to St. Mark in our book, p. 325.

r Epistle of St. Mark to Hieromonk Theophanes on Euboia Island, pt. 1; Rus. tr. in our book, p 356.

s Rus. tr. in our book, p. 326.

t Ibid.

u Pt. 1; p. 354 in our book

v See note r

w Epistle of St Mark to the Ecumenical Patriarch; Rus. tr in our book, p 352

x Published by Papadopoulos-Kerameus in Anekdota Ellenika, Constantinople, 1884, pp. 102-3; later by Mgr. L. Petit in Revue de l'Orient chretien, Paris, 1923, pp. 414-5; Rus. tr. in our book, pp. 227 8.

y Of this the Great Orator Manuel testifies in his Synaxarion to Saint Mark; see in our book, p. 354.

z According to A. Norov, Journey to the Seven Churches Mentioned in the Apocalypse, St Petersburg, 1847, p. 286

aa Epistle of St Mark to George Scholarios, pt. 3; see our book, p. 341.

bb On the date of St Mark's death there have been many suppositions and much scholarly debate; we hold to the opinion of Mgr. L. Petit.

cc From the Funeral Oration of George Scholarios to St. Mark, pt. 10; Rus. tr. publ. by A. Norov in Unpublished Works of Mark of Ephesus and George Scholarios, Paris, 1859.

dd From our translation of the Synaxarion to St. Mark, p. 366.

ee Ibid.

ff From the Synaxarion of John Eugenikos.

gg From the Service to St Mark, Canon, Song 7.

hh Prof A. Kartashev, Outline of the History of the Russian Church, vol. 1, p. 360.

ii The question of the Council of Constantinople of 1450 has been a subject of scholarly debate.

jj See our essay (in Russian) in Orthodox Path for 1966: "From the Writings of the Most Pious Emperor Manuel I Paleologos," pp. 47ff.

kk Information on the canonization of St. Mark was taken from the essay of Papadopoulos-Kerameus, "Markos o Eugenikos os Pater Agios tes Orthodoxou Katholikes Ekklesias," in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1902, vol. 11, pp. 50-69.

ll Pp. 385-400 in our book; the Rev. Abbot Alypy of Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, N.Y., helped us in this translation.

mm K. Doukske, op. cit., Athens, 1889, pp. 397-429; Rus. tr. in our book, pp. 414-5. (The present translation is direct from the Greek, courtesy of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, Mass.)

nn For manuscripts and editions of this document, see our book, p. 368, where will be found also the Russian translation from which the following English translation was taken.


Рецензии