St. Mark of Ephesus (1392 - 1444) Mark Eugenikos, Archbishop of Ephesus, was born Manuel to George and Maria, both of devout and well-known families in Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. Manuel's father died when he was 13, after which he dedicated himself to his scholarly pursuits. He became a brilliant student of theology and rhetoric and also distinguished himself by his kind manner and his holy life. Both the Patriarch (Euthymios II of Constantinople) and the Emperor (Manuel II Paleologos) took note of him, and at a young age he became principal of the Patriarchal School and personal secretary to the Emperor. At age 26 he entered the monastery on the island of Antigone in the Sea of Marmara, where he subjected himself to a harsh asceticism. After two years, due to concerns about Turkish attacks, he relocated to the Monastery of St. George at Mangan, behind the fortified walls of the capital. There he was tonsured a monk and took the name Mark, after the Evangelist. At 28 he was ordained a deacon and two years later a priest. At that time the eastern part of the Byzantine Empire had been conquered by the Turks, and Emperor Manuel entered into negotiations with Pope Martin V, hoping to convene an ecumenical council to achieve a union of the two churches, and thereby to gain the military assistance of the western European monarchs. These negotiations were interrupted, however, when the emperor suffered a stroke. After the unsuccessful siege of Constantinople in 1422 by the Ottoman Sultan Murad II, the emperor's son and successor, John VIII Paleologos, undertook fresh negotiations with the new Pope, Eugene IV, and made preparations for an ecumenical council. The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem declined to appear personally at the council, but grudgingly appointed representatives. The Patriarch of Alexandria chose for one of his representatives the priest-monk Mark Eugenikos, whose theological works had gained him fame throughout the empire. Both the emperor and the patriarch (Joseph II of Constantinople) wished for Mark to be ordained a bishop in order to occupy the place of chief theologian of the Orthodox delegation at the council. At age 46 Mark was elevated to the rank of metropolitan (archbishop) of the See of Ephesus, which had been vacated by the death of Metropolitan Ioasaph. Speaking of his hopes for the council, St. Mark said: I placed my hope in God and in the common saints shared between the Eastern and Western Churches. Indeed, I believed all would proceed well with us and that we would achieve something great and worthy of all our labor and hopes.[1] On November 27, 1437, seven hundred bishops, abbots, monks, priests, and laymen set sail for Italy. This Orthodox delegation included Emperor John, Patriarch Joseph, and twenty-two bishops, among which was Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus. The first meeting of the council was held on Holy Wednesday, April 9, 1438, at the Cathedral of St. George in Ferrara, Italy. After 14 sessions in Ferrara, the last of which was on December 13, Pope Eugene transferred the council to a new location (due to financial considerations) on January 12, 1439. The council reconvened in Florence on February 26 and was concluded on July 5. This was not the first time that such a reunion had been attempted. Negotiations to restore ecclesiastical communion between Rome and Constantinople had been undertaken approximately 30 times since the Great Schism of 1054. The most notable of these prior attempts was at the Council of Lyons in 1274. It too was motivated in large part by the desire of Emperor Michael VIII for military help from the papacy. Of that council Timothy Ware writes: But the union proved no more than an agreement on paper, since it was fiercely rejected by the overwhelming majority of clergy and laity in the Byzantine Church, as well as by Bulgarian and the other Orthodox countries. The general reaction to the Council of Lyons was summed up in words attributed to the Emperor's sister: "Better that my brother's Empire should perish, than the purity of the Orthodox faith."[2] At Ferrara-Florence the primary issues in dispute were: (1) the procession of the Holy Spirit (that is, the addition by the Latin Church of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed); (2) the primacy of the Pope; (3) purgatory; and (4) the use of unleavened bread (azymes) in the Eucharist. (There was another important subject that some of the delegates wished to discuss, the distinction in Orthodox theology between the divine "essence" and the divine "energies," but the Byzantine Emperor, wanting to avoid further impediments to reunion, forbid the Greek participants to discuss this issue.) The Filioque Since the earliest days of the church, candidates for baptism into the Christian community were required to profess the Christian faith in the form of a short doctrinal summary, a "creed" (from the Latin credo, "I believe"). The First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea I, 325 A.D.) and the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I, 381) adopted what came to be known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, or simply the Nicene Creed. This creed was based on the earlier baptismal creeds of the church, but was expanded somewhat to clarify the church's teaching regarding the divinity of Christ and to combat the Aryan heresy spreading in the church at that time, which held that Christ was a created being rather than eternally God. The Nicene Creed was universally accepted in both east and west as the foremost statement of Christian doctrine, "the symbol of faith." (For the text of the creed, see appendix.) In 589 a local council in Toledo, Spain, added a phrase to the creed so that it said, "I believe... in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son" (filioque in Latin). This addition was made ostensibly as a further defense against Aryanism. Rome initially rejected the change to the ancient creed. In fact, in the ninth century, Pope Leo III had the original creed, without the filioque, inscribed on silver plaques at St. Peter's Basilica. Soon after 1000 A.D., however, the Church of Rome accepted the change. The subject of the filioque occupied by far the greatest part of the council's discussions. The following excerpt from "The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy" describes the Orthodox objection to the filioque: Indeed, this was the most painful question between the Orthodox and the Latins. The Greeks, led by St. Mark, insisted that any introduction into the Creed -- Filioque or not -- was uncanonical. Some Popes prior to Eugene would not sanction this addition and, at other times, other Popes supported it. However, it gradually became a permanent part of the Creed in the West, and succeeding Popes reinforced this heretical teaching, declaring that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the hypostases of God the Father and God the Son, that is, His existence is from both hypostases. In an attempt to combat Arianism, the West created two causes in the Godhead. The Orthodox affirm that the Father is the only Source of the Son and the Spirit -- the One begotten eternally from Him and the Other proceeding eternally from Him. God, therefore, is One because the Father is the Source of Divinity and that which makes the unity. The Filioque addition had been gradual, yet the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils enacted a strict decree that, in the Creed, no word could be changed, added or subtracted -- not even a syllable. Upon those that dared to make alterations, terrible condemnations were laid.[3] St. Mark, against the strong objections of the Latins, insisted that the canons of the church pertaining to the disputed issues should be read aloud before anything else. He read the decrees of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, as well as quotations from various saints, including several popes, all of which affirmed the original creed and forbid any changes to it. Many of the Latin monks present at the council, after hearing the decrees and acts of the Ecumenical Councils, together with Mark's explanation, confessed that they never heard anything like it previously. They exclaimed that the Greeks teach more correctly than their divines, and marveled at Mark of Ephesus.[4] Nonetheless, the Latins offered several arguments in defense of the filioque: that the filioque was not an addition to the creed, but merely an explanation; that the pope, as supreme head of the church, has the authority to make such an explanatory insertion into the creed; and that the decrees of the councils forbid only unorthodox changes to the creed. A compromise was sought in a formula which the Greeks accepted, which said that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father through the Son." However, once the Greeks had accepted this formula, the Latins then insisted that "through the Son" and "from the Son" meant the same thing; therefore, the filioque should be accepted as it is: "from the Father and the Son"! Archbishop Mark continued to insist on the distinction between "from the Son" and "through the Son," saying, "If we accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, then we abolish the monarchy in the Godhead and accept two causes of the Godhead."[5] Papal authority It is clear from the New Testament and other early Christian writings from the apostolic period that since the first century there have been three levels of ordination in the church: deacon, priest (or presbyter), and bishop. (The term "diaconate" is used to refer to the office of deacon or to all deacons collectively; likewise, the "presbytery" refers to priests and the priesthood, and the "episcopate" to bishops and their office.) The bishop is the head of a local Christian community. He presides over the eucharistic worship of the church; he is ultimately responsible for teaching and defending true doctrine. Like a father in a family, he is the symbol and guardian of the church's unity and is responsible to maintain godly discipline and order within the church entrusted to his care. In a city or region with more than one local parish, priests act under the authority of the bishop to preside over the eucharist and offer the other sacraments at each local parish, since the bishop cannot be at all of them personally. Deacons are servants ordained for ministry within the church. They assist the priest at the liturgy and serve the church in other capacities as necessary. However, they cannot offer sacraments independently of the priest and have no special authority within the church with respect to doctrine or church order. By the early fourth century, five cities in the Christian world had taken on a special role because of their importance in the Roman Empire. The bishops of these cities came to be called "patriarchs." Other bishops often looked to them for leadership and moral authority in doctrinal or disciplinary questions facing the church as a whole. Foremost among the five patriarchs was the bishop of Rome, the Pope. These patriarchates (and the papacy) do not represent a "fourth" degree of ordination within the church; the patriarchs are still bishops. Differing interpretations of the role of the papacy in the church has been a major point of tension between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, especially after the Great Schism of 1054. The statement of the Roman position presented to the council read, "We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy throughout the world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ. The Pope is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed, rule and govern the universal Church... Moreover, we renew the order of the other venerable Patriarchs, which was handed down in the sacred canons, that the Patriarch of Constantinople will be the second after the holy Roman Pontiff. Third, indeed, is Alexandria; fourth, moreover, is Antioch, and fifth is Jerusalem..."[6] In contrast to the universal supremacy and immediate jurisdiction which the Roman Church ascribes to the papacy, St. Mark explained the Orthodox view succinctly when he wrote, "For us, the Pope is as one of the Patriarchs -- and only if he is Orthodox"[7] (meaning, that he adheres to the Orthodox faith and does not depart from it). Purgatory The recently published "Catechism of the Catholic Church" defines the Roman Church's doctrine of purgatory as follows: "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire..."[8] The Orthodox objection to the doctrine of purgatory, expounded at the council by Metropolitan Bessarion of Nicaea and by Mark of Ephesus, is that the Latin doctrine rests on a distinction between a temporal and an eternal fire, a distinction which the Orthodox reject. "Bessarion continued by explaining that there is one eternal fire only. The temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they, for a time, depart into a place of darkness and sorrow where they are punished by being deprived of the Divine Light. However, they can be delivered from this place of darkness and sorrow through the prayers of the Church, the Holy Eucharist and deeds of charity done in their name -- but not by fire."[9] Thus, both churches affirm that the soul undergoes continued purification after death, but the Orthodox deny (or, at least, refuse to affirm) that a purgatorial fire is the means of such purification. Azymes Differing liturgical practices existed in the Latin West and the Greek East. One notable difference was the use of unleavened bread (azymes) in the eucharist by the Latin church and the use of leavened bread in the eastern churches. Ware sums up the council's treatment of this issue: "The Florentine Union was based on a twofold principle: unanimity in matters of doctrine; respect for the legitimate rites and traditions peculiar to each Church... so far as 'azymes' were concerned, no uniformity was demanded: Greeks were allowed to use leavened bread, while Latins were to continue to employ unleavened."[10] St. Mark's defense of Orthodoxy As the discussions dragged on, concern for theological understanding and agreement gave way to worldly motives on both sides: of the Pope (to subject the eastern churches to his ecclesiastical authority) and of the Byzantine Emperor (for military help from the west). In an effort to expedite the talks and facilitate union, the Byzantine Emperor John excluded the two most fierce defenders of the Orthodox faith, Mark of Ephesus and Anthony of Heraclea, confining Mark to his cell and even posting guards at his door to prevent him from leaving. A formula of union was drawn up in which the Orthodox accepted the Roman Church's position on every disputed point of doctrine. Even the Byzantine Patriarch Joseph had a private meeting with St. Mark to persuade him to sign the decree. But Mark was steadfast: "In matters of faith, there must be no concessions and no wavering."[11] Eight days after urging the other Orthodox delegates to sign the decree, Patriarch Joseph died. Emperor John took over the direction of the church, an action which St. Mark condemned: "Let no one dominate in our faith: neither emperor, nor hierarch, nor false council, nor anyone else, but only the one God, who both himself and through his disciples has handed it down to us."[12] Both the pope and the Byzantine emperor sought to intimidate the Orthodox delegates into submission. The pope threatened to withhold military aid unless the Orthodox signed. The Orthodox delegation was out of food and money, and the Latins threatened to withhold payment of the promised stipends for travel and living expenses. Bribes were offered to Orthodox delegates in return for their signatures. One of the Russian bishops who did not at first sign the decree was arrested and imprisoned for a week until he agreed to sign. A few bishops and laymen feared for their lives and fled the city. In the end, Mark of Ephesus was the only Orthodox bishop who remained at Florence but refused to sign the decree of union. "Orthodoxy was more precious to Mark than the State; Orthodoxy was the eternal treasure, the true Church of those being saved. The Byzantine state is of the earth; it was born, flourished and would die. Yet Orthodoxy is eternal and must be preserved as an eternal light."[13] But as to the other delegates, "though in their hearts many did not wish to sign, yet they trampled on their Orthodox conscience for fear of death, for money, for food, or to appease the Emperor."[14] In fairness, it should be said that not all of the delegates on the Roman side agreed with such tactics. One of the foremost of the Latin theologians, the Dominican provincial John de Montenero, repeatedly insisted that Mark of Ephesus be permitted to return to the talks, but the Byzantine Emperor refused. On July 5, 1439, the Florentine Union was confirmed. After the Greek bishops had signed the decree, while Pope Eugene was signing, he inquired whether Mark of Ephesus had signed. When he was told that Mark had not, he exclaimed, "Then we have accomplished nothing!"[15] Nevertheless, a service celebrating the union was held the next day, and the Greeks then returned to Constantinople. On February 1, 1440, ships carrying the Greeks sailed into the Golden Horn. Through the merchants that had been in Ferrara and Florence, the fame and achievements of Mark arrived before him in the capital. After reporting his valiant steadfastness, the people were waiting to applaud and cheer their hero... One described the people's behavior towards Mark, thus: "The Ephesian beheld that the crowd glorified him because he did not sign. The multitudes venerated him as the Israelites of old did Moses and Aaron. All lauded him and called him 'saint.'" Even those that were against Mark said, "He neither received gifts nor gold" from the Pope. Horrified, the faithful avoided the bishops that had signed and even cast insults at them. The clergy that remained in Constantinople also would not concelebrate with the unionists. In due time, the eastern Patriarchs announced that they were not bound by anything that their representatives had signed. The venerable Mark was called a new St. Athanasios and St. John the Theologian. He was considered a confessor and martyr by almost the entire body of the Greek Church. He was met with universal enthusiasm and respect.[16] St. Mark, though now suffering from terminal cancer, spent the remaining four years of his life speaking and writing against the false union. In May 1440, the day before the installation of the new pro-union Patriarch Metrophanes II of Cyzicus, Mark and Anthony of Heraclea fled the capital. Mark returned to his flock in Ephesus, which was now under Turkish rule. He traveled throughout the region, visiting the churches and priests in his diocese. Shortly thereafter, because of his failing health and because he knew that he lacked approval to continue serving in Ephesus, he set sail for Mt. Athos, desiring monastic solitude. On the way, his ship stopped at the island of Limnos, which was still a Byzantine possession. Emperor John ordered the police to arrest him, and he remained confined there for two years. In his "Encyclical to All Orthodox Christians on the Mainland and in the Islands" (1440-41), he set forth the Orthodox position against western innovations with respect to the filioque, the divine essence and energies, purgatory, azymes, and the papacy. After his release, he was too weak for the monastic asceticism of Mt. Athos, so he returned to his childhood home in Constantinople, where he died on June 23, 1444, at the age of 52. Timothy Ware summarizes the aftermath of the Council of Florence: But the union of Florence, though celebrated throughout western Europe -- bells were rung in all the parish churches of England -- proved no more of a reality in the east than its predecessor at Lyons. John VIII and his successor Constantine XI, the last Emperor of Byzantium and the eightieth in succession since Constantine the Great, both remained loyal to the union; but they were powerless to enforce it on their subjects, and did not even dare to proclaim it publicly at Constantinople until 1452. Many of those who signed at Florence revoked their signatures when they reached home. The decrees of the Council were never accepted by more than a minute fraction of the Byzantine clergy and people. The Grand Duke Lucas Notaras, echoing the words of the Emperor's sister after Lyons, remarked: "I would rather see the Muslim turban in the midst of the city than the Latin mitre." John and Constantine had hoped that the Union of Florence would secure them military help from the west, but small indeed was the help which they actually received. On 7 April 1453 the Turks began to attack Constantinople by land and sea. Outnumbered by more than twenty to one, the Byzantines maintained a brilliant but hopeless defence for seven long weeks. In the early hours of 29 May the last Christian service was held in the great Church of the Holy Wisdom. It was a united service of Orthodox and Roman Catholics, for at this moment of crisis the supporters and opponents of the Florentine Union forgot their differences. The Emperor went out after receiving communion, and died fighting on the walls. Later the same day the city fell to the Turks, and the most glorious church in Christendom became a mosque.[17] The first official repudiation of the Florentine Union came in April 1443 when the three Patriarchs Joachim of Jerusalem, Philotheos of Alexandria, and Dorotheos of Antioch met in Jerusalem and condemned the Council of Florence as "vile" and Patriarch Metrophanes of Constantinople as a heretic. However, the Byzantine Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and a few other clergy in the capital city remained loyal to the union. It was not until the Synod of 1472 that Patriarch Symeon I of Constantinople also repudiated the union. In February 1734 the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople under Patriarch Seraphim I canonized Mark of Ephesus as a saint, instituting January 19th as the date of his commemoration: All of us of the holy Eastern Church of Christ acknowledge the holy Mark Evgenikos of Ephesus. We honor and receive this saintly, God-bearing and righteous man as a zealot of ardent piety, who was a champion of all our sacred dogmas and correct piety. He is an emulator and equal to the holy theologians, and those that adorned the Church of ancient times.[18] A Model for Ecumenical Relations Today The life of St. Mark of Ephesus and the history of the Council of Florence hold many lessons for those of us concerned with Christian unity and ecumenical relations today. Within six years after the Council of Florence, the Roman Church also signed decrees of union with the Armenians, the Coptic Church of Egypt, the Ethiopians, the Syrian Church of Mesopotamia, the Nestorians of Chaldea, and the Maronites of Cyprus. One can only imagine that the ecumenical fervor of our own times would have paled beside this dramatic succession of reunification agreements in the fifteenth century. Ironically, the Orthodox probably shot themselves in the foot by inadvertently strengthening the power of the papacy in this way. For at the same time that the Greeks were signing the decree of union with Pope Eugene at Florence, another council of Latin bishops at Basle had deposed him as pope and had issued a decree severely limiting the power of the papacy and declaring the pope to be subject to the decisions of general councils of the church. It is perhaps useless, but tempting nonetheless, to wonder "what might have been" had the Byzantines not been so eager to receive military aid from the west. Perhaps a Roman Catholic Church with a much more balanced view of papal authority and the conciliarity of bishops would have been the result, and we might be far closer to true unity today. As it turned out, however, Pope Eugene was victorious over the conciliarist council at Basle, and Pope Felix V, whom the council had installed in his place, resigned. Those involved in reunion efforts today should take note of these events. By rushing to conclude a premature decree of union, important developments within the churches involved might be thwarted. Thus, two churches that are courting one another would do well to heed Solomon's words: "Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires."[19] The recent overtures of the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch toward each other have raised strong criticism from some quarters within the Orthodox Church. It is not at all unrealistic to imagine that a hasty decree of union between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches today, if it does not deal honestly with the underlying theological issues, would very likely result in a schism within the Orthodox Church. But does this mean that we should give up hope for any greater unity and abandon such efforts altogether? Not at all. Before becoming Orthodox, I attended a Roman Catholic church for three years, went through the Catholic Church's adult catechism classes (RCIA, the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults), and considered becoming Catholic. I have always had great respect for the Catholic Church's strong moral stand on issues related to marriage, family, sexuality, and the sanctity of life. I love the beauty and simplicity of the Roman liturgy. Some of my Orthodox friends joke that I am a "Roman spy" who has infiltrated the Orthodox Church. Indeed, it is my sincere hope that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches may be reunited one day. Thus, my choice of St. Mark of Ephesus as a patron saint may seem ironic to some. After all, wasn't it he who so adamantly opposed reunion with Rome at the Council of Florence? Certainly there are some Orthodox who oppose any kind of ecumenical dialogue with other churches (either Roman Catholic or Protestant) and who have found St. Mark of Ephesus to be a rich source of quotations for their anti-Catholic polemics. For example, he said of the Latins, "They are not only schismatics, but heretics... Therefore, we must not have union, until they remove the addition [the filioque] from the Symbol and confess the Symbol as we do."[20] And, "If the Latins have not departed from the correct Faith, then we have cut them off unjustly. However, if they have departed from the Faith, regarding the theology of the Holy Spirit, to Whom to blaspheme is the greatest of all perils, clearly, they are heretics, and we have cut them off as heretics."[21] To be sure, this is not the "nice" dialogue of ecumenical relations today, in which the only heresy is to call someone a heretic. But these sometimes harsh-sounding statements of St. Mark must be understood in the context in which they were made. St. Mark and the other Orthodox delegates went to the council with the hope of engaging in true theological dialogue and coming to a common understanding of the faith. Instead they found political manipulation, intrigue, deception, bribery, and coercion. After many months of discussion, no progress had been made, and the Greeks who, like St. Mark, wished to preserve the purity of the Orthodox faith were understandably frustrated. "Saint Mark also made it clear that the Orthodox hierarchs had not come to Italy to sign a capitulation. The Orthodox would not sell the Faith for the benefit of their crumbling state. Their purpose in attending the council was for the confirmation of true doctrine."[22] Contrast the later harsh statements of St. Mark about the Roman Church with his earlier, more hopeful statements about the possibility of reunion. For example, he had said at one of the council sessions, "We neither came here to contradict one another nor to display skills of refutation. We came here simply to discuss union peacefully and with love."[23] Similarly, his closing words at the council in Ferrara, before it was transferred to Florence: We beseech you, fathers, brothers, honorable sirs, as we besought you earlier, in the bowels of compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ: whoever amongst us has love, though they are useless, pitiable, sinners and hopeless, come back into good concord with us and the holy Fathers, which we possessed when East and West were the same, when there was no schism and we considered one another as brothers. Let us revere our common Fathers and honor their decrees and fear their threats; let us preserve the traditions. Let us all together, with the same Faith, perceptions, and dispositions, with one mind and heart, glorify the all-honorable and majestic name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.[24] One of the implications of St. Mark's statements is that the only legitimate reason for two Christian churches to be divided is a disagreement in matters of faith. We do not remain separated simply because we do not like each other, or because we have a different culture or language. Rather, heresy (deviation from orthodox doctrine) is the only excuse for schism. And, indeed, the doctrines of papal supremacy and infallibility and the filioque addition to the creed continue to be the two major obstacles to reunion between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches today. How ironic, then, for those who oppose all ecumenical dialogue to invoke St. Mark of Ephesus, who devoted so much effort to such dialogue and who was one of the leading theologians at a council whose purpose was to reunite the two divided churches! The lesson we are to learn from the holy example of St. Mark of Ephesus is not to eschew discussions with other Christians; rather, it is that such discussion must take place in an atmosphere of mutual love and respect, free of coercion; and that the motivation must be real unity of faith, not political expediency. It is unfortunately true that much of the ecumenical activity of this century, as manifested by the World Council of Churches and the like, has often been characterized more by left-wing politics than by any real concern for Christian truth. For that reason, the very word "ecumenical" has gotten a bad rap among conservative, traditional Christians who wish to preserve the Christian revelation. In much of the ecumenical movement of recent times we see a reflection of the same mistakes of the Council of Florence: a concern with politics over faith and with outward appearances over truth. But that does not mean that all dialogue is inherently bad. If that were so, the Orthodox Church would not have canonized Mark of Ephesus as a saint. In light of what we have learned from St. Mark and the Council of Florence of the fifteenth century and from the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement of our own century, I would like to offer the following principles which should guide ecumenical dialogue between divided churches: 1. Discussions must take place in an atmosphere of love and mutual respect. This requires a willingness to learn and understand the history, traditions, and theological language of the other Christians from whom we have been separated. 2. The goal and precondition of union must be true mutual agreement in matters of doctrine and unity in one common faith. 3. Respect for the legitimate rites of each church allows for liturgical diversity while insisting on doctrinal uniformity. 4. Political goals must not be permitted to cloud our theological vision. 5. There must be no coercion, no efforts to bring one church under the domination of another. While there have been many examples of "bad" ecumenism that ignores one or more of these principles, I believe that a "good" ecumenism which honors them is possible, and I would like to offer two recent examples of this "good" kind of ecumenism. One example is the 1994 document entitled "Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium" signed by 40 well-known Roman Catholic and evangelical Protestant clergy and lay people. The document was hopeful in its statements of mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation, while also being forthright about doctrinal differences which still pose an obstacle to full communion. There was no effort here to sweep such issues under the rug for the sake of an outward appearance of unity. A second example is the recent Rose Hill/Touchstone conference entitled "Not of This World: An Ecumenical Conference for Traditional Christians." About 150 clergy and lay people -- Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox -- met in Aiken, South Carolina, for a week to affirm their common commitment to the ancient faith, to oppose efforts within any church or denomination to corrupt that faith by theological liberalism and philosophical relativism, and to stand against the increasing secularization of our culture which is hostile to any public expression of religious faith or moral conviction. One of the interesting characteristics of both of these examples was the substantial involvement of theologically educated lay people. These were not top-down efforts of an ecclesiastical hierarchy to impose union on an unwilling laity. What ultimately caused the failure of the reunion councils of Lyons and Florence was the fact that they were signed by the bishops for political reasons, but were never accepted by the laity as a true expression of our common faith. By contrast, the examples of "good" ecumenism we have seen recently have been grass-roots movements of lay people who want to seek greater unity with our separated brothers. This is a positive sign. Therefore, let us honor St. Mark's example of faith and piety. Let us fear God more than the threats of men. Let us love truth more than political gain. Let us pray for one another. Let us ask for the intercessions of the holy men and women who suffered to preserve the faith which we have received. O all-laudable and most divine Mark, in you the Church found a great zealot by your confession of the holy and sacred faith: for you championed the doctrines which the Fathers taught, and cast down darkness' boastful pride. Wherefore, pray to Christ God for those that honor you, that we be granted the forgiveness of sins. (Dismissal Hymn, Tone Three) [25] ____________________________________________________________________________ Appendix: the Nicene Creed I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father, through whom all things were made, who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; and on the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures; and he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. And he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. ____________________________________________________________________________ References The Orthodox Church, 1st edition, revised; Timothy Ware; Penguin Books Ltd; Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England; 1963; pp. 70-71,80-81. Bible and Church History; Vol. 3 of The Orthodox Faith: An Elementary Handbook on the Orthodox Church, 2nd edition; Fr. Thomas Hopko; Department of Religious Education, Orthodox Church in America; New York; 1979; p. 179. The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy: Saint Photius the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople, Saint Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica, and Saint Mark Evgenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus; Vol. 5 of hardbound series published by Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete; Buena Vista, Colorado; 1990; pp. 372-500. Catechism of the Catholic Church; Liberia Editrice Vaticana; Liguori Publications; Liguori, Missouri; 1994; pp. 268-269. ____________________________________________________________________________ Endnotes [1] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 385 [2] The Orthodox Church, p. 71 [3] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 418 [4] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 424 [5] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 450 [6] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, pp. 389-90 [7] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 490 [8] Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1030-31 [9] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 406 [10] The Orthodox Church, p. 80 [11] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 457 [12] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 462 [13] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, pp. 450-51 [14] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 465 [15] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 468 [16] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, pp. 477-78 [17] The Orthodox Church, pp. 80-81 [18] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 500 [19] Song of Solomon 3:5 [20] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 453 [21] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 488 [22] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 402 [23] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 432 [24] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 433 [25] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, p. 372 ____________________________________________________________________________ This article is copyright 1995 by Mark Swearingen. All rights are reserved by the author.