Question 4 [from St. Photius' "Ten Questions"]:
Which of those ordained by condemned heretics have not suffered any harm? Answer: Although Paul of Samosata was condemned, none of his own people were deposed, although they did the same things for which he was deposed. Although Nestorius was deposed, none of those ordained by him were deposed. Peter Mongus was deposed by St. Proterius while he was still a priest; he assisted the assassin Timothy in the murder of Proterius, and after Timothy's death he seized the Throne of Alexandria and pronounced anathema every day on the Council of Chalcedon. Those who were ordained by him, although he was deposed, an assassin and an heretic, and although they were themselves heretics, nevertheless repented and were received. And Felix of Rome wrote to Emperor Zeno and described his decree, by which he expelled Peter from the Church, but accept those who repented, as a divine edict, and with what he wrote he accuses him because brought Peter [Mongus], who was outside the Church, back into the Church, and expelled John. Meletius of Antioch, who was ordained by heretics in the place of Eustathius of Sebaste, was moved from there to Verroia, and was then made Bishop of Antioch by them again; but although they were accused as heretics, he was received by the Church. Although Sergius, Pyrrhus and Macarius were expelled from the Church as heretics, those who were ordained by them were accepted when they repented. The same happened with those who were ordained by Macedonius the Pneumatomachia. The Romans deposed Acacius [of Constantinople], and pronounced anathema on him while he was still alive. After his death, however, when Justin became Emperor after Anastasius, they sent a delegation to him and deleted him [Acacius] from the Diptychs [for the commemoration of the dead], when John was on the Throne of Constantinople. However, they concelebrated with those whom he had ordained and were in communion with them. Those who were ordained by the [Iconoclast] heretics Anastasius and Nicetas were accepted by the Seventh [Ecumenical] Council. Also, Meletius [of Lycopolis] was guilty of innumerable evils: he intruded into other Bishops' Thrones, he grieved Martyrs, he rebelled against his own Patriarch [St. Peter the Martyr, and then later St Athanasius] and took his Throne, he sided with Arius [!], and, according to Socrates [Scholasticus the Historian], he offered sacrifice [to idols!!] during the persecution. On account of all this he was deposed by [St.] Peter. However, although he was deposed many times, subsequently he received the name, if not the priesthood of bishop." [Patriarch Photius, "Ten Questions and Answers", PG 104, 1224]
Here is a Provisional Translation [from the Latin text to the side of the Greek] of the remaining 10 Questions and Answer of St. Photius; these, and the aforementioned Fourth Response, seem to be St. Photius' defense from history of his Consecration; probably because he was ordained as Bishop by Gregory of Syracuse who had previously been deposed by St. Ignatius, but was rehabilitated after St. Igantius' expulsion, and then helped St. Photius [i.e. various critics were attacking St. Photius on any and all ground, from saying his Consecration was invalid due to his consecrator having been deposed, all the way to saying that if Old Rome didn't recognize him then he wasn't valid]:
Continue reading...
Question 1.
In what matter do the Romans appear to have acted contrary to reason?
Answer:
Under Constantius, Liberius, bishop of Rome, after his return from exile, agreed to the written creed set forth in Antioch. Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius, bishops of Sebastia, as well as Eleusius, received a separate profession of faith from him, in which he condemned those who asserted that the Son was not like the Father in all things, and nevertheless did not withdraw from their communion. But Felix, who was succeeded in his place and ruled jointly with Liberius after the latter returned from exile, received ordination from the heretics and freely maintained communion with them. Moreover, the actions taken at Carthage by the bishops who had met there against both of them aptly refute their weakness of mind, as well as their evil manners and lust for power. For the sanctions of the canons are stipulated to them, as also in subsequent times to another Roman bishop, Felix, who lived under the reign of Zeno, as is clearly gathered from the letters written by him to the bishops Vitalius and Emesius, who had also been sent by him to Constantinople against Acacius. For in that letter the canon stating that the bishop of the city of Rome has the supreme power of confirming in each synod is shamelessly declared to be of the synod of Nicaea. But Pope Honorius also, embracing the Monothelite heresy, was cast out of the papal dignity and communion of the faithful. The synod of Sardis also, having Hosius occupy the place of the Roman bishop, absolved Marcellus of Ancyra as a heretic.
Question II.
Which legitimate patriarchs the Romans did not receive, and their thoughtless rejection did them no harm.
Answer.
The three bishops of the Roman see who succeeded him in order did not receive Flavian of Antioch into communion, just as at first Theophilus of Alexandria did; but then they hardly received the third of them, and Theophilus. This is the Flavian who ordained the holy and incomparable and divine archbishop Chrysostom as a priest. Moreover, the Roman pontiffs did not receive Fravitas, nor Saint Euphemia, nor Macedonius, because they did not expel Acacius from the diptychs. But they did not initially receive Chrysostom, who was dear to the Holy Trinity and endowed with all priestly virtue, saying that he should not have been promoted to the see of Constantinople after he had left Antioch; but later they also exercised their protection over him. I do not know whether they also turned their backs on Meletius of Antioch: for it could have happened that the Paulines, therefore, did not receive him, whom the Westerners ordained. For I also know that there is a letter from the great Basil to Count Terentius, in which the Westerners are criticized for their aversion to Meletius, or for judging matters less correctly. But perhaps they did not consider Meletius, who sat in the second synod, unworthy of their communion.
Question III.
Which patriarchs were driven from their own sees by the hatred of the emperors, and then received by the Orthodox princes?
Answer.
After the admirable Anastasius was expelled, Gregory the Theologian ruled the Church of Antioch for 24 years, being accepted by all, but after his migration to the Lord, Anastasius returned to Antioch again. Instead of the venerable Chrysostom, who worked for the salvation of the world, Arsacius and Atticus were received, although both approved of his deposition, and were from the number of his enemies. For Eutychius of Constantinople, John was received in the same way, and after his death Eutychius again. For Elias of Jerusalem, John, although out of piety Elias endured persecution. I do not know whether it is necessary to include Cyrus of Amastride, who after Callinicus was blinded by the evil Justinian, when he received his second empire, was elected patriarch of Constantinople, because, while he was confined in that city for the sake of penance, he had predicted to Justinian the recovery of his empire. Silverius was also expelled by Belisarius, as if, as it seems to me, he were plotting against the Romans, and another was put in his place.
Question V.
When some, driven by rivalry, took a decision against the other, but neither of them suffered any harm, neither the one who provoked nor the one provoked?
Answer.
The divine John acted against Cyril, calmly, however, and not directly to his person, but rather with what was befitting him in prudence, and with an appropriate manner of speaking and acting. Cyril also carried on rivalry with him and with Theodoret. Indeed, during the time of the disagreement, they say that Cyril cried out in a loud voice: John among the patriarchs, and Judas among the apostles.
Question VI.
How many ecumenical synods did they refuse to obey, but did not harm their authority in any way?
Answer.
Novatus the Roman was excommunicated by the bishops. Paul of Samosata was fined by 12 bishops for saying that Christ was a naked man, and was sentenced to deposition. The case of Symmachus and Lawrence was considered by a hundred bishops in the city under the emperor Anastasius, and they decided that Symmachus, as one of the seven deacons and holding a see according to ecclesiastical sanctions, should be retained in his possession; but they decreed that Lawrence, who had been disturbing Rome for four years, should be made bishop of Nuceria; and when he afterwards again stirred up seditions and riots, he was justly deposed by Symmachus. The bishops of Constantinople assembled and deposed Macedonius, an enemy of the Holy Spirit, with dignity, among whom Acacius, bishop of Caesarea Palestine, and his supporters stood out. The bishops judged that Chrysostom, who was more excellent than the angels themselves, and most holy, should be restored to his former see after his unjust deposition by Theophilus, considering the sentence passed by him against a saint better than the angels to be of no account. But when he was again driven from the episcopal see by the emperor's wife, Leontius of Ancyra, the foremost among the bishops who had then assembled, himself, weeping and groaning, because he was not permitted to obtain justice, by which it was fitting that gravediggers and robbers should not be defrauded (that is, that they might give an account of those of whom they were accused), was sent into exile. Moreover, he would not have complained so much; for who is more learned in such matters than he himself? If it were absurd and contrary to ecclesiastical laws to be judged by bishops, But the great Athanasius, after his acquittal at the Council of Sardis, and another made at Jerusalem by Maximus the Confessor (when he himself also consented to the sentence passed on Athanasius at Sardis, forced by the synod), knowing well how much authority, as is fitting, the fellow-provincial bishops possessed in deciding the cases of each province, convened a synod of the bishops of Egypt, and took care that they too should decide for themselves not divergent from the sentences of the Councils of Sardis and Jerusalem, although they were not subject to any patriarch. [Note: St. Photius seems to be using "ecumenical synods" [oikoumenikais synodois] in the sense of 'general synods' or large gatherings of bishops, and not necessarily in the sense of the Seven Ecumenical Synods / Councils]
Question VII.
Which emperors fought for the peace of the Churches?
Answer.
Constantine the Great declared to Arius that he wished him to extinguish the enmities which he had with Alexander, and sent to him the arbiter of the question, Osius the confessor, at which time he also wrote that when he wished to venerate the holy places of the city of Jerusalem and to celebrate Easter there, he was forbidden to do so because of those mutual dissensions. But Arius, not being frightened by what he said, called a great synod. Theodosius signified to Demophilus the Arian that if he wished to retain the churches, he should conduct himself peacefully towards the Church; but if not, he should leave the Church: which was done, and Nectarius was ordained. This same emperor, when Innocentius and Flavianus were in disagreement with each other, personally removed the enmity from their midst and put an end to it."
Question VIII.
In what synods, although bishops were gathered from different archiepiscopal thrones, did their sanctions lack their force, because they were not justly or according to ecclesiastical rules?
Answer.
This happened to the bishops who gathered at Antioch during the reign of Constantius under the pretext of dedicating the church he had built there. For they deposed Athanasius, who had already been stripped of his episcopate by the synod of Tyre, and ordained Gregory bishop in his place, neither of whom remained firm or stable. Now Eusebius, then bishop of Constantinople, and Flaccillus of Antioch, were present at this synod, and with them ninety-seven others in number. The same thing happened to those who had gathered in the city of Ephesus against the great Flavian; For Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and the bishop of Antioch were present at that synod, with other learned and orthodox men, who indeed declared Eutychus an innocent heretic, and restored him to the priestly office, but condemned the saint Flavian. But they also, after his death, gratified Cyril of Alexandria, and passed a judgment against Theodoret, none of which remained unshaken, for a little later the fourth synod, and others forced at Byzantium, overturned all of them, without considering the absurd reason of the consensus of the bishops who met there. The same must be said of those who demanded a council against the divine Chrysostom, at which Theopilus of Alexandria was present with certain other bishops, and some even from the diocese of Chrysostom himself, urging and aiding his deposition. For no other thing was done about the 76 eastern bishops who met at Philippopolis in Thrace, when the synod of Sardica was to be celebrated. For the most famous and learned bishops from almost all the sees of the East gathered there and condemned Julius, the Roman Pontiff, and Hosius the confessor, and some others; but they confirmed, as it seemed to them, the deposition of great men, Athanasius and Paul, all of which were subsequently changed and weakened. Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, was also of no avail, the unanimous consent of the synods of bishops held at Sardica in absolving him of the charges brought against him, although the Roman bishop himself had been present through his own confessor acting in his place, and moreover that synod had been undertaken, because, of course, neither rightly nor justly. He absolved Marcellus; for the second synod openly inflicted excommunication on him.
Question IX.
When did bishops, having abdicated, again, according to the canons, or at the request of the people entrusted to them, receive their former dignity?
Answer.
This has indeed been done repeatedly in different synods and by different bishops, as happened to holy Anastasius and Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, and to Macarius, and to many others, as we have said before. But by the favor of the people seeking their own pastor, the same thing happened to the most holy Heraclas, patriarch of Alexandria, who was succeeded by Dionysius, then Maximus, soon Theonas, and after him the holy martyr Peter. Now the case was thus: in the human times of the same most holy Heraclas, Origen, surnamed Adamantius, acted, and on Wednesdays and Fridays in his sermons to the people he openly declared the heresy he had invented. Heraclas, as subverting sound doctrine and adulterating the orthodox faith, was separated from the congregation of the faithful by the same holy bishop, and the Alexandrians were besieged. Having been expelled in this way, Origen went into Syria, and came to a city called Thmium, over which an orthodox bishop named Ammonius was presiding. He permitted Origen to preach in the Church. When the aforementioned Pope Heraclas had heard of this, he went to Thmium, and for that reason deposed Ammonius, and gave the bishopric of that city to both Ammonius and Philip. But after the holy Heraclas had departed from there, the excellent Philip could by no means be induced to sit on the common throne; but while Ammonius was sitting, that is, celebrating the sacred mystery, he stood behind him all the days that Ammonius lived among men; but when he passed away, Philip then sat on the throne, and one of the bishops distinguished for his virtue, and held in admiration by all, escaped. Arius, while he was still a deacon, was deposed by the holy martyr Peter, and completely eliminated from outside the Church. Saint Achillas, the successor of the same martyr Peter of Alexandria, not only received him into communion, but also made him a priest, and wished to have him in charge of the Alexandrian gymnasium. Eutyches, who had been deposed by Saint Flavian, was received into their own communion by the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem after his death. The most holy Chrysostom, the sun and light of human souls, was deposed by Theophilus, the same bishop of the faith, with the other patriarchs unaware and unconsulted (how did justice suffer?), and the whole Church held him as a bishop, and retained him in its communion with unanimous consent. We not only absolved Peter, bishop of Malta, from Saint Methodius, but also created him metropolitan of Sardis. Finally, we received many others who had been deposed by Saint Ignatius for their sins, and the same Saint Ignatius received into his communion.
Question X.
How many defected from the ecumenical synods?
Answer.
From the first, of course, eighteen, and these are indeed the most famous. But more from the second, who, coming together, made up the number of thirty-six. From the third, thirty, and the pontiff of Antioch. From the fourth, an infinite multitude, nay, even all who studied Dioscorus, and who did not subscribe.
No comments:
Post a Comment