On the stance of Saint Mark of Ephesus toward the Latins during the Council of Ferrara - Florence

A favorite argument of the ecumenists is: “Why do you protest the Patriarch’s joint prayers, since that Saint Mark of Ephesus, whom you so often invoke, prayed together with the Latins at the opening ceremony of the Council of Ferrara – Florence?” (See Acts of the Council of Ferrara - Florence, lines 475–478.)

Our response will be multifaceted, and thus, necessarily extensive.

The facts of the matter are twofold: that our Saint DID PRAY TOGETHER, and that the Church, the Holy Canons—that is, the Holy Spirit—FORBID joint prayers with heretics.

From the evaluation of these facts, two conclusions can be drawn: Either our Saint made a mistake (as is known, the Saints are not infallible; they also fall into errors, and rarely even into theologically mistaken views due to temporary delusion — cf. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, concerning Origenism, etc.). Secondly, that he did not err, but acted with divine inspiration, divinely moved — that is, with the illumination of the Holy Spirit and prompted by Him. Which of the two is the case, we shall see below. According to the above, we must accept either that the Saint is a transgressor of the canons or that he acted under divine inspiration. Our Saints become apparent transgressors of the canons (in the case where this is done through divine inspiration) only in the rarest of cases, by condescension, with specific persons as recipients, at a specific moment in time and for specific reasons and purposes, ALWAYS in extreme, rare cases.

This means that we are not able to make these extreme exceptions into a rule of our Church, and this is what Saint Nikodemos teaches: “The oikonomia, which certain Fathers employed temporarily, can be considered neither law nor example” (P, p. 371). The Saint is absolutely clear: “Neither law nor example can it be considered!”

And from this alone, the argument of the Ecumenists collapses. Let us also present some examples   to make the above more understandable. We read (in the Gerontikon) about Saint Sisoes that, when a father came to him with his son and asked that he become a monk, the Saint told him to throw his son into the furnace. The father obeyed and threw him in, and by a miracle, the child was not burned by the fire. As we see, the Saint gives a command that is clearly contrary to the Gospel and inhumane. Yet this command is divinely inspired! How do we know? From the result! The child suffered nothing at all! This case is extreme, exceedingly rare. Is it possible for us today to make it a rule of the Church, and for Abbots to test the obedience of those who wish to become monks in this way? Of course not! Therefore, how is it that today the Ecumenists want an extreme, exceedingly rare act (even if divinely inspired) of a Saint to be made a rule? To justify the Patriarch?

Another example is that of Saint Dionysios of Olympus. In his life we read that, when he was a monk in a monastery of Meteora and wished to leave, his Elder did not give him a blessing. He, disobeying, departed by leaping from the rocks down into the abyss! This too was a divinely inspired act. How do we know? From the result! The Saint suffered nothing from his fall into the chasm, for God protected him. This disobedience of the Saint (which appears contrary to the Gospel) is also an exceedingly rare case, yet divinely inspired. However, is it permissible to make this extreme, rare case of the Saint into a rule of the Church and to practice disobedience toward our Elders? Of course not! Therefore, how do today’s Ecumenists want a rare, extreme case of a Saint (even if divinely inspired) to become a rule?

Another exceedingly rare, contrary to the Gospel and uncanonical case is that of the holy Abbas [elders] (from the Evergetinos), who entered houses of prostitution with the purpose of admonishing and saving the women working there as prostitutes. Yet this action was divinely inspired. How do we know? From the result! They brought the prostitutes to repentance and saved them! However, is it permissible today for monks, invoking this exceptional act of the Saints, to enter houses of prostitution and, from exception, make it a rule? Of course not! Therefore, how do the Ecumenists wish to make an exceptional act (even if divinely inspired) of a Saint into a rule?

Fourth and final example is that of Saint Theodora, who dressed in male clothing and, appearing as a man, became a monk in a male monastery. Another extreme, rare case of a Saint acting clearly uncanonically, yet divinely inspired. How do we understand this? From the result! She became a Saint and was never condemned by our Holy Church; on the contrary, she is praised. But is it permissible today for women who wish to become monastics in male monasteries to be received into them—even in male attire—invoking the exceptional action of the Saint and making it a rule of the Church? Of course not! So how, then, do the Ecumenists, invoking an extreme and rare action of a Saint, seek to make it a rule?

As even the simplest Christian understands, even if Saint Mark did not err, but prayed together through divine prompting, this still cannot constitute either a law or an example, as is proven by the above cases and by the teaching of Saint Nikodemos, which we have already cited: “The oikonomia, which certain Fathers employed temporarily, can be considered neither law nor example” (Pedalion, p. 371).

Even if, however, we insist with demonic stubbornness on the heretical doctrine of the Ecumenists, our arguments do not end here. Even if we continue to accept that the Saint did not err, in order thereby to justify the Patriarch by saying that he is doing nothing more than imitating the Saint, we must still point out: Bravo to the Patriarch for imitating him—but why does he imitate him only in the matter of joint prayer? Why does he imitate him only in his stance toward the Latins before the council, and not also in his stance after the council?

The Saint engaged in dialogue with the Latins for fifteen months, and as soon as he discerned their satanic unrepentance, he no longer wanted even to see them! Why does our most holy Patriarch not imitate the Saint also in this—he who ceased dialogue after fifteen months—whereas our Patriarch, after decades of dialogue, continues it? And it goes without saying that the Latins remain satanically in the same heresies, having, moreover, in the meantime added many more. Why does he imitate selectively? Perhaps because selective imitation is convenient? Why, furthermore, does our most holy Patriarch imitate the Saint in his addresses to the pan-heresy-promoting Pope with phrases like “father,” “sister Church,” etc., and does not also imitate him in the rest of his expressions, found in the same letter, which are full of reproof and truth? Why does he imitate selectively?

Let us clarify at this point that these expressions of the Saint were words of courtesy and nothing more.

This is proven by the later stance of the Saint, when he calls them heretics, schismatics, Christ-traffickers, Christ-merchants, etc.

From these expressions alone, it is evident that the Saint was speaking courteously in the first instance and by no means intended to imply that the heretics are the Church. And it is understood that these words of courtesy are so rare, that personally I do not know if there exists another Saint who used such expressions when addressing the Papists. Today, however, they are no longer rare but have become a rule (!)—and indeed such a rule that it allows not a single exception! Moreover, when our Saint ceased the dialogues, he said of the Latins that they are heretics, schismatics, Christ-traffickers, Christ-merchants, etc.

But has our Patriarch ever been heard to imitate the Saint and call the Latins in such a manner? Why this selective imitation? Why does he imitate the Saint in joint prayers and in all other matters do the exact opposite of him? Perhaps because it is convenient? From this alone, the hypocrisy of those who bring forth such examples and arguments is made evident. And imagine that Saint Mark not only did not wish to see the Latins, but even the Latin-minded “Orthodox” themselves! Indeed, he said at the time of his repose, that the more I distance myself from them, the closer I draw to God! What relation do all these things of the Saint have with today’s Patriarch? Is it possible to claim that the Patriarch is an imitator of Saint Mark? O, what madness!!!

And yet our arguments have not run dry, even if the heretical-minded persist with satanic obstinacy, despite all the above observations. We shall continue, by way of condescension, to accept that the Saint did not err (though the above is more than sufficient).

Let us accept that the Saint did engage in joint prayer (all that we say, it is understood, also applies to the other actions of the Saint that the Ecumenists invoke) in order to justify the various actions of our Patriarch. But what relation do the things our Patriarch does have with the things the Saint did? Is there any comparison? The Saint performed one prayer (how long could it have been—five minutes, ten?) and you invoke this to justify the thousands of uncanonical missteps of the Patriarch? In what instance did the Saint engage in joint prayers with those of other religions (Muslims, Buddhists …), and even with leaders (!), as the Patriarch does, when the Holy Canons of our Holy Church anathematize those who pray together with heretics or those of other religions? When did the Saint bring the Pope to the All-Holy Tomb (!!!) for joint prayer, as the Patriarch does, when the Holy Canons of our Holy Church anathematize those who pray together with heretics?

When did the Saint allow the Pope to bless the Orthodox (!!!), as the Patriarch does, when the Holy Canons anathematize those who give or receive blessings from heretics, because, as the Holy Rudder of our Holy Church says, these are not blessings of the heretics, but follies?

When did the Saint ever receive the Pope (!!!) into an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, as the Patriarch has done THREE TIMES with THREE POPES, even chanting the Polychronion for them—when the Holy Canons of our Church forbid not only the presence of heretical leaders in the Church (for joint prayer), but even that of ordinary heretics, the laity! When did the Saint say to the Pope, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (!!!), as the Patriarch has done?

When did the Saint allow the Pope during the Divine Liturgy to say the “Our Father” (!!!), as the Patriarch does?

When did the Saint allow the Pope, inside an Orthodox Church and moreover during the Divine Liturgy, to deliver a sermon from the pulpit to the Orthodox faithful (!!!), and moreover to preach the heresy of the primacy (!!! — not three, but thirteen exclamation marks should be used), as the Patriarch does?

When did the Saint commemorate the heretical Pope as an Orthodox Bishop, as the Patriarch did in Constantinople (may God have mercy on us), whereas the Saint, on the contrary, taught that:

“I, Mark the sinner, tell you that he who commemorates the Pope as an Orthodox hierarch is guilty, and whoever holds the doctrines of the Latins will be condemned with the Latins and will be regarded as a transgressor of the faith” (Letter to Theophanes, PG 160, 1096–1100).

As for the documents signed within the WCC (World Council of Churches), when did the Saint ever say or sign anything resembling the shameful and heretical texts (Porto Alegre, Busan, Balamand, etc.) which the Patriarch signs and praises? And the transgressions have no end (there are more and more and more—these were only a MINIMAL sample!!!). And ALL of this is justified by invoking five to ten minutes of joint prayer (and some other actions done by oikonomia, which are themselves extreme, rare, and limited). But what madness is this? How is it possible that all of these things we have mentioned—and many more—are justified and compared with the 5–10 minutes of joint prayer of the Saint? Is it possible to take the least as a basis to justify the greatest? Is it ever possible for a murderer to be acquitted when, in response to the judge's question, “Why did you kill?” he answers, “Because he slapped me. He struck me, should I not strike him back?” Is it permissible to invoke the least (the slap) to justify the greatest (the murder)? Of course not!!! How then do they attempt, by invoking the least of the Saint’s actions, to justify the GREATEST (and what great things indeed—I marvel how God has not consumed us) of the Patriarch mentioned above? Is there any comparison? The same degree of similarity that exists between “a slap” and “murder” exists between the actions of the Saint and those of the Patriarch. Is this not perverted? Is this not madness? Unless, of course, it is the height of hypocrisy—and then the perplexity is resolved.

The arguments have not been exhausted. Our subsequent arguments will not, of course, be used to persuade the Ecumenists, because if they were not convinced by the above, their damage is incurable, but they are set forth solely for the instruction and establishment of the well‑intentioned. Up to now we have argued by taking as our basis the version that Saint Mark did not err. The arguments that we shall now present prove, in our humble opinion (which may also be mistaken—we are not infallible), that the Saint did err; his actions were human, proceeding from the real and sincere desire of the Saint for the return of the heretics to the truth, and thus he proceeded to uncanonical actions, by way of condescension. And first, that the Saint did err is shown by his stance when he saw their satanic persistence in heresy after the council. After the council, the Saint did not even wish to see them. He called them Christ‑traffickers, Christ‑merchants, heretics and schismatics! Indeed, it is characteristic that he taught that we should avoid them as we do snakes!!! From these things is it not evident that the Saint erred and repented? Is it possible to claim that, if the Saint had been able from the outset to foresee their persistence in their heresies, he would have proceeded to such actions? Of course he would not have said or done the things the Saint did if he had known beforehand what would follow. Not only would he not have said them, but he would not even have entered into dialogue!!! How could he have gone into dialogue, when he himself later taught that we should avoid them like snakes?

Second argument of ours that the Saint erred, that his action was human, is the argument that this action was certainly not divinely inspired! From where is this proven? Let us first answer the question: How do we know that an action of a Saint is divinely inspired in those cases where it is also uncanonical? The answer will naturally be: We know it BY THE RESULT! A divinely inspired action (when it is also uncanonical, contrary to the Gospel, etc.) is impossible to be a failure! The opposite cannot occur, because it would mean that the Holy Spirit prompted a Saint to an uncanonical action in order to lead him to failure! But the Holy Spirit prompts uncanonical actions only in cases where it foreknows that there will be positive fruit, and the examples of the first chapter support this point—namely, the examples of Saints Sisoes, Dionysios, Theodora, etc., prove that all of their transgressions bore positive fruit, something which is not the case with Saint Mark. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that, when an uncanonical action of a Saint is also divinely inspired, it must necessarily yield positive fruit. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would appear to be prompting violations of the canons without purpose (!), which we would say is blasphemous.

For the end, as the saying goes, let us place the cherry on top of the cake. Only, allow us to make a small innovation. After all, innovation is not a privilege exclusive to the Ecumenists—let them permit us to have that privilege too. So instead of one cherry on the cake, we will place three cherries. A whole cake with only one cherry—who will manage to grab it first? With three, at least something can be done.

The first cherry, then, is this: When we say “honoring a Saint means imitating the Saint,” we do not mean that we merely take a Saint’s life and try to imitate his deeds independently of his teaching. Both must coexist—never the one without the other. One complements the other; otherwise, we will certainly fall into delusion.

What do we mean in plain words? Let us once again take the above examples from the first chapter (of Saints Sisoes, Dionysios, the Abbas, and Theodora). Saint Sisoes, as we said, gave a “contrary to the Gospel” command. However, he never taught that others should do likewise. Therefore, that particular act of his does not align with his teaching, nor does it constitute an instruction for application, much less a rule he established. This does not give us the right to imitate him in that specific act, since he neither taught, nor encouraged, nor imposed it! The same applies to the disobedience of Saint Dionysios and to the entry of the Abbas into brothels. Saint Dionysios never taught or encouraged others to disobey. Therefore, his isolated act does not align with his entire teaching and does not give us the right to imitate him in that act. Thus, the reasonable question arises: Yes, Saint Mark may have engaged in joint prayer—but when and where did he teach, encourage, or, even more so, impose it as a rule that others should do the same? Of course, never!!! With what right, then, do you take, so dryly and arbitrarily, as an example, a single act of a Saint independently of his teaching, and (supposedly) imitate it, especially when Saint Mark actually taught the opposite, as we said above? By that same logic, why don’t the Ecumenists simply take as an example the act of Saint Paisios the Great, who did not eat for decades, and try to imitate that? Or the act of Saint Symeon the Stylite and go sit atop a pillar for years, and other similar feats? (Of course, regarding the spirituality of the Ecumenists, it is better that we do not speak—Saint Paisios the Athonite has already spoken about that.)

The second cherry we will borrow from the Pedalion (commentary on the 6th Ecumenical Council, Canon 94, footnote 1). Saint Nikodemos speaks about the oath and invokes Saint Chrysostom. Saint Chrysostom says regarding the oath (in brief), that it is entirely forbidden by Scripture. “But you say to me, such-and-such a man, virtuous, devout, a clergyman, sober-minded, took an oath. Do not tell me that… he swore… Even if, hypothetically, Peter, Paul, or an Angel swore… it is not their command, but God’s… Why do you bring forth this one and that one?... For on the Day of Judgment, God will say to you ‘I commanded,’ and you were to obey—not to bring forward this or that one and to busy yourself with the transgressions of others… even if the transgressor is ten thousand times great and wondrous.” I believe the parallel is perfect and clear. In other words, no one has the right to invoke the transgressions of others, even Saints (even the greatest of them). The Ecumenists, who are obedient instruments of the devil, do the opposite, that is, they invoke the transgressions of Saints in order to justify their heretical missteps.

I do not know how one should be characterized who, after the above arguments, persists in the heresy of the heretical (better yet, pan-heresy of the) Ecumenists. In any case, we have a duty, in conclusion, to add the third promising and innovative cherry on top, which comes from… the fierce opponent of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos... We will quote a few phrases from one of his letters, the context of which is as follows: The Elder was a vehement opponent of the transfer of bishops (yet another plague), and someone, in order to justify this violation by the bishops, brought up the transfer of a Saint and said: “Behold, why do you protest?” And naturally, he received the appropriate response from the most wise Elder—and here too, the parallel with our topic is perfect. We quote approximately what he wrote, without of course altering the meaning:

“The divine Father Gregory the Theologian says that ‘if you rebuke someone for a transgression committed willingly and deliberately, he will hasten to find examples of others, so as to justify his own deviation. If, for example, you say to someone that he should not, while still beardless, assume the role of teacher of the Church, since even the Lord was baptized and began to teach at the age of thirty, he will refer you to Daniel, who at a young age became a judge—and to others!’... ‘What is rare is not law in the Church.’ (Oration 37, PG 36, 352)... What significance is there if, in the history of the Church, there have occurred few or many transgressions of this or that Canon? Shall transgression prevail, or the Law? But do there happen to be, among those who at times transgressed the Canons against translation (in our case, the Canons against joint prayer with heretics), persons who are respectable, notable, and virtuous? And what of it? ‘No one is pure of stain, even if his life on earth be but one day.’ Even the holiest of men fall into transgressions and slips. What must we imitate? Their transgressions and slips—or their virtues? The virtues are to be imitated; the faults are to be avoided.

“Saint Epiphanios, Bishop of Cyprus, performed in Constantinople—an evident violation of the holy Canons—an ordination without the permission of the local Bishop (John Chrysostom)… Should we therefore abolish the relevant Canons and legislate that each Bishop may freely ordain in any foreign diocese? Saint Theodora not only wore male clothing but also lived in a male monastery… Should we therefore abolish the relevant Canons? Saint John the Merciful struck a monk, in violation of the holy Canons. Should we therefore abolish the Canons that forbid striking and legislate that clergy may freely use the rod for the correction of the disobedient?... What if among the transgressors there were perhaps virtuous persons? Their virtues, we repeat, are examples to be imitated; their possible transgressions and errors are examples to be avoided. Let us hear our great Father Basil crying out: ‘Even if Saint Dionysios of Alexandria said that those returning from the Montanists to the Church should be received without baptism, yet in this he erred. And by no means must we follow his error.’ (St. Basil, Canon I)”

(Articles, Studies, Letters, 2nd ed., p. 137, ‘WE MUST NOT GUARD THE IMITATION OF ERROR’)

I believe further comment is unnecessary.

And yet, despite all the above that we have said, the Ecumenists persist, insist, and claim that they are right!!!

These, however, are not Orthodox—they are (hard though it may be to say, yet necessary) HERETICS!!

Your brother in Christ…

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_51.html