From the appeal of Mark of Ephesus to the Orthodox. Saint Mark of Ephesus - the invincible Hero of the Faith

Mark of Ephesus
Greek ?????? ?????????
Name in the world:	Manuil Evgenik
Birth:	1392 (1392 ) Constantinople
Death:
Revered:	in the Orthodox Church
Renowned for:	in 1734
In face:	saints
Day of Remembrance:
Asceticism:	fight against union

Mark of Ephesus(gr. ?????? ????????? , Manuil Evgenik; 1392 - June 23, 1444) - Metropolitan of Ephesus, Orthodox theologian, the only member of the Ferrara-Florence Council who did not accept the union.

In 1734 he was canonized as a saint, the memory is celebrated on January 19 (according to the Julian calendar).

Biography

Youth and monasticism

Mark was born in Constantinople, his father was a deacon and sacrellarium at the church of Hagia Sophia, his mother was the daughter of a doctor. John Eugenicus writes about the origin of Mark in his synaxar:

Mark was educated at home, studying rhetoric and mathematics. At the age of 13, he lost his father and continued his studies with two famous professors of that time: he studied rhetoric with John Hortasmen, and philosophy with George Gemist Plethon. At an early age, Mark took the position of his father at the Hagia Sophia, and at the age of 24 he received the title of " Votaria Rhetorov».

From his youth, Mark had a penchant for theology and the ascetic life. In his funeral sermon, Gennady Scholary writes about his teacher:

Being the spiritual son of Patriarch Euthymius of Constantinople, Mark became close to the imperial court and attracted the attention of Emperor Manuel II, who made him his adviser. In 1418, Mark left Constantinople and took monastic vows in a monastery on the island of Antigonus. Soon, fearing a Turkish conquest, the monks left the monastery and Mark returned to Constantinople and settled in the Mangan monastery, where, according to John Eugenikus: “ extreme work and fasting and sleeping on earth and standing all night, betraying oneself, and especially when left alone, often adding: “God pleases nothing so much as the enduring of evils” ...».

Ferrara Florence Cathedral

Emperor John VIII, who succeeded Manuel, also highly appreciated Mark, as evidenced by a number of writings of the saints, written at the request of the emperor to provide answers to questions of a theological and philosophical nature. In 1437, by the will of the emperor, Mark became Metropolitan of Ephesus and on November 24, together with him and the patriarch, as part of a delegation of Orthodox bishops, he went to church cathedral with the Catholics in Ferrara, which lasted two years and was called the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral. According to researchers, the elevation of Mark to the rank of bishop was done so that he, not as a simple monk, but as a high-ranking church hierarch, represented Byzantium at the council. This is also confirmed by the fact that before the return of Mark from Italy, nothing is known about his affairs in managing the diocese.

The Greek delegation arrived in Ferarra on March 4, 1438, and on April 9 the opening of the Cathedral took place. It was decided to create a commission to study the dogmatic differences between the two Churches and work out the conditions for concluding a union. From the Orthodox part of the commission, only Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nicaea were authorized to speak publicly in discussions with Catholics. The great rhetorician Manuel writes about Mark's position at the Council of Florence: The tsar… took with him (to Italy) the aforementioned blessed Mark, whom, already there, when the Council took place, he decently installed as his exarch…».

At the beginning of the work of the Council, Mark was positive about the adoption of the union. This is evidenced by his speech addressed to Pope Eugene IV:

During the work of the commission, Mark wrote a number of theological works: Ten arguments against the existence of purgatory», « Sum of sayings about the Holy Spirit», « Chapters against the Latins», « confession of faith" and " About the time of transubstantiation". During this time, he moved away from the idea of ​​accepting the union, finding the teachings of the Western Church contrary to the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils (in particular, the issue of the filioque). In his essay " About Florence Cathedral» Mark wrote:

Despite this, during the Council, the Orthodox hierarchs, having familiarized themselves with the teachings of the Roman Church, under pressure from the Catholics, came to the conclusion that it is based on Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. After some hesitation, all of them, except for Metropolitan Mark, recognized the innovations of the Roman Church as legitimate, but with the proviso that the Eastern Churches would not introduce them at home. On July 6, 1439, the Greek delegation, including the emperor, signed the council's resolution, the bull " Laetentur coeli».

Mark became the only one among the Greek hierarchs who did not recognize the union. In his "District Letter against the Greek-Latins and the decrees of the Council of Florence" he wrote: " Therefore, brethren, flee from them and from fellowship with them; for they are “lie, apostles, workers of ungodliness, being transformed into the apostles of Christ”…».

When Pope Eugene IV was solemnly presented with the Act of Union, signed by the Greek representatives, he asked: “Did Mark sign it?”

last years of life

On February 1, 1440, the Greek delegation returned to Constantinople. According to the historian Duka, their meeting was bleak and the question " did we win?" they have replyed: " We sold our faith, exchanged piety for wickedness; having betrayed the Holy Gifts, they became unleavened azimats». Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph II died in 1439 in Florence, and upon the emperor's return to Constantinople, the place of primate was offered to Mark, but he refused to accept the patriarchal dignity. Mitrofan II, who was a supporter of the union, was elected patriarch. Byzantologist G.A. Ostrogorsky writes: The decisions taken at the Council of Florence were of no consequence. The Byzantine people were against the decrees of Ferrara and Florence with passionate fanaticism, and while all? the exhortations of the supporters of the Union were ignored, the fiery sermons of Mark Eugenicus everywhere found an enthusiastic response". A large party of those who did not recognize the union rallied around Mark, many of the bishops who signed the bull took their signatures back. Mark's negative opinion about the union was supported by the monasteries, which had a great spiritual influence on the Orthodox population.

After a short stay in Constantinople, on May 15, 1440, Mark leaves for his metropolis in Ephesus. From there, he sent numerous messages against the union, which set the emperor Manuel against him. The saint also began to restore the church life of the city, which was under the rule of the Turks. Life in Ephesus was not calm for Mark and he decided to leave the city. In his letter to Hieromonk Feofan dated June 16, 1441, he wrote:

... there I did not find any peace and was seriously ill, and being distressed by the wicked and being attacked for the reason that I did not have a mandate from the authorities, I left there with the intention of going to the Holy Mountain.

Mark of Ephesus. .

According to the synaxarion of John Eugenics, when the ship on which Mark sailed landed on the island of Lemnos, the metropolitan was arrested at the direction of the emperor and imprisoned in the local fortress of Mundros, where he spent two years. During this period, he did not cease to correspond, in which he continued to sharply criticize the union and urged believers to adhere to Orthodoxy.

In August (or October) 1442, Mark was released from the fortress and returned to Constantinople, where he continued his struggle with the union. Gregory III Mamma, formerly in last years Mark's life as Patriarch of Constantinople, adhered to the union and was an opponent of Mark. Despite this, according to the testimony of the great rhetorician Manuel, “ ... he, having lifted many labors and converted some of those deceived there, including the most memorable king ...". Mark himself writes about the change in the views of the emperor: “ The emperor ... openly says that he repents of what has happened and lays the blame on those who submitted and signed the Unia».

... as during my whole life I was in separation from those, so - during my departure, and even after my death, I turn away from the treatment and union with them and swear that none (of them) should approach either my burial, nor to my grave ...

Mark of Ephesus. " dying word»

Mark died on June 23, 1444 in Constantinople. According to John Eugenicus, death was preceded by a 14-day agony:

Dying, Mark addressed those present with a parting word, written down by George Scholarius, in which he, even at the time of death, manifests himself as an irreconcilable fighter against the union. In the same word, Mark instructs the future Patriarch George Scholaria to become a fighter for the faith instead of him. The saint was buried in the Mangan monastery in Constantinople. In 1734, under Patriarch Seraphim I of Constantinople, Mark was canonized by the Orthodox Church.

Theological legacy

The theological heritage of Mark of Ephesus consists of works written by him during his work at the Ferrara-Florence Council and subsequent epistles explaining his rejection of the union. In his writings, as a member of the council committee, Mark sets out his analysis of Catholic theology in relation to Orthodox. In Mark's opinion, a number of dogmas in the Western Church (filioque, purgatory) are contrary to Holy Scripture and Tradition.

According to contemporaries, Mark was a brilliant orator, but the texts of his sermons have not been preserved. Known for his attempts to write an autobiography (" An account of how he received the episcopal dignity, and an explanation of the cathedral that was in Florence», « Epistle to Hieromonk Theophan on the Eubean Island"). The writings of Mark of Ephesus are included in the 160th volume of the Patrologia Graeca.

February 1 (January 19, old style) The Orthodox Church honors the memory of St. Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus, the great defender of Orthodoxy, whose mind, labors and prayers brought to naught the efforts of an entire church council, which introduced a shameful union with the Latins in XV century. However, few people know about the miracles of the saint, which were performed both from ancient times and are still being performed today. Portal Orthodoxy.Ru brings to your attention details of some of these miracles performed in XXI century and recorded by the clergy of the church of St. Mark, located on the outskirts of Athens.

The saint takes care of the construction of his temple. When the workers who erected the temple to the saint were working successfully, and the whole process was at the final stage, a lack of funds was discovered and there was a danger that further work stop, and the very attempt to build will become futile. The excitement of the priest was great, and he called for the help of St. Mark, who assured him that the next day a certain person would come and bring a significant amount of money to continue the work (and even named a specific amount). And indeed, the next day a certain gentleman from Vuliagmen came to the temple, asking if this was the temple of St. Mark, and asked to speak with the priest. The priest replied that he already knew what he wanted. And then this unknown gentleman discovered that on the previous evening some monk appeared to him in a dream, introducing himself as Mark Eugenicus, and ordered to help with money the construction of his house in Lower Patisia. The master obeyed the saint and brought as a gift exactly the amount that Saint Mark had given to the priest the previous evening. Thus, work on the construction of the temple could begin again.

The saint appeared and told about the existence of his temple. One pious gentleman from Kypseli used to make pilgrimages to all churches on patronal feasts, but did not know about the existence of the church of St. Mark. Once, when he entered the bakery, he saw a monk who gave him a prosphora and told him to take it to his temple tomorrow. The astonished gentleman asked him: “Who are you, old man? Where is your temple? And the saint answered him: "My name is Mark of Ephesus, my temple is in Lower Patisia." And he gave this man clear instructions on how to go there, which road would lead him to the temple. Indeed, the gentleman, who did not know either about Saint Mark or about the existence of a temple in his honor, followed his instructions and came to his temple, exactly as the saint himself told him. Similar cases, when the saint appeared to people who did not know him, and directed them to his temple, are also known from other witnesses, such as, for example, from one lady from New Philadelphia.

The saint performs miracles of healing. In 2005, a young man in his twenties named George was suffering from a rare disease. Should have done complex operation. The probability of failure was great, and it is quite possible that he could remain paralyzed for life. His mother, with tears, fervently prayed to God for the healing of her son. Then her sister called her and said that some unfamiliar monk appeared to her, introduced himself as Mark Eugenik and said: “Tell the young man’s mother: “I will operate on George, don’t worry.” Indeed, the operation on the next day, despite the difficulties, was successful. During the operation, a monk unknown to the doctors appeared among the doctors, who said that he was a family friend named Mark. And in especially difficult moments, he told doctors how to act. The young man is cured. Both he and his family came to the temple to tell about what had happened and thank the saint.

On another occasion, in 2004, a young New Philadelphia woman prayed fervently that she would become pregnant, that God would grant her a child. One evening, during a prayer, a monk appeared to her and said that his holiday was January 19th. He asked her to come and pray at his temple in Lower Patisia and said that he would hear her prayer. Indeed, the woman did just that. And three days later she became pregnant, gave birth to a healthy baby, and since then she has always come to thank the saint on the day of his memory.

A saint saves a child from a car. In front of the church of St. Mark, one family was crossing the road. At some point, the child evaded the attention of his parents, and a passing car hit him. Frightened parents ran up screaming, fearing the worst. However, in amazement, they saw a little boy who got up and smiled, telling them that at the moment when the car was approaching him, the grandfather in black (Saint Mark) lifted him high into the air and protected him. The parents immediately realized that Saint Mark had saved their child from certain death, and entered the temple, thanking the saint.

Saint Mark of Ephesus

Saint Mark of Ephesus. Fresco. Con. 19th century

... To preserve our true and betrayed by the fathers Faith as a good guarantee, without adding anything and without subtracting anything.

At dawn on February 8, 1438, after all sorts of disasters, the ships with the Greek delegation finally reached Venice. The journey from Constantinople to the shores of Italy took more than two months, and everything was on the way - sea storms, earthquakes and shelling from throwing guns from the coast.

The first to solemnly enter the Gulf of Venice was the imperial trireme, on board of which was the Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaiologos, his royal brother Dmitry Palaiologos and numerous courtiers.

On other ships, the elderly Patriarch arrived in Italy Joseph of Constantinople II, bishops, deacons, theologians and officials from the Patriarchate elected to participate in the Church Ecumenical Council.

The cause for which the Greeks came to Venice was historical significance: it was necessary to resolve the theological differences that had separated the Orthodox and Catholic Churches for almost four hundred years.

The Greek delegation consisted of approximately seven hundred people, and it was the entire ecclesiastical and intellectual elite of Byzantine society.

With the first rays of the sun, the inhabitants of Venice rushed in their boats to meet overseas guests. As a member of the Greek delegation and chronicler of these events, Deacon Sylvester Siropul, writes, so many people gathered that "the sea was not visible from the accumulation of boats."

Soon a Venetian doge arrived at the imperial trireme, accompanied by the first persons of the city, to discuss the solemn ceremony scheduled for the next morning.

“... At five o'clock in the morning, the doge arrived with a majestic retinue, with rulers and advisers, on a golden ship-bucentaur (a large decorated ship on which celebrations were held in Venice. - Ed.), covered with red veils, and on top were golden lions, and on the bow were golden chains. This whole ship was colorful and beautifully painted. Following were half-boats, twelve in number, all decorated and painted inside and out, and there were many rulers on them, and on the sides were golden banners and countless trumpets and all kinds of musical instruments, ”Syropul describes the magnificent festival that began on Sunday on dawn and ended at sunset.

The theatrical celebration was attended by Venetian sailors dressed in uniforms with gold embroidery (“they had caps with the coat of arms of the Republic of St. Mark on their heads”), actors in knightly armor, children dressed as Angels with white wings.

The Greeks were literally stunned by the luxury and carelessness of Venice bathed in gold. In their homeland, they had war, famine, plague epidemics, doom behind them, but here a merry celebration of life reigned.

On the prow of the Doge's main ship, as Siropul writes, "there were two golden lions, and in the middle of them - a golden double-headed eagle, which was movable by all parts, and he either turned to the imperial trireme, then spread his wings and raised his heads ...". And this fluttering eagle from the coat of arms of Byzantium, sandwiched between two Venetian lions, could well be mistaken for a very subtle hint.

The next morning, the members of the Greek delegation recovered to serve the liturgy in the main Venetian Cathedral of St. Mark. The temple was packed with curious people who wanted to see how the Greek rite was held. “We have never seen the Greeks and did not know the rank of their behavior. And they heard about them out of the corner of their ear and considered them barbarians. And now we see and believe that they are the firstborn sons of the Church and the Holy Spirit speaks in them,” Siropul conveys the confession of one of the Venetians. Are they the barbarians who arrived from Constantinople, the center of Eastern Christianity?

Staying in St. Mark's Cathedral made a painful impression on the Greeks. “We saw Divine images in the sacred altar, flickering with a golden dawn, and with a multitude of precious stones, and with the majesty and beauty of pearls, and with the dignity and variety of art, amazing those who see,” Siropul describes the icons stolen by the Venetians during the capture of Constantinople in 1204. For more than two hundred years, all these Greek shrines have guarded Venice.

For about twenty days, magnificent receptions and feasts in honor of the subjects of the dying Byzantine Empire continued in the city, during which the hosts did not even try to hide their smug superiority. It was almost immediately clear to many members of the Greek delegation that the Latin side was not going to make any concessions.

“Having arrived there, we immediately learned by experience the attitude of the Latins towards us - different than we had hoped,” writes Mark Eugenik, Metropolitan of Ephesus, elected exarch (head) of the participants in the dispute from the Byzantine side. And he will cite a thoughtful remark of one of the Greeks after an unofficial, yet "table" exchange of views: "These men, who to such an extent proclaim to us their superiority, will hardly be ready to change anything from their rites and teachings."

Nevertheless, the envoys of Byzantium believed in their victory and hoped that the Church Council appointed in the Italian city of Ferrara would become the second Triumph of Orthodoxy. And Mark of Ephesus already knew that the epigraph to his speeches would be the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to Christians: You are the body of Christ, and individually members(1 Corinthians 12:27).

The first significant hitch occurred immediately upon the arrival of the Patriarch and the Greek bishops in Ferrara, where Pope Eugene IV was waiting for the delegation. When Patriarch Joseph of Byzantium heard that during the meeting ceremony, both he and all the bishops Eastern Church should kneel before the Pope and kiss his foot, he refused to even get off the ship. “Where does the Pope have such a privilege? Which Cathedral gave him this? Show me where he got it from, where is it written down? he asked the envoys from the Pope.

Vague answers, they say, such is the “ancient custom” and even the German emperors perform it, sounded unconvincing for the Orthodox Greeks. “If the Pope wants to kiss brotherly, according to our ancient and church custom, then I go down to him, and if he does not agree, then I refuse to leave the ship and set off on my way back,” the Greek Patriarch announced.

The meeting between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople took place behind closed doors and turned out to be very short. Its witnesses were only the knights under the leadership of Marquesius, the ruler of Ferrara, who guarded the papal chambers.

Pope Eugene IV was sitting on the throne "high and exalted" when the Patriarch approached him and stood up kissing him with a kiss in Christ. After that, they just silently parted: the Pope remained in the hall, the Patriarch was taken to the chambers prepared for him.

A lot of time was taken up by the discussion of the order in which the participants of the Council should sit during the meetings. The Latin side insisted that they sit in one part of the temple, the Greeks in the other, and the Pope of Rome sat in the center, the “connecting link”.

The Byzantines could not possibly agree to this. From the 4th century, from the time of the First Ecumenical Council, and in all subsequent church forums of this level, the open Gospel has always been at the center of the meeting. So it was this time, when on April 9, 1438, in Great Wednesday, in the Ferrara Church of the Great Martyr George, the solemn opening of the Church Council took place.

From the side of the Greeks, Mark of Ephesus delivered a welcoming speech, and even he, always so calm and reserved, could not always hide his excitement.

“How long, children of one Christ and one faith, will we attack one another and divide one another? How long, worshipers of the One Trinity, will we bite and devour each other, will we really destroy each other, so that external enemies will turn us into non-existence? he said, addressing some of his words directly to the Pope.

“I can no longer continue talking, I am already in confusion from suffering. May God, who is able to do everything, correct His Church, which He redeemed with His own blood…” – and here the voice of Mark of Ephesus must have trembled a little…

Mark of Ephesus (in the world - Manuel Eugenic) was born in 1392 in the Byzantine capital.

His father George Eugenik and mother Maria, both of noble birth, moved from Trebizond lands to Constantinople after their marriage. Soon they had two sons: the eldest was named Manuel (this name was also given to the ruling Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos at that time), the youngest was named John.

In the Byzantine capital, George Eugenik served as a deacon in the Hagia Sophia and quickly rose to the position of a sacellaria (adviser who oversaw the parish churches), and also headed a school - either his own, or the one that was located at the Hagia Sophia. In this school, Mark of Ephesus received his primary education, before the course of rhetoric.

When the children grew up, they were sent by their parents to the famous school of Joseph Vrienniy, located within the walls Studio monastery. The youngest of the sons of the Sacellarius, John Eugenicus, writes that from childhood he and his brother sought to learn from mentors "of the best and most famous."

About thirty of the best Byzantine teachers taught at the school of Vriennios, the most famous of them was the theologian and philosopher George Gemist, who, out of love for philosophy, took the name Pliphon (consonant with Plato).

In the work of the great rhetorician Manuel, found in the manuscripts of the Paris Library, it is said that in his youth, Mark of Ephesus studied the whole range of liberal sciences, “which he short time passed, as if on wings, and surpassed all his fellow students and peers. The queen of all sciences at that time in Byzantium, of course, was theology.

George Plifon must have been one of the first to draw attention to the abilities of Manuel Eugenikus, his outstanding memory, ability to develop his thoughts in front of the public and love for the Holy Scriptures.

When Manuel Eugenicus was thirteen years old, and his younger brother John was even younger, their father died.

Manuel's spiritual mentor was Patriarch Euthymius of Constantinople, who took the Sacellarius children under his care and helped them to make up their minds in life.

After graduating from school, Manuil Evgenik became a teacher of rhetoric at the school of Hagia Sophia. His duties included detailed interpretation Holy Scripture. At the age of twenty-four, he was already a votary of rhetors (that is, something like the director of the patriarchal school).

But two years later, unexpectedly for everyone, Manuel Eugenicus left the capital for the island of Antigonus and took monastic vows there with the name Mark. “Do not cling to the world and you will avoid sorrows. Despise him - and you will always be joyful, ”Mark of Ephesus wrote, and he himself did just that.

When, under the threat of the Turkish conquest, the monks were forced to leave Antigonus, Mark Eugenics returned to Constantinople again and settled in the Mangan Monastery of the Great Martyr George.

“Living in the capital, he was a stranger to her life, because nothing connected him with her. Deeply revered by everyone, he not only did not seek honors, but also did not want them, ”writes George Scholarius, one of the favorite students of Mark of Ephesus.

The ascetic way of life of Mark is also mentioned in the essay “Mr. Manuel, the Great Rhetor, about Mark, the most holy Metropolitan of Ephesus, and about the Cathedral of Florence”: “Before, he did not like to leave the monastery and his cell in violation of silence and attention to himself, that and even relatives by blood did not appear in the eyes.

His younger brother John at that time served in Constantinople as a deacon in one of the churches and became a nomophylac, an important official in the Patriarchate. Both the brother and many others constantly turned to Mark Eugenicus as an authoritative connoisseur of Orthodox dogma and Holy Scripture.

Mark Eugenicus remained as adviser on theological issues even after 1425, when the Byzantine emperor Manuel II was replaced on the throne by his son John VIII Palaiologos.

It was difficult to envy the inheritance that Vasilevs inherited. By that time, almost the entire territory of Byzantium, with the exception of Constantinople and its environs, several islands between Greece and Asia Minor, and a piece of land in southern Greece, had been conquered by the Turks. The Byzantine emperor was a vassal of the Turkish Sultan Murad II, paying him a huge, ruinous tribute.

As long as the Western Latin and Eastern Orthodox Churches were divided, Byzantium could not count on military and material support from Europe. It was necessary first to conclude a union (agreement) between the two Churches.

When Sultan Murad II moved the Ottoman army to Europe and already captured many Slavic lands, not hiding their claims to world domination, the Western rulers also attended to the issue of accepting the union.

The main stumbling block dividing christianity, it was filioque (filioque - “and the Son”) - adding to latin translation Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. According to Latin teaching, the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son, with which Orthodox theology strongly disagreed.

First of all, the very possibility of any changes in the Creed adopted by the Ecumenical Councils was denied.

The change in the dogma of “only” one word meant that the third Hypostasis of the Trinity – God the Holy Spirit – is subordinate to the first two and undeservedly belittled. AT Orthodox world the filioque was unequivocally perceived as a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and a departure from paternal traditions. There are other dogmatic differences in the teachings of the Orthodox and Catholics, but it is the filioque, as John Eugenicus wrote, that "separates us with a sufficient wall."

The Byzantines hoped to defeat the stubbornness of the Latins and believed that at the Council the schism (in Greek - “schism”) would finally be overcome and there would be historical event- the reunion of the two Churches.

The last church forum of this magnitude, recognized by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, was held in 787 in Nicaea, more than five hundred years ago.

The Greeks began to actively prepare for the historic trip: ambassadors were sent from Constantinople to the rulers of Russia, Georgia, the Empire of Trebizond and other Orthodox states with an invitation to take part in the Church Council.

The list of the Greek delegation included the most influential people of Byzantium, including George Plethon and his most prominent students.

In order to make the speeches of the theologians at the forum sound more weighty, some of them were ordained bishops shortly before the trip: Mark of Ephesus, Bessarion of Nicaea, Dionysius of Sardis.

Mark Eugenicus, who had lived within the walls of the monastery for twenty years, did not seek to take the hierarchical rank, which, as he himself wrote, was “higher than both my dignity and strength,” but submitted to the needs of the Church.

Even the oldest Greek bishops agreed to take part in the Council, desiring to stand up for the truth and hoping that their experience could be useful. “Look around, and you will see how many venerable elders are in front of you, weak and not getting out of bed, in need of complete rest, how even they left their own possessions ...” - Mark of Ephesus will say in his opening speech, pointing to the Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph eighty-seven years and some other respectable elders.

Mark Eugenicus, now Metropolitan of Ephesus, also participated in the Council as locum tenens of two eastern patriarchs, Antioch and Jerusalem, who themselves were unable to travel to Italy. Mark, in embarrassment, did not want to accept the letter with his decision to the locum tenens, but, as one of his letters says, his brother "kept it and brought it here."

John Eugenicus was also part of the Greek delegation as official from the Patriarchate. Apparently, he was proud that his older brother was chosen as the head of the participants in the dispute. John always treated Mark with great respect, calling him in his writings "representative", "protector", "leader", "most divine father".

“I believed that everything would be fine with us and we would accomplish something great and worthy of our work and hopes,” Mark of Ephesus wrote, recalling his mood at the time of his arrival in Ferrara.

Cathedral of St. Great Martyr George.

Ferrara, Italy. Founded in the 12th century.

The Byzantine emperor John entered the main city gates of Ferrara to the music, riding a horse, decorated with a red veil and a bridle embroidered with gold.

But it soon became clear that an insufficient number of Western bishops and representatives from European states had arrived in Ferrara for the assembly to be considered an Ecumenical Council. Many Western rulers were at war with each other, the bishops were also divided. Just at that time, a parallel Church Council was held in Basel, where they did not recognize Pope Eugene IV.

According to the Pope, at least four more months were needed to invite other participants to the Council. The Byzantine emperor was now ready to wait. We agreed to officially open the Council, and in the meantime send out invitations to influential people and, waiting for their arrival, begin preliminary discussions on the main dogmatic differences.

On Holy Wednesday 1438, the Cathedral of Ferrara was officially opened and preliminary hearings began.

In the theological duels, ten people spoke from each side: two main speakers and their assistants, who, in case of emergency, could be contacted on difficult questions.

The Pope of Rome with the cardinals, the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch with the bishops sat opposite each other in places of honor, like arbitrators. Everyone else was spectators or ensured order at meetings.

The position of the Greeks was represented by Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nicaea, known for their eloquence and learning, both students of George Plethon.

To begin with, the parties decided to discuss dogmatic differences on the issue of purgatory fire, or purgatory. The Eastern Church directly denies the existence of purgatory, and Mark of Ephesus reasonably justified such a position, relying on Holy Scripture and the works of the Church Fathers.

He could not be knocked down or pissed off even by deliberately tricky questions:

How do angels fly?

– Of what substance does the unquenchable fire of hell consist, into which all sinners will be thrown?

Passions escalated to the point that one of the members of the Greek delegation, a member of the synod, named Jagaris, could not stand it and shouted from his seat:

- The questioner will know about this when he goes there himself!

But Mark of Ephesus remained calm and amazed everyone by the fact that he answered the most unexpected questions without any preparation.

The emperor was very pleased with his answers and at some point ordered that from the side of the Greeks only Mark alone would lead the discussion. This extremely hurt Bessarion of Nicaea, who harbored a grudge against Mark. The presentation of the arguments of the Greeks in writing was also entrusted to Mark of Ephesus.

Soon a small "anti-Markovian party" was formed within the Greek delegation. The most active participants were the confessor of the emperor, Protosyncellus Gregory (“a disorderly and dishonorable person,” as Siropul described him), Bessarion of Nicaea who suffered from envy and Isidore of Kyiv, who openly sympathized with the Catholics.

The confessor of the emperor, Protosyncellus Gregory, increasingly began to remind Basileus that the Byzantines had come to Ferrara not in search of truth, but for military and financial assistance. And if the conduct of disputes is further entrusted to Mark of Ephesus, then they definitely will not receive anything from the Pope.

But the emperor was already tired of attending scholarly debates. Vasilevs retired to a monastery near Ferrara, where he began to indulge in hunting and other pleasant entertainments.

A decree was handed over to the local authorities so that none of the Greeks would leave the city without special permission from the emperor.

Already at the preliminary stage, it was clear to some members of the Greek delegation that theological disputes serve only as a cover for big politics, and they will be persuaded to accept the union on any, even the most humiliating, conditions. Some of the Greeks made an attempt to leave Ferrara in order to avoid a deal with conscience.

The Metropolitan of Heraclius "seeing a big mistake and inaction" received imperial permission to leave for Venice. John Eugenicus did the same, whom Mark went to escort to the ship.

The ill-wishers, who followed every step of the Eugenic brothers and looked for any opportunity to defame them in the eyes of the emperor, became alarmed. Early in the morning, Bessarion of Nicaea appeared to the Patriarch and ordered to urgently send a chase after the "fugitives".

Siropul describes this episode in detail, since he was also among those sent for the “fugitives”: “We found in Flankolimo the Metropolitan of Ephesus, talking on the high bank of the river with a nomophylac (John Eugenicus. - Ed.), and the Metropolitan of Heraclius, sitting on the ship with your luggage. We, too, immediately entered the boat and conveyed to Heraclius the command of the emperor to return. He spoke a lot in favor of flight that they (Latins. - Ed.) deceive us, and do not arrange a Council, and that it would be a disgrace for him to leave and return again with the luggage. Since he did not obey the words, we arrested the ship and by force returned the Metropolitan of Heraclius and the Nomophylacus. The Metropolitan of Ephesus said that he went only to accompany his brother, and now he is returning.”

Siropoul also cites the main argument of Bessarion of Nicaea, why the matter had to be brought to an end in any case: otherwise the Pope "will say that we have stopped the Council of our own free will and must reimburse all expenses ...".

From the very first days in Ferrara, and even earlier, the Greeks were in complete material dependence on Pope Eugene IV. After all, they arrived at the Cathedral on papal ships, and, by agreement, they had to return home in the same way.

For all participants in the Council, the Pope of Rome determined the allowance from his treasury: every month the Byzantine emperor received thirty florins, the Patriarch twenty-five, the emperor’s brother Dmitry twenty, the emperor’s and the Patriarch’s close associates five each, and the servants three florins each as a subsidy for accommodation and meals. But the money began to be paid with a delay - first for a month, and then for two, and for three ...

Wise in life, Greek Patriarch Joseph knowingly insisted on holding a Council in Constantinople: “... As soon as we receive daily support from them, we will already be slaves and mercenaries, and they will be masters,” he told his compatriots. “A slave must do the will of his master, and every mercenary must do the work of the one who hired him.”

However, the Greeks were no longer able to hold a forum of this magnitude, and the emperor understood this better than others: he had neither money, nor an army, nor a navy. Even trade in Constantinople was already almost completely controlled by Venetian and Genoese merchants. We needed at least some support from the West, a union, anything ...

The summer passed imperceptibly, autumn came, and the conciliar hearings in Ferrara still had not begun.

Gloomy news came from Constantinople: an epidemic of plague broke out in the capital, no one knew about the fate of their relatives. There were rumors that the Turks were in full swing preparing for the siege of Constantinople, the Greeks were now only talking about this, after all, they had already spent half a year in a foreign land.

But Mark of Ephesus diligently studied Latin theological books all summer, discovering late inserts or inaccurate translations in them, and prepared for disputes. The deeper he delved into the teachings of the Western Church, the more he found contradictions with the decisions of all previous Ecumenical Councils.

It is unlikely that Mark noticed that intrigues were woven against him, and he attached importance to his primacy in conducting discussions. “Do not seek empty glory, neither in appearance, nor in communication with people, nor in speeches, nor in your connections, nor in your strength or power, nor in your successes,” says one of the teachings of Mark of Ephesus, clearly based on his own experience.

Finally, on October 8, the conciliar hearings resumed in Ferrara, and immediately with a sharp topic - about the legitimacy of any additions to the Creed.

Mark of Ephesus demanded that, for the sake of restoring the truth, the definitions of all previous Ecumenical Councils be read, in which the Latin side was clearly not interested.

At the cathedral hearings, which took place in the palace, a lot of people gathered, filling all the rooms on the first and second floors, and supporters of the Pope tried to dissuade that the audience would not be interested in listening to the reading of official documents.

But Mark, with the support of his compatriots, managed to insist on his own, and he personally read aloud all the conciliar resolutions, accompanying them with his comments. Although this reading took place somewhat strangely: with the lamps extinguished (to put the listeners to sleep?), and for some reason the Gospel was closed for that time.

Mark's arguments convinced many listeners, especially among Western monks. As Siropul writes, this aroused anger among the pope's entourage, and everything possible was done so that the monks, as people "ignorant" and lacking a theological education, were removed from subsequent meetings.

Fifteen conciliar hearings took place in three months. The Greeks acted as accusers, demanding an answer about the additions to the Creed, while the Latin side diverted questions into theological jungle.

“To say this,” Mark of Ephesus writes about the disputes in Ferrara, “seemed to sing to deaf ears, or boil a stone, or sow on a stone, or write on water, or other similar things that proverbs say about the impossible.”

With the onset of winter, more and more people began to talk about the need to transfer the Cathedral from Ferrara to Florence. According to Siropulus, the emperor and the Pope feared that the Greek bishops would still begin to scatter, and therefore decided to move the Cathedral to another city, away from the sea.

The official version of the transfer of the Cathedral, announced from the pulpit of the temple on January 16, 1439, sounded like this: “Since a deadly epidemic began in the city, and in winter, then, fearing an outbreak of the epidemic in the spring, according to our laws and canons, we transfer this Cathedral from Ferrara to Florence, a city free and peaceful, windy and healthy." Although everyone present knew that the epidemic in Ferrara had ceased already in November. The Greeks murmured softly, but where was there to go?

Some members of the Greek delegation by that time were so impoverished that they had nothing to pay for housing. Some had to spend the night in miserable sheds and sleep on almost bare ground, many sold their last clothes in order to buy at least some food.

“Ours endured delays hard, and suffered in need, and were plagued by hunger, because they also had to live in poverty: nothing was given to anyone from the agreed expenses in order to force them to gradually submit to them,” Mark of Ephesus will recall with sympathy, but so, as if the hardships did not concern him personally.

During the work of the Council, Mark wrote a number of important theological works: “Ten Arguments Against the Existence of Purgatory”, “The Sum of Sayings about the Holy Spirit”, “Chapters Against the Latins”, “Confession of Faith”, “On the Time of Transubstantiation” and others.

Only in Florence did it finally become clear why the Pope and the Latin bishops had started all this troublesome move. Council meetings in Florence on February 26 immediately began with a discussion of dogmas.

The unfavorable for the Latin side question of the inadmissibility of additions to the Creed was somehow quietly "hushed up" and slipped through.

“Why should one despise the words of the holy fathers and think and speak other than what is written in the general Tradition? Shall we suppose that their faith was insufficient and that we should introduce our faith as more perfect?” - Mark of Ephesus asked already in his opening speech.

If everyone recognized the correctness of posing such a question, the topic of the filioque could not be discussed further. Now, in Florence, everything began in a new circle.

In theological discussions with Catholics, Mark of Ephesus again dominated, but now the Greeks were much less pleased with his successful answers. Everyone was worried about something else: will the Pope give ships to return home? What is happening in Constantinople? Will the promised florins be paid to pay for a hotel in Florence, where everything is so expensive? And when will all this finally end?

During meetings, members of the "anti-Markov group" now sat down together and not only did not help Mark lead the discussion, but often accompanied his speeches with caustic remarks and ridicule. And they did not even hide the fact that they express the mood of the basileus, who dreamed of signing the union as soon as possible on any conditions. “They stung this great man both with their silence and with their own words,” George Scholariy will write later.

Now their own, the Greeks, unanimously reproached Mark for lack of patriotism, intractability, bad character, they called him “a deceiver who averts from the truth,” and even spread rumors that he had gone crazy from his stubbornness.

But Mark of Ephesus stood his ground: it is impossible for the sake of any practical benefit to sacrifice the highest ideals, in matters of faith there should be no compromises.

In the “Tombstone to Mark of Ephesus”, George Scholarius will try to find an excuse for his silence, because he also did not support and turned away from the teacher at that time - “I also did not want to exhibit our learning”, “great caution was required of me”. But then he will find the strength to repent and admit that he simply showed weakness along with others: “But this great father of ours meekly listened to malicious speeches, for he did not seek to exalt himself and considered his struggle for truth to be sufficient defense against slander. He remembered that our Lord Himself was slandered. This is how he endured abuse. And none of us - oh shame! - did not come to his aid!

The day came when the basileus gathered his compatriots and said bluntly: disputes give rise to disunity, it is necessary to conclude a union with the Catholics on any conditions. The emperor declared all those who disagreed to be state criminals who did not think about saving their fatherland, and threatened with reprisals.

“... I told you in advance, so that you know that he who contradicts, loves disputes and does not obey the decision of the majority, will find anger, ridicule and everything else from my kingdom that is appropriate for his embarrassment and humility, so that he does not rage as he has to, but he knew his measure and followed the majority, ”said, according to Siropul, the angry basileus to the Greeks.

Everyone agreed to sign the union - everyone except Mark of Ephesus.

The aged Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople was ill at that time and lived out his last days in Florence. Having gathered the bishops, he, as Siropul tells, in a weak voice also called on everyone to support the emperor, speaking about the benefits of the union for saving the fatherland from the Turks.

“... Hearing about this, our enemies will be afraid, afraid and tremble and will serve us and seek our friendship. We will not dishonor ourselves in any way if we do some indulgence, ”he convinced everyone, and above all, probably, himself. “... And himself, unfortunate, eager to depart from there as soon as possible, although fate drove him to death,” Mark of Ephesus recalls the once adamant old man in one of his messages.

At one of the meetings, Bessarion of Nicaea began to openly shower Mark with abuse, accusing him of excessive stubbornness and dislike for the fatherland. Mark left the meeting, and in his absence, the disputing parties found a theological "loophole", which Mark of Ephesus will write about in his "District Epistle to Orthodox Christians": but simply: from the Father - and this expression does not exclude the Son.

On July 5, 1439, the oros of the Ferraro-Florence Council was signed, which was, in fact, the capitulation of the Greeks to the Latin side. Instead of the triumph of truth, the Eastern Church was subjugated to Rome. In its final form, the text of the document contained not only the Creed with filioque, but also the “dogma” about the supremacy of the Pope.

The cathedral oros says: “The holy apostolic see and the Roman bishop is the successor of blessed Peter, the head of the apostles, and is the true locum tenens of Christ and the whole Church, the head and all Christians, the father and teacher. And to him in blessed Peter was given by the Lord Jesus Christ the full authority to shepherd and guide and nourish the Universal Church.

For Orthodoxy, the Ferrara-Florence Council was a tremendous failure, a mistake into which the top of the Church of Constantinople was drawn.

“For the subsequent Greek tradition, the true winner at the Council of Florence was Mark of Ephesus, who did not convince the others at that moment, but showed incredible personal firmness,” writes Byzantine historian Alexander Zanemonets.

On the last day of the meetings, Mark of Ephesus sat in silence, not communicating with anyone and not commenting on what was happening. Exactly as the apostle Paul says: Empty disputes between people of a damaged mind, alien to the truth, who think that godliness is for profit. Get away from those(1 Tim. 6:5).

The signing of the Uniate oros became his big human pain. Everyone retreated from him: friends, students, and more recently like-minded people.

“But since then, having dissociated myself from them, I went into myself, in order to constantly agree with my holy fathers and teachers, to make my view known to everyone through this writing of mine, so that [anyone] who wants it would be possible to weigh: ... I did not accept the concluded union, ”he will write later about what he experienced in Florence.

When it came to signing the council act, Mark of Ephesus said loudly: “I won’t sign, no matter what it means to me!” The oros does not bear the signature of his brother John Eugenicus, who nevertheless received permission to leave Ferrara in the fall.

Several members of the Greek delegation, having learned that they would be forced to sign the union, hastily left Florence the day before. The Emperor's brother Dmitri Palaiologos and Mark Gemist's teacher Plethon secretly fled from Florence. Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople died before the signing of the final decree took place, and there is no signature under it.

When the oros was shown to Pope Eugene IV, he was extremely disappointed when he did not see the signature of Mark of Ephesus, and said distressedly: “So we did nothing!”

The long-awaited return of the Greek delegation to the fatherland was bleak.

Instead of the promised ships, the Pope agreed with the Venetian merchants that the Greeks would be “carried” to Constantinople on merchant ships. Two of them were filled to the brim with goods and, as Siropul writes, they had to go in terrible crowding, everyone felt like slaves who were being taken to the slave market. Yes, they acted, in general, like slaves ...

Only on the way back did the full shame of an almost commercial and useless transaction begin to reach many.

The Pope has promised to send three hundred soldiers to guard Constantinople and a few warships for the coast guard, but is that enough to protect Byzantium from the hordes of Turks?

On the shore in Constantinople, the emperor was told the sad news, which was hidden from him for some time: in his absence, during the plague, the Empress Maria, his beloved wife, died.

The delegation, which returned to the capital of Byzantium on February 1, 1440, was met by a large crowd of citizens. The people did not want to believe the rumors about the signing of the Catholic Union, everyone was eager to learn about the results of the Council first hand.

“In agitation and despair, the bishops answered: “We sold our faith, exchanged piety for wickedness, betrayed the pure Sacrifice and became unleavened.” They were asked in bewilderment: “Why?” The answer was discordant: “We were afraid of the Franks.” “They tortured you? Threatened?" - "No! And let my right hand, which signed, be cut off, and my tongue, which I confessed, be torn out." The people went home disappointedly,” Siropul tells about this meeting without embellishment, having invested in his memories and all the power of personal repentance.

The Orthodox people did not accept the union, and this was expressed in open sabotage of the results of the Council: in many Byzantine churches, during the liturgy, the Creed was still read without the filioque and the Pope was not commemorated. Unrest and disorder began throughout Byzantium ....

After the return, it was necessary to elect a new Patriarch of Constantinople to replace Joseph, who had died and was buried in a foreign land. The emperor even offered the chair to Mark of Ephesus, probably hoping in this way to extinguish the flaring up conflict. But Mark refused, left the capital and went to his metropolis in Ephesus, where he led the opposition against the union.

In all his writings and letters, he harshly criticized the supporters of the union, calling them Latin-wise, Greco-Latins or Babylonians involved in the Babylon of the Latin rites.

Among the signatories of the oros of the Ferrara-Florence Council were staunch supporters of the Latins, such as Bessarion of Nicaea or Isidore of Kyiv. The cunning Greek Isidore was generally appointed Metropolitan of Kyiv on the eve of the Council in order to ensure the support of the union from the Kyiv Metropolis.

This was done without the knowledge of the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily II the Dark.

In the scientific world, they are usually called Latinophile-minded erudite, who were fond of the rationalistic theology of Thomas Aquinas.

But there were many more at that time who wavered in their convictions. According to the apt expression of Gregory the Theologian, these people treated different confessions of faith as shoes that easily adapt to any foot.

Mark of Ephesus also found his own image: “These people can be likened to the fabulous hippocentaurs, these half-humans ... With the Latins, they assert the correctness and justice of the addition to the Creed, with us they do not assert this.”

Mark sent out his district message to all the dioceses, addressing it to those who are still firm in the Orthodox confession of faith. During this period, he even wrote one unusual creation for himself, entitled "Evidence collected by Mark of Ephesus that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father." This collection, containing more than a hundred short quotations from the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the Holy Fathers, was something of a reminder for those who would be ready to enter into a debate with the Uniates.

Even the Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaiologos subsequently repented of putting pressure on the participants in the Ferrara-Florence Council and forcing everyone to sign the union. Mark of Ephesus wrote about this in a letter to the monk Theophanes: “Know that this false unity has already been destroyed by the grace and power of God, and the Latin dogma, instead of being confirmed by this false Council, which they always tried to do, is even more overthrown and exposed, and branded as blasphemous and wicked. And those who approved him do not even dare to open their mouths in his defense. And the emperor, realizing this, does not say any of his words. He openly repents of his deed and shifts the blame to those who, having agreed, signed the decree.

For his anti-Uniate position, Mark of Ephesus was subjected to various attacks from the authorities and soon decided to move to Athos. But on the way to the Holy Mountain, his ship was caught in a storm and landed on the island of Lemnos. Here, by order of the emperor, Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus was arrested and imprisoned in the local fortress of Mundros, where he spent two years in custody.

By that time, Mark was already seriously ill, but he did not cease to follow what was happening in the Church and correspond with his like-minded people. It was a great joy for him to learn that in 1443 the Jerusalem Council, with the participation of three Eastern patriarchs, decisively rejected the union. Already on his deathbed, he was not thinking about himself: “Lest I die in sorrow, despairing of saving the Church!”

All the last days, next to Mark was his disciple George Scholarius, who repented of signing the union and returned to Orthodoxy. It was him that Mark saw as the successor to his ideas.

“When I am ready to depart from this world, I do not see anyone else who could, as I think, replace me for the defense of the Church, the holy faith and the dogmas of Orthodoxy, and for this reason I entrust this matter to him…” he wrote in his "Death Testament to George Scholarius". And he received in response a written oath to remain faithful to Orthodoxy. In this epistle, Scholarius refers to Mark of Ephesus as his "father, teacher, mentor of his childhood".

An essay entitled "Confession" His Holiness Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus Eugenics, uttered by him at his very death, ”where the saint expresses his request to his disciples to ensure that neither the Patriarch, nor the bishops, nor other clergy who signed the union, come to his funeral and do not show him posthumous honors. As Mark wrote, this is necessary in order "so that no one could assume between the two of us any rapprochement."

Saint Mark of Ephesus died on July 23, 1444 (according to other sources, in 1445) in Constantinople. He was a little over fifty years old, and, as Scholarius writes, he was "in all the strength of this transient life" and was snatched away by death before he was old.

The tombstone of George Scholaria, pronounced at the burial of Mark of Ephesus, is at the same time a public confession and a panegyric to a man who proved himself “stronger than adamant in the struggle against changes in the Faith.” “He did not have a model in our time. Such men appear only by the special destinies of God!” - said Georgy Scholary, who also dedicated funerary verses to his teacher.

Soon after the death of Mark and long before his official canonization, the younger brother John (he is recognized as a major Byzantine writer) created the first memorial service and compiled the life of Mark. Thanks to this work, many details of the biography of the saint became known.

For about ten years, Mark of Ephesus did not live until 1453, when the Byzantine Empire fell. But, as it turned out, Orthodoxy survived the Byzantine state. In the lands conquered by the Turks Church of Constantinople still numbered thousands of believers.

“Christianity is at war now, as before…” – George Scholary wrote. Later, he will become a monk with the name Gennady and become the first Patriarch of Constantinople under Ottoman rule.

The fates of those who put their signatures under the oros of the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral developed differently.

One of the supporters of the union, Metropolitan Isidore of Kyiv, went from Italy as a papal legate to his metropolis in Russia. The solemn liturgy served by him in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin with the commemoration of the name of the Pope and the proclamation of the Florentine definition aroused indignation throughout Moscow. Isidore was taken into custody, after a trial and a short imprisonment, he fled from Moscow and never returned to Russia.

After the fall of Byzantium, the idea became stronger and stronger in the minds of the Russian people: Russia is the direct heir of Byzantium, the guardian of the Orthodox faith, Moscow is the third Rome.

About Mark of Ephesus, not knowing his entire biography, in Russia they said this: this is the same Saint Mark, who then alone in Florence did not sign the union with the Catholics.

In a letter from Mark of Ephesus to Scholarius, there are words on this subject that are important for all of us: “There is a middle between light and darkness - called evening and morning twilight, but between Truth and falsehood, no matter how hard anyone tries, they will not invent something in between.”

From the book How the Bible Came to Be author Edel Conrad

* Around 1444 BC, Moses wrote five books placed under his name at the beginning of the Bible. Later they were collectively known as the "Book of the Law of Moses" or "Torah". This book was kept in the Most Holy Israelite Sanctuary (Deuteronomy 31:24-26), and the two stone tablets with the Ten

From the book of Mukhtasar "Sahih" (collection of hadiths) by al-Bukhari

Chapter 1444 - The sin of a man whose neighbor is not safe from his evil. 1929(6016). It is narrated from the words of Abu Shurayh, may Allah be pleased with him, that (once) the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) exclaimed: “By Allah, he will not believe, I swear by Allah, he will not

From the book My Life in Christ. Volume 2 author John of Kronstadt

Entry 1444 You are dreaming that you are praying, and you have long abandoned prayer: the so-called prayer by you is only vain sounds without meaning to your heart. You speak words, but you do not sympathize with them with your heart; you are deceiving God and yourself. When praying, be sure to listen to your heart and

From the book 100 great biblical characters author Ryzhov Konstantin Vladislavovich

Mark Mark came from a poor family close to the apostle Peter. In addition, he was a relative of Barnabas, a friend of the Apostle Paul. At one time, Mark accompanied the latter on his missionary journeys, but later they parted, and the young man became Peter's companion,

From book New Testament the author Melnik Igor

Mark. From the very beginning - who is Mark? Is it an apostle? Wait, let's check. Mark himself says nothing about who he is. In any case, until he speaks. Matthew told us the names of all the twelve apostles. Here they are: Simon (Peter), Andrew, James, John - these were called

From the book Doctrine and Life of the Early Church by Hall Stewart J.

CYRIL, NESTORIUS AND THE CATHEDRAL OF EPHESUS 431 Cyril and Nestorius Cyril led the Alexandrian church in 412. The previous Bishop Theophilus was his uncle and from an early age prepared the boy for himself as an assistant. In particular, they went together to the "Synod under the Oak" in 403, where

From the book Russian saints author (Kartsova), nun Taisia

Ephesus Council 449 Dioscorus arrived in Ephesus and immediately announced the opening of the meeting. First, the credentials of the imperial envoys were read out, then they proceeded to consider the case of Eutychius based on the materials of the “Home Synod”. Flavian and his supporters were not allowed

From the book Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary by Elwell Walter

Saint Guriy, Archbishop of Kazan (+ 156h), and Saint Barsanuphius, Bishop of Tver (+ 1575), enlighteners of Kazan. Their memory is celebrated on 4 October. on the day of finding the relics, in the 1st Week after 4 Oct. together with the Cathedral of Kazan Saints, on the 1st Week after the feast of Sts. apostles Peter

From the book An Anthology of Eastern Christian Theological Thought, Volume I author author unknown

Ephesus Cathedral (Ephesus, Council of, 431). Church history knows two Ephesian cathedrals. The first of them (431) was recognized by the Third Ecumenical Council (following after Nicea, convened in 325, and Constantinople - in 381). The Second Council of Ephesus was convened in 449 to

From the book Guide to the Bible author Asimov Isaac

The Book of St. Hierotheus (fragment) (translated by Yu. N. Arzhanov) The second utterance of St. Hierotheus The head and the beginning of the second utterance. The word of St. Hierotheus about the secrecy of good things. You, O my son, “enter your inner room, close your door” (Matt. 6, 6) and “drink water

From the book Taste of True Orthodoxy author Seraphim Hieromonk

Mark Christian Bishop II c. Papias claimed that the one who was called Mark compiled the Gospel, using as his source information received from Simon Peter himself. Undoubtedly, he refers to the second Gospel. Obviously, Peter had a younger

From the book History of Religion in 2 volumes [In Search of the Way, Truth and Life + Ways of Christianity] the author Men Alexander

Later Ages: St. Mark of Ephesus Photius: The Latins appealed to the authority of Augustine, quoting him (at times inaccurately) in defense of their various teachings, such as

From the book The Path to Sacred Silence. Little-known creations of the holy fathers-hesychasts author Team of authors

Ephesus Center. Troubles in Corinth (Asia Minor - Greece, 54 - 57) Paul and ApollosIn Ephesus, Paul first of all hurried to see Akila and Priscilla, his faithful co-workers. The long-awaited meeting with friends was especially pleasant after grief, disputes, and also

From the book of Prayers in Russian by the author

MARK OF EPHESUS SYLLOGICAL CHAPTERS ON THE DIFFERENCE OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE AND ENERGY AGAINST THE HERESY OF THE AKINDINISTS Dunaeva 1. If the divine essence and energy are one and the same, then

From the book Letters (issues 1-8) author Theophan the Recluse

Macarius of Unzhensky and Zheltovodsk, Rev. (+1444) The Monk Macarius was born in 1349 in Nizhny Novgorod into the family of pious parents Ivan and Marya.

From the author's book

1444. To Archpriest NN. Characteristics of the Khlysty sect and instruction on interviews with them Archpriest N.N. The grace of God be with you! I send you 4 books. against your sectarians. These are not Molokans, but whips, or eunuchs. Molokan will never hold icons and images

Bishop of Constantinople Orthodox Church, Metropolitan of Ephesus, Orthodox theologian, member of the Ferrara-Florence Council, who did not accept the union.
Mark was born in Constantinople, his father was a deacon and sacrellarium at the church of Hagia Sophia, his mother was the daughter of a doctor.
He was educated at home, studied rhetoric and mathematics. At the age of 13, he lost his father and continued his studies with two famous professors of that time: he studied rhetoric with John Hortasmen, and philosophy with George Gemist Plethon. At an early age, Mark took the position of his father at the church of Hagia Sophia, and at the age of 24 he received the title of "Votaria Rhetors".
From his youth, Mark had a penchant for theology and the ascetic life.
Being the spiritual son of Patriarch Euthymius of Constantinople, Mark became close to the imperial court and attracted the attention of Emperor Manuel II, who made him his adviser. In 1418, Mark left Constantinople and took monastic vows in a monastery on the island of Antigonus. Soon, fearing a Turkish conquest, the monks left the monastery, and Mark returned to Constantinople and settled in the Mangan monastery.
Emperor John VIII, who succeeded Manuel, also highly appreciated Mark, as evidenced by a number of writings of the saints, written at the request of the emperor to provide answers to questions of a theological and philosophical nature. In 1437, by the will of the emperor, Mark became Metropolitan of Ephesus and on November 24, together with him and the patriarch, as part of a delegation of Orthodox bishops, he went to a church council with Catholics in Ferrara, which lasted two years and was called the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral. According to researchers, the elevation of Mark to the rank of bishop was done so that he, not as a simple monk, but as a high-ranking church hierarch, represented Byzantium at the council. This is also confirmed by the fact that before the return of Mark from Italy, nothing is known about his affairs in managing the diocese.
On February 1, 1440, the Greek delegation returned to Constantinople. Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died in 1439 in Florence, and upon the emperor's return to Constantinople, the place of primate was offered to Mark, but he refused to accept patriarchal dignity. Around Mark rallied a large party that did not recognize the union, many of the bishops who signed the bull took their signatures back. Mark's negative opinion about the union was supported by the monasteries, which had a great spiritual influence on the Orthodox population.
Having spent a short time in Constantinople, on May 15, 1440, Mark left for his metropolis in Ephesus. From there, he sent numerous messages against the union, which set the emperor Manuel against him. The saint also began to restore the church life of the city, which was under the rule of the Turks. Life in Ephesus was not calm for Mark, and he decided to leave the city.
According to the synaxarium of John Eugenicus, when the ship on which Mark sailed landed on the island of Lemnos, the metropolitan was arrested at the direction of the emperor and imprisoned in the local fortress of Mundros, where he spent two years. During this period, he did not cease to correspond, in which he continued to sharply criticize the union and urged believers to adhere to Orthodoxy.
In August (or October) 1442, Mark was released from the fortress and returned to Constantinople, where he continued his struggle with the union.
Mark died on June 23, 1444 in Constantinople.

Mark, Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus, rejoice in the Lord for Orthodox Christians living on solid land and on islands!

Those who wanted to enslave us into evil slavery and draw us into Babylon of the Latin rites and confessions could not carry it out, convinced both of the improbability and the impossibility of success; why, both they and their followers, remaining half way, did not arrive and did not become either one or the other; retreated from Jerusalem - "the sight of the world" and from Mount Zion - a firm and immovable Faith (;). Called by many Latin-wise, they involuntarily became Babylonians, and for this reason they are rightly called Greco-Latins. These people can be likened to the fabulous hippocentaurs, these half-humans, for they, together with the Latins, confess that the Holy Spirit allegedly proceeds from the Son, and that the Son is the culprit of the existence of the Holy Spirit - such is their teaching; on the other hand, they, together with us, recognize the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father; with the Latins, they affirm the correctness and justice of the addition made to the creed; with us - they do not affirm it; but can it be said that the addition made is just and right? With them they say that the body of Christ is in unleavened bread, but with us they would not dare to partake of it. Does this not lead to the conclusion that they are not looking for the truth, which, having in their hands, they neglected when they joined the Latins, but that they want to melt pure gold into counterfeit and do not care to establish a true union. But it remains to be seen how they are connected.

Every thing that unites with another is united through a certain medium. They base their connection on the confession of the procession of the Holy Spirit, by explaining that He also receives His beginning from the Son. Everything else in their belief differs, and nothing converges together among them, there is neither mediation nor anything in common; but they still read completely different two symbols, as before the conjunctions; likewise, the liturgy is performed by them in two ways and differently, both on unleavened bread and on leavened bread; also, baptism is performed in various ways: one sanctifies through triple immersion, the other through pouring from above the top of the head; in one case they anoint with myrrh, in the other they do not use it; rites, fasts, and church ordinances, and much the like, are twofold and varied in every respect. What kind of unity is this, which until now does not represent anything clear and understandable, and how did they unite, wanting to preserve their rites, but not preserving their father's traditions? But here are their intricately woven speeches: “The Greek never said that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, but simply: from the Father, and this expression does not exclude the Son; therefore, as we were united before, so we are equally united now. Woe to the deluded! Woe to the blind!

If the Greek Church constantly confessed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, which confession she received from Jesus Christ, from the Holy Apostles and from the Catholic Holy Fathers, then she never confessed His procession from the Son, for she did not accept such a confession from anyone. What else did she profess, if not proceeding from one Father? for if the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, it is clear that He proceeds from one Father. In the same way, with regard to birth, the Church confesses: "The Son of God, who was born of the Father before all ages", and no one thought to add to this dogma: "from the one Father", but nevertheless we understand and express it this way, when something is necessary, for we know that the Son is not begotten by anyone else but by the Father. Therefore, St. John of Damascus on behalf of the whole Church broadcasts: “We do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, and when we do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, it is clear that we at the same time confess that He alone is from the Father ". For the same reason he says a little earlier: "We do not call the Son the author," and in the next chapter: "One God is the author of all." What more? "Never," we are told, "we counted the Latins heretics but only schismatics,” but didn’t the Latins themselves call us heretics, and only because they, in relation to our confession, cannot make any reproach to us, except that we did not surrender to their dependence, which, in their opinion , we had to expose ourselves. But it is necessary to analyze whether it would not be more correct to turn this reproach from us to them, in relation to their confession. The reason for the disintegration came from them, for they openly made that addition to the symbol, which they had previously spoken secretly. Therefore, we were the first to separate from them and even cut off and discarded the estranged part from the church body. Why, someone will ask, is it because they believed more correctly or made the correct addition? What sane person would think that? On the contrary, we excommunicated them from ourselves, because they conceived something unacceptable and lawless and introduced an addition without foundation. We left them as heretics and separated from them. And why so? The pious ordinances read: "They are also called heretics and are subjected to laws against heretics who deviate in a small way from Orthodoxy." If the Latins had not deviated from orthodoxy in any way, then we would not have had reason to separate from them; if they completely departed from it, namely, in the confession of the Holy Spirit, through the most dangerous and blasphemous innovation, then they became heretics and we separated them from ourselves as heretics. And why do we anoint with peace those who join us from them? Of course from the fact that they are heretics. The seventh canon of the Second Ecumenical Council reads: “Those who convert to Orthodoxy and partake of those who are being saved are received by us on the basis of the rules and rites used in the reception of the heretics Arian, Macedonian, Sabbatian, Novatian, who call themselves pure, Aristerian, fourteenth century or the Tetradites proper, and the Apollinarians, whereby they renounce their heresy in writing, and any other heresy that teaches in disagreement with the Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church is anathematized, and we mark and anoint their forehead, eyes, nose, mouth and ears with holy myrrh, saying: "The Seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit". This is the rite to which we now subject those who come to us from the Latin Church. They are like all other heretics. And what does the wise Patriarch of Antioch Theodore Balsamon write about this in his reply to His Holiness Patriarch Mark of Alexandria? Question. Latin captives and others come to our Catholic Church and seek to be associated with our divine shrines. We want to know if this can be allowed? Answer. "Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me squanders" (

). Since our separation from the Western Roman Church followed long ago, and the significant accumulation of her apostasy, completely alien to the Orthodox Catholic Church, alienated her from communion with the four His Holiness Patriarchs, both in relation to religion and in relation to rites, as well as the exaltation of the Papal name; Therefore, the Latins can only be sanctified by the hands of the priests with the divine and most pure sacraments, as after their renunciation of the Latin confessions and rites, after their instruction in accordance with the holy canons, and after they enter Orthodoxy. You hear that they not only deviated from the rites of Orthodoxy, but also adopted a religion alien to the Orthodox. Everything alien to Orthodoxy is heresy. You hear that they must be proclaimed according to the holy canons and become Orthodox. If they are to be announced, then they must also be chrismated. Why did they suddenly appear before us as Orthodox, they who for such a long time and by so many famous holy fathers and teachers were recognized as heretics? And who made them so indifferent to Orthodoxy? Truth be told, gold and covetousness are the reason for this. But that is what made them Orthodox! Who among you becomes like them, he will suffer the fate of heretics.

“If,” say others, “it were possible to find a middle between religions, then we could unite with them and put ourselves in a good position, because, in relation to ourselves, we would not be forced to contradict our rituals and traditions” . Thus, in the beginning, they attracted the crowd to follow them on the steepness of wickedness, and at the very time, as they thought that there was something between two religions, as between two paradoxes, they voluntarily plunged themselves into destruction. And is it possible to harmonize two different faith directions to find a word that would equally express them? It is just as impossible to establish a belief that would converge on two opposing foundations. If this were not impossible, then it would also be possible to reconcile truth with falsehood, affirmation with negation; but this cannot be allowed. If the Latin belief that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son is true, then our belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father is false; and that is why it is we who separated from them; when our belief is right, theirs is bound to be false. What agreement can there be between these two confessions that could be as easily adapted as shoes? And what will come of it if each of us draws his own conclusions according to his thoughts and beliefs? Is it possible that both sides, having opposite opinions among themselves, could be called Orthodox? For my part, I think it's impossible. Let there be someone who could solder it together and who would consider it workable? Do you want to know what Gregory the Theologian says about such an agreement? He compares it with an object that rotates in all directions, with shoes that adapt to all feet; with mental hesitation from every wind of teaching, by the cunning art of seduction, contrary to the truth, for, according to the testimony of Scripture, such tests of firm piety always occur.

This is what he writes about the agreements proposed at that time. And about the Synod, in which they were proposed, he says the following: This is the pillar of Khalan that divided the languages! Oh, if even now he divided them, for this is an agreement for evil; this is the Sanhedrin of Caiaphas, in which Christ was condemned! And how else can this Synod be called, which destroyed and confused everything; ruined the ancient sacred dogma of the equality of the Trinity; destroyed the stronghold, and with his philosophies shook the dogma of Consubstantiality; opened the doors to wickedness by fictitious devices. They managed to do evil, but they did not understand to do good. Such arguments, concerning adaptations, sufficiently show that they are as impious as they are foreign to the Orthodox Church.

But what are we going to do, they say, with the Greco-Latins standing in the middle, who, considering adaptations, accept some of the rites and beliefs of the Latins, while others, although they accept, cannot agree with them, and then they do not accept others at all? They must be carefully run away, as they run away from the serpent, or even more than from the serpent, but as from the sellers of Christ, for they, according to the glory of the divine Apostle, turn "piety into industry" (). He, in relation to them, says: run away from such people who have the goal not to teach, but only to catch. What is there in common between light and darkness? And what fellowship can there be between Christ and Belial, between the faithful and the unbelievers? We, with Damascus and with all the Holy Fathers, do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son; they, together with the Latins, say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. We conclude with the divine Dionysius that the Father is the only source of the supreme Deity; they, with the Latins, that the Son is also the source of the Holy Spirit, thus separating Him from the Godhead. Gregory the Theologian and I distinguish the Son from the Father by reason; but they confuse Them, together with the Latins, for a reason. We, with blessed Maximus, with the former Romans and with their Western Fathers, do not recognize the Holy Spirit of the Son as the cause; they say in their teaching that according to the Greek confession, the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit, and according to the Latin, He is the beginning of the Holy Spirit. But we, together with Justin the philosopher and martyr, say that, as the Son is from the Father, so is the Holy Spirit from the Father; they say with the Latins that the Son is direct, and the Holy Spirit is mediate from the Father; we, with Damascus and with all the Holy Fathers, do not know the difference between birth and procession; they distinguish with Thomas and the Latins two kinds of origins - mediocre and immediate. We say, according to the Holy Fathers, that the will and manifestation of the uncreated eternal Being uncreated, they say with Thomas and the Latins that although the will is merged with the Divine Being, but that the manifestation has a beginning, no matter what name it may be called, whether the Deity, whether divine and uncreated light, or the Holy Spirit, or in another way. Such philosophizing leads to the recognition of the created deity, the created divine light and, finally, the created Holy Spirit! We accept that the holy saints do not, after their death, go straight to the kingdom of heaven prepared for themselves, but the wicked go straight to hell, but that both are awaiting the judgment that will be pronounced on them at the coming resurrection of the dead; they, with the Latins, that the dead, immediately after death, receive a worthy reward; for those who died in the degree of repentance, they invented something different from hell - a purifying fire, which, immediately after death, purifies souls so that they can reach the degree of purity of the righteous and the kingdom. Such is their, in this respect, creed. We reject Jewish unleavened bread, following the Apostolic decree in that; they also accept with the Latins that the body of Christ is celebrated on unleavened bread. We say that the addition they made to the symbol is unrighteous and lawless and contrary to the teaching of the Holy Fathers; they recognize it as correct and completely sound. This is how they try to harmonize their opinions with the truth!

We recognize the Pope on an equal footing with the Patriarchs when he preserves Orthodoxy; they, with the greatest triumph, consider him "the Vicar of Christ, the Father and Teacher of all Christians." If at least they could be happier than such a "Father", but otherwise be unanimous - because he is far from being happy, having an Anti-Pope, which greatly disturbs him; but they do not want to imitate their "Father" and "Master" in this case.

Flee from them and from all association with them, O brethren! Such people are false apostles, cunning workers who assume the image of the Apostles of Christ. This is not surprising, for Satan himself sometimes assumes the form of an Angel of Light; it is not surprising, therefore, when his servants take on the image of those who serve the truth, but their death will be according to their deeds. In another place, the same Apostle says about them that such servants do not work for our Lord Jesus Christ, but for their own womb, and seduce the hearts of the innocent with their sweet speech; having this seal, the solid foundation of the Faith remains immovable. He also says: "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of circumcision" (). And also: “Even if we, or an angel from heaven began to preach to you not what we preached to you, let it be anathema” (). Therefore, watch out sagaciously so that no one, even if it were an angel from heaven, deceives you through the advantage of the Pope. If the beloved disciple came to you, preaching something else, then do not receive him into your house and do not greet him, for whoever greets such a person will partake of his evil deeds.

Keep, keeping firmly, everything commanded to you by the Holy Apostles, both written and unwritten, so that wicked deceit does not move you from your foundation! May the Almighty lead the erring to the recognition of their error, may He deliver us from them as from chaff, and may He gather us, as pure and good seed, into His garner, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to Him befits all honor, glory and worship, with His Father without beginning and with His Most Holy and good and life-giving Spirit, now and forever and forever and ever, amen!

* * *

TO ALL ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS ON THE MAINLAND AND ON THE ISLANDS - MARK, BISHOP OF THE EPHESIA METROPOLY - REJOICE IN CHRIST

1 . Those who captivated us with evil captivity and wished to take the Latin rites and dogmas to Babylon, of course, could not bring this to its final execution, immediately seeing that there were few chances for this, and simply impossible, but stopping somewhere in the middle, as they themselves so those who followed them, they - neither what they were, no longer remained, nor became anything else: for, having left Jerusalem - which, verily, was, as it were, the "Vision of the World" and Mount Zion - established and unshakable faith, but (on the other hand) unable and unwilling to become and be called Babylonians, they called themselves therefore, as if rightly, "Greco-Latins", and are called "Latins" by the people. So, these half-hearted people, like the mythical centaurs, together with the Latins confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and have the Son as the Cause of His being [for these words are contained in their Council Definition (Act) of the Union], and together with us confess that He comes from the Father; and together with them they say that the addition in the Symbol was made lawful and blessed, and together with us they do not allow it to be pronounced (in the Symbol) (between who would begin to deviate from what is lawful and blessed?!) ; and together with them they say that unleavened bread is the Body of Christ, but together with us they do not dare to accept it. Isn't this enough to reveal their spirit, and that not in search of the Truth, which, having in their hands, they betrayed, they agreed with the Latins, but out of a desire to enrich themselves and conclude not a true, but a false Union.

2 . But it is necessary to consider how they united with them: for everything that is united with something else is, of course, united by means of something in between. So they conceived to unite with them by judging the Holy Spirit, expressing with them the opinion that He also had being from the Son; but everything else is different with them, and they have nothing either middle or common, and as before, two different Symbols are pronounced from each other, as it was before; different and inconsistent Liturgies are also performed: one through leavened bread, the other through unleavened bread; baptisms are also different: one is performed through a threefold immersion, the other through watering from above on the head, and one needs the world, the other does not need it at all; and all the rites in everything are different and do not agree with each other; What kind of unity is this when there is no obvious and clear sign of it?! And how did they unite with them - desiring to preserve their own (for in this they were unanimous) and at the same time not following the traditions of the Fathers?

3 . But what is their “wise” judgment? “Never,” they say, “the Greek Church did not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, but simply said that it proceeds from the Father, so that it does not exclude the participation of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit. Therefore (they say) before and now - we represent unity. Alas, what madness! Alas, what blindness! If the Greek Church, having received from Christ Himself and the sacred Apostles and from Sts. Fathers at the Councils, she said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but she never said (for she did not receive this from anyone) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, then what else does this already mean, if not that she claimed that the Spirit The Holy One comes only from the Father. For if not from the Son, it is obvious that only from the Father. Do you know what is said about Birth? “From the Father, they say, born before all ages.” Does anyone add here "only from the Father"? But nothing else, just as we mean it and, if need be, we express it: for we have been taught that from no one else, as soon as the Son is begotten from the Father. Therefore, John of Damascus, on behalf of the whole Church and all Christians, says: “We do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son.” If we do not say that the Spirit is also from the Son, then it is obvious that by this we say that the Spirit is only from the Father; therefore, a little higher, he says: "We do not call the Son the Culprit," but in the next chapter: - "The only Culprit is the Father."

4 . What else? “Never,” they say, “we did not regard the Latins as heretics, but only as schismatics.” - But this is something they took from those themselves (i.e., the Latins), for they, not having anything to accuse us of for our dogmatic teaching (ή δόξα), call us schismatics because we deviated from obedience to them, which should have, as they think. But let it be considered whether it would be fair for us to show them the courtesy and not charge them with anything regarding the Faith. - They gave the reason for the split by openly making an addition (Filioque), which until then had been spoken in secret; we were the first to break away from them, or rather, we separated them and cut them off from the common Body of the Church. Why? - tell me. – Is it because they have the right Faith or have they made an addition (in the Symbol) in Orthodoxy? “But who would talk like that, unless he was very damaged in the head. - But because (we broke away from them) that they have an absurd and impious judgment and unexpectedly made an addition. So we turned away from them as heretics, and therefore dissociated ourselves from them. What else is needed? “For the pious laws say thus: “He is a heretic and is subject to the laws against heretics, he who deviates even slightly from Orthodox Faith » . If the Latins do not deviate in any way from the right Faith, then, apparently, we cut them off in vain; but if they completely deviated, and then in regard to the theology of the Holy Spirit, whose blasphemy is the greatest of all dangers, then it is clear that they are heretics, and we cut them off as heretics. Why do we also anoint them with chrism, who come to us from them? - Is it not clear - as heretics? For the 7th canon of the Second Ecumenical Council says: “Those who join Orthodoxy, and among those who are saved from heretics, are acceptable according to the following rank and custom. Arian, Macedonian, Savvatian, Novatian, who call themselves pure and the best, fourty-days, or tetradites, and Apollinarians, when they give manuscripts and curse every heresy that does not philosophize, as the holy Catholic and Apostolic of God philosophizes, acceptable, sealing, that is, anointing the saints peace, first the forehead, then the eyes, and the nostrils, and the mouth, and the ears, and sealing them, we say: the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Do you see to whom we reckon those who come from the Latins? If all those (mentioned in the canon) are heretics, then it is clear that these (i.e., Latins) are also. What does the wisest Patriarch of Antioch Theodore Balsamon write about in his answers to Mark, His Holiness Patriarch of Alexandria? - “Captured Latins and others, coming to our Catholic churches, ask for the communion of the Divine Shrines. We want to know: is this allowed? - (The answer is “Whoever is with Me, is on Me: and whoever does not gather with Me, squanders.” Since many years ago the famous inheritance of the Western Church, namely the Roman one, was separated from communion with the other four Holy Patriarchs, retreating into customs and alien to the Catholic Church and the Orthodox (for this reason, the Pope was not honored with the general exaltation of the names of the Patriarchs in the Divine rites), then the Latin race should not be sanctified through the Divine and most pure Gifts (given) from the hand of the priest, if first he (the Latin) does not put them to depart from the Latin dogmas and customs, and will be announced and numbered among the Orthodox. ". Have you heard that they deviated not only into customs, but also into those alien to the Orthodox (and what is alien to the Orthodox, of course, is a heretical teaching), and that, according to the canons, they should be proclaimed and joined to Orthodoxy? time and according to the judgment of such great Fathers and Teachers were considered heretics? Who so easily “made” them Orthodox? - Gold, if you wish to admit the truth, and your greed; it would be better to say - it did not make them Orthodox, but made you like them and took you to the lot of heretics.

5 . “But if we devised,” they say, “some middle ground (compromise) between the dogmas, then thanks to this, we would unite with them (the Latins) and do our job perfectly, by no means forced to say something other than what corresponds to custom and handed down (by the Fathers)." This is precisely what has long deceived many and persuaded them to follow those who led them to the steep slope of wickedness; for believing that there is a middle between the two doctrines, which can reconcile known contradictions, they were in danger. But although it may be possible to find a certain middle judgment between two opinions, which would equally express both; however, for opposing opinions on the same subject, it is impossible to find an average judgment. If this is not so, then there is a certain middle ground between truth and falsehood, affirmation and denial. But this, of course, is not the case: for this case can only be either confirmation or denial. So, if the Latin dogma is true that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, then ours is false, which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father (and this was the reason that we separated from them); if ours is true, then surely, then theirs is false. What can be the middle ground between the one and the other? – There cannot be any, except for some kind of judgment, suitable for both, like a boot (o κόϋоρνоς), suitable for both feet. So, will it bring us together? And what will we have to do when we subject each other to rigorous examination for the sake of comparing the thoughts and judgments (of each side)? Or, perhaps, both of them, who think oppositely to each other, should we call Orthodox together? Of course, it doesn’t seem so to me, it’s a matter of your mind, which you mix up and easily rename everything. Would you like to learn from Gregory the Theologian, what he himself writes about the middle: - “An image visible on all sides for everyone passing by, boots on both feet, a winnowing in every wind (), basing its rights on newly written malice and on slander against the truth - for the words "like, according to the Scriptures", - Orthodox in appearance, served as a bait covering the wickedness of wickedness. So, this then (he wrote) is about concocting a "middle" (compromise). About the cathedral itself, which invented it, he also says: “Either the Halan pillar, which divided the languages ​​​​for a long time (oh, if I had divided their languages ​​\u200b\u200bbecause they agree on evil) - or Caiafino Cathedral, on which condemned Christ, or how else to call this council, perverted and confused everything. He destroyed the ancient and pious confession of the Trinity, undermining and, as it were, shaking the One-Existing Ones with battering rams, and together he opened the door of wickedness through the middle of what was written and spoken - “Wise to do evil, but do not know good ()”. This is enough for us about the middle, for he has sufficiently shown that there is absolutely no place for the middle, and that it is impious and alien to the Church to seek something like this.

6 But how are we to relate, someone will say, to those moderate Greco-Latins who, keeping to the middle, openly approve of some of the Latin rites and dogmas, while others, although they approve, would not themselves accept, and others they do not approve at all? – We must flee from them, as one flees from a snake, as from those same people (i.e., the Latins), or, perhaps, much worse than them, as from Christ-sellers and Christ-merchants. For they, as the Apostle says, “those who do not want the acquisition of godliness,” about which he adds, saying: “Depart from such”; for they run to those (that is, to the Latins) not in order to learn (something from them), but - to receive. “What communion between light and darkness? What is the agreement of Christ with Belial? or what part shall I return with the unfaithful?” We, together with Damascene and all the Fathers, do not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son; and they, together with the Latins, say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. And we, together with the divine Dionysius, say that the Father is the only Source of the prenatural Divinity; and they, together with the Latins, say that the Son is also the Source of the Holy Spirit, obviously excluding the Spirit from the Godhead. And we, together with Gregory the Theologian, distinguish the Father from the Son by the concept of the property of being the Culprit; and they, together with the Latins, unite Them into one by the concept of the quality of being the Cause. And we, together with St. Maximus and the Romans of that time and the Western Fathers, “do not make the Son the Wine of the Spirit”; and they, in the Council Determination (Act of Union) proclaim the Son - "in Greek - by Wine, in Latin - by the Beginning" - the Spirit. And we, together with the philosopher and martyr Justin, affirm - "As the Son is from the Father, so the Spirit is from the Father"; but they, together with the Latins, say that the Son proceeds directly from the Father, and the Spirit mediately from the Father. And we, together with Damascene and all the Fathers, confess that we do not know what the difference between birth and procession is; but they, together with Thomas (Aquinas) and the Latins, say that the difference lies in the fact that the birth takes place directly, and the procession is mediocre. And we, here, affirm, according to the Fathers, that the will and energy of the uncreated and Divine nature are uncreated; but they, together with the Latins and Thomas, say that the will is identical with nature, and the Divine energy is created, and whether it will be called Divinity, or Divine and immaterial Light, or - the Holy Spirit, or - something else like that kind; and in this way these low creatures "honor" the created Deity and the created Divine Light and the created Holy Spirit. And we, behold, say that neither the Saints perceive the Kingdom prepared for them and the indescribable blessings, nor the sinners have yet been sent to Gehenna, but both of them each await their lot, which will be received in the future age after the resurrection and judgment; and they, together with the Latins, desire that they immediately after death perceive according to merit, and intermediate, i.e. those who are bound in repentance, creating, they give a purifying fire (which is not identical with Gehenna), so that, as they say, having cleansed their souls after death, they, together with the righteous, enjoy in the Kingdom (Heavenly); the same lies in their Council Determination (Act of the Union). And we, beholding the commanding Apostles, turn away from Jewish unleavened bread; and they, in the same Act of Unia, proclaim that what the Latins celebrate is the Body of Christ. And we, behold, say that the addition in the Symbol arose lawlessly and unlawfully and contrary to the Fathers; but they claim that it is lawful and blessed; to such an extent they know little to agree with the Truth and with themselves! For us, the Pope is presented as one of the Patriarchs, and then - if he were Orthodox, and they declare him with greater importance - the Vicar of Christ, the Father and Teacher of all Christians. May they be happier than the Father, however, they are like him: for even he does not blog very much, having an antipope who causes enough trouble; and they are not happy to imitate the Father and the Master.

7 . Therefore, brethren, flee from them and from fellowship with them; for they are “lie apostles, workers of wickedness, being transformed into the Apostles of Christ. And it’s no wonder: Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of Light: no greatness, if only his servants are transformed as servants of the truth, and their death will be according to their deeds. And in another place, the same Apostle says about them: “For such as the Lord does not work for our Jesus, but for their own belly: with good words and blogging they deceive the hearts of the mild-hearted. A solid foundation stands, having this seal. And in another place: "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the cutting." And then, in another place: “And if we, or an angel from heaven, blogs to you more than blogs to you, let him be anathema.” Do you see what was said prophetically, that - "if an angel is from heaven" - so that no one would justify a particularly high position in his justification. And the beloved Disciple says this: “If someone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into the house and do not say to rejoice in him: say to him to rejoice is communicated by his evil deed.” Therefore, since this is what was commanded to you by the Holy Apostles, stand fast, hold fast to the traditions that you have accepted, both written and oral, so that you do not lose your strength if you become led away by the error of the lawless. but all that is able, may he make them also to know his error, and, freeing us from them as from evil tares, may he gather us into his barns, like pure and good wheat, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom all glory, honor and worship with the Beginningless Father and the All-Holy and Good and Life-giving Spirit, now and forever and forever and ever. Amen".

Liked the article? Share with your friends:

Facebook

Twitter

My world

In contact with

Google+

09.07.2020

Mental disorders

The most interesting:

Vanga's predictions over the years about Russia and the world, determining fate by the date of birth of Edgar Cayce about the financial well-being and integrity of Russia

Online fortune-telling "Yes - No", free virtual fortune-telling

Divination oracle sphere. Divination online. The meaning of tarot cards in the layout for love