Four Reasons the Star of Bethlehem Was Supernatural

By St. John Chrysostom

For if you can learn what the star was, and of what kind, and whether it were one of the common stars, or new and unlike the rest, and whether it was a star by nature or a star in appearance only, we shall easily know the other things also. Whence then will these points be manifest? From the very things that are written. Thus, that this star was not of the common sort, or rather not a star at all, as it seems at least to me, but some invisible power transformed into this appearance, is in the first place evident from its very course. For there is not any star that moves by this way, but whether it be the sun you mention, or the moon, or all the other stars, we see them going from east to west; but this was wafted from north to south; for so is Palestine situated with respect to Persia.

In the second place, one may see this from the time also. For it appears not in the night, but in mid-day, while the sun is shining; and this is not within the power of a star, nay not of the moon; for the moon that so much surpasses all, when the beams of the sun appear, straightway hides herself, and vanishes away. But this by the excess of its own splendor overcame even the beams of the sun, appearing brighter than they, and in so much light shining out more illustriously.

In the third place, from its appearing, and hiding itself again. For on their way as far as Palestine it appeared leading them, but after they set foot within Jerusalem, it hid itself: then again, when they had left Herod, having told him on what account they came, and were on the point of departing, it shows itself; all which is not like the motion of a star, but of some power highly endued with reason. For it had not even any course at all of its own, but when they were to move, it moved; when to stand, it stood, dispensing all as need required: in the same kind of way as the pillar of the cloud, now halting and now rousing up the camp of the Jews, when it was needful.

In the fourth place, one may perceive this clearly, from its mode of pointing Him out. For it did not, remaining on high, point out the place; it not being possible for them so to ascertain it, but it came down and performed this office. For you know that a spot of so small dimensions, being only as much as a shed would occupy, or rather as much as the body of a little infant would take up, could not possibly be marked out by a star. For by reason of its immense height, it could not sufficiently distinguish so confined a spot, and discover it to them that were desiring to see it. And this any one may see by the moon, which being so far superior to the stars, seems to all that dwell in the world, and are scattered over so great an extent of earth—seems, I say, near to them every one. How then, tell me, did the star point out a spot so confined, just the space of a manger and shed, unless it left that height and came down, and stood over the very head of the young child? And at this the evangelist was hinting when he said, "Lo, the star went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was."

Do you see, by what store of proofs this star is shown not to be one of the many, nor to have shown itself according to the order of the outward creation? And for what intent did it appear? To reprove the Jews for their insensibility, and to cut off from them all occasion of excuse for their willful ignorance. For, since He who came was to put an end to the ancient polity, and to call the world to the worship of Himself, and to be worshipped in all land and sea, straightway, from the beginning, He opens the door to the Gentiles, willing through strangers to admonish His own people. Thus, because the prophets were continually heard speaking of His advent, and they gave no great heed, He made even barbarians come from a far country, to seek after the king that was among them. And they learn from a Persian tongue first of all, what they would not submit to learn from the prophets; that, if on the one hand they were disposed to be candid, they might have the strongest motive for obedience; if, on the other hand, they were contentious, they might henceforth be deprived of all excuse. For what could they have to say, who did not receive Christ after so many prophets, when they saw that wise men, at the sight of a single star, had received this same, and had worshipped Him who was made manifest. Much in the same way then as He acted in the case of the Ninevites, when He sent Jonas, and as in the case of the Samaritan and the Canaanitish women; so He did likewise in the instance of the magi. For this cause He also said, "The men of Nineveh shall rise up, and shall condemn: and, the Queen of the South shall rise up, and shall condemn this generation" (Matthew 12:41-42) because these believed the lesser things, but the Jews not even the greater.

Source: From Homily 6 On the Gospel of Matthew

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Thousands In Thessaloniki Venerate the True Cross

Archimandrite Claudio, abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Honorable Cross in Jerusalem, travelled to Thessaloniki on Wednesday 21 December 2011 to bless the people with the True Cross of Christ embedded onto an icon of Sts. Constantine and Helen. This icon is found in the Holy Tomb of Christ in the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem. It is currently on display for veneration in the Church of Saint Anastasia the Pharmakolitria (Dec. 22) in honor of her feast day until January 2nd, where they we have daily Vespers, Matins and Suppication Services.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Orthodox Celebration of Christmas

By Professor Ioannes Fountoules

Preamble: In a few days we will celebrate the great Feast of the Christian world, the Feast of Christmas. The Church will bring once again before the eyes of our soul the event of the birth of the Lord and will summon us to venerate together with the shepherds and the magi the newly-born King and to praise together with the armies of the heavenly angels the humanization of the God of peace and love. The “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will among men” (Luke 2:14), the angelic hymn of the birth, will be echoed again in our church temples. In the newly-born infant of Bethlehem we will see our born Savior, the God who became humanized. In this infant we will see the “redemption” which “the Lord sent to his people” (Ps. 110:9), because within his infantile body it is not only God that is hidden, but the fullness of our salvation, the renewal and deification of our corruptible nature, the new creation; the man who becomes God, this mystery of the salvation and redemption of us all. Precisely because of its theological significance, the Feast of Christmas together with the Feast of Pascha constitute the two great poles around which the entire liturgical year turns. Pascha is the peak of the movable Feasts, and Christmas, of the immovable Feasts. Christmas, in particular, is the “Metropolis” of the Feasts, according to Saint John Chrysostom (To Philogonios 3), because the event which we celebrate in this Feast is the presupposition of all the other sign-posts of our salvation. If Christ had not been born, he would not be baptized, nor would he teach, nor would he do miracles, nor would he suffer, nor would he have arisen from the dead. Already at the birth of Christ, the salvation of our nature has been potentially accomplished. The divine nature and the human nature have been united in Christ. Jesus Christ, the God-man, constitutes the living icon and the guarantee of the future recapitulation of all things in Christ.

The history of the celebration of Christmas

1) Christmas and Epiphany: After all this, one would have expected the Feast of Christmas to be chronologically the first Feast of the Christian Calendar. Nevertheless, the Feast of Pascha, and its weekly repetition every Sunday, is much older than the Feast of Christmas. The celebration of the Feast of Christmas emerged for the first time together with the Feast of the Baptism of Christ among Gnostic heretical sects in the middle of the 2nd century and specifically on the 6th of January, which was the old date of the winter solstice. Up until the 4th century the East celebrated on this day these two Feasts using the name “Epiphany” or “Theophany.”

2) Establishing a date for the celebration of Christmas: The exact day of the birth of Christ is not known to us from the Gospels. We only have indications in the Gospel of Luke (census, journey of a pregnant mother, lodging in a stable of animals, shepherds keeping night-watch over their flock), that this birth took place during the winter months. The followers of the Gnostic Vasileides specified this date as the 20th of May, or the 19th or the 20th of April.

The Feast of Christmas was introduced for the first time in Rome separately from the Feast of the Epiphany which was always celebrated on the 6th of January. The 25th of December was specified as the date of the celebration of Christmas, not because it was calculated that Christ must have been born on this date, but for the same reason on account of which the 6th of January had been specified in the East as the date of the Epiphany. The 25th of December was then, according to the new calendar, the date of the winter solstice. This was the day when the pagans celebrated the birthday of the unconquerable sun, because this day marked the increase of the duration of the day, which signaled the victory of the light over darkness. To this pagan Feast the Christian Church very wisely juxtaposed the birth of the true light, of the intelligent sun of righteousness, of Christ, who dawned from the Virgin and enlightened the human race which lied in darkness and in the shadow of death. This combination was so effectual that within a few years the Feast of Christmas spread almost throughout the entire Christian world. From Rome it was disseminated in the West. Around 376 we find it in the Churches of Antioch and Caesarea in Cappadocia; and around 431 we find it in Jerusalem and gradually in all the Churches of the East, apart from the Armenian.

3) The Feast of Christmas and other related Feasts: At the same time with its dissemination, a new attempt for justifying it historically made its appearance. The Forerunner was apprehended 6 months before the Annunciation of the Theotokos (Luke 1:26). On the basis of the 25th of December, the Annunciation must have taken place 9 months before, in other words, on the 25th of March, and the arrest of the Forerunner on the 23rd of September. The Father of the Forerunner was the priest Zachariah, who entered the sanctuary in order to offer incense and saw an angel who predicted the arrest of the Baptist (Luke 1:9-11). Here things get compressed in order to supply an answer to what is sought. Zachariah becomes high-priest and does not enter into the sanctuary, but into the holies of holies of the Jewish temple. It was in these holies of holies that the High-priest entered once a year, on the Feast of Expiation. This Feast is placed a little before the 23rd of September. So, we arrive at the same dates from another direction: The 23rd of September is the conception of the Forerunner; the 25th of March is the Annunciation of the Theotokos, “on the sixth month;” on the 24th of June is the birth of the Forerunner and, 6 months later, on the 25th of December, the birth of Christ.

4) The development of the celebration of the Feast of Christmas: The preexisting Feast of Pascha, as we noted before, exerted an influence on the formation of the Feast of Christmas. In Jerusalem, during the 4th century, as the pilgrim Aetheria (Egeria) tells us in her Peregrinatio (Description of Pilgrimage to the Holy Land) bears witness, a nocturnal Liturgy was celebrated in imitation of that of Pascha by the Bishop of Jerusalem at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. After this, the entire congregation with the clergy and the Bishop at the head walked to Jerusalem signing a litany, “Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.” Shortly after their arrival at the Church of the Resurrection, a second Liturgy was celebrated. With the passage of time the influence of Pascha became all the greater. In today’s form of the services we can easily discern the degree and the elements of these influences, especially in the period of the Fore-feast, which lies before us.

5) The Sunday before Christmas: A preparatory week was first added to the Feast of Christmas. It was named “Sunday of the Holy Fathers.” By Fathers are not meant here the Fathers of the Church, but the human ancestors of Christ according to the flesh, especially Abraham, the leader of the Hebrew race. Later on the theme of this Sunday was expanded and comprised all the pre-Christian righteous people of the Old Testament (Heb. 11:9-10, 32-40), whether ancestors of Christ or not. The Gospel reading, read on that occasion, as is still done today, was the genealogy of Christ, which is contained in the first chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew; and the Apostle was the pericope from the Epistle to the Hebrews which refers to the sufferings of those men of the Old Testament “who became martyrs for the faith.”

6) The Sunday of the Fore-Fathers: This expansion of the festal content of the “Sunday before Christmas” and the trend of developing the preparatory period resulted later in the splitting, so to speak, of this Sunday and transferring part of its theme to the Sunday preceding it. So, two Sundays of the holy Fathers were specified and, in order to distinguish them, the older one was called “Sunday Before the Birth of Christ,” and the other retained the old name, “Sunday of the Holy Fathers” with the only difference that “Holy Fathers” became “Forefathers” in order to avoid confusion with the Feasts of the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Synods. The Gospel reading assigned to this Sunday speaks of the great Banquet of the Kingdom of Heaven, to which many from the East and the West will come to sit with Abraham, whereas the sons of the nuptial chamber, the Israelites, will remain outside (Luke 13:10-17). The theme of this Sunday was further enriched by transferring to it the commemoration of the prophet Daniel and the three youths from the 17th of December.

7) The Fore-festal period of Christmas: In addition, the Sunday before that of the Forefathers, i.e. the 3rd Sunday before Christmas, was assigned a related fore-festal Gospel reading, by transferring to it the Gospel reading of the 10th Sunday of Luke, which relates the healing of the crippled woman, who was “a daughter of Abraham.” So, the entire month of December acquired a fore-festal character. In effect, it is dedicated to the Old Testament, to the Prophets and Forefathers of Christ, i.e. to the period of the expectation of the Messiah. This is why we see that the Heortologion (=Festal Calendar) assigns the commemoration of the prophet Nahum to the 1st of December, of the prophet Habakkuk to the 2nd, of the prophet Zephaniah to the 6th, of the prophet Haggai to the 16th, and to the prophet Daniel and the three youths to the 17th. Pascha was preceded by a fast. Christmas was also assigned a fore-festal fasting period; at the beginning a fast of a few days, but since the 7th century a 40-day fast like that of the Great Lent, which begins on the 15th of November.

8) Fore-festal hymnology of Christmas: The element, however, which gave, as usual, the particular, preparatory and fore-festal tone to the period before Christmas is the hymnology, which is interposed in the Services of Vespers, Matins, and Compline of these days. This interposing is done in a methodical and upwardly climactic way. The 21st of November marks the beginning of singing the katavasias for Christmas (“Christ is born, glorify…”); the 26th, the addition of the fore-festal kontakio “Today the Virgin comes to give birth to the pre-eternal Word…”; the 30th, the introduction of additional fore-festal troparia. From the 20th of December onwards the fore-festal element dominates all the Services as all the hymns (canons, stichera, kathismata, exaposteilaria, etc.) have a fore-festal character. The most noteworthy among the hymns of this fore-festal period are the series of Aposticha which have the alphabet as their acrostic, a work of Romanos Melodos. These hymns are distributed in sets as Stichera of the Ainoi (Praises). They are all in plagal 2nd tone and prosomoia (of the same tune) of the first troparion (hymn) of this series, which supplies the characteristic theme of all the others:

You Angelic powers, go forward;
You People of Bethlehem, prepare the cradle;
The Word is born; The Wisdom comes forth;
You people of the Church, receive the embrace;
You People of the world, let us say at the joy of the Theotokos:
Blessed be You, our God, who has come, Glory to You.

During this period at the Service of Compline the fore-festal triodia and the kanones are sung, both of which are the work of Symeon Metaphrastes. Both are based for their acrostic and content on the corresponding triodia of the Great Week. So the week before Christmas acquires the character of the Great Week before Pascha by imitating it. This imitation reaches its climax on the Eve of Christmas in the Services of the Great Hours and the Vespers, which have been formed according to the prototype of the Great Hours of Great Friday and of the Great Paschal Vespers.

9) Characteristic hymns of the Sunday of the Fore-Fathers: Here are three characteristic troparia from the Service of the Sunday Before the Birth of Christ, dedicated to the Fore-fathers, which bring out the joy and the hope for the imminent event of Christmas and wonderfully combine the commemoration of the Prophets with the Fathers who lived before the granting of the Law:

In truth raise your voice, O Zion, divine city of God,
and preach the divine memory of the Fathers,
honoring with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Him who is from everlasting.

For lo! With Judah and Levi we magnify Moses the Great and Aaron the Wonderful, and with David celebrate the memory of Joshua and Samuel.

Inviting all with divine songs and divine praise to the fore-feast of the Birth of Christ, we pray to receive His goodness; for He it is who grants to the world the Great Mercy.

Come, O Elijah, who did ascend of old the divine chariot,
and You, O Elisha of divine mind, rejoice with Ezekiel and Josiah.

Dance, O holy and divinely inspired cluster of the Twelve Prophets, at the Savior’s Birth, and all of You, O Righteous ones, sing with praises.

Pray for us, O blessed Youth, who put out the flame of the furnace by the dew of the Spirit and plead with Christ to grant to our souls the Great Mercy.

The collection of the teachings of the Law
shows the divine Birth of Christ in the flesh,
to those to whom the Grace was preached before the Law,
since they lived by faith above the Law;
Therefore, since they preached to the souls held captives in Hell
that this Birth would cause deliverance from corruption through the resurrection, we cry: O Lord, glory to You!

The celebration of Christmas

The magnificent celebration of the Feast of Christmas, the transcendent Mystery of the Birth of Christ, transports us to the holy cave of Bethlehem in Judea, where Christ is born from the Virgin. Where the shepherds venerate Him and the Magi offer their royal gifts to Him. Where the One who has no beginning acquired a beginning and the Word became incarnate. Where the Angelic doxologies were heard for the first time, and marked the dawn of a New Day, the Epiphany of the Sun of Righteousness. The faithful who conquer their sluggishness and go early to the church services will never forget the awe-inspiring atmosphere of the magnificent Christmas Service of Matins. The echo of the joyous hymns and the sweet-smell of incense inside the imposing temples of Orthodoxy uplift the human spirit beyond space and time. Then, the synaxarion of the Day is announced in Doric and Staccato style, including the iambic verses which were composed by Christophoros Mytilenaios:

On the 25th of this month, we observe the Birth in the flesh
of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.
God is the newly-born, and virgin is the Mother!
What other greater New-thing has creation ever seen?

On the same Day, we observe the veneration of the Magi.
By venerating You, O Word of God, the order of the Gentiles
Have signified the future reverence ascribed to You by all the Nations!

On the same Day, we commemorate the Shepherds who saw the Lord.
The Shepherds left their own flock
And rush to see Christ the Good Shepherd.

To Him be the Glory unto the ages of the ages!

Participating in this celebration one does not know whether he lives in this age or in Byzantine times, or even at that holy Night when these events took place. This is exactly the stupendous mystery of Orthodox worship. It breaks up the boundaries of ages and of the flowing time-conventions of this world. The present, the past and the future are flattened. “Today”, at the Christmas celebration, Christ is born again, as He was born last year and on the same Day during the past ages; and he will continue to be born until the completion of the ages, exactly as He was born on that divine Night of Christmas of the first year of the Christian calendar. In such a context, one realizes that Christ “is the same yesterday and today and unto the ages” (Hebr. 13:8), and that the Church is His body, eternal and ageless like Him; Also, that each one of us is not alone, but a member of that sacred communion of those human beings who have been reborn in Christ, and that this communion is not subject to corruption and time, to yesterday and today and tomorrow, but exists in an eternal and incorruptible “Today”, which is enjoyed by the generations of the believers who were baptized into Christ and put on Christ. This generation of believers reigns with Christ and will continue to do so together with those who came to Christ in the past or those who will come into Him in the future. They will never pass away, because the kingdom of Christ is “a kingdom of all the ages and His reign in every generation and generation” (Psalm 114: 13).

The After-Feast or the Twelve Days of Christmas

1) From Christmas to its Apodosis (Return): As in the case of Pascha there is a fore-festal and a post-festal period, so in the case of Christmas we observe the same arrangement. The great Feast of Christmas is observed for 7 days. On the 26th of December we celebrate the Synaxis of the Theotokos, the Mother of Christ, and we commemorate the flight to Egypt of the holy family. On the 29th we commemorate the infants of Bethlehem, who were slaughtered by Herod. The Sunday that falls within this 7-day period is called the “Sunday After the Birth of Christ” and is dedicated to Joseph who was betrothed to the Virgin, to James the Brother of the Lord (Son of Joseph from another woman before his betrothal to the Theotokos), and to the common forefather, David the King. Throughout this 7-day period, the Christmas hymns are combined with those of the saints and the entire hymnology is repeated on the 31st of December, which marks the Apodosis (the completion) of the Feast of Christmas. The Exaposteilaria of the Matins Service are characteristic:

With James the noble brother of the Lord,
Let us extol David the Fore-father.
Together with Joseph who betrothed the Theotokos
For they served the Divine Birth in Bethlehem in a God-befitting way,
Singing to Him as our God and Master together with the Angels, the Magi and the Shephers.

Our Savior has visited us from on High, as the Dawn of Dawns,
And those who dwelt in darkness and shadow have found the truth
Because the Lord was born from the Virgin.

2) The Feast of the Circumcision on the 8th Day after Christmas: The Feast of the Circumcision of Christ, according to the Law of Moses, which is parallel to the Sunday of Thomas, is celebrated on the 1st of January, the 8th day from Christmas. As the appearance of the Lord to Thomas contributes to the verification of the supernatural event of the Resurrection from the dead by the most doubting and restrained disciple, so the circumcision on the eighth day and the assignment of the name to the newly born constitute both the seal and the confirmation of the perfect Incarnation of Christ; of the assumption of the human form without change; of the reality of the supernatural incarnation of the Word of God; His entry among the people through the circumcision and of his submission to the Law. That 8th day of the appearance and presence of the Risen One in the midst of His disciples is the type of the 8th (ogdoad) of the future age and of the uninterrupted presence and enjoyment of Christ which is associated with it. And this 8th day from the day of His birth “is an icon”, according to the sacred hymnographers, “of the endless life of the future”, or “carries the type of the future,” exactly on account of the official presence of Christ in the flesh in the midst of His people and of the human race as a whole.

3) Theophany and Hypapante and the 40 Days after Christmas: The festal period continues; the Feast of the Theophany (Epiphany) with its fore-feasts and after-feasts which are extended until the 14th of January is inserted next. And on the following day, the 15th, a new fore-festal period begins, which introduces the Feast of the 40th day from the day of Christ’s birth, the Feast of Hypapante (the Meeting) which is celebrated on the 2nd of February. This Feast marks the conclusion of the Christmas celebrations; their Apodosis (Return), so to speak, the parallel Feast of the Feast of the Ascension, which marks the 40th day from the day of Pascha. Christ, as the 40-day old infant, enters into His temple, the earthly heaven. There He will be welcomed and be recognized by the Prophesy of the Old Testament, which will ask for its expiration and its discharge through the mouth of the righteous Symeon and Anna the Prophetess. And this will be so, because He who was declared by the prophets and was expected to appear, the “light of the revelation of the nations, and “the glory of His people,” the old and the new Israel, did come.

General conclusion of the Christmas-cycle of Feasts

This is in general outline the after-Christmas cycle of feasts. Together with the fore-festal Christmas-cycle which we described above, it covers almost 1/5th of the ecclesiastical year. If we bear in mind that the Feast of Christmas is the basis for a series of immovable Feasts, as we already mentioned, i.e. those of the Annunciation of the Theotokos and of the Conception and Birth of John the Forerunner and Baptist, we can see how accurate is the characterization of this Feast as the pole of the immovable Feasts of the entire ecclesiastical year. The Feast of the Birth of the Lord did find within the liturgical act of the Church its just and fitting place. It became the second Pascha, the first Feast after the queen of Feasts, which gradually became like the first one, without, however, achieving full assimilation with it.

The Feast of Christmas is par excellence the Feast of the Prophesy of the Old Testament. It constitutes the borderline between the two Testaments. The Old Testament foretells and prepares the coming of Christ and ends with His birth. The New Testament begins with the day of the Incarnation. It is the “Day of the Lord, the great and magnificent one,” which is fore-announced by the prophet Joel (3:4). God gave to earth and heaven His promised supernatural omens: “the blood, the fire and the vapor of smoke” (Joel 3:3). These omens were seen and acknowledged by the prophets of the Old Testament with David at their fore-front, and also by the holy men of the New Testament, with the two members of the holy family Joseph and James at their fore-front. All of them come forward to celebrate with the people of God the fulfillment of prophesies, the great Mystery of the Divine Incarnation; the revelation of Joel’s prophetic omen: the blood referring to the Incarnation of the Divine Word, the fire to the Godhead, and the vapor of smoke to the Holy Spirit. This is what the poet-theologian Anatolios declares in the Doxastikon of the Praises of the Sunday after Christmas:

Blood, fire and vapor of smoke are the omens of the earth which Joel foresaw – Blood for the Incarnation, Fire for the Godhead, and Vapor of smoke for the Holy Spirit, Who came to the Virgin and filled the world with fragrance. Great is the Mystery of Your becoming Man, O Lord, Glory to You!

Source: Translated and annotated by Protopresbyter George Dion. Dragas, PhD, DD, DTheol.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Theology of Saint Ignatius the God-bearer

Today, my beloved Christians, our holy Church celebrates the memory of St. Ignatius the God-bearer, bishop of Antioch. This bishop is called "God-bearer" because, according to tradition, he was the child that we read of in the Gospels that Jesus placed in the midst of the disciples and said: "Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 18:1-3).

Therefore, since the Saint was brought forth by Christ in His hands as a child, so he is called "God-bearer". As for his life we do not know much. We know however that he gave a strong testimony for his faith in Christ to the Emperor Trajan. And for his testimony was led bound by guard soldiers from Antioch to Rome, to be eaten by wild beasts. Along the way from Antioch to Rome he wrote seven letters, famous letters, which have very beautiful theological teaching. Concerning this teaching of St. Ignatius the God-bearer I want, my beloved, to offer a few words in my sermon today.

1. In the days of St. Ignatius there was a great heresy, the heresy of Docetism. They said that Christ was not incarnated in actuality, that He did not receive a real human body, but was a phantasm. And St. Ignatius, although he was very sweet and very humble, for those heretics he expressed himself with very seething expressions. He calls them "wolves in sheeps clothing", "bad herbs", "seed of the evil one" and "anthropomorphic beasts." Indeed such were the Docetists and such are the heretics of all ages, including the Papists. And against the heretics we should speak strongly, according to the example of St. Ignatius and all the holy Fathers of the Church. We must be very careful of heretics, St. Ignatius tells us, because they speak surreptitiously. They offer their bitter poison with honey, he says, and thus mislead the ignorant and lure them into error (cf. Trallians 6). According to the faith of our Church, contrary to what the Docetic heretics said, Jesus Christ the Son of God was truly man incarnate in the holy womb of the Panagia Theotokos. That's why St. Ignatius in his letters (cf. Ephesians 7.2) named Jesus Christ both "by God" and "by Mary" begotten. He names Him both "passionless" and "passionate". "Passionless" because He was God and "passionate" because He was a man.

2. Since Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, in one word the God-man, that which we commune of during the Divine Liturgy is truly "the Flesh of Christ which suffered" (Smyrneans 7.1), and is the same Blood of Christ shed on Golgotha on Good Friday. Concerning Holy Communion St. Ignatius makes some very beautiful statements, brethren. He says it is the "medicine of immortality", "the antidote to not die". This means that for the sins we do, that bring to us the death of our soul, for an "antidote" to not die, we must commune during the Divine Liturgy of the Body and Blood of Christ. That's why the priest when he communes the faithful, he says: "For life eternal and immortal." For those who commune with a pure heart, St. Ignatius the God-bearer says they become "God-bearing", "Christ-bearing", "temple-bearing" and "holiness-bearing" (Ephesians 9.2)!

3. St. Ignatius is the first to name our Church "Catholic" (Smyrneans 8.2), the name which we hear in our Creed when we say "In One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." So the Papists are not Catholic, as they want to be called because of their worldly pursuits to spread everywhere, but we, the Orthodox are the actual members of the real Catholic Church. But what is the Church, my brethren? Concerning the Church St. Ignatius says it is the "table of sacrifice" (Ephesians 5.10; Trallians 7.2), that is the Holy Altar, that is the Divine Liturgy which occurs on the Holy Altar. Thus in the Divine Liturgy we receive the essential meaning of what is the Church. And I say now: Since we cannot celebrate the Divine Liturgy together with the Papists, are they not the Papal Church? Only the Orthodox are the Church, which is why we say "In ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". According to St. Ignatius, the terms and the conditions that someone belongs in the Church is the unity with the Bishop of the local Church which he resides in (Smyrneans 8.1; 9.1; Philadelphians 3.2).

4. Finally, St. Ignatius gives a nice explanation for the engagement of the Virgin Panagia with Joseph, which I want to tell you my brethren. Why did our Panagia get engaged to Joseph, since her purpose was to be a virgin? This happened, according to St. Ignatius, according to the wise plan of God to deceive the Devil. For the Devil heard the prophecy of Isaiah that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (see Isa. 7:14). The thrice-cursed Devil had no interest in the birth of the Messiah, because he would have destroyed his works (cf. 1 John 3:8). So when the Virgin Mary became engaged to Joseph, the Devil thought that not even she will be the Mother of the Messiah, after having become engaged. Just as he deceived the First-Formed and urged them to eat of the bitter fruit, so he was now deceived! And the same deception happened at the death of Christ. St. Ignatius speaks of three "mysteries to be cried aloud", the virginity of Mary and the birth and death of Christ, that "God worked in quietness" (cf. Ephesians 19.1).

With many prayers,

† The Bishop of Gortyna and Megalopolis Jeremiah

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Synaxarion for the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers

On the Sunday that fall between December 11th and 17th, we celebrate all those who from ages past have been well-pleasing to God, beginning from Adam even unto Joseph the Betrothed of the Most Holy Theotokos, according to genealogy, as the Evangelist Luke hath recorded historically (Luke 3:23-38); we also commemorate the Prophets and Prophetesses, and especially the Prophet Daniel and the Holy Three Children.

Verses

Commemoration of Adam and Eve, the first-formed.

I hymn the death of the authors of our living race:
Responsible that I both live and die.

Commemoration of the just Abel, Adam’s son.

Your blood and soul apart cry out to God:
First of the dead, and first too of the saved.

Commemoration of the just Seth, Adam’s son.

As a new offspring for his parents Abel’s place
Seth took; a just man too, as Abel was.

Commemoration of the just Enosh, Seth’s son.

Ὀφθεὶς Ἐνὼς μέγιστος ἐκ τῆς ἐλπίδος,
Πολλοῖς ἐνῆκε ζῆλον εἰς τὴν ἐλπίδα.

Commemoration of the just Canaan, Enosh’s son.

Canaan was written of in Moses’ book;
So in the present book must he be written.

Commemoration of Mahalalel, Canaan’s son.

Ἑξῆς προκείσθω Μαλελεὴμ τῷ λόγῳ.
Υἱὸς Καϊνᾶν, οὗ προεμνήσθη λόγος.

Commemoration of Jared, Mahalalel’s son.

Just is it in the number of the just,
Jared the just also to celebrate.

Commemoration of the just Enoch, Jared’s son.

Enoch, who had pleased God most visibly,
In lands invisible was made to dwell.

Commemoration of Methuselah, Enoch’s son.

That you, Methuselah, were Enoch’s child
I learned, and here for others wrote it down.

Commemoration of Lamech, Methuselah’s son.

Knowing two Lamechs, I must honor one,
Named Lamech, but not him the murderer.

Commemoration of the just Noah, Lamech’s son.

Adam brought mortals ruin from a tree:
But Noah through a tree saved all the race.

Commemoration of the just Shem, Noah’s son.

His father’s nakedness Shem rightly covered,
Found that he had his father’s prayers as cover.

Commemoration of the just Japhet, Noah’s son.

Μὴ θείς, Ἰάφεθ Πατρὸς αἰσχύνῃ πλάτος,
Βίου πλατυσμὸν εὐχαῖς Πατρὸς λαμβάνει.

Commemoration of the just Arphaxad, Shem’s son.

Zῇ Κύριος ζῶν, οὐ τὸν Ἀρφαξὰδ λίπω,
Καὶ γὰρ χρεὼν καὶ τοῦτον ἐνταῦθα γράφειν.

Commemoration of the just Cainan, Arphaxad’s son.

Καϊνᾶν ἡμῖν ἐξεγήγερται νέος,
Τῷ πρὶν Καϊνᾶν, ἐμφερὴς ἐκ τοῦ τρόπου.

Commemoration of the just Shelah, Cainan’s son.

Συμπατριωτῶν ὁρμαθῷ καὶ συμφύλων,
Ἡ συγγένεια συνδέει καὶ τὸν Σάλα.

Commemoration of the just Eber, after whom the Jews are named Hebrews.

Eber is truly great for all the Jews;
He gave his own name to the Hebrew race.

Commemoration of the just Peleg, Eber’s son.

I keep high festival for Eber’s child;
For Moses tells that Peleg begot.

Commemoration of Reu, Peleg’s son.

Again conception and again new birth;
Peleg begets for us Reu his son.

Commemoration of the just Serug, Reu’s son.

Writing the offspring of ancients down,
Were I to miss out Serug, I would err.

Commemoration of the just Nahor, Serug’s son.

Γένους ὑπάρχειν τῶν ἄνω λελεγμένων,
Καὶ τὸν Ναχὼρ γνοὺς οὐ διϊστῶ τοῦ γένους.

Commemoration of the just Terah, Nahor’s son.

Terah came forth from Nahor as his son;
Father of many nations father he became.

Commemoration of the just Patriarch Abraham.

How shall I welcome Abraham with words,
To whom it was vouchsafed to welcome Angels?

Commemoration of the Patriarch Isaac, Abraham’s son.

Bound for the slaughter Isaac was a type
Of God’s high Word who would to slaughter come.

Commemoration of the Patriarch Jacob, Isaac’s son.

By the Ladder which is the Virgin Jacob saw,
God coming down to earth before His birth.

Commemoration of the Patriarch Reuben, Jacob’s son.

Of Jacob’s honoured offspring I have known
Reuben to be the godlike, honored start.

Commemoration of the Patriarch Symeon, Jacob’s son.

Though only second Symeon in line,
From us no second honor does he bear.

Commemoration of the Patriarch Levi, Jacob’s son.

As godly servant of the the greatest God
What better glory, Levi, do you wish?

Commemoration of the Patriarch Judah, Jacob’s son, of whose tribe came the Christ.

Those who are saved will now sing Judah’s praise,
For Christ who is salvation came from him.

Commemoration of the Patriarch Zebulun, Jacob’s son, whose tribe lives by the sea shore.

Ἀκτὰς κατοικεῖν ὁ Ζαβουλὼν ἐκρίθη,
Γῆς καὶ θαλάττης εἰς ἓν ἄκρα συνδέων.

Commemoration of the Patriarch Issachar, Jacob’s son, whose tribe tills the soil.

Issachar sets himself to heavy toil,
Sustains his life by bringing bread from earth.

Commemoration of the Patriarch Dan, Jacob’s son, whose tribe is judge.

Λαοῦ κριτὴς Δάν, γλῶττα τῆς ἐξουσίας
Ζυγοῖς δικαίοις πᾶσιν ἐξάγων κρίσιν.

Commemoration of the Patriarch Gad, Jacob’s son, whose tribe robbed.

Γὰδ πειρατευθείς, πειρατεύων ἐκτρέχει,
Νίκαις δὲ πάντων πειρατῶν κατισχύει.

Commemoration of the Patriarch Asher, Jacob’s son, whose tribe is rich in wheat-bearing lands.

Ἀσὴρ δέ, φησί, πίονα πλουτεῖ στάχυν,
Τρέφει τε τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἄρτῳ πλουσίῳ.

Commemoration of the Patriarch Naphtali, Jacob’s son, whose tribe is very numerous.

Ὡς ἔρνος ὄντως Νεφθαλεὶμ ἀνειμένον
Εἰς πλῆθος αὐτῷ τῆς φυλῆς ἡπλωμένης.

Commemoration of the Patriarch Joseph, Jacob’s son, whose tribe is very glorious and very famous.

Ηὐξημένον σε, σὸς Πατὴρ εἶναι λέγων,
Δόξαν φυλῆς σῆς, Ἰωσήφ, διαγράφει.

Commemoration of the Patriarch Benjamin, Jacob’s son, whose tribe is gentle and not savage.

Φαγὼν τὸ πρωῒ Bενιαμίν, ὡς λύκος,
Πρᾶος φανεῖς, δίδωσι βρῶσιν ἑσπέρας.

Commemoration of Perez and Zerach, the twin sons of the Patriarch Judah.

Κοινῶς ἐπαινῶ σπέρμα κοινὸν Ἰούδα
Φαρὲς Ζαρά τε, τοὺς διδύμους συγγόνους.

Commemoration of Hezron, Perez’s son.

Ἐκ Φαρὲς Ἐσρώμ, ὥσπερ ἐκ ῥίζης κλάδος,
Ἄμφω δὲ ῥίζης Ἀβραὰμ θεῖοι κλάδοι.

Commemoration of Ram, Hezron’s son.

Γέγηθεν Ἐσρώμ, οὐ νοσῶν ἀτεκνίαν.
Ἀρὰμ γὰρ αὐτῷ τέκνον ἠγαπημένον.

Commemoration of Amminadab, Ram’s son.

Τὸν Ἀμιναδὰβ ἐξ Ἀρὰμ φῦναι λόγος.
Τούτου γὰρ υἱὸν ἡ Γραφὴ τοῦτον λέγει.

Commemoration of Nahshon, Amminadab’s son.

Εἷς καὶ Ναασὼν τῆς, Ἰούδα φατρίας,
Ἐξ Ἀμιναδὰβ τῆς φυλῆς ἐξ, Ἰούδα.

Commemoration of Salmon, Nahshon’s son.

Ηὔξησε σειρὰν Ἀβραμιαίου γένους
Σαλμὼν προελθὼν τῆς Ναασὼν ὀσφύος.

Commemoration of Boaz, Salmon’s son.

Evangelist, whom do you write as son
Of Salmon here? Boaz, he says, I write.

Commemoration of Obed, Boaz’ son, born of Ruth.

Obed of Ruth, a Moabite by tribe,
But yet of Boaz, a true Israelite.

Commemoration of Jesse, Obed’s son.\

Jesse give birth, and let your race give birth
Until from it a Child, great God, is born.

Commemoration of King David, Jesse’s son.

What shall I say, the Lord bears witness here,
I have found David after my own heart.

Commemoration of King Solomon, David’s son.

Σοφὸς Σολομὼν πρῶτος ἐν σοφοῖς βίου,
Ἔχων τὸ πρῶτον τῶν καλῶν τῶν τοῦ βίου.

Commemoration of King Rehoboam, Solomon’s son.

Ἐγκώμιόν σοι Ῥοβοάμ, πλέκω μέγα,
Σὸν πάππον εἶναι τὸν μέγαν Δαυῒδ λέγων.

Commemoration of King Abijah, Rehoboam’s son.

Βοᾷ Ῥοβοὰμ πρὸς τὸν Ἀβιὰ λέγων·
Ἐγὼ Πατὴρ σός, καὶ σύ μου τὸ τεκνίον.

Commemoration of King Asa, Abijah’s son.

Εὐθῆ τὸν Ἀσὰ μηνύει Βασιλέα,
Ἡ τετράτιτλος τῶν Βασιλειῶν βίβλος.

Commemoration of King Jehoshaphat, Asa’s son.

Ἰωσαφὰτ τὰ πάντα χρηστὸς ἐν βίῳ
Εὑρὼν ἀφορμάς πατρόθεν χρηστοῦ βίου.

Commemoration of King Joram, Jehoshaphat’s son.

Ἰωρὰμ ἡμῖν ἐξ Ἰωσαφὰτ ἔφυ·
Ὑιὸς Βασιλεύς, ἐκ πατρὸς Βασιλέως.

Commemoration of King Ahaziah, Joram’s son.

Ἀνῆκε καρπὸν εὐγενῆ τὸν Ὀζίαν,
Ἄναξ Ἰωράμ, Ἰωσαφὰτ ὁ κλάδος.

Commemoration of King Jotham, Uzziah’ son.

Τὸν Ἰωάθαμ, ὡς νεοττὸν Ὀζίου,
Τῆς βασιλείας ἡ καλιὰ λαμβάνει.

Commemoration of King Ahaz, Jotham’s son.

Τὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς στέμμα Ἰωάθαμ,
Στέφει κεφαλὴν εὐπρεπῶς καὶ τὴν Ἄχαζ.

Commemoration of King Hezekiah, Ahaz’s son.

Σοβεῖ τελευτὴν δακρύσας Ἐζεκίας.
Τοσοῦτον ἰσχύουσι ῥεῖθρα δακρύων!

Commemoration of King Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son.

Σωτηριῶδες πρὸς μετάγνωσιν βάθρον,
Μανασσῆς ἡμῖν τὴν προσευχὴν πηγνύει.

Commemoration of King Amon, Manasseh’s son.

Ἀμμὼν κυηθεὶς τῆς ἁλουργίδος μέσον,
'Ἦν καὶ Βασιλεύς, καὶ Βασιλείας τέκνον.

Commemoration of King Josiah, Amon’s son.

Ἰωσίας ἔναντι τοῦ Θεοῦ μέγας,
Ὃν γνοὺς ἐπαινεῖν, δειλιῶν μὴ σμικρύνω.

Commemoration of King Jeconiah, Josiah’ son.

Ἐν Βαβυλῶνος τῇ μετοικίᾳ λόγος,
Ἰεχονίαν ἐμπαροικῆσαι βίῳ.

Commemoration of Shealtiel, Jeconiah’ son.

Πρῶτον μέτ' αὐτὴν τὴν μετοικίαν τέκνον
Τὸν Σαλαθιὴλ Ἰούδα φυλὴ φύει.

Commemoration of Zerubbabel, who rebuilt the Temple in Jerusalem which had been burned down.

Nαβουζαρδὰν ἔκαυσε Ναὸν Κυρίου,
Οὗ καύσιν ἦρε κτίσματι Ζοροβάβελ.

Commemoration of Abiud, Zerubbabel’s son.

Ἀβιοὺδ ὅρπηξ, οὗ φυὴ Ζοροβάβελ.
Ὡς τὴν φυὴν οὖν, καὶ τὸν ὅρπηκα γράφω.

Commemoration of Eliakim, Abiud’s son.

Τὸν Ἐλιακεὶμ Ἀβιοὺδ γράφει γόνον,
Ματθαῖος ἡμῖν, ἀκριβὴς γονογράφος.

Commemoration of Azor, Eliakim’s son.

Ὁ θεῖος Ἀζὼρ ἐξ Ἐλιακεὶμ ἔφυ,
Θεία Γραφὴ λέγουσα τοῦτο πεισάτω.

Commemoration of Zadok, Azor’s son.

Ἀζὼρ κυΐσκων τὸν Σαδὼκ οὐ λανθάνει,
Ὃν συγγραφεὺς γνοὺς ἐκκαλύπτει τὸν τόκον.

Commemoration of Achim, Zadok’s son.

Τοῖς τοῦ Σαδὼκ ζητοῦσιν υἱόν, Ματθαῖος,
Δείξει τὸν Ἀχείμ, ἐκβαλὼν τὸ βιβλίον.

Commemoration of Eliud, Achim’s son.

Τεχθεὶς ἀπ' Ἀχείμ, Ἐλιοὺδ ὤφθη τέκνον,
Ὀφθήσεται δὲ καὶ πατὴρ τεκνοτρόφος.

Commemoration of Eleazar, Eliud’s son.

Ἰδοὺ τεκόντα καὶ τὸν Ἐλιοὺδ ἔγνων,
Ἐλεάζαρον τέκνον· εἰ βούλει, μάθε.

Commemoration of Matthan, Eleazar’s son.

Ἐλεάζαρ δὲ τὸν Ματθὰν γεννᾶν λέγει,
Μαιευτρίας ἄκουε, Ματθαίου Βίβλου.

Commemoration of Jacob, Matthan’s son.

Καὶ Ματθὰν εἰσήνεγκεν υἱὸν εἰς βίον
Τὸν Ἰακωβ γὰρ εἰσενεγκὼν εὑρέθη.

Commemoration of Joseph, the Betrothed, Jacob’s son.

To Joseph, the Betrothed, the Spirit shows
That his betrothed, before they wed, conceives.

Commemoration of the just Melchizedek.

No father and no mother Scripture gives
To you, Melchizedek, as type of Christ.

Commemoration of the just Job.

Having the Most High to give fitting praise,
Job therefore has no need of earthly praise.

Commemoration of the Prophet Moses, and the priests Hur and Aaron.

Aaron with Hur depicts Christ’s suffering,
Both raising Moses arms up like a Cross.

Commemoration of Joshua, Nun’s son.

Ὑμνεῖν Ἰησοῦν ποῖος ἀρκέσει λόγος,
ᾯ συλλαλῶν ὑπῆρχε καὶ Θεὸς Λόγος;

Commemoration of the Holy Prophet Samuel.

Ὀφθαλμὸν ἡμῖν εὐμενῆ Θεοῦ τίθει,
Ὀφθαλμὲ θεῖε, καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα βλέπων.

Commemoration of the Prophet Nathan.

Ἁμαρτιῶν ἔλεγχος ὀξὺς ὢν Νάθαν,
Ἡμάρτομεν λέγουσι, συγγνώμην νέμοις.

Commemoration of the Holy Prophet Daniel.

Καὶ θηρία φρίττουσιν ἀρετῆς φίλον.
Ἔργοις Δανιὴλ τοῦτο πιστοῦται μέγας.

Commemoration of the three Holy Youths.

The furnace fire was fire and also dew;
For the Youths, the ungodly fire was dew.

Commemoration of the just Sarah, Abraham’s wife.

A barren nature by God’s will o’erthrown,
A child is witness too of Sarah’s pains.

Commemoration of the just Rebecca, Isaac’s wife.

Noblest of husbands found to share his bed
Rebecca, who was noblest of wives.

Commemoration of the just Leah, Jacob’s first wife.

The Lord did not make Leah fair of face,
But gave her womb the gift of motherhood.

Commemoration of the just Rachel, Jacob’s second wife.

Her father’s gods through longing Rachel steals,
But at the last she longs for God the Word.

Commemoration of the just Asenath, the most upright Joseph’s wife.

The sun exceeds in beauty all the stars;
For me Asenath maids beneath the sun.

Commemoration of the just Mariah, Moses’ sister.

Let’s sing, she said, and sing unto the Lord,
Now Mariah beats the timbrel of the soul.

Commemoration of the just Deborah, who judged Israel.

Ὑπὲρ γυναῖκας ἡ Δεβόρρα τὴν φρένα,
Βάθει φρενὸς κρίνουσα λαὸν Κυρίου.

Commemoration of the just Ruth.

Leaving her nation and her gods behind,
The Nation and God of Moses Ruth then found.

Commemoration of the just woman of Sarepta, to whom Elijah was sent.

Ἄσπαρτον εἶχε τὴν τροφὴν Σαραφθία,
Kαινὸν λαχοῦσα λήϊνον τὸν Ἠλίαν.

Commemoration of the just Shunamitess, who gave lodging to Elisha.

Ἐλισαῖος σοι κλεῖθρα νηδύος λύει,
ᾯ κλεῖθρα Σωμανῖτις ἤνοιξας δρόμου.

Commemoration of the just Judith, who slew Holofernes.

Ὃν πᾶς ἀνὴρ ἔφριττε, δεινὸν ὁπλίτην,
Γυνὴ καθεῖλεν, Ἰουδίθ, Ὀλοφέρνην.

Commemoration of the just Esther, who saved Israel from death.

Ἔσωσεν Ἐσθὴρ ἄνδρας Ἰσραηλίτας,
ᾍδου κυνὴν μέλλοντας ἐνδῦναι πάλαι.

Commemoration of the just Hannah, mother of the prophet Samuel.

Εὐχῆς τέκνον τεκοῦσα Σαμουὴλ μέγαν,
Νικᾷ Φενάνναν, Ἄννα πολλὴν ἐν τέκνοις.

Commemoration of the just Susanna.

Kανὼν πρόκειται σωφρονούσαις ἐν βίῳ,
Ὁ τῆς Σωσάννης σωφρονέστατος βίος.

Through their holy prayers, O God, have mercy and save us. Amen.

Kontakion in the First Tone
Bethlehem rejoice, Ephrata prepare; for see the Ewe-lamb, bearing in her womb the great Shepherd, hastens to give birth. Seeing him the godbearing Fathers exult as with the Shepherds they hymn a Virgin who gives suck.

Oikos
Seeing the dazzling radiance of your conceiving, O Virgin, Abraham the friend of God, noble Isaac, Jacob and the whole choir of saints chosen by God rejoice; and they bring creation to meet you with words of joy. For you appeared as the source of joy, since you conceived in your womb him who once appeared in Babylon and beyond all understanding preserved unburned the Youths unjustly cast into the furnace. And so they also raise the song as they hymn a Virgin who gives suck.

Apolytikion in the Fourth Tone
Great are the achievements of faith! In the fountain of flame, as by the water of rest, the three holy youths rejoiced, and the Prophet Daniel was revealed shepherding lions like sheep. At their intercessions, Christ God, save our souls.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Holy Prophet Daniel and the Three Youths: Ananias, Azarias and Misael

Holy Prophet Daniel and the Three Youths (Feast Day - December 17)

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich

All four were of the royal tribe of Judah. When Nebuchadnezzar destroyed and plundered Jerusalem, Daniel, as a boy, was carried away into slavery together with the Jewish King Jehoiachim and countless other Israelites. An account of his life, sufferings and prophecies can be found in detail in his book.

Completely devoted to God, St. Daniel from his early youth received from God the gift of great discernment. His fame among the Jews in Babylon began when he denounced two lecherous and unrighteous elders, Jewish judges, and saved the chaste Susanna from an unjust death. But his fame among the Babylonians began from the day he deciphered and interpreted the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar. For this, the king made him a prince at his court.

When the king made a golden idol on the Plain of Dura, the Three Children refused to worship it, and for this they were cast into a fiery furnace. But an angel of God appeared in the furnace and cooled the fire so that the children walked around the furnace unharmed by the fire, singing: "Blessed art Thou, Lord God of our fathers" (Daniel 3:26). The king saw this miracle and was amazed. He then brought the children out of the furnace and bestowed upon them great honors.

In the time of King Belshazzar, when the king was eating and drinking with his guests at a banquet from consecrated vessels taken from the Temple in Jerusalem, an invisible hand wrote three words on the wall: "Mene, Tekel, Upharsin" (Daniel 5:25-28). No one was able to interpret these words except Daniel. That night, King Belshazzar was killed.

Daniel was twice thrown into the lions' den because of his faith in the One, Living God, and both times the Lord saved him and he remained alive. Daniel beheld God on a throne with the heavenly hosts; saw angels; discerned the future of certain people, of kingdoms, and of the whole human race; and prophesied the time of the coming of the Savior on earth.

According to St. Cyril of Alexandria, Daniel and the three children lived to old age in Babylon and were beheaded for the true Faith. When they beheaded Ananias, Azarias stretched out his cloak and caught his head; following this, Misael caught Azarias's head and Daniel caught Misael's head. An angel of God translated their bodies to Judea, to Mount Gebal, and placed them under a rock. According to tradition, these four God-pleasers arose at the time of the death of the Lord Christ, appeared to many and again fell asleep.

Daniel is numbered among the four great prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel). He lived and prophesied five hundred years before Christ.

Reflection From the Life of Daniel and the Three Youths

Bodily purity is primarily attained by fasting, and, through bodily purity, spiritual purity is also attained. Abstinence from food, according to the words of that son of grace, St. Ephraim the Syrian, means: "Not to desire or ask for various foods, either sweet or costly; not to eat anything outside the designated time; not to succumb to the spirit of gluttony; not to excite hunger in oneself by looking at good food; and not to desire at one moment one kind of food and at another moment another kind of food." Great is the fallacy that fasting and Lenten food harm the health of the body. It is a known fact that the ascetics lived the longest and were the least prone to illness. St. Daniel and the Three Children in Babylon offer us an example of this. When the king ordered his eunuch to feed these young men food from the royal table and to give them good wine to drink, Daniel told the eunuch that they did not want to accept the royal food and wine but wanted only vegetables for food (for Daniel did not want to eat the food sprinkled with the blood of the idolatrous sacrifices). The eunuch, fearing that the youths would be weakened by the fasting foods, related his fear to Daniel. Then the prophet suggested that he make a test and convince himself that the fasting food would not weaken them: to nourish the other youths at the royal court with food from the king's table, and to feed the four of them only on pulse for the course of ten days, and then make a comparison. The eunuch heeded Daniel and did what he suggested. After ten days, the faces of the four ascetic youths were more radiant and their bodies were stronger than the bodies of the Babylonian youths who ate and drank from the king's table.


Read also: A Homily on the Steadfastness of Daniel the Prophet


HYMN OF PRAISE: The Holy Prophet Daniel and the Three Youths

Whoever fears the true God
Is not afraid of men or demons.
The Lord rewards faithful servants
And guards them from every evil.
Among the lions,
Holy Daniel remained unharmed;
In the fiery furnace,
The Three Youths remained alive;
In the midst of the fire, they glorified God,
With an angel, God's messenger.
Like Noah in the evil world,
Like holy Lot in wild Sodom,
And like Joseph in decadent Egypt,
So Daniel in the middle of Babylon
Remained faithful and righteous
With three of his young friends:
Ananias and Azarias
And the faithful young Misael.
The tortures came and the tortures passed.
The martyred were gloriously glorified
In the Immortal Kingdom of Christ.

Apolytikion in the Second Tone
Great are the achievements of faith! In the fountain of flame, as by the water of rest, the Three Holy Children rejoiced. And the Prophet Daniel proved a shepherd of lions as of sheep. By their prayers, O Christ our God, save our souls.

Kontakion in the Third Tone
Since thy pure and hallowed heart had been made pure by the Spirit, it became His dwelling-place and clearest prophecy's vessel; for thou didst behold things far off as near and present, and when cast into the den, thou didst muzzle lions; for which cause, O blessed Prophet, glorious Daniel, we all revere thee in faith.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Miracle of Saint Luke of Simferopol for the Young Pianist Nazar

Nazar Stanintsenkov, a young distinguished pianist, described a miracle which occurred for him on a radio interview for the Greek program Peraiki Ekklesia. Below is his personal account:

Seven years ago I went to the beach to spend the summer with my grandmother, and one day I left the house to go play. I wasn't paying attention, so when the door shut it caught my fingers inside. My phalanx bones were cut off. I was crying and screaming: "My fingers are cut off, how will I ever play the piano again?" We went to the hospital and the doctor couldn't do anything, except stitching the wounds. After a few days a grandmother spoke to us about Saint Luke. We went to Simferopol and venerated the relics of the Saint. I took oil from the icon of the Saint and every night prayed: "Saint Luke, I don't know what you will do, but I want to play the piano again. You are the doctor, so you know how." Every night I applied the icon and oil to my hand. After one month my fingers began to grow back, even the nails came out, and I began again to play the piano. In five months I completed my exams in piano and got first prize. I thank Saint Luke for his great gift which he set for my life.


Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Carolingians and the Romans

By Alexandros Hourani

1: Relations between the Popes, the Emperors and the Franks before 753

Constantine I 708-715:

Constantine was from Syria. (Liber Pontificalis, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, p. 222)

In 710, he went to Constantinople, where he was received by Emperor Justinian. (Liber Pontificalis, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, p. 224)

In 712, he rejected the letter of the new emperor Philippicus, because Philippicus supported monothelism in this letter. (Liber Pontificalis, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, p. 224)

In 713, the people of Rome resolved to reject the letters and effigies of any heretic emperor. They also refused to accept Peter who was newly sent as duke of Rome (the exarchy of Italy was divided into many duchies, one of which was the duchy of Rome). Christopher duke of Rome fought Agatho, one of the men of Peter. After a few days, news came from Sicily that Anastasius replaced Philippicus and that Anastasius was orthodox. Of all the towns of the exarchate of Italy, only the people of Rome acted as such. (Liber Pontificalis, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, p. 225-226)

In all these events, there is no mention of ‘Greek heretics’ or ‘Greek emperor’, any mention that these events involved ‘Romans’ against ‘Greeks’, or any mention of a separation from the ‘Byzantines’.


Gregory II 715-731:

Gregory was from Rome. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 453)

In circa 717, he sent a letter to the Lombards asking them to give back the fortress of Cumae. He also sent a letter to John duke of Napoli encouraging him to restore Cumae. John took back the fortress. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 466-467; Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum, 40)

In 727, Paul exarch of Italy tried to murder the Pope by order of Emperor Leo. Paul sent men from Ravenna to achieve the plot; but these were stopped by the Lombards who surrounded the borders of Roman territory (“duces Longobardorum circumdantes Romanorum fines”). Later, the emperor sent a decree to the Pope ordering the destruction of sacred images. The Pope sent letters for the Christians to beware of this new heresy. Consequently, the Pentapolitan and Venetian soldiers resisted the decree of the emperor. The Italians removed Paul their exarch. The Italians then resolved to elect an Emperor and to send him to Constantinople (“cognita vero imperatoris nequitia, omnis Italia consilium iniit ut sibi eligerent imperatorem et Constantinopolim ducerent”). However, the Pope curbed the decision of the Italians to elect an emperor, hoping that Emperor Leo would revert from his opinion. Later, Exhilaratus duke of Napoli, having conspired to murder the Pope, was killed by the Romans. At the same time, Paul the exarch was killed in Ravenna. Then, the Roman towns of Buxo, Pernitecta, Pentapolis and Auximana surrendered themselves to the Lombards. The Emperor sent Eutychius the new exarch to murder the Pope but did not succeed. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 476-478; Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum, 49; Theophanes, Chronographia, year 6221)

In 728-729, he wrote a letter to the Emperor telling him that the doctrines of the Church do not pertain to the emperors but to the pontiffs. He relates to him that because of his acts against icons, the Lombards invaded the Decapolis and occupied Ravenna while the Emperor could defend them very little (Patrologia Latina 89, p. 518-519). The Pope here is referring to the events of 727.

In 729, by request of Liutprand King of the Lombards, the Pope received Eutychius the exarch in peace. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 479-480)

In 730, Emperor Leo sent Manes master of the soldiers of the Cibyraeotae against Rome and Italy. Manes transformed the revenues of the patrimony of the Church of Rome in Sicily and Calabria into public revenues. (Theophanes, Chronigraphia, year 6224)

In all these events, the Italians were just reacting against iconoclasm and did not think of separation from the ‘Byzantines’ as it is claimed by modern historians. In fact, the Italians wanted to establish an Emperor and to send him to Constantinople as it is clearly stated in Liber Pontificalis.


Gregory III 731-741:

Gregory was form Syria. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 557)

In 739, Liutprand pursued Trasimund, Duke of Spoleto, in the Duchy of Rome, because Trasimund had taken refuge in Rome. Because the Pope and Stephen the patrician and duke of Rome did not hand Trasimund to Liutprand, Liutprand took four towns from the duchy of Rome: America, Hortae, Polimartium and Blera. Consequently, the Pope sent the keys of Saint Peter to Charles Martel and a letter asking him to liberate them from the Lombards. According to the continuator of Fredegarius, an agreement was made between Charles and the Pope that the Pope recedes from the faction of the emperor (“ut a partibus imperatoris recederet”) and that he ordains Charles as Roman Consul (Third Continuation of Fredegarius, 110; Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 573-574, 895). To recede from the faction of the emperor did not mean to rebel against him. In fact, the Romans at that time were divided between those who supported the orders of Emperors Leo and Constantine, and those who were against them. Although the Pope sent a letter to the emperors in circa 733 to restore the holy images, he did not oppose their policies in the manner Gregory II did in 727. So, all what Charles was asking is that the Pope stops supporting the emperors.

Later in 739, the Pope sent another letter asking again help from Charles. In this letter, he calls Charles as ‘Carolus subregulus’ ‘Charles the sub-king’; there is no mention of the title ‘consul’. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 583)

In 740, he sent a letter to Charles in which he was afflicted at Charles for letting Liutprand and Hilprand raid the territories of Ravenna and Rome. In this letter, he also calls Charles as ‘Carolus subregulus’. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 581-583)

In these events also, there is no indicator of a will to separate from the emperor. The appeal to protection from Charles did not mean that the Pope did not recognize the authority of the emperor. Instead, asking the help of an old ally of the Romans, such as Charles, was a natural response to the threat posed by the Lombards because Charles could attack the Lombard from the north and curb them. The attacks of the Lombards against the Romans in Italy were not a new thing in 739. Surely, continuous appeals to the Franks unintentionally opened the door for Frankish intervention into Roman affairs later. Besides this, in all the sources of this period, there is no mention of ‘heretic Greeks’ or ‘Greek emperors’ or any terms like that.


Zachary 741-752:

Zachary was from Athens. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 891)

In 741, he sent a letter to Liutprand demanding the restoration of the four towns taken from the duchy of Rome. Liutprand promised him their restoration. When Liutprand went to capture Trasimund, Roman soldiers joined him. Trasimund surrendered himself to Liutprand at Spoleto. The Pope met Liutprand in Interamna. Liutprand restored to the Pope the four towns and made peace with the Duchy of Rome for 20 years. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 896-898)

In 742, he sent a letter to Emperor Constantine containing some suggestions. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 905-906)

In 743, Liutprand attacked the province of Ravenna. Eutychius patrician and exarch of Italy sent to the Pope asking him to hasten to their liberation. The Pope sent a letter to Liutprand asking him to cease from his attacks and to restore Caesena to the people of Ravenna. Then, the Pope left Rome to meet Liutprand and went to Ravenna. From there he went to Pavia and met Liutprand. Liutprand restored Caesena to Ravenna, and the Pope returned to Rome. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 899-902)

In 743, he organized a synod in the Church of Saint Peter concerning the discipline of the priests and monks and concerning marriages. The synod is dated as such: “indictione XII, imperante Arduasto eiusque filio Niceforo” “12th indiction, under Emperor Arduastus and his son Nicephorus”. (Concilia Aevi Karolini I, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, p. 8-32)

In 745, he organized another synod in the Lateran Palace concerning two priests, Adelbert and Clemens. The synod is dated as such: “imperante domino piissimo Augusto Constantino imperatore anno XXVI” “during the rule of the most pious lord August Constantine emperor for the 16th year”. (Concilia Aevi Karolini I, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, p. 37-44)

In 747, he sent a letter to Pippin the majordomo and to the bishops, abbots and princes of the Frankish region concerning ecclesiastical issues. In it, he calls Pippin as “Pippino maiori domus”. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 930-938)

In 749, Ratchis King of the Lombards marched to capture Perusia. The Pope went to Perusia and convinced Ratchis to retreat from the siege. (Liber Pontificalis, Patrologia Latina 89, p. 909)

In all these events, the Pope was successful in protecting all the people of Rome and the rest of the Romans of Italy from the Lombards. There are no indications that Rome and the exarchate of Italy were separate from the emperors at that time because of iconoclasm. Rome was under the duke of Rome who was under the exarch of Italy Eutychius. In his turn, Eutychius was under the emperor. In all the synods at Rome, the synods are dated by the years of the emperors. Unlike his predecessor, Zachary did not ask help from the Franks against the Lombards, but through his courage, he was able to hinder their attacks.

2: Divisions of the Exarchate of Italy until 751

To understand events in Italy during the 8th century, one has to have a general view of the administrative divisions of Italy from the Lombardic conquests to 751.

During this period, Italy was governed by the patrician and exarch of Italy (Latin: patricius et exarchus Italiae; Greek: o patrikios kai ecsarhos tis Italias [1]). The exarch of Italy was sometimes known as the patrician of the Romans by Franks and Lombards [2].

The exarchate of Italy contained these provinces:
1] Rome (known previously as the province of Urbicaria),
2] Napoli (known previously as the province of Campania),
3] Sicily,
4] Calabria,
5] Ravenna (known previously as the province of Annonaria),
6] Venice.

Each province was governed by a duke, with the rank of patrician, protospatharius or spatharius. The province of Ravenna was governed directly by the exarch. Towns situated under Ravenna were also governed by dukes, like Perugia and the Pentapolis.

During the late 7th or early 8th century, the Duke of Sicily was made Master of the Soldiers (magister militum; stratigos) with the rank of protospatharius or patrician. Calabria and Napoli were under him.

In 751, Aistulf King of the Lombards took the province of Ravenna, thus isolating the province of Rome whose only contacts with the rest of the Empire were now through Napoli and Sicily.

In 754, Pippin took the province of Ravenna from Aistulf, but gave it to the Pope instead of giving it to the legates of the Emperor. The title of Pippin (‘patrician of the Romans’) reflected the fact that Pippin ruled now the exarchate of Italy.

[1] To convert to Greek, paste the text in the text box (here:
http://www.bibliothecaberytia.com/BetaGrConv.aspx), then click “Convert Beta Code to Greek”.

[2] Fredegarius calls Isaac patrician and exarch of Italy in 630 as “patricio Romanorum” (Fredegarius, Chronicum, 69). Paul the Deacon calls Gregory patrician and exarch of Italy as “Gregorius patricius Romanorum” (Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum, 38).

3: Ethnogeography during the 8th century AD

Ethnogeography is the study of the location of peoples. To understand events
studied in this series of articles, one has to understand the ethnogeography of
this period.

During this century, three peoples were mainly behind these studied events:
1] the Romans,
2] the Lombards,
3] the Franks.

The Franks were found in Gaul and Germany. The Franks ruled all Gaul and parts
of Germany. Under the rule of the Franks were these peoples:
1] the Romans of Gaul,
2] the Burgunds of Burgundy in Gaul,
3] the Thuringians,
4] the Alamanns,
5] the Bavars.

The Lombards were found in Italy. They ruled these parts of Italy:
1] Northern Italy (Pavia, Milan, Verona, Tuscany),
2] the Duchy of Spoleto,
3] the Duchy of Benevento.

The Lombards of the Duchy of Spoleto were commonly known as the Spoletans. The Lombards of the Duchy of Benevento were known as the Beneventans. Under the rule of the Lombards were these peoples:
1] the Romans of Italy,
2] some Bulgars, who migrated to Italy, and others.

The Romans were found in the all lands that were Roman lands before the conquests of the Barbarians. There were two types of Romans:
1] Romans living under the rule of other peoples in Gaul, Spain, Africa, Egypt, Syria, Italy, Rhaetia and Illyricum,
2] Romans living under their own rule in Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Dalmatia, Greece, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, Cyprus, and Asia Minor.

Free Romans were divided according to their provinces and to their languages. The main division according to languages was between:
1] Latins,
2] Greeks.

There were many divisions according to provinces, most famous of which are these:
1] Romans: those who lived in Rome or in the Duchy of Rome,
2] Ravennians: those who lived in Ravenna and its province,
3] Pentapolitans: in Pentapolis,
4] Venetians: in Venice,
5] Istrians: in Istria,
6] Dalmatians: in Dalmatia,
7] Neapolitans: in Napoli,
8] Amalfitans: in Amalfi,
9] Gaetans: in Gaeta,
10] Sicilians: in Sicily,
11] Calabrians: in Calabria,
12] Greeks: in Greece. One has to note that at that time Greece (Graecia in Latin; “Graikia” in Greek) included generally Greece, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, Cyprus and Asia Minor, and sometimes Sicily and Calabria, i.e. all Greek-speaking lands. Under this category, the Romans of Syria and Egypt, who were subjects to Muslims, were also included.

One should note that Latin was still used in the East, mainly in the study of law books (which were only translated to Greek at the end of the 9th century). The common language of the imperial army has become Greek instead of Latin since the 7th century.

4: Relations between Pope Stephen III, the Emperors and the Franks 753-757

In 752, because of the attacks of Aistulf King of the Lombards against Rome and its neighboring towns, the Pope sent Paul the Deacon and Ambrosius the Primicerius to Aistulf to confirm the pacts of peace. They confirmed with him a pact of peace for 40 years. After 4 months, Aistulf disrupted the treaty of peace because he wanted to subject Rome and its province. The Pope sent to him the abbots of the monasteries of Vincent and Benedict to confirm again the pacts of peace. Aistulf rejected their gifts and sent them back to their monasteries. At that time, John the imperial silentiarius came to Rome carrying an order from the Emperor to the Pope and another order to Aistulf to restore the places that he has occupied. The Pope sent John and Paul the Deacon to Aistulf in Ravenna. Aistulf discharged them with an empty answer. The Pope then sent his envoys to Constantinople with John, carrying a speech to the Emperor to come with an army to protect these parts of Italy and to liberate Rome and all the province of Italy from Aistulf. (LibPon. II p. 88-93)

In 753, the Pope saw that his pleas to Aistulf did not work and that no help was coming from the Emperor. Thus, as Gregory, Gregory and Zachary sent to Charles asking for help, he also secretly sent letters to Pippin King of the Franks explaining the great suffering of his province and asking him to send his envoys to Rome to bring him to him. While the Lombards were oppressing the towns and province of Rome, John the Silentiarius arrived to Rome carrying an order from the Emperor that the Pope should hasten to the King of the Lombards to take back the town of Ravenna and its dependent towns. Then, Bishop Rotdigang and Duke Autchari, envoys of Pippin, arrived to Rome. The envoys found the Pope prepared to go to Aistulf to fulfill the order of the Emperor. In October, the Pope left Rome with the envoys of Pippin and came to Pavia, the seat of Aistulf. There, the Pope and the imperial envoy asked Aistulf to return Ravenna and the other towns, but Aistulf did not answer their pleas. The envoys of Pippin asked Aistulf to let the Pope go to France. In 15 November, he left Pavia with the envoys of Pippin to go to France. (LibPon. II p. 97-102; FredChrCont4. 119; AnnLaur. 753; AnnEg. 753)

In 6 January 754, the Pope came to the palace of Pontyon and met Pippin. The Pope prayed Pippin to set in order the pacts of peace and the cause of Saint Peter and of the Romans (“causam beati Petri et reipublicae Romanorum”). Pippin promised the Pope to return the exarchate of Ravenna by any means to the control of the Romans (“iuri reipublicae”). In 28 July, at the Monastery of Saint Denis in Paris, the Pope anointed Pippin and his two sons as Kings of the Franks. (LibPon. II p. 104-105; FredChrCont4. 119; AnnLaur. 754; AnnEg. 754)

Meanwhile, between February and August, Emperor Constantine made a synod in Constantinople against sacred images. (Theoph.Chr. 6245)

Pippin sent envoys to Aistulf asking the restitution of the pacts of peace and of the properties of the Church of the Romans. However, Aistulf did not respond to any of these demands. Consequently, Pippin decided to move against Aistulf, but the Pope convinced him to send other envoys to Aistulf. Pippin sent other envoys, but Aistulf showed disdain for the Pope, Pippin and the Franks. Thus, Pippin moved against him with the Pope. Aistulf attacked some of the Franks at the border, but he was defeated and took refuge in Pavia. Pippin and the Pope came to Pavia and besieged it. Then, Aistulf swore under heavy oath to return Ravenna and the other towns and peace was made between the Romans, the Franks and the Lombards. Pippin sent Jerome his brother and Abbot Fulrad to conduct the Pope to Rome, then returned to his territory. Pippin and his sons Charles and Carlomann acquired the title ‘Patricians of the Romans’ before or directly after the submission of Aistulf. After the departure of Pippin, Aistulf delayed in returning the towns. Thus, the Pope sent a letter to Pippin relating that Aistulf did not return any of the lands back to Saint Peter and the Romans (“nec unius palmi terrae spatium Beato Petro aut reipublicae Romanorum redder passum est”). (LibPon. II p. 108-114; PL 89 p. 1011-1013; FredChrCont4. 120; AnnLaur. 755; AnnEg. 755)

In 755, Aistulf came with his army and besieged Rome for three months. The Pope sent envoys to Pippin telling him about the raids of Aistulf and about the suffering of the Romans. Consequently, Pippin marched against the Lombards. By that time, the imperial envoys George the Protoasecretes and John the Silentiarius came to Rome, being sent by the Emperor to Pippin. The envoys traveled with the envoy of the Pope from Rome to Marseilles, but Pippin was already in Lombardy. George hastened before the Papal envoy to meet Pippin, whom he found not far from Pavia. George prayed Pippin to concede Ravenna and the other towns and castles to the control of the emperor. However, Pippin refused saying that he could not bear transferring these towns from the control of Saint Peter and from the possessions of the Roman Church and the Pontiffs. Thus, the imperial envoy went back to Rome. After being besieged by Pippin, Aistulf restored Ravenna and the other towns. Pippin sent Abbot Fulrad to
receive these towns and returned to France. Fulrad went to the region of Ravenna and entered the towns of Pentapolis and Aemilia, then returned to Rome carrying the keys of these towns, which he handed to the Pope. The towns were: Ravenna, Ariminum, Pisaurum, Conca, Fanus, Caesenae, Senogalliae, Esium, Forum Pompilii, Forum Livii, Narnia and others. (LibPon. II p. 115-119; PL 89 p. 999-1004; FredChrCont4. 121; AnnLaur. 756; AnnEg. 756)

In 756, Aistulf died. Desiderius attempted to take the government of the Lombards but was opposed by Radchis. Desiderius sought the help of the Pope in exchange of giving back the towns of Faventia, Imola, Auximum, Ferrara, Ancona and Bononia. The Pope sent his envoys and Fulrad to Desiderius. Desiderius vowed to them to do what he promised. Then, the Pope sent his envoys to Radchis and the Lombards with letters of exhortation. Fulrad hastened with some Franks and many Roman soldiers to help Desiderius. The Lombards accepted the prayers of the Pope and Desiderius became King. The Pope then sent his envoy to receive these towns. (LibPon. II p. 122-124; PL 89 p. 1007-1011; FredChrCont4. 122)

In 756, the Pope sent a letter to Pippin thanking him for protecting the Roman Church, mother and head of all the churches of God, and relating events concerning Desiderius. In this letter, he asks Pippin to order the Greeks that they arrange that the catholic and apostolic creed stays in eternity and that the Church of God be liberated from their “destructive malice” (“ita disponere iubeas de parte Graecorum ut fides sancta catholica et apostolica per te integra et inconcussa permaneat in aeternum et sancta Dei Ecclesia sicut et ab aliis et ab eorum perstifera liberetur et secura reddatur”). (PL 89 p. 1007-1011)

The following conclusions can be deduced from these events:

1] The Pope did not revolt from the Emperor, even after Ravenna and its towns were put under his direct control.

2] His appeal to protection from Pippin was an element of last resort against the threat of Aistulf. In fact, in 753, before leaving Pavia to France, he met Aistulf with the imperial envoy. We don’t know if the appeal to protection from Pippin was not approved by the Emperor himself.

3] In 754, Pippin promised the Pope to give back Ravenna to the control of the Romans (“iuri reipublicae”). In the same year, after Aistulf delayed in returning Ravenna, the Pope wrote to Pippin that Aistulf did not return any piece of land to Saint Peter (i.e. the Pope indirectly) and to the Romans. However, in 755, when the imperial envoys asked Pippin to return Ravenna and the other towns to the control of the Emperor, he refused saying that he did not dare to transfer them from the control of the Pope. The reasons of this change in Pippin’s policy are not clear. The Pope might have asked Pippin secretly to give these towns only to him, because of the Council of Constantinople in 754.

4] What happened in 755 was that the Pope became the direct ruler of Rome and its province and Ravenna and its province, while Pippin was the indirect governor with the title of ‘Patrician of the Romans’. This did not mean that the rule of the Emperor was rejected, but it meant that Pippin was now introduced as new factor of influence among all Romans, Easterners or Westerners.

5] By having Rome and the other towns under his control, the Pope could collect the revenues of these lands to himself and probably to Pippin, as Patrician of the Romans. One should note that of all the provinces of Italy, only the provinces of Rome and Ravenna were under the Pope’s control.

6] When the Pope asked Pippin in 756 to order the Greeks to keep the catholic and apostolic creed (under the pretext of the Council of Constantinople), he was in fact introducing a foreign factor of influence among the Romans. When Pippin became Patrician of the Romans, he also became Roman. This was the pretext that the Pope used when he allowed Pippin to interfere in internal issues of the Romans. However, what the Pope was doing in reality was letting the Franks interfere in Roman issues and create discord among the Romans themselves. This was something unprecedented before this Pope. Nevertheless, the Franks could only interfere later in the provinces of Rome and Ravenna.

Bibliography:
AnnEg. = Annales Eginhardi.
AnnLaur. = Annales Laurissenses.
Egin.VC. = Eginhard, Vita Caroli.
FredChrCont4. = Fredegarii Chronici Continuatio Quarta.
LibPon. II = Liber Pontificalis II (Vignoli edition, Rome: 1752).
PL = Patrologia Latina.
Theoph.Chr. = Theophanes, Chronographia.

5: The Patrimony of Saint Peter, the Secular Authority of the Pope and the Innovation of the Year 755

The Patrimony of Saint Peter (Patrimonium Sancti Petri in Latin) included all the possessions of the Church of Rome. Revenues from these possessions went directly to the Pope, because he was the head of the Church of Rome. In 730, Emperor Leo transformed the Patrimony in Sicily and Calabria into public lands, thus their revenues were transferred to the Emperor.

Prior to 755, the only secular authority of the Pope was over the Patrimony of Saint Peter. The Pope did not rule any province, because all provinces belonged to all Romans and, as such, were all ruled by the Emperor, who was the head of all Romans.

When Ravenna was taken in 751, the Pope did not become the governor of the province of Rome, which was still governed by a duke.

When in 754 the Pope was in France, he asked Pippin to restore Ravenna and its province to Saint Peter and to the Romans. In fact, Aistulf usurped also the Patrimony of Saint Peter that was situated in the province of Ravenna and prevented the Pope from collecting its revenues. So what the Pope was first asking Pippin was to restore:
1] the Patrimony to Saint Peter, i.e. the Pope, and
2] the rest of the province of Ravenna to the Romans, i.e. all Romans and not just the inhabitants of Rome.

In other terms, the Pope did not claim any secular rule over the province of
Ravenna in 754.

However, in 755, Pippin made an innovation. For unknown reasons, Pippin claimed that the province of Ravenna belonged to Saint Peter and, under the pretext of the fear of God and of Saint Peter, he refused to give this province back to the Emperor. We don’t know if the Pope was behind the decision of Pippin. In any case, by receiving the keys of the towns of the province of Ravenna, the Pope became the de-facto secular governor of the provinces of Rome and Ravenna. This situation was unprecedented.

The fact that the Pope became the direct governor of these two provinces meant that the revenues of the two provinces went to him and not to the Emperor. Before 754, the Pope collected the revenues of the Patrimony of Saint Peter only. After 755, the Pope started collecting the revenues of these two provinces too. It is probable that part of the revenues of these provinces went to Pippin, who, as Patrician of the Romans, was the indirect ruler of these provinces.

Having acquired their new secular authority and the revenues of two provinces, the Popes were less than willing to abandon any of them from now on. Later, they used all means to preserve their authority, even at the expense of their own Roman people. As a result, the Popes were able to preserve their secular rule over the provinces of Rome and Ravenna, known later as the Papal State, even until the 19th century.

6: Relations Between Pope Paul I, the Emperors and the Franks 757-767

Paul was the brother of Stephen III. (LibPon. II p. 126)

In 757, the Pope sent a letter to Pippin telling that he was elected as Pope and promising to stay with his people in the alliance that Pippin made with Pope Stephen III. (PL 89 p. 1175-1177)

In 758, the Pope sent a letter to Pippin relating recent acts of Desiderius King of the Lombards. Desiderius passed through the towns of Pentapolis and devastated them, then devastated the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento. Then approaching Benevento, the Duke of Benevento took refuge in Otranto. Then heading to Napoli, Desiderius met there George the imperial envoy, who was sent to Pippin. Desiderius gave George letters directed to the Emperor encouraging him to send his imperial armies to Italy and promising that all the Lombards will help the imperial army in taking Ravenna. Desiderius also arranged with George to direct the fleet of Sicily to Otranto so that the Greeks and the Lombards besiege it and take it, promising to cede Otranto to the Emperor. Then Desiderius went to Rome where the Pope made him swear to return the towns of Imola, Bononia, Auximum and Ancona. (PL 89 p. 1177-1180)

Later in 758, the Pope sent a letter to Pippin telling him that Marinus, one of the priests of the Pope staying at the court of Pippin, has conspired with George the imperial envoy “against the Holy Church of God and the orthodox faith” (“contra Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam fidemque orthodoxam”). The Pope asked Pippin to order Bishop Wulchari to ordain Marinus as bishop in one of the towns of his kingdom. (PL 89 p. 1173-1174) The Pope’s request was intended to keep Marinus under control. The details of the talks between Marinus and the imperial envoy are unknown. The talks may be about the Council of Constantinople in 754. But, the formula “against the Holy Church of God” is often used by the Popes at that time to refer indirectly to themselves, since they were the heads of the Church of God.

In 761, the Pope issued a document concerning the Monastery of Saint Stephen and Saint Sylvester, dated by the 43rd year of Emperor Constantine (“imperante domno Constantino Augusto a Deo coronato magno imperatore anno XLIIIo”). This formula indicates that Pope Paul I was still loyal to the Emperor. (CAK I p. 64-71)

In 761, he sent a letter to Pippin telling that news had come to him that “the impious Greeks, enemies of the Holy Church of God and violators of the orthodox faith,” were preparing to attack the Pope and the regions of Ravenna (“quod nefandi Graeci inimici Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei et orthodoxae fidei expugnatores”). The Pope asks Pippin to order Desiderius to help the Pope against the enemies if necessary. He also tells Pippin that the “most impious” Greeks were persecuting him because of the orthodox faith and of the pious and venerable tradition of the fathers, which they wanted to destroy (“non ob aliud ipsi nefandissimi nos persequuntur Graeci, nisi propter sanctam et orthodoxam fidem et venerandam Patrum piam traditionem, et quam cupiunt destruere atque conculcare”). (PL 89 p. 1184-1185) Although in 758 the Pope was complaining to Pippin about Desiderius, here he is asking Pippin for Desiderius’ help. The Pope’s main pretext against the Greeks was iconoclasm, which was not approved by all Greeks however. However, this pretext could be just a cover for the Pope’s fear from having the provinces of Rome and Ravenna transferred from his direct rule to the rule of the Emperor.

In 761, he sent another letter to Pippin praying him to remain as a defender and protector of the Pope (“supplici deprecatione, te bone orthodoxe rex, quaesumus postulantes, ut sis nobis post Deum firmus protector atque defensor”). He informs him that “the impious malice of the heretic Greeks” has reached the extent that they can humiliate the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and destroy the orthodox faith and the tradition of the fathers (“optime enim praecellenti vestrae Christianitati compertum existit quanta qualisque sit impia haereticorum Graecorum malitia, inhianter meditantes atque insidiantes, qualiter Deo illis contrario Sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam humiliare atque conculcare, et fidem orthodoxam atque sanctorum patrum traditionem destruere possint”). (PL 89 p. 1170-1172)

In circa 763, in a document concerning John Bishop of Tivoli and Anastasius Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Erasmus in Rome, the two swore by Emperors Constantine and Leo “governors of the Romans” (“iurantes dicunt utrasque partes per Dominum omnipotentem Sancteque Sedis Apostolice principatum a Deo coronatorum dominorum virorum Constantini et Leoni magni imperatoribus Romanorum gubernatores”). (CDL 5 p. 228-230) This formula indicates that Rome and Tivoli were still loyal to the Emperor.

In 766, Pippin sent a letter to the Pope telling him that he has received the envoys of the Pope and the envoys of the Greeks and asking him what he should respond to them. The Pope then sent a letter to Pippin telling him that he should not respond with anything except with whatever exalts the Roman Church, mother of all Churches of God. In this letter, the Pope thanks him for reminding Desiderius to pressure the Neapolitans and the Gaetans to restore the patrimony of Saint Peter situated in Napoli. (PL 89 p. 1157-1160) Here it can be clearly seen that the Pope was using Desiderius, through Pippin, against his own people (Gaetan and Neapolitan Romans) for his own profit (the revenues of the Patrimony). The Gaetans and the Neapolitans at that time were under the rule of the Master of the Soldiers of Sicily; Gaeta was on the borders of the province of Rome.

In 767, Pippin organized a synod in France between the envoys of the Greeks and the envoys of the Pope, mentioned in the previous letter of the Pope, concerning the Holy Trinity and sacred images. (AnnLaur. 767; AnnEg. 767) The Annales Laurissenses mention that this synod was between Romans and Greeks (“inter Romanos et Graecos”). Eginhard explains that it was between the Eastern Church and the Western Church, i.e. between the Greeks and the Romans (“inter Orientalem et Occidentalem Ecclesiam, id est Romanos et Graecos”). As it is obvious, ‘Greeks’ and ‘Romans’ are used here in an ecclesiastical context only and not in a secular context.

During his rule, the Pope also sent many envoys to Emperors Constantine and Leo for the restoration of the veneration of sacred images. (LibPon. II p. 128)

The following conclusions can be deduced from these events:

1] Paul became Pope two years after the province of Ravenna passed under the control of the Popes.

2] Although he still recognized Emperor Constantine as his emperor, he did not refrain from defaming the Emperor and the Easterners in front of Pippin to serve his own interest under the pretexts of preserving the orthodox faith. His main interest was keeping the revenues of the Patrimony and of the provinces of Rome and Ravenna. In 761, when rumors came to the Pope that the Emperor was preparing to take back Ravenna and Rome from the Pope, the Pope started defaming the Greeks, including the Emperor, under the pretext of faith, by expressions like “the heretic Greeks” or “the impious Greeks”.

3] Although the previous Popes used Pippin to save the Romans from the Lombards, this Pope used the Lombards (Desiderius) against those Romans who were not under his rule (the Gaetans and the Neapolitans) for his own interest (the revenues of the Patrimony situated in Napoli).

4] Although this Pope did not cut his ties with the Emperor and kept sending envoys to Constantinople, most of his requests were sent to Pippin as he was the only one who could serve his interest in Italy by pressuring Desiderius to do the Pope’s interest.

5] Charles was a young man at that time. He also had the position of Patrician of the Romans. Charles must have been acquainted with whatever was communicated by the Pope to Pippin, including expressions like “the heretic Greeks” or “the impious Greeks”. This influence on Charles led to related consequences in the later deeds of Charles. One can only understand the later acts of Charles by knowing what happened at that time.

Bibliography:
AnnEg. = Annales Eginhardi.
AnnLaur. = Annales Laurissenses.
CAK I = Concilia Aevi Karolini I, Monumenta Germaniae Historica.
CDL 5 = Carlo Troya, Codice Diplomatico Longobardo, vol. 5, Napoli, 1855.
LibPon. II = Liber Pontificalis II (Vignoli edition, Rome: 1752).
PL = Patrologia Latina.

7: Relations Between Pope Stephen IV, the Emperors and the Franks 768-772

Stephen was from Sicily. (LibPon. II p. 131)

In 768, he sent envoys to Pippin, Charles and Carlomann Kings of the Franks and Patricians of the Romans asking them to send bishops to Rome to make a council concerning Constantine who was made pope before Stephen. The Kings sent twelve bishops from the territory of the Franks. In April 769, the council was made in the Lateran Palace concerning Constantine and concerning the synod that was made in Greece against sacred images. At the council, monks from Latin and Greek monasteries were also present (“et cunctis religiosis Dei famulis tam Latinorum monasteriorum vel Grecorum cynoviorum”). As mentioned before, the division between ‘Greeks’ and ‘Latins’ is an internal division among the Romans based on language. The presence of Greeks at this council shows that the defamation of the Greeks by Paul I was not based on reasons related to doctrine. (LibPon. II p. 146-151; CAK I p. 74-92)

In 770, Maurice Duke of Rimini entered Ravenna and appointed Michaelius the Scriniarius as Bishop of Ravenna by force. The Pope refused the forced appointment of Michaelius. Meanwhile, envoys of Charles arrived to Rome. The Pope sent his envoys and the envoys of Charles to Ravenna to admonish the Ravennians. Thus, the Ravennians removed Michaelius. (LibPon. II p. 153-155) The Pope here was obviously using Charles against his Ravennian subjects.

In 771, the Pope sent his envoys with letters to Charles and Carlomann to claim from Desiderius the possessions of Saint Peter. When Desiderius knew this, he resolved to march to Rome. When Christopher the Primicerius and Serge the Secundicerius knew of Desiderius’ move, they gathered a multitude of men from Tuscany, Campania and Perusia to defend Rome. Desiderius came to Rome. The Pope met him twice to discuss about the possessions of Saint Peter. (LibPon. II p. 156-161; PL 89 p. 1249-1251)

Bibliography:
CAK I = Concilia Aevi Karolini I, Monumenta Germaniae Historica.
LibPon. II = Liber Pontificalis II (Vignoli edition, Rome: 1752).
PL = Patrologia Latina.
Theoph.Chr. = Theophanes, Chronographia.

Part 8: Relations Between Pope Hadrian I, the Emperors and the Franks 772-795

Hadrian was from Rome. (LibPon. II p. 161)

In 772, Desiderius sent him his envoys. The Pope responded to them that he intended to abide by the peace made between the Romans, the Franks and the Lombards. They vowed to him that Desiderius will return the lawful possessions of Saint Peter. However, Desiderius took away Faventia and the duchy of Ferrara from the exarchate of Ravenna. The Ravennians sent envoys to the Pope deploring the situation. (LibPon. II p. 164-167)

Later, the Pope started an inquiry about the death of Serge the Secundicerius. Calvulus the Cubicularius, priest Lunisso the Campanian and tribune Leonatius the Campanian were captured and judged for the murder. The two Campanians were exiled to Constantinople. Although Paul the Cubicularius, who was in Ravenna at that time, was also accused of the murder, the Pope ordered the archbishop of Ravenna to release him. However, the archbishop handed him to the Consular of Ravenna [1]. To save Paul, the Pope sent a suggestion to Emperors Constantine and Leo (“Constantino et Leoni Augustis magnisque Imperatoribus”) praying them to hold Paul in exile in those parts of Greece (“in ipsis Graeciae partibus”). The Pope sent also a suggestion to Leo Archbishop of Ravenna to send Paul into Constantinople through Venice. However, Leo responded that if Paul was sent to Venice, Maurice Duke of the Venetians might hand him to Desiderius in exchange of his son. Thus, the Pope consented to execute Paul. (LibPon. II p. 169-174)

After this, Desiderius sent his armies to raid the borders of the towns of the Romans, like Senogalliae, Urbinum and others. The Pope sent him pleas to refrain from these acts and to return the captured towns, but Desiderius refused. Then, Desiderius prepared to march to Rome. Knowing this, the Pope sent his envoys to Charles to hasten to the aid of the Church of the Romans and of the exarchate of the province of Ravenna. (LibPon. II p. 175-179)

In 773, before the coming of Desiderius to Rome, the Pope sent for the people of Tuscany, Campania, Perusia and Pentapolis to secure Rome. The Pope then wrote an anathema and sent it to Desiderius warning him not to cross the frontiers of the Romans without his acquittal. Thus, Desiderius returned to his place. Later, the envoys of Charles came to Rome enquiring if Desiderius returned the captured towns and the possessions of Saint Peter. The Pope sent with them his envoys to Charles with letters asking him to make Desiderius return the captured towns and the possessions of Saint Peter. After their arrival, Charles sent envoys to Desiderius asking him to return the captured towns and to make justice to the Romans, but Desiderius did not obey. Thus, Charles marched with his army to the borders of his kingdom. Desiderius took refuge in Pavia. Charles besieged Pavia. In April 774, Charles visited Rome. There, Charles vowed to concede to Saint Peter the territories that were conceded to the Pope by Pippin at Quierzy, according to what Charles claimed. These territories were: Corsica, the territory extending from Luna to Surianum to Bercetum to Parma to Regium to Mantua, the exarchate of Ravenna, the provinces of Venice and Istria, and the duchies of Benevento and Spoleto. In reality, there is no evidence for such a donation by Pippin to the Pope; this was rather a claim made by Charles at that time. In 774, after returning from Rome, Charles captured Pavia and Desiderius. Adalgis (known in Greek as Theodotus), son of Desiderius, fled to Constantinople. Then, Charles returned to France. (LibPon. II p. 180-195; Egin.VC. 6; AnnLaur. 773-774; AnnEg. 773-774; Theoph.Chr. 6267)

In this manner, Charles became King of the Lombards. Before 774, he was also Patrician of Rome, i.e. governor of the provinces of Rome and Ravenna, but his rule over these provinces was indirect. After 774, he became the direct ruler of these provinces. The Pope governed these provinces under him. Although previously, the Popes kept working on preventing the Kings of the Lombards from dominating Rome and Ravenna, at the end the King of the Lombards, i.e. Charles in this case, became the true ruler of these provinces. In practice, in 774, the provinces of Rome and Ravenna fell under the rule of the Franks and were definitely separated from the rest of the Republic of the Romans,[2] although documents were still dated by the names of the emperors until 781.

In 774, after the departure of Charles to France, the Pope sent him a letter complaining about Leo Archbishop of Ravenna who had taken control of the cities of the province of Aemilia, i.e. Faventia, Forum Populi, Forum Livii, Caesenae, Bobium, Comiadum and Ferraria, claiming that Charles has conceded these cities and the Pentapolis to him. The Pope calls Leo as “the nefarious archbishop” (“nefarius archiepiscopus”). The Pope then tells Charles that his own enemies were now reproaching him asking “What did you profit from the abolition of the Lombards and their subjugation to the rule of the Franks?” (“quid vobis profuit, quod Langobardorum gens est abolita et regno Francorum subiugata?”). (PL 98 p. 283-285)

In October 775, the Pope sent a letter to Charles informing him that Leo Archbishop of Ravenna was corresponding with Arghis and other enemies of Charles. (PL 98 p. 287-289) In November, he sent another letter to Charles relating that Leo was still holding the cities that he put his hand on before, but that the cities of the Pentapolis, from Ariminum to Egubium were still obedient to the Pope. (PL 98 p. 292-295)

In 776, the Pope sent a letter to Charles relating that Hiltibrand Duke of Spoleto, Arigis Duke of Benevento, Rodgaus Duke of Friuli and Reginbald Duke of Chiusi have conspired to march with Greeks and Adalgis son of Desiderius and to take Rome in the coming month of March. The Pope entrusts Charles with the souls of the Romans that he doesn’t abandon them (“quoniam post Deum in tuis manibus nostras omnium Romanorum commisimus animas, ne nos derelinquas”). He also entrusts him to protect the Holy Church of God and the people of the republic of the Romans (“Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam et nostrum Romanorum reipublicae populum commisimus protegendum”). (PL 98 p. 300-302)

In 777, in a letter sent to Charles, the Pope states that the Franks were Charles' own people (“cunctumque praeclarae gentis vestrae Francorum populus”). (PL 98 p. 304) Later in this year, he sent him another letter informing him that the Beneventans have agreed with the Patrician of Sicily and the inhabitants of Gaeta and Terracina to remove Campania from the rule of the Pope and transfer it to the rule of the Patrician of Sicily. (PL 98 p. 307-311) Terracina was under the rule of the Pope.

In 778, the Pope sent a letter to Charles informing him that his Romans (“nostros Romanos”) were not selling slaves to the Saracens, but that the Lombards were selling them to some Greeks. The Pope adds that he ordered Duke Allo to prepare some ships and to capture those Greeks, but Allo did not obey him. (PL 98 p. 317-320) Later in that year, he sent to Charles informing him that the Istrians and some “most impious” Greeks (“nefandissimi Graeci”), residing in Istria, have blinded Maurice Bishop of Istria, who was collecting the revenues of Saint Peter from this territory, on the suspicion that he was trying to transfer Istria to the domination of Charles. (PL 98 p. 320-321) This act shows that the Romans (Istrians, Greeks and others) saw the Pope as Charles’ follower. In addition, Istria was included in the donation made by Charles to the Pope in 774.

In 780, the Pope sent a letter to Charles informing him that the “most impious” Neapolitans and the “God hated” Greeks (“qualiter nefandissimi Neapolitani et Deo odibiles Graeci”) invaded Terracina, which the Pope before has subdued to rule of Saint Peter, the Pope and Charles (“Terracinensem civitatem quam servitio Beati Petri apostolorum principis et vestro atque nostro antea subiugavimus”). The Pope asks Charles to send Wulfrid to him and to order him to march with the Spoletans and the “most impious” Beneventans to capture Terracina, Napoli and Gaeta. (PL 98 p. 322-324) This letter shows clearly that Charles was the ruler of the lands situated under the Pope.

In April 781, Charles went to Rome. There, the Pope baptized Pippin son of Charles, then anointed Pippin as King of Italy and Louis son of Charles as King of Aquitaine. There, Charles received Constans the Sacellarius and Mamalus the Primicerius, envoys of Irene, and betrothed through them his daughter Hrothrud to Constantine son of Irene. Charles returned to France after that. (AnnLaur. 781; AnnEg. 781; AnnLauresh. 781; ChrMois. 781; Theoph.Chr. 6274)

Later in 781, the Pope sent Charles a request to transfer Sabine territory to him. (PL 98 p. 329-331) As such, the Pope was asking from Charles for more revenues.

Starting with 1 December 781, the Pope changed the style of dating in documents. Previously, documents were dated by the dates of the emperors. Starting with this date, Hadrian omitted the names and dates of the emperors and put this formula “under the rule of our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (“regnante domino deo et salvatore nostro Iesu Christo”) with the dates of his pontificate. This formula implies that the Pope derived his rule directly from God, as God was the true ruler. This is an indirect manner to say that, whoever opposes the Pope, opposes God. The removal of the names of the emperors was also a sign that Charles was the true ruler of the lands of the Pope.

In 25 December 784, Tarasius became Patriarch of Constantinople, then sent his synodical letters to the Pope. (Theoph.Chr. 6277)

In 785, the Pope sent a letter to Charles informing him that he sent to Ravenna his royal orders to expel the Venetians from the parts of Ravenna and Pentapolis. (PL 98 p. 386-387) From this, it is clear that the Pope was executing the orders of Charles.

In 785, the Pope sent Archpriest Peter and Peter Abbot of Saint Saba to Emperors Constantine and Irene with letters to the Emperors and to Tarasius. In the letter to the Emperors, he calls the Emperors as “dominis piissimis et serenissimis imperatoribus ac triumphatoribus filiis diligendis in Deo et Domino nostro Iesu Christo Constantino et Irenae Augustis”. In the letter, he tells Constantine that because of his great-grandfather the great error augmented in those parts of Greece (“en tois autois meresi tis Graikias” in the Greek translation of the letter). (Theoph.Chr. 6277; LibPon. II p. 229-230; PL 89 p. 1215-1242)

In 787, Charles went to Rome and was received by the Pope. Then he conquered the duchy of Benevento. There, he received the envoys of Emperor Constantine who have come to betroth his daughter to Constantine. Later, Charles returned to Rome in April. (AnnLaur. 787; AnnEg. 786; AnnLauresh. 787; AnnPet. 786; ChrMois. 786; EgFuldAnn. 787) Later, the Pope sent Charles a letter asking him to transfer to him Rosellae and Populonium (in Tuscany) and the duchy of Benevento following the donation (of the year 774). (PL 98 p. 396-398)

In October-November 787, the Emperors organized a council in Nicaea supporting the veneration of sacred images in the presence of the envoys of the Pope. (Theoph.Chr. 6280; LibPon. II p. 229-230)

In 788, because Charles refused to marry his daughter to Constantine, Irene broke the agreement with Charles and sent John the Sacellarius with Adalgis son of Desiderius to Italy against Charles. Meanwhile, the Pope sent a letter to Charles informing him about the coming of the “most impious” Adalgis to Calabria. Later, John and Adalgis, together with Theodore Patrician and Master of the Soldiers of Sicily, fought the Lombards of Benevento and Spoleto and the Franks but were defeated in Calabria. (PL 98 p. 398-402; Theoph.Chr. 6281; AnnLaur. 788; AnnEg. 788; ChrMois. 789; EgFuldAnn. 788)

In 794, Charles organized a council in Frankfurt, in the presence of the envoys of the Pope, bishops Theophylact and Stephen. The council condemned the worship of images and the recent Council of Nicaea. (CAK I p. 110-171; AnnLaur. 794; AnnEg. 794; AnnLauresh. 794) In a letter sent by Charles to Elipand Metropolitan of Toledo concerning the council, Charles declares “we also believe in the Holy Spirit, true God, vivifier of all, proceeding from the Father and the Son” (“credimus et in Spiritum Sanctum, Deum verum, vivificatorem omnium, a Patre et Filio procedentem”). (CAK I p. 163) Charles wrote or commissioned to write a book against the synod made in Greece known as the capitular on images (capitulare de imagnibus), and sent it to the Pope. (PL 98 p. 999-1247) Later, the Pope sent a letter to Charles responding in it to the capitular. He responds to the capitular’s claim that Tarasius was wrong in stating the creed as “proceeding from the Father through the Son”, by declaring that Tarasius was confessing the doctrine of the holy fathers. In the letter, he responds to the capitular by supporting the adoration of sacred images. He also responds to the capitular’s claim that no woman should be present in a synod by presenting precedents concerning Helen mother of Constantine and Pulcheria wife of Marcian. (PL 98 p. 1247-1292)

Hadrian died in 795.

The following conclusions can be noted from these events:

1] Although the Popes worked hard to prevent Rome and Ravenna from falling at the hand of the Lombards, at the end they fell in the hand of the Franks, under the pretext that Charles was Patrician of Rome. 774 is the date when Rome and Ravenna ceased to belong to the Romans and became subject to the Franks.

2] The Pope was subject to Charles. The other Romans, who were not subject to Charles or to the Pope, considered Papal rule as equivalent to Charles’ rule. That is why Mauricius Bishop of Istria was blinded by the Istrians and Greeks as he was collecting the revenues due to the Pope.

3] This situation was supported by the Pope because Charles confirmed his rule over the provinces of Rome and Ravenna and added other territories to his rule. The Popes collected the revenues of those territories.

4] Anybody opposing the Pope’s rule was described as impious by the Pope. This is the case of Greek and Neapolitan Romans and Beneventan Lombards. Doctrine was not the criteria to being impious or not.

5] Although all Greeks were first described as heretics by the Pope because some of them were against the veneration of images, in 794, they were anathematized by Charles because they supported the veneration of images.

6] In 794, the Pope and Charles had contrary opinions concerning doctrine. Despite that, Charles was the true ruler. Therefore, his doctrine became dominant after.

7] Nothing in those events shows that the Greeks were considered as non-Romans by the Pope or Charles. In fact, in 778, the Pope says “my Romans” (“nostros Romanos”) to refer to the Romans that were under his rule, which means that there were other Romans.

[1] The Consular of Ravenna was the governor of the exarchate of Ravenna. During the 5th century, Ravenna was situated in the province of Flaminia and Picenum Annonarium which was governed by a consular (NotDig.). After the Lombardic conquests, the province of Flaminia and Picenum Annonarium became the province of Annonaria. This province was known as the exarchate of Ravenna after 751. In a similar manner, during the 5th century, the province of Campania, which contained the region of Rome, was governed by a consular (NotDig.). After the Lombardic conquests, what remained of the provinces of Campania, Tuscany and Umbria became known as the province of Urbicaria, also known as the duchy of Rome. The duchy of Rome was governed by a duke. The duke of Rome had also the position of consular or consul, like the consular of Campania and the consular of Tuscany and Umbria. Under Pope Hadrian, Leoninus (LibPon. II p. 210) and Theodorus (PL 98 p. 330) were consuls and dukes of Rome. After the Lombardic conquests, another part of the province of Campania became known as the province of Campania or Napoli and was governed by the consul and duke of Napoli.

[2] During this period, the Roman Empire was also known as the Republic of the Romans ‘respublica Romanorum’ in Latin. ‘Respublica’ means ‘the public thing, the thing of the people’. It might refer to the general affairs of a people as well as to whatever belongs to the people. In this case, ‘respublica Romanorum’ refers in a specific sense to the land belonging to the Romans. Therefore, ‘respublica Romanorum’, ‘imperium Romanum’, ‘imperium Romanorum’ and ‘Romania’ may be used interchangeably.

Bibliography:
AnnEg. = Annales Eginhardi, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 1.
AnnLaur. = Annales Laurissenses, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 1.
AnnLauresh. = Annales Laureshamenses, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 1.
AnnPet. = Annales Petaviani, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 1.
CAK I = Concilia Aevi Karolini I, Monumenta Germaniae Historica.
ChrMois. = Chronicon Moissiacense, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 1.
EgFuldAnn. = Enhardi Fuldensis Annales, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 1.
Egin.VC. = Eginhard, Vita Caroli.
LibPon. II = Liber Pontificalis II (Vignoli edition, Rome: 1752).
NotDig. = Notitia Dignitatum
PL = Patrologia Latina.
Theoph.Chr. = Theophanes, Chronographia.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr