Saint Mark of Ephesus and Grace in ROCOR (L)

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


Post Reply
User avatar
Hesychia
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri 14 April 2006 7:19 am

Saint Mark of Ephesus and Grace in ROCOR (L)

Post by Hesychia »

Hello everyone. Having read through a few topics, I notice that there's been an ongoing discussion (unresolved, I guess) about at what point do we conclude grace has departed and therefore we should separate from our bishops if we are certain they have thus fallen.

Well, I sure am not the one to turn to for an answer to that one. I have read quite a few of the members' thoughts on the question, and St. Mark of Ephesus has been cited a few times as a good model to follow. My question to everyone is, which points of St Mark's actions are we to follow suit? I think we could take his example two very different ways. It seems (I am ignorant of the history myself of this saint and my knowledge is sketchy) that he did remain in communion with his brother bishops who had signed the council of Florence union after they repented even though they had never (to my sketchy knowledge) been reconsecrated (sorry if that is the wrong term, but I am kind of an ignorant Orthodox) as should have been done if this joint union and confession with Rome would have made them graceless. On the other hand, I have heard that he instructed his disciples to forbid any Orthodox clergy who were still Latin sympathisers at the time of his death to just attend his funeral! If that is true, I think it unlikely that he would have considered them to be in a state of Grace if he would not allow them to pray for his repose at his funeral! I am confused about St Mark and the question of grace and union/confession/joint prayers with heterodox.

Well, anyways, a second question for me in this is--taking a one-sided view of St Mark, how can anyone say that ROCOR (L) is graceless at this point (even if they have prayed with clergy of MP) when no official union has even been agreed to -- signed and sealed as it were? This is a much more tentative situation than what St Mark was dealing with, isn't it? Again, I ask this in light of St Mark's life and his relations with the Bishops who had signed.

Please let me know if my information is wrong about him recognising brother bishops and clergy without reconsecration (right term?) after they had recanted their union with Rome.

Last edited by Hesychia on Sat 15 April 2006 2:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

May Christ our True God be glorified!

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

I think it is valid to wait to declare anything until the papers are signed. But also we must respect those that cannot live with themselves if they do not leave. It is something we have been saying here for years, everyone had a different line in the sand. Just remember that the Latins did not end up accepting the union, preventing Saint Mark from having to carry on without those that initially signed on.

User avatar
Hesychia
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri 14 April 2006 7:19 am

Post by Hesychia »

That's reasonable enough. Things are in a confused state that's for sure and it would only be fair to think that God would be very slow to withdraw his grace from sincere people, clergy included, who personally had not consented to any indiscretions.

May Christ our True God be glorified!

Post Reply