Book 11 - Dodecabiblius (Twelve-Books) of Blessed Dositheus of Jerusalem

Blessed Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem and his nephew, Patriarch Chrysanthus of Jerusalem

Book 11 of 12

The Dodecabiblius (Twelve-Books) is the the shortened title of Blessed Dositheus’ most monumental work “The History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem” which is (predictably) divided into 12 Books. It was composed over the course of his life and was not published until after his repose by his nephew and successor: Patriarch Chrysanthus of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, getting access to this book online is seemingly impossible for someone who does not speak Greek. This work was published in Russian by some who manually retyped it from the manuscripts of Trinity-Sergius Lavra, which I have machine translated into English. I have made edits here and there to keep consistency and readability, but in general it is not a professional translation. Nevertheless, I found it so valuable to publish, that I felt it did not need to wait until being formally translated to English. The titles of each section and chapter were added by me and are not in the original text. That which is included in brackets were added by me, while that which is included in parentheses is present in the original text. The footnotes were composed by me and are not in the original text.

The phrase “Catholic Church” in this book refers to the Orthodox Catholic Church. It does not refer to the papalists.

Chapter 1 - Refuting the Polemics of the Latins

Section 1 - Papism caused the Fall of Constantinople

There is no need for us to mention here the capture of Constantinople; because many historians, both at that time and after, spoke about its capture. But just as the Latins claim that God handed over Constantinople to the Ottomans for the disobedience of the Greeks to the Pope, the facts themselves prompt us to speak the truth, to expose and refute the slander of those who, encouraged by our silence, continue to say that the Greeks were plunged into slavery for opposing the Pope. But opposition to the Pope was discussed further, in the Book 10, Chapter 13, Section 1. Moreover, Joseph Bryennius answered this satisfactorily, who in one of his works cited nine proofs to refute this, see further in the eleventh chapter of his ninth book. Further, Nectarius of Jerusalem in his work, Meletius Pegas and other wise and holy men defended this at length. Yes, and we talked enough about this subject in Book 10, and, better than this [is the presence of] every work, both ancient and new, and the life of every saint serves as a response to this objection of the Latins. We confess, however, that Constantinople was taken for our sins, but not for opposing the Pope. Many, both Orthodox and heretics, did not submit to the Pope, however, retaining both the kingdom and their freedom, such as the British, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, Vandals, Goths, Muscovites, Russians, Eastern Georgians, and even more.

Secondly, when before the Sixth Ecumenical Council, even during the unity of the Eastern and Western Churches, the Saracens¹ took Egypt, Palestine, Africa, Syria, Phenicia, Arabia, and other Greek regions. Whose curse then or whose heresy was the cause of the Saracen invasion of the Church?

Thirdly, when before the Seventh Council, even before Photius and Cerularius, also during the unity of the Eastern and Western Churches, the Saracens completely devastated Libya, Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and many islands. Whose curse then preceded these events?

Fourthly, Rome and Italy were captured and taken by the Goths, under the leadership of Alaric and Totila; and the Huns, under the leadership of Attila; in 457 by the Vandals under Genseric as well as Africa; and then by the Goths and Vandals, who were expelled by Justinian’s generals: Belisarius and Narses, according to the testimony of Evagrius, Procopius, and others. Finally, in 558, the Lombards captured and completely devastated Rome and Italy, despising the Pope and his power. The same Saracens attacked Italy in 840 and Spain in 800. Jerusalem was taken by the Latins while the Latins owned Jerusalem, Syria and Phenicia, starting from Alexius Komnenos, which was from 1099, until the time they retired to Rhodes before 1308. How many times did the Saracens attack them until they were finally completely expelled from there and the holy places were returned to the Greeks? Moreover, in so many Latin kingdoms there were Lutherans, Calvinists, Evangelicals, Antadamites, who even to this day persecute and defeat the papists, as well as the Cossacks. And when the Ottomans took Cyprus, Crete, Hungary, and other lands from the Latins, which Pope’s sin preceded the captivity of all these countries that were formerly in alliance with Rome, but then fell away? Do you see that all this is just empty words of debate, and the false and unfounded slander of the papists? Moreover, if the wrath of God befell the Greeks, then of course it was for deviating from the faith, since they allowed an addition to the Creed and agreed with the schismatic Pope. Therefore, under Michael Palaiologos, who was the first of the Greek Emperors to accept the teachings of the papists, the Ottomans appeared. And although Andronicus the son of Palaiologos restored Orthodoxy, the wrath of God did not stop, just as Josiah’s zeal for the law did not stop God’s determination against Israel for the sins of Manasseh the king of Judah, which God spoke through the mouth of Huldah the Prophetess (2 Kings 22). However, even after this the Emperor did not come to their senses, but for worldly help they sought an alliance with the Pope. John, a champion of blasphemy, convened a council in Florence to defend it, and after him Constantine in the Church of Hagia Sophia spoke in favor of Rome and persuaded the Greeks to completely surrender to the teachings of the papists and change the Orthodoxy of the Church; but He who said that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” rejected the false union and overthrew the Empire in order to preserve the invincible Church. His promise was fulfilled, for from that time onwards, the Church remains immaculate and undamaged by innovations and will remain with God Himself even until the day of the Lord [the Last Judgement]; just as Nebuchadnezzar, having destroyed Jerusalem, at the same time destroyed idolatry and turned the Israelites away from it even before the coming of Christ. And that papism was the immediate cause of the capture of Constantinople is evidenced by George Sphrantzes the Logothete, who says that the Ottomans were suspecting the unification of Christians against them in the convening of the Council of Florence, and therefore immediately besieged Constantinople. This caused the help that the Pope promised to the Latin-devoted Emperors to turn to their detriment, because his deeds made him an assistant to the Ottomans in devastating the city.

The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans

Section 2 - The Kingdom of God is not of this World

Secondly, the Latins say that [the Popes] Leo I, Gregory the Dialogist (διάλογος), Nicholas I, and Nicholas V prophesied that Constantinople would be completely destroyed for pride. It was Nicholas I who said that the Greeks would be scattered among the nations, and Nicholas V, in a letter to Emperor Constantine, prophesied that for violating the unifying conditions the Florentine Council and retreating from the Pope, God was angry with the Greeks, and their Empire would fall in three years. But as for Leo (may Leo and the Dialogist forgive us, and there is no need to worry about the other two), it should be noted that he opposed the order in the diptychs of Constantinople as directed by the Second and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. We do not depend on the prophecies of men, but they are worthy of our defense, since Saints also sin. As for Gregory, we discussed in Book 10 in what case the name of “Ecumenical” is blasphemy and in what case it is not. And the Patriarch of Constantinople 180 years before the Dialogist (from Theodosius the Younger to Mauritius) was called Ecumenical only in a legal manner, just as the Pope was called Ecumenical at the Council of Chalcedon. So Gregory spoke contrary to the Church and thus did not prophesy. Instead he, being a mere man, sinned out of his curiosity. He who errs in the truth does not speak the truth, and if he speaks anything, he speaks badly.

The first thing that must be said about Nicholas [Pope Nicholas I] is that he gave temptation and was the main cause of the schism, since in his time the Latins preached wicked dogmas in Bulgaria and secretly read the addition².

Secondly, he was ambitious, because he tried to subordinate King Louis³ to his power, although he could not.

Thirdly, he spoke against the Gospel when he said that baptism is correct if it is performed in the name of Christ alone. Fourthly, he clearly lied, for the Greeks were not scattered among the nations, but living in their own places, they fought and won. Although some were sold by pagans, the Papists, Poles, Hungarians, Germans, Italians, French and Spaniards lost so much more; for they are bought and sold in the east and west, in Egypt and Libya.

So, it is clear that Nicholas I is a false prophet. As for Nicholas V, he was a schismatic, a defender of the Florentine union — a council that was against the Lord and His Christ. He instituted an illegal celebration, during which many people died; for the bridge on the Tiber River collapsed and three hundred people passing through fell through. And so these Popes are not prophets, but are guilty of eternal judgment. There was also a prophet who completely knew that in three years Constantinople would fall, who should not have wanted to help the Greeks, but tried to help them, but could not, and therefore, according to Platinus, to console himself in his powerlessness, he sought reassurance in faith. And Pope Callixtus [III], a kind and well-intentioned man, repeatedly incited the Western sovereigns against the infidels, but they did not listen to him; Therefore, Callistus cried out: if a neighbor’s house is destroyed, then ours will also be destroyed.

What’s next? After Callistus, Pius [Pope Pius II], worthy of many praises for his virtuous and pious life (for he fasted as an ascetic and as a simple monk fulfilled the entire monastic rule), gathered the sovereigns against the infidels in Ancona, where he himself, while doing this, died and dying with tears bequeathed to the cardinals not leave wars with the infidels. But with his death, his hope also died. Therefore, Adrian VI, also a temperate and wise man, compared himself to a cheap fish, which is honored only by the poor; and he said this in denunciation of the careless Popes and Western sovereigns who did not care about the liberation of the Eastern Empire. So, it is clear that the reason for the captivity of Byzantium was a deviation from the faith and a tendency towards papism, and not a retreat from papism, which undoubtedly is the adherence to the faith of the Apostles and holy fathers. Therefore, the blessed ones said this unjustly (if only they said it and the Latins did not invent it), so that what was said about the false prophets in Deuteronomy is fitting for them: they spoke in wickedness, and not from the Lord⁴. Afterwards, although the kingdom was destroyed, the Orthodox faith abides and shines, as it did and will shine even until the day of the Lord. And just as from the Nativity of Christ until Constantine the Great, Christians did not have a Kingdom, but were highly holy and Orthodox and were adorned with countless martyrs; so now the same time in the Eastern Church and the same state and the same countless number of martyrs flourishes in it. Moreover, the worldly kingdom is not an essential part of the Church; for Christ also stood rejected before Pilate and He preached of disasters, suffering, deprivation and death, but He did not preach a worldly kingdom. From Abraham to Christ there were 42 generations, of whom 28 ruled under the name of judges, and only fourteen were Kings from Saul until the captivity of Babylon in Jerusalem and Samaria; and note, firstly, that the judges all professed the true faith.

Secondly, of the Kings of Jerusalem, only 7 were pious, the rest were idolaters, and in Samaria almost all were idolaters and wicked. Thirdly, the kingdom was not established by the will of God, as the first book of Kings shows. Of course, many heretics appeared in the New Testament before Constantine the Great, but they were soon excommunicated by Bishops and teachers. After Constantine, the heretics multiplied and spread, as we see to this day, due to the fact that Constantius and Valens patronized the Arians; Zenon and Anastasius patronized the Monophysites; Heraclius, Constans, and Artemius — to the Monothelites, Leo Copronymus, Leo the Armenian, Michael Travl, and Theophilus — to the iconoclasts. In conclusion, to the complete shame of our papists accusers, it must be said that, although the Empire of Constantinople fell, God left the Georgians free, and in Russia he erected a truly Christian and pious power crowned by God, not a kingdom crowned by the Pope. So, all the intricacies of the Latins in this objection are in vain. Here, as a shorthand for everything that has been said so far, note that papal power was the cause not only of the division of the Church into various heresies, but also of the fall of the Greek Empire, not only through papism, but also through worldly passions. For Gregory [Pope Gregory II] forbade the west to give tribute to the Empire of Constantinople and weakened it during the time of Leo the Isaurian. Secondly, Leo, without the fear of God, favored the Western King Charles⁵ and, moving away, fragmented the kingdom. Thirdly, the Popes, fighting either with the Italian sovereigns, or with the German kings, or with the Sicilians, Venetians, Celts, and other Western rulers, rose above everyone, declared war on Christians and prevented them from helping the Greeks against the infidels. Fourthly, the same Leo, through separation and innovation, introduced a schism into the Catholic Church of Christ, causing temptation and disagreement among Christians, so that the Western sovereigns not only did not want to help the Greeks, but also deceived and fought against them, as evidenced from Charles to the captivity itself. Fifthly, during the war for the liberation of Jerusalem, the Latins tried to harm the Greek Empire in various ways, so they took Constantinople and further plundered the Empire into Anatolia, Trebizond, and Epirus, and then they themselves captured, burned and enslaved the Greek possessions from Italy and Sicily, they allowed the infidels to strengthen. They upset and destroyed the enterprises of the Greeks: for the Pope himself, rejoicing at the destruction of the kingdom, willingly and with pleasure, lawlessly, and godlessly installed kings and Patriarchs on the Eastern Thrones, disturbing the Church of God and harming it internally and externally. Sixthly, if some of the Christian kings wanted to help the Greeks in anything, the Pope prevented them with his own wars. See Laonicus [Chalkokondyles] and other historians about this.

Fourthly, although the Latins were not enslaved by infidels, they were enslaved by countless heresies and schisms. Moreover, piety is not judged by worldly slavery or freedom, but by dogmas and morals. For there are many kingdoms in the world that have great wealth and glory, but some of them are infected with idolatry, others with heresies, others are very wicked in other respects. Remember what Augustine says in his 48th letter to Vincent: The Catholic Church sometimes appears calm and free in times of peace, and sometimes it is covered and overwhelmed by waves of disasters and temptations. Such was the time about which Hilary [of Potiers] writes. Then wise and constant men penetrated [in?] the crafty sophistications of heretics, and there were not many of them in relation to others; but some fought courageously for the faith, while others completely retreated from the world. And such is the Church, which grows in all nations in the fields of the Lord, which will be preserved to the end, until it acquires all nations, even the most barbaric ones. These are the words of Augustine. And we will say what Pope Agatho and the Roman Council wrote to Emperor Constantine: we have one confession of faith, and although the pagans rule us, our faith has not been damaged in any way. Also see above in Book 10, Chapter 3, Section 7.

Section 3 - The False Prophetess of the Latins: Brigitte

Thirdly, the Latins say: a certain woman named Mary Brigitte, who traveled through Cyprus to Jerusalem, had a revelation that the Empire and possessions of the Greeks would be destroyed for opposing the Pope if they did not submit to the Roman Church. But we talked about this type of prophecy in Book 11, Chapter 6, Section 2. If there is anything else that needs to be said, then let’s say, firstly: this reveals the great shame of the Latins; for because of their complete wickedness, revealed in the addition² and other errors, and for their careless life, not a single holy husband remained among them, but a wife prophesied. Secondly, she lies, for the Greeks were never subordinate to the Roman Church, but just as Rome was in unity with them, so they are with Rome, and will never submit, for God will not allow them to deviate from piety. And if they are released, then it is by the grace of God, and not by to the prayers of Rome, which are blasphemous; for Sirach says that prayer in the mouth of a sinner is not pure. Thirdly, the dogmas of the Eastern Church are approved by Scripture, Tradition, Councils, and the Holy Fathers. If anyone preaches the Gospel different to the Church, even if it be an angel from heaven, then she recognizes him as an opponent of God and subject to anathema according to the commandment of Blessed Paul. Therefore, the Eastern Church believes more in Scripture and Councils than in revelations and miracles. And more than a woman, and, moreover, a schismatic and speaking against the truth.

Fourthly, the Church does not accept such revelations and does not benefit from them (see Book 11, Chapter 6, Section 2). Fifthly, it is fitting for heretics, followers of Sabellius and Marcellus of Galatia, to invent revelations to refute the teachings of the saints; see the letter of Basil the Great, which begins like this: ἡ μὲν συμφωνία⁶, and another to the Neocaesarians, whose initial words: ὅλος μὲν, where Basil denounces this kind of revelation, saying: what is the use of resorting to dreams? And read the entire letter.

Sixth, Scripture condemns them. Thus, Zechariah in Chapter 13 says: he prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied, and Isaiah in Chapter 56: sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. See also the 13th Chapter of Deuteronomy, the 23rd, 27th and 29th chapters of Jeremiah and you will see that such prophecies are a deception originating from Satan by God’s permission: for they are often allowed to deceive the sons of lawlessness. Thus, an evil spirit was sent to seduce Ahab. If you want, look about this in the work of Nectarius [of Jerusalem].

Seventhly, Brigitte lied and clearly shows herself to be possessed, if it’s true that she said it and the Latins did not make it up. For the autocracy of the Pope is an innovation and is directly contrary to the Scripture of the Church; see the definitions of the Councils about this. And whoever predicts good things about the wicked and the blasphemers is not a prophet, but a blasphemer alongside them. Thus, this cunning of the Latins is also destroyed, as it is obviously characteristic of heretics and clearly contrary to the truth, especially when the Latins rejoice while they should be grieving for the Easterners. God denounces such a thing as the most wicked thing in Amos, in Chapter 6: but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph, and in Micah in Chapter 1, speaking about those living in Shinar, that they did not go out to weep for the house in which they lived. We said above that the Lord punished them for this, but they do not feel this in their bitterness.

Eighth, some of the papists present Brigid as a divinely inspired prophetess and cite her revelation about us as proof of this. But the more thorough of them recognize its revelation as not in agreement with the Church and reject it. They claim that the story of the revelation of Brigitte and Mechtilda, which says that Trajan was freed from torment, is false. Trajan was a well-intentioned and virtuous man, but he only lacked true faith; but here’s the inconsistency: Brigitte was told without any conditions about Trajan’s release, and Mechtilda was told that no one should have known about it; for in a frenzy this is what the Bridegroom says to her: what I, with my good pleasure, revealed about the soul of Trajan, I do not want to be known among people, so that the Catholic faith may spread more; for although he was adorned with many virtues, but he was unfaithful and did not accept Baptism. To this revelation, Mechtilda remarks: if Mechtilda’s story is true, then Brigitte’s is completely false; And you should also note that both prophetesses, according to the Latins themselves, are lying. If two prophetesses lied about one and especially important thing, then they lie about everything else.

So, Brigid’s revelation about the enslavement of the Greeks and according to the Latins themselves is false.

Satan masquerading as an Angel of Light

Section 4 - Latins and Muslims are Equal in their hatred of Christ

You need to know that the founder of the Saracen and Ottoman faith says in his teaching that Christians are the greatest blasphemers. And some of his later followers call them wicked, as shown by the word Igiaur, which means senseless, stupid, like an ox. From the Persian word igiau — ox and vervesti, one word is made up — igiaur and means “driver of an ox”, i.e. worshiper or stupid as an ox and completely ignorant of what faith in God is. They especially call the Greeks with this word igiaur: for they think that the Greeks and Constantine the Great, the once powerful Emperor, assembled an Ecumenical Council in Nicaea and omitted from the Gospel (God have mercy!) the name of the founder of their faith. Therefore, in the royal palace and in any of their gatherings, those who know consider it an honor to speak Latin, Russian, Georgian, and any other language, but speaking Greek is considered a shame and a sin, as if the Greeks alone were their obdurate enemies. Likewise, the Latins, because they do not know whether there is any free kingdom, possession or region in the Eastern Church, always hate the Greeks alone and draw the conclusion that the Greeks lost their kingdom because they did not accept papism. And all this because the Greeks denounce them and, although they are in enslavement and oppression, they [Greeks] put them [Latins] to shame, proving that they are schismatics and innovators. And moreover, the Greeks, teachers of all Orthodox peoples, instruct them to carefully guard against the teachings of the papists, like the poison of snakes and scorpions: for papism is anti-Christianity.

Chapter 2 — The Holy Relics once present in Constantinople

Michael Dux, mourning with a song Constantinople, captured by the Ottomans, says among other things: “Where are the bodies of the apostles of the Lord, early planted in an ever-blooming paradise, where is the scarlet, the spear, the lip, the cane?” For in the Blachernae temple there were the Shrouds of Christ, the Crown of Thorns, the Holy Towel, the Lord’s Purple Robe, the Lip of the Life-Giver⁷, and the Protecting Veil and Belt of the Mother of God. And in Chalcopratia (ἐν τοῖς Χαλκοπρατείοις) the Clothes of the Mother of God and the Hair of the Forerunner. There was also in Constantinople a piece of the True Cross which was brought by Saint Helena from Jerusalem. George Kodinos, who lived in 5834 [?], says that under Constantine the Great the Rod of Moses was brought to Byzantium. The Emperor went out on foot to meet him and, having built the temple of the Mother of God, placed it there, then moved it to the palace; that Romanus Lekapenus built a temple to the Savior in Chalkia (Εις Χάλκην), and John Tzimiskes, having spread it, placed in it the Icon and Sandals of Christ, transferred from Berit; also the horn of Samuel hung in the monastery called the Thousand-Horned (μυριοκέραθον). Theophanes, as well as Kodinos, say that under Michael the Paphlagonian there was a prayer service, during which the prince’s brothers brought gifts: one the letter of the Savior to Abgar, and the other the Shroud of the Savior. Under the purple column in the square were placed two crosses of thieves and the Vessel of Myrrh with which Christ was anointed, and on the column of Constantine there were Nails from the Cross. Justinian brought and placed in the Hagia Sophia the mouth of the well on which Christ sat, and the pipes from which the walls of Jericho fell during the reign of Joshua. Constantine the Great placed 12 baskets and 7 boxes in which were collected the remains of the bread broken by the Lord under two arches at the base of the purple column with his own hands, and also the Axe of Noah, with which he built the Ark. Justin and Sophia built a temple of the Mother of God in Chalcopratia, in which noble persons read during vigils, such as Michael Rangave, who was before the reign of Kuropalat, then Barda Caesar and many of the nobles corrected the position of canonarch and other services; subsequently, the Honorable Belt and Clothes of the Virgin Mary lay here, and the Protecting Veil was in the Blachernae Church.

Nicephorus says about clothing that it is woven from perishable wool, from uniform and one-color threads, but even to this day remains incorruptible and undamaged, proclaiming the miracles of the Ever-Virgin. Mikhail Travl, under the tyrant Thomas, carried away the honest trees and clothes of the Mother of God. Joel says in his notes that Nicephorus Phokas brought to Byzantium part of the Baptist’s clothing, which he found in Syrian Verria, a tile with a miraculous image of the Savior, found in Hierapolis, part of the Baptist’s hair, stained with blood, and with them part of his honorable body and blood. George Maniakis, having taken Edes under Roman and Zoe, found there a letter from the Lord to Abgar and sent it to Byzantium to the Emperor. In one word, attributed to Patriarch Germanus, and according to others to the monk Eutychius, it is said: “in memory of the creation of the temple in Chalcopratia and the position of the honorable belt and the venerable shrouds of our Savior.”

Kodinos also says that the mentioned Justin built the temple of Saint James, which contained the remains of The Holy Infants, Simeon the God-Receiver, the Prophet Zechariah, and James the Brother of the Lord; and on the right side of the holy tombs contained the bodies of the Holy Myrrh-Bearers. He says that Leo the Wise [Emperor Leo VI] brought the remains of Lazarus and his sister Mary to Constantinople, and Artemius brought the remains of the Holy Apostle and laid them under the Holy Table in their temple. Speaking against the infidels to explain that it is not the shadow of Christ⁸, but Christ Himself crucified according to the flesh, Euthymius Zigabenus narrates in the 26th title of his All-Armament⁹ that the Blood that flowed from His all-holy Body is kept by Christians, exudes healing, and performs many miracles testifying that it is truly Christ’s. George the Logothete narrates that Isaac Angel was fighting with [Ivan] Asen of Bulgaria when he was ambushed and defeated by the Scythians, and the Bulgarians took away the Royal Cross from him, in which was the milk of the Mother of God, part of the Holy Belt and part of the Honest Tree; and all this was in Constantinople. And if you have sufficient motivation, look for the remains of the saints who were there and consider which saints these remains belong to and how many there are. We also heard a terrible thing: they say that in the Venetian vessel preserver of Saint Mark, a small vessel was found, taken by the Latins in Constantinople with the following inscription on the outside: (ἔχεις με Χρισὸν αἷμα σαρκός μου φέρον) “thou hast Me, Christ, containing in thee the blood of My Flesh”; and they say that inscrutable miracles are performed through it. Some think that this is the Blood that flowed from the Savior during the crucifixion; others say that this is the blood flowing from the icon which was cut by the Jew in Berita, while others say that this is the blood flowing from the icon which was cut by the Jew in Constantinople. The Council of Jerusalem also mentions the first icon in a letter to Emperor Basil.

A certain Robert narrates that when 40,000 Saracens besieged Ascalon, then 3,000 Christians came out of the city against them, and Father Paisius brought out the Holy Spear with which the Lord of Glory pierced the warrior, and the Bishop of Bethlehem brought out the sacred vessel, which contained part of the pure milk of the Mother of God. Theodore the Reader says that Eudocia sent the image of the Mother of God written by Saint Luke from Jerusalem to Constantinople (see above Book 8, Chapter 12, Paragraph 7). The Alexandrian historian says that along with the Cross, the Lip which was placed on it was also erected, then it was sent to Nikita Patricius, and together with the Holy Spear it was brought on October 27. When they were approaching, someone took it from Sarvara and gave it to Nikita. On Sunday this was announced to everyone, and men and wives came to venerate it. In his speech about whether it is possible to accept the Cypriots into fellowship, Joseph Bryennius says that the Robe and Belt of the Queen of Angels, the divinely woven Tunic of Christ the Lord and His garments, the Blood that flowed from his side, the Spear, Nails, Lip and Reed were in Constantinople. See above in Book 8, Chapter 12, Paragraph 7.

Chapter 3

Section 1 - The Autocephalous Archdioceses after the Fall of Constantinople

Hierax, the great Logothete, who lived in 5800 (5508), makes a note that a council was held in Constantinople after its capture by the Ottomans, at which it was argued that the Emperor were unreasonable in demanding that some dioceses be independent Archdioceses. And since the Church could not resist the Emperor before, now is the opportune time to subordinate [the Churches of] Ohrid, Tarnovo, Peć to the throne of Constantinople; therefore, Metropolitans were ordained in these archdioceses. However, only Tarnovo remained in submission, and the other two dioceses voluntarily sent tribute to the Sultan and, according to external authority, remained in their ancient form.

Section 2 - The Jubilee of the Latins

Under the Sultan, who reigned in 1470, Sixtus IV was Pope. He loved his relatives very much and gave them immense power, for which cause he is called the father of the love of money. After plundering Church property and estates of the rulers subordinate to him and the poor, he resorted to wars to take away the property of others with weapons. Therefore, he cursed the Venetian Republic, which resisted his cunning intentions, and deprived them of their dignity that was not given by him, but by God, and for this effort he used both the zeal of the Senate and weapons. For the same purpose, he decided to renew the Jubilee. Boniface [Pope Boniface VIII], the first inventor of the Jubilee, established that this celebration should be celebrated every century. Urban [Pope Urban VI], instead of a hundred years, determined to celebrate it after fifty. Then he, or more accurately, his unbridled greed, determined to celebrate it only after twenty-five years. Thus, the popes rebelled not only against strangers, but also against each other; for evil, according to Aristotle and Basil the Great, arms itself not only against good, but also against itself; for everything that is lawless is not firm and permanent. It is worthy of note that after the festival the Italians, Spaniards and Celts armed themselves against the Ottomans, but misfortune befell them at Mytilene. Frightened by this, the Venetians immediately reconciled with the Ottomans.

Chapter 4 — The Ottoman Sultan Selim I

In 1514, Sultan Selim reigned and conquered Egypt. In his time, it is worthy of note, firstly, that Pachomius of Constantinople traveled to Wallachia and Dacia for alms: for the throne of Constantinople received neither taxes at that time, nor aid, nor income, and the Patriarchs lived on alms alone. Secondly, Sultan Selim himself, who previously lived in Trebizond during the reign of his father, once went hunting on Mount Sumela, saw lights on the mountain and, knowing that the monastery of the Mother of God was there, wanted to destroy it; but unable to rise from the place where he was sitting, he said: “Mother Mary! If I become a Sultan, I will provide your monastery with the same benefits that the Greek Emperors provided.” Having ascended the throne, he gave a decree similar to those decrees given by the ancestors of the Komnenoi Emperors, in which he ordered the monastery to be free from all duties and tributes, and have all their lands and settlers under their control. He also sent five lamps which were hung in the dome of the Church, where they hang to this day. Thirdly, he loved Christians and willingly gave them permission to establish Churches. Fourthly, going to war with Egypt, he visited Jerusalem, spoke favorably with the Patriarch and the Fathers and gave a Firman (Covenant of Favor), decreeing in it that prayers, monasteries and Churches should be under the authority of the Patriarch, so that he would take precedence in all ceremonies, for everyone else to gather for prayer according to the will of the Patriarch, for fathers to be free from duties and tributes, i.e. Charatzi and all other taxes and duties, and not to order any taxes to regular Jerusalem Christians other than the tribute, i.e. Charatzi. Fifthly, there were many Christians among the soldiers. Such was Zernota, Bey of the Peloponnesian, who helped the Sinai with his intercession before Sultan Selim, showed them many benefits and during the attack saved their courtyard in Cairo from destruction.

Chapter 5 - On the Reformers and their Lies

Section 1 - The Beginning of the Protestant Schism

In 1570, Pope Leo X issued letters of absolution, for the true purpose of collecting money for himself, and externally for those who would go for Christ and the Church against the Saracens during the Crusade. The Pope ordered Albert, Archbishop of Magdeburg, to be the chief administrator of this and to elect a reliable person who could be entrusted with the distribution of these letters of absolution throughout Germany. The archbishop sincerely chose a certain Dominican named Johann Tetzel and appointed him to distribute a certain number of these letters in Germany. Upset by this, the hieromonk of the Augustinian Order Martin Luther, together with the preacher and the head of the Augustinians named Johann von Staupitz, began to reject the letters of absolution. Luther especially thundered against indulgences from the pulpit, arguing that forgiveness and remission of sins are not given in this way. At this time also appeared Luther’s defender, Elector Frederick of Saxony, was a young man devoted to pleasure, and like an indomitable horse, he imposed tax-duties on indulgences. Thus, when Tetzel began to defend indulgences, and Luther forcefully refuted them, the flame of schism began to flare up, which to this day flares up in Germany, Hungary, Dacia, France, England, Holland, Sweden, Gothia¹⁰, Denmark, Poland, and in America itself.

Section 2 - The First Rebukes of Luther

The English King Henry wrote a very wise and learned book against Luther, and for this he received from Pope Leo the name of Defender and Champion of the Faith, as Lily tells about this in his notes. Both Pope Leo X and [Emperor] Charles V issued orders to destroy and burn all of Luther’s books as blasphemous. But while in exile, Luther wrote new ones, exhorting and convincing his like-minded Augustinians to leave the Liturgy in Wirtemberg. But if not himself, at least the Augustinians’ conscience kept them from doing this.

Section 3 - Luther’s Attack on the Christian Fundamentals

I carefully tried to find out, says one theologian and pious man, where such hostility against arcane teaching comes from, and I learned that all this comes from the fact that we always utter the words [in the Litany of Fervent Supplication]: “for the forgiveness, and remission of the sins of the servants of God.” The insidious Luther wanted to wipe out everything like this, and consequently the commemorations of the monks, from the face of the earth. For while the parts were removable in the Church of Christ, commemorations and forty-day Liturgies were celebrated, the Christian faith was preserved, affirmed and unshakable almost throughout the world. Let the curious know the conversation that took place in the palace of the Elector George of Saxony in which Luther showed himself to be very impudent and overly proud. Someone similar to him in immodesty and arrogance said something offensive to him, and it would have been indecent for him to be indignant, but he answered with all the insolence and arrogance: “this work was not started by God, it will not end with God” (he spoke about enmity with the pope and his greed, he wanted to be the leader of the heresy, and although he understood the destruction of souls, he did not want to abandon his intention). However, we learned to begin and end everything with God not only from the Sikeliote, but even more from the apologetics of the Nazianzen.

Section 4 - Summarizing Luther

Oh, how great is Luther’s iniquity! He is a slave of the devil and a false monk, and, according to the Syrian, he has not found anyone else to marry except the nun Catherine. But the once-good Henry VIII, King of England, out of insane love for women, abandoned the pope. Under the pretext of insulting his honor, he divorced his legal wife Catherine and took his mistress Anna. And when the pope did not send consent to the divorce, Henry departed from Rome and Luther was proclaimed the glory of the Anglican Church. Who would not be indignant hearing this? From a schismatic, Luther became the head and seven-headed Hydra of heterogeneous heresies.

Section 5 - Introducing Calvin

This heretical leader, Luther, died a sudden death at the age of 63, as the historian Uzziah relates. At the same time, John Calvin appeared. He is said to have been an illegitimate child, for he was the son of a certain French priest who was formerly a notary in Noyon, according to Vespel. He was in very poor health, for he suffered from nine diseases: pain in the joints, colic, urinary incontinence, phthisis (tuberculosis), hemorrhoids, shortness of breath, headache, constant runny nose, and bloody vomiting. Truly, the most worm-eaten Herod cannot compete with Calvin in suffering and illness, as his disciple Vesa claims. Calvin died in 1564, suffered, as it is said, his whole life and had no idea about the lives of Sardanapalus and Epicurus.

Section 6 - On the False Beliefs of Luther and Calvin

The heresy of Calvin and Luther is nothing more than a confusion of many heresies, for they collected the errors of almost all ancient and modern heretics and formed their own wickedness. They say that works are not needed for salvation, but pure faith alone is enough, but this was the heresy of Simon Magus, as Irenaeus testifies in Book 2 Chapter 20, and this was also the heresy of the Anomians, whom the Church anathematized in 360, according to the testimony of Augustine in the article on the 59 heresies. They say that, for the Church, that scripture alone is sufficient, and the interpretations of the Fathers are useless. Eutyches said the same thing at Session 3 of the Council that was under Flavian [Archbishop of Constantinople], which is mentioned in Act 1 of the Council of Chalcedon. Eutyches said: since in some of the writings of the Fathers there were either explanations leading to errors or there were errors themselves, and that they need neither be rejected nor accepted, but to depend on scripture alone, which is stronger than the explanations of the Fathers. This heresy is also struck by anathema in the persons of Arius, Nestorius, and Dioscorus, according to the testimony of Augustine in the Book 1 Chapter 2 against the Manichaeus. This heresy was anathematized by the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy reads: To them who do not correctly understand the divine voices of the holy teachers of the Church of God and who attempt to misinterpret and pervert those things clearly and manifestly spoken in them by the grace of the Holy Ghost. And the 7th Council in Act 1 says: Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.

They say that Luther and Calvin cleansed the Church of many errors that it had committed, but this was the heresy of the wicked Anomians. Photius says in the 40th Epistle that the Anomians argued that Aetius and Eunomius were alone in purifying the dogmas of the faith, rejecting what was mixed with them over time. See the same thing in Eusebius in the last chapter of Book V, where the followers of Artemius claim that all the ancients, even the apostles themselves, accepted and preached what they do not talk about now, that the truth of the teaching was preserved only until the time of Victor, and his successor Zephyrinus damaged the truth.

Luther and Calvin rejected the sacrament of repentance, but this was the heresy of Novatian, whom the Church has cursed from that time to this day. They say that the ancient mysterious (Θεωρετικη) Church has ceased and now it consists of only one congregation; This was the heresy of the Donatists against the ancient Church, see Augustine in Chapter 52 on the Unity of the Church.

The remains of Saints are disparaged and the veneration of icons of Saints is called idolatry; this was the heresy of Vigilantius (according to the testimony of Jerome) and the iconoclasts, anathematized by the entire Church at the Seventh Ecumenical Council and individually in all the Patriarchates, at the Councils that were held in the case of Ignatius and Photius, again ynder the Patriarchs Nicephorus and Methodius, and annually in all Churches of the Ecumenical Church is this anathematized on a Week of Orthodoxy.

They reject prayers for the departed, Great Pentecost, fasting on Wednesday and Friday, and beyond that all Church offerings — and this was the heresy of the above-mentioned Anomians (Aetians), as Augustine testifies in his book on heresies, and Epiphanius of Cyprus in Panarion 79 (Against Collyridians) and 75 (Against Aerians) concerning the Aerian heresy. Therefore, he says in Panarion 61 (Against Apostolics 6,4): But tradition must be used too, for not everything is available from the sacred scripture. Thus the holy apostles handed some things down in scriptures but some in traditions, as St. Paul says, “As I delivered the tradition to you,” and elsewhere, “So I teach, and so I have delivered the tradition in the churches,” and, “If ye keep the tradition in memory, unless ye have believed in vain.” In 55 heresies he says: Apostolic traditions, holy scriptures and successions of teachers have been made our boundaries and foundations for the upbuilding of our faith, and God’s truth has been protected in every way. The same is confirmed by Basil in Chapter 2z7 to Amphilochius and all the fathers.

Luther and Calvin say that the works of the Fathers are sins, so Calvin in the first book on free will directly says: “The righteous sin even in good works, and what we call good works are in themselves mortal sins.” And in rejection of [Jacobus] Latomus he says: “All truth is unclean, every good w is work in.” Luther, in his speech about the finding of the Cross, says: “Works do not save, but martyrdom is a work, and consequently, it does not save.” Further, from their errors they deduce, in the first place, that people are not predestined to eternal life by any force of good works, nor are they subjected to eternal torment by evil works. Second, they say Christ did not die for everyone, but for only the elect — contrary to the teaching of the Apostle in the Second Letter to the Corinthians. Third, they say God does not give grace to everyone, but only to the predestined. Fourth, they say since man fell, he lost his original nature, and consequently free will, so he sins of necessity. Fifth, they say that God commanded people to do the impossible, and they cannot keep everything commanded to them. Sixth, they reject the breaking of bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and say that these are simple signs; although Luther disagrees on this, for he says that in bread and wine Christ is actively present, but without the transformation of bread and wine. They also reject the five other Sacraments — Priesthood, Confirmation¹¹, Confession, Unction, Marriage, and are largely mistaken regarding the Sacrament of Baptism.

They also say that there is no difference between a Bishop and a priest, but rather that a Bishop and a priest are one and the same. This was the heresy of Aerius, as Saint Epiphanius in Panarion 75 (Against Aerians), see the work of Koresios on the Sacraments and Predestination, [Meletius] Syrigos on the Chapters of Cyril Lucaris. And on the real subject, look at the Three Apologies of Jeremiah of Constantinople, written by him in 1580 to the German Wittenberg Lutherans, in which he, even without us, refutes all their false teachings, and proves the entire truth of the Catholic Church with arguments taken from Scripture, from the Fathers, and the successive Tradition.

Section 7 - The Origin of Luther’s Heresy

Some tell about the origin of the Lutheran heresy like this: the pope, thinking day and night about how to find means to secure money for himself and become rich, issued so-called indulgences, in which he says that he, as the successor of Peter and the vicar of Christ, has the power to forgive the living and the dead, and especially those in the purgatorial fire, for in his power is the indescribable wealth of the merits of the sufferings of our Lord and all the saints (as we said above in Chapter 12 of Book 9) [?]. The pretext for this was to collect money for the maintenance of soldiers who fought against the Turks in the East. Therefore, the pope said about the indulgences: whoever gives a year’s worth of salary for one soldier will receive forgiveness of all sins for five years, and whoever gives more, as he gives, he multiplies the years of remitted sins. Such letters of absolution were sent by an announcement throughout France, and usually the brothers (φραροι) from the order of the so-called Preachers (ιεροκηρυκων) proclaimed them from the pulpit. But when Pope Leo gave indulgences worth 20,000 gros. to one of his sisters so that she could send them for distribution wherever she pleased, she sent them to Germany. Like a money-loving woman cursed by God, she did not give them, according to custom, to the Order of Preachers. Instead, she sold it to the Franciscan brothers in order to raise more money. They bought it from her at a higher price, hoping to make a profit for themselves by reselling it. But this trick produced a great temptation and incurable evil. Martin Luther, the great theologian of the Order of Preachers, not tolerating their cause and the benefits of the Franciscans being taken from their hands, began to write against indulgences, proving that they did not bring any benefit to people, that the pope does not have such power, and that this is only a cover for his love of money and tyranny. This teaching was liked by many, especially those ruined by the greed of the pope, and therefore they accepted it with joy. Leo, having learned about this, called Luther to Rome with the intention of killing him. But when he did not listen and did not go, the pope forced some to write various refutations of Martin’s teachings, first excommunicating him and anathematizing him. Angered by this, Luther refined his language even more and not only in various writings began to denounce the intemperance and love of money of the Roman bishops, but also he desired to convene a council to consider his case, demanding that the council be ecumenical and, consequently, in the presence of the pope. He theorized of a council in the hope of justifying himself and reducing the excessive power of the pope. Everyone accepted the idea of ​​a council with joy, especially the bishops, who, like poor slaves, were enslaved, because everything they acquired through their labors was taken by the pope. And the wind was in their hands, i.e. they did not benefit from their labors.

The pope tried in every way possible to stop the matter and avoid a council, but since everyone cried out unanimously and demanded a council, he promised it, but cunningly postponed the time, transferred it from place to place, often started and, under various pretexts, postponed it until another time, thus extending until half of the twenty-second year. He did this until the demands of the council were already tired, they stopped demanding that it be convened, they were even ready to end it and give everything up to the will of the pope’s friends, who were sworn to him. He won over the leaders of the council to his side, sometimes with threats, sometimes with gifts and promises of high honors; Therefore, Luther and his like-minded people did not want to come to the council, but began to fight the Romans with weapons and pens.

The council was in the town of Trent. The Latins say that when Luther’s heresy intensified, Charles V, the German Emperor, killed one hundred and fifty thousand Lutherans in Germany. He would have done them even more harm if King Francis of France had not prevented him by declaring war on him. And the most Christian king was the cause of the disasters of Rome and the flight of Pope Clement VII to the Church of the Archangel. Also, they say, Paul the Third, trying to stop the heresy of Luther, appointed a council first in Pandova, then in Vincent and finally in Trent, in its proximity to Germany, so that the Lutherans, Evangelicals and Protestants would not be left with any excuse. The Pope wrote a letter to Charles, demanding his consent to convene a council, and Charles, having returned victorious from Africa, was ready to convene it, but the French king again interfered with his war; therefore, good Charles was forced to make peace for the benefit of the council. But the heretics, despising Charles, rejected the council, and when Charles again raised arms against them, the sun stood still in this war, as during the time of Joshua, so that Charles could destroy these new inventors of the most daring heresy. This is what the Romans say about Luther. And that the sun stood still is a lie similar to the one we mentioned above in Book 8, Chapter 6, where it is said that the sun stood still when the Latins took Jerusalem from the Arabs (see this place).

Section 8 - The Heresies of the Latin Council of Trent

The Council of Trent deserves approval because some of its judgments against the new heretics about the Sacraments, about predestination and justification, about original sin, and about other dogmas of the Church are fair; but it is wicked and worthy of rejection because it mixed many different errors among the true teaching. So, we will not consider the council in everything, but we will number the errors which it either introduced or confirmed:

1. The popes delayed the convening of the council for almost 22 years, not in order to find a way to refute the heretics (for everything to denounce them can be easily found in Scripture and in the Fathers), but in order to prepare cunning means to prevent the weakening of the unlimited papal power; since it was primarily attacked by Luther and Calvin. So, the first word of the Council was not for God and the Church, but for the pope and the height of his autocracy.
2. Pope Paul, in the bull for the meeting of the Council, used the expressions of his predecessors Boniface and further multiplied them, saying: we declare, proclaim, convene, decree, determine, command and legitimize. But, it should be noted that such expressions were not in the letters of the Roman Bishops Celestine, Leo, Agatho, or Adrian at the Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils; but they wrote in the form of petition, exhortation and consolation (see above). Consequently, Pope Paul is not their successor, but an antipope, a wolf, tearing apart, trampling and ruining the Church.
3. We said above in Book 8 Chapter 2 that the Symbol of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils in all Eastern and Western Churches was read without addition². And Augustine confirms this, saying about the Second Council that it gave the Symbol the form in which the Greeks and Latins read it. The holy Ecumenical Councils preserved it in the same form. And the Council of Trent affirms it, but with an addition, contrary to the confession of the Ecumenical Church and the Holy Ecumenical Councils; and therefore this council is not holy and has no canonical importance, but rather it is obviously lawless.
4. The Catholic Church accepts into communion those who have departed from Orthodoxy, those who have deviated into wickedness and heretics, enumerated in Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council, into communion through the anointing of Holy Chrism, and this council in the ninth chapter anathematizes this decree, that is, it curses the Eastern Church, which preserves legal customs.
5. The Catholic Church has accepted the decree from the Apostles to baptize through threefold immersion and removal from water in the name of the Trinitarian Divinity and in the image of the three-day resurrection, as evidenced by the Apostolic Canons and the Holy Fathers. And the Council of Trent, in the Act 6, Canon 3, anathematizes those who say that the Roman Church acted wrongly by allowing innovation in baptism, and thus curses the Catholic Church, the Holy Fathers and the Apostles themselves.
6. The Holy Chrism is prepared by the bishop alone, and those being baptized are anointed by either the Bishop and the priests, and this is the ancient belief and custom of the Catholic Church. And this council in the Act 7 says: If any one shall say, that the ordinary minister of holy confirmation is not the bishop only, but any simple priest soever; let him be anathema, and thus again curses the Catholic Church.
7. The Lord himself said: take, eat and drink of it all of you (Matt. 26:26,27), and the holy fathers accepted the words of the Lord in such a way that all Christians would eat the Body and drink the Blood; and the pope made an innovation against the Saints and Christ Himself, he established that the laity should receive communion under one form, that is, under the guise of bread. First, the Latin councils of Constantia and Basilia approved this, and then the Council of Trent accepted it with great blasphemy: for it anathematizes those who say that the Roman Church did this illegally.
8. The Lord said: take, eat and drink of it all of you, and from the very beginning the Catholic Church allowed children to receive the Sacraments, and the Roman church, or rather the Papal church, established that only those who have come of age should be admitted. They say young children should not be allowed to partake and those who consider this decree and definition of the papal church to be illegal should be anathematized, and thus again they curse the Catholic Church, the holy fathers, and Christ Himself.
9. In Canon 7, the council anathematizes those who allow divorce for adultery and, consequently, curses the One who said: whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication (Matthew 5:32), curses the Catholic Church, and curses the holy fathers.
10. It recognizes the purgatorial fire and affirms papal indulgences.
11. The fathers present at the council demand the pope’s approval of the council’s decisions. When they demanded his approval and consent to their decrees, he did not agree, as we said above (see passages from the letters of the Ecumenical Councils to the pope and Chapter 5 Section 3). If the papists demanded approval of from the pope, then this means the conduct of this council is inconsistent with the ancient councils. For in the past, they required the confirmation of the Christian people, and not to the pope or any other individual (see the letter of the Second Ecumenical Council to the Western bishops, where he says that the people confirmed the ordination of the Archbishop of Constantinople).
12. In its announcements the council mentions the pope first, and the Emperor and Kings after. That this is illegal, see above the evidence of the Ecumenical Councils, where in their announcements they always place the Emperor above all the Patriarchs.
13. In the signatures, the legates of the pope wrote their names in first, then the cardinals who were not legates wrote their names second, then thirdly the so-called Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Venice, and Aquileia, and this is obviously an innovation that puts lower clergy above the Patriarchs (see above Book 10, Chapter 1, Section 6).

Section 9 - Trent stands against Papal Autocracy

Although the Council of Trent was infected with the spirit of papism, full of innovations and worthy of rejection, in the proof of its definitions it could not help but express what served to refute papal autocracy and any individual super-power in the Church.

1. In Act 3 says about himself that his decrees deserve respect and honor before everyone in accordance with the greater number of fathers present who approved and consented.
2. Listing the books of the Holy Scripture, the council was established on the testimony of the Fathers who examined the authenticity of them on the history of the general use of the books of Holy Scripture in the Church, for in Act 4 it decrees that the Septuagint is preferred to all editions concerning translations and interpretation of the faith, following the examples of the Orthodox Fathers and in accordance with the reading of books which were in the common use of the Catholic Church; and that the Gospel should be understood no differently than to how the Catholic Church interprets and understands it, for it alone has the right to judge what kind of understanding of the Holy Scriptures are true.
3. In Act 5, discussing original sin, it confesses and teaches about original sin in accordance with the testimonies of the Holy Scripture, the holy fathers, and especially the universally received councils, which are those of true and of canonical importance, with the opinion and unanimous confession of the Church.
4. In Act 6 it says: Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, taught, which the apostles transmitted, and which the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost reminding her thereof, has always retained
5. Speaking about justification through works and that a person cannot be justified by faith alone, and also immediately discussing the sacraments, it confirms his teaching with the following words: according to the teaching of Scripture, the Apostolic Traditions, and the councils and confessions of the fathers.
6. In Act 13, discussing the sacrament of the Eucharist, it says that the fathers are the interpreters of the words of the Lord about this Sacrament, and that the Catholic Church called this transformation by the term “transubstantiation.”
7. Act 14 contains a complete rejection of papal autocracy, for here it is said: our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left priests His own vicars, as presidents and judges, unto whom all the mortal crimes, into which the faithful of Christ may have fallen, should be carried, in order that, in accordance with the power of the keys, they may pronounce the sentence of forgiveness or retention of sins.
8. In Act 22 it says: this ancient faith, which is based on the sacred Gospel, the traditions of the Apostles, and the doctrine of the holy Fathers.
9. In Act 23 it says: the testimony of Scripture, by Apostolic tradition, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is clear that grace is conferred by sacred ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, no one ought to doubt that Order is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy Church.
10. In Act 25 there is a confirmation of the council compiled by the pope in the following expressions: this is the faith of Peter and Paul, and we, by our apostolic authority, with the advice and consent of the brother cardinals, affirm the acts of the council. But it should be noted that every bishop has such power. For example, reading the acts of the ancient Fathers at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, he might say: “this is the faith of Andrew, and we, by the apostolic authority of our bishopric, the consent of our brothers (the bishops who are with me) and the priestly dignity, affirm the acts of the council.” Likewise, the Bishop of Euguvia or Riga, reading the acts of this council, can say: “this is the faith of the Apostles, and we, by the apostolic authority of our bishopric and the consent of our priests, confirm the acts of the council.”

Section 10 - Papal Autocracy is not the faith of the Catholic Church

So, the greater number of Fathers present at the council imparts greater strength and importance to the conciliar definitions (which Basil the Great also said, see above in Book 2 Chapter 17); we must obey the instructions of the fathers, the Holy Scriptures, and the fathers and the all-praised Councils. On this, faith is established. Christ left the fathers as primates, judges, holders of the keys, and interpreters of the Holy Scriptures. The tradition of the Church and the consent of the Fathers confirms the sacraments and dogmas of the Church. The Catholic Church has the right to judge which books of Holy Scripture are true. The consent of the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church contributes to the approval of councils; but nowhere is the pope personally mentioned, and he alone, as an autocratic person, is not accepted as a witness, and ecclesiastical power obviously belongs to the entire Church. Glorified unity of command, the infallibility and inviolable power of the pope, is like some strange animal (goat-deer) and a dying ugly corpse, and although they try to paint or to cover up this monster with various sophisms, its true appearance is immediately revealed.

Section 11 - The Lutherans after Trent

After the Council of Trent, new followers of the innovations of Luther and Calvin appeared who were even greater apostates than their teachers. The Lutherans, at the request of the leading papists to reveal to them what the faith they professed was and what it was, wrote a confession, which they called Augustinian, and the Lutherans from Wittenberg, a German city, sent it to Byzantium to the then Patriarch of Constantinople, His Holiness Jeremiah, defending themselves in the belief that they did well in rejecting the pope. The Patriarch answered them that they had unequivocally done well by rejecting the pope, but they had done badly by completely breaking away from the Catholic Church. And they, confident in the justice of their opinions, often objected to him, but the Patriarch, seeing that everything would end with their retreat, answered them, reproaching them for their pride and convincing them to act according to the commandment of Saint Paul (Titus Chapter III). Then the great Margunius¹², a truly wise man, became famous. Although he showed favor to some Lutheran scholars, with whose help he published Photius’s Thousand-Books (Bibliotheca) and some other Church books, he yet remained very firm in Orthodoxy, writing about papism and these heresies. Even Gabriel, Metropolitan of Philadelphia, wrote a book about the sacraments, and after them, George Koresios, Meletius Syrigos and others, and we ourselves, again wrote about the same thing as will be said in its place.

Section 12 - On the Zwinglians

The English Lutherans, or Zwinglians, wrote a confession which they called a defense of the Church of England, but in it they completely rejected and blasphemed the Church sacraments, and there was almost not a single Church dogma, custom, or tradition left that they did not distort. They justify themselves by saying that they have freed themselves from the papal yoke. But this does not prove that they are not heretics, not opponents, not slanderers of the Catholic Church, and that they are truly not hypocrites, for if they exposed papism, then they only had to expose and reject those innovations that the pope introduced into the Catholic Church, for which he broke away from it, and then return to the ancient purity of the common forefathers Church, and under the pretext of moving away from papism, not to completely reject the apostolic traditions, the universal and ancient power of the Catholic Church; and in doing so while outwardly accepting the venerable name of the Church, they cannot justify themselves by the claiming they have no innovations incompatible with the name of true Christians. Instead, they even more so become the culprits of other countless heresies, which we will not talk about now. However, it is worthy of note that in the 16th century A.D. there were heresies, it was in the West that there were the heretics Luther, Calvin, Philip Melanchthon, and many others, and in the East the heresy of the Arabs and Persians, and this is because there were important innovations in the papal religion.

Section 13 - The Protestants received their heresies from the Pope

The Latins, writing Δια του ψευδοϊκονιου against Zechariah Gerganus in the preface, say that Zechariah is a serpent generated from the Eastern Church (calling him a schismatic), and saying that he became a Basilisk when he had gone over to the Luthero-Calvinists. But to this it must be said that the serpent is the Latins, as the real innovators and schismatics, and from these serpents came the basilisks, and especially the Calvinists and Lutherans who came from the pope.

It is clear that these people are the children of the pope. For this purpose, pay attention to the following:

1. The Pope accepts the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, unleavened bread, sprinkling at baptism, and many other inconsistencies; Lutherans and Calvinists accept all of the same things.
2. The pope says that circumcision absolves a man from original sin, and Calvin concludes from this that baptism does not need to be performed on infants.
3. The papists say that both saints and sinners will receive the divine bliss. These two generations of papal children, taking advantage of this favorable opportunity, reject the veneration of saints, commemorations, and the offerings of liturgies and other virtues for the dead. Purgatory is a fable, and these children of the pope could not find out about this the true opinion of the Catholic and ancient Church, but having established themselves in the papal opinion about the dead, they rejected charity for the dead.
4. Platinus relates that Pope Celestine III, having released Constance (daughter of King Roger II) from the Great Schema so that she could cease the monastic life, gave the bride of Christ in marriage to Henry¹³, son of Frederick, against the well-known canons, and especially against Canon 7 of the Council of Chalcedon, which reads: We have decreed that those who … have been made monks, shall accept neither a military charge nor any secular dignity; and if they shall presume to do so and not repent in such wise as to turn again to that which they had first chosen for the love of God, they shall be anathematized. The children of the Pope, under this pretext, completely rejected the monastic schema.
5. The Pope rejects Canon 67 of the Holy Apostles, commanding fasting on Lent, Wednesday, and Friday. In the course of this, he abolished the fast on Wednesday and even more easily allows it to be broken on Lent. Therefore, his children, having learned to reject the apostolic rule from him, completely destroyed all fasting.
6. The canons of Councils and Tradition have universal power over the entire Catholic Church, and the Pope destroys whatever rules of Councils and Tradition he wants, and again restores them himself, as he pleases; and his children, having learned from him to destroy the rules, rejected the concept of the canons entirely.
7. The pope says that he is higher than the Councils, when in reality he is the repository of countless sins and heresies; and his children rejected the holy councils due to the perception that the pope is the source of the councils, so the councils follow the pope in error; therefore, the evil offspring of the evil and unclean father dared to say that the Church is deceiving and is in error, since its head, the pope, is deceiving and being deceived.
8. The pope, teaching to reverently venerate the icon of Christ, commands that statues should also be venerated as icons, contrary to the decrees of the Holy Councils. And the heretics, not judging sensibly about icons, but having the paternal audacity in the Church to correctly resolve to not worship statues, erroneously rejected the veneration of the holy icons.
9. Lorenzo Celsi, the former Doge of Venice, wanting, according to custom, to receive honor like his pope, put a cross on his tiara, in order to feign that the honor would relate not to him, but would refer to the Cross. Constantine the Great put a cross at the top of his banners, and after him other Emperors did the same. But both Kings and Patriarchs put a Cross on their mitres and robes to receive the grace of their blessing. Constantine and his son Constantius, appeared in heaven, shining above the sun, as many have said, the Lord Jesus Christ himself carrying him on His shoulders. And the kind pope also put the Cross on his shoe. This is why his disciple Calvin learned from him not to honor the Cross, so that, following the example of his father and teacher, he would not become a trampler of the cross, for the pope became the persecutor of the Cross thereby.
10. The pope allowed organs to be played in the Church itself and allowed dogs to enter the Church along with the papists. From here these heretics also learned to say that Christian Churches are not holy, but are only needed for performing the sacraments and for teaching.
11. The pope partakes of the Blood of the Lord while sitting, and these heretics learned to reject the active and essential presence of the Lord in the Sacraments as a result.
12. The pope gives indulgences, and sometimes releases penitents of half, and sometimes their entire canon [penance], inventing and telling what neither Scripture has taught, nor the Church knows, nor the Councils have determined, nor the holy fathers put forth. And his children, in order to avoid indulgences, completely rejected the sacrament of repentance.
13. The canons do not consider sexual immorality of celibates to be the same as adultery, and Cardinal Cambysius, Albert Pighius, and other teachers of the papists say that priests who live with many women live more piously and purer than priests who enter into legal marriage. And the pope, receiving thousands of florins¹⁴ annually from adulterers, allows them to commit these outrageous sins even at the very pulpit, which is why the basilisks born from him do not accept marriage as a sacrament.
14. The Pope says that confirmation is not necessary for infants. So, since confirmation is not necessary for everyone, these heretics rejected it.
15. The pope rejects the celebrations of the saints, and while he destroys some ancient ones, he himself insidiously introduces new ones, and his children rejected the celebrations of the saints.
16. The pope is vain, saying that he alone is the interpreter of Scripture, therefore the interpretations of some of the holy fathers he considers false. Some he explains incorrectly, and some he rejects. These disciples of his and their entire community reject the interpretations of the holy fathers on the Holy Scriptures.
17. The pope determines trials and punishments and makes monks the executors of punishments; according to the word of the apostle: A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject (Titus 3:10) those who oppose the pope are killed, sent into exile, imprisoned, persecuted. So the Calvinists, wherever possible, persecute the Latins.

So, there is something in common between the Latins and these heretics; These heretics are the offspring of the Latins. Luthero-Calvinists still have many bad and disastrous things, and the reason for this was the power of the pope, who is responsible for all the innovations introduced into the Church through the schism. Saint Epiphanius, in the Panarion 22 (Against Menander), says: Indeed, the ancients tell the story that of the many asps that were collected in a single earthen jar and buried in the foundations of the four corners of each temple of the idols that was erected in Egypt, the one that was stronger than the others would set upon them and eat them. But when it was left by itself and could get no food it would bend round and eat <the whole> of its body, from its tail up to a certain part. And so it remained, no longer whole but half of a snake. So the once-blessed pope, with his innovations, devoured several generations of papists. As for the rest, who are still faithful to him, he exterminated them with his innovations and reintroduced many things so that those with him would not be transferred to the Calvinists.

When Luther asked the pope to agree that married men ought to be made priests and some other customs of the Eastern Church, he did not agree, but now, so that his own papists do not flee from him and do not accept the wickedness of his children, he insidiously allows what was previously prohibited, but he does so in vain, as will be said in its place. And now it has been sufficiently proven that he (the pope) himself is a serpent, and his children are basilisks. The Eastern Church, just as it was holy from the very beginning, is just as holy now and will be holy even before the coming of the Lord.

Chapter 6 — The Spanish Inquisition and the Jews

Section 1 - Inhumane Kings and the Conversos who became Priests

During the reign of Ferdinand, King of Spain, in 1487, the Moors and Saracens were expelled from Grenada, which they owned for 800 years. Ferdinand was honored by Pope Innocent VIII with the title of “Catholic Majesty” because he expelled all pagans from his kingdom and also expelled Jews (who accounted somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000) from Spain with a command that none of them should take with them anything made of gold or silver and no another precious thing, as [Henri] Spondanus notes. But notice, firstly, that Christian kings are called the most Christian, the most Orthodox, the most pious, the Christ-Loving, the most God-Loving, the meek, the guardians of peace, the most favorable, and so on. (See above the Book 10, Chapter 12, Section 3). And the Pope, having made innovations regarding the Scriptures and the Saints, he allowed himself an innovation in the royal titles and called the French king the most Christian, and honored the Spanish king with the name “Ferdinand the Catholic.” But, beloved, every Orthodox Christian is called the most Christian and Catholic, which naturally includes kings who are defenders of the faith and Orthodox. Therefore, all this is nonsense and fables are meant to be surprising only to children, and not for well-meaning husbands. Note, secondly, that the ancient Christian autocrats recognized the Jews as the most wicked people, but in accordance with the purpose of the Gospel, they made humane decrees regarding them in political laws, with which both the ancient fathers and the most scholastics agree. Therefore, the King of Spain should have ordered them to come out with their property, and not forcefully expelled with nothing to help them. And the Pope not only allowed such injustice, but also awarded him titles. If this was fair, why doesn’t the pope himself expel the Jews from Rome?

Afterwards, the most daring and almost godless deed came out of this act, for many of the Jews, not wanting to flee and lose all their property, remained in Spain and were baptized out in the open while secretly maintaining judaism, with some such individuals becoming Christian priests and clergy (meanwhile the Catholic Church does not allow infidels to enter the Christian temple); and many of them, leaving their relatives and property, flee to Liguria and other regions of the papists. These pretending Christian priests become Jews — obvious Christ-killers — and none of the Church or civil authorities punish them. So, the Pope of Rome, who allows this, do you desire to establish and permit this, either for the multiplication and growth of faith, or for some other reason? And where in the Holy Scriptures, on what canon or conciliar rule or tradition is it based in this case? Is it based on his own supreme and independent power, as he calls it? (As discussed above in Book 10, Part 5). But it is obvious that such power came from hell and from Satan, and not from the Gospel of Christ: for the teaching of the Savior does not allow anything like this at all.

Section 2 - The Evil Beliefs of the Jews found in the Talmud

¹⁵ The reason why the Spanish king expelled the Jews from Spain was as follows. In the Talmud, the Jewish book, there are the most wicked blasphemies. The Talmud, by the meaning of the word, is supposed to be their religious guide, but it contains a lot of idle talk and absurdities, of which some we shall take look at here, and will later discover t he others. So, they say that those who doubt this book are atheists, and that such individuals should be stoned without mercy (you will find this in the preface to the fourth section of the book).

Even in the tenth chapter, the Sakedri [Tractate Sanhedrin] says this word for word: The punishment of him who transgresses the decision of the scribes is more rigorous than for that which is plainly written in the Scriptures, for those who contradict the law of Moses can be forgiven, but those who contradict the rabbis must be put to death without investigation. And in Part 2, Chapter 8. Interpretation 3 they say that God created the element of fire on the Sabbath day. In Part 3, Chapter 8, Interpretation 2 they say that the rabbis, angry with God for the justification of King Eliezer, rejected the king and cursed him.

In Part 2, Chapter 8, Interpretation 5 they say that the Archangel Gabriel was punished by God with fiery rods for one grave crime; and his crime was that, while preaching the Gospel to Mary, he said that her Son would be called the Son of the Most High, which God had not commanded him to do. In Chapter 14, Interpretation 1 of the same part, they say that God uses the first three hours of each day to study the Jewish law. In Chapter 5, Interpretation 8 of this part, they say that God, clothed in white clothing, with his head tied, kneeling, hands folded in a cross, prays daily. In Part 1, Chapter 1, Interpretation 1, they say that God has one such place to which He often goes and mourns with many tears the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem and the captivity and dispersion of the Israeli people. In Part 1, Interpretation 7 and other various places of this book, they say that during the general resurrection, illiterate people will not receive their bodies, but the naked will be expelled to a dark and unknown place. In Part 3, Interpretation 2, they say that whoever prays to the north receives wealth and wisdom from God, and whoever prays at noon receives the opposite, that is, curse and wrath.

Part 2, Interpretation 1 says: whoever takes his daughter or sister as his wife out of imitation of the sons of Adam does something very pleasing to God. In Part 7, Interpretation 1 they say: whoever among the Rabbis hates his enemy even to death and does not seek revenge is unworthy of the title of Rabbi, and by enemy they mean Christ and Christians. In Part 1, Chapter 8, Interpretation ¹¹⁶, they say that all Jews should curse Christians three times a day and pray to God that He would destroy them and their kings and rulers. They also say that they should absolutely not consider it a sin to take away property from Christians by force, by deception or by stealth, secretly or openly, for they consider all Christians to be unclean animals, and try with all their might to kill them. Prompted by this, the Spanish government irrevocably expelled them from its possessions.

Chapter 7

Section 1 - The Ottomans, Jerusalem, and Constantinople

In 1520, Sultan Suleiman reigned, who himself gave the Patriarch of Jerusalem a decree similar to that given by his father. And the Patriarch of Jerusalem during his reign was Dorotheus.

Secondly, when the proud city of Jerusalem and its suburbs were devastated by the continuous battles that took place there between the Latins and Arabians, Sultan Suleiman surrounded it with a wall, which is still intact. Thirdly, instead of the previous small temple, he built the large one that we now see, and at the same time, taking the holy marble of Bethlehem, made the platform of the temple from it and also made the outside wall’s marble decoration. The commander Abimelech, intending to build the temple of Maahes (Ναον του Μάαχες) and wanting to take the marble of their temple of Gethsemane, abandoned his intention at the request of Justinian the Noseless¹⁷ and did not take it, as Theophanes says, and who could prevent this?

Fourthly, he (Suleiman) broke down the courtyard wall of the Monastery of the Baptist, located inside Jerusalem, and took stones to build the city.

Fifthly, when the concubine of this king was building an imaret (a house for the maintenance of the poor and learned) in Jerusalem, he ordered the guards stationed at the doors of the great Church of the Holy Sepulchre, to lock and seal it, and when necessary, to unlock and lock it again, and with Every Christian who comes to worship is charged an entrance fee; from each Latin 14 groschens, and he charged 7 groschens from each inhabitant of the Greek regions of Hellas, Macedonia, Iconium, and other Greeks living in the west, from each of Karamanians 5 groschens, from each Arabians and Egyptians 3 groschens, and from the Chambesians and Georgians he charged nothing. This ruling still stands today.

Sixthly, due to [the Church of] Ohrid’s desire to receive [the city of] Verria for themselves as a royal gift, one hundred florins were added from the Great Church of Constantinople; for Ohrid coveted Veria unlawfully, because it was under the Bishopric of Thessalonica, belonging to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Seventhly, after the death of Jeremiah of Constantinople, when Dionysius of Nicomedia was the Patriarch in Constantinople, and when Germanus of Jerusalem arrived in Constantinople, the question was asked: to which Patriarchate does the Bishopric of Mount Sinai belong, and they affirmed that it belongs to the region of Jerusalem, as Jeremiah testifies, who was later the Patriarch of Constantinople, which will be discussed at a more sufficient place.

Eighth, the Ottomans removed the cross that was still on the Temple of the Virgin Mary, just as Omar, building a mosque in Jerusalem, removed the Cross that was on the Mount of Olives.

Section 2 - The Holy Sites in Jerusalem and their care by Greeks

Note that although the Arabs owned Palestine, the Greek Emperors had care of the holy places. Although the Latins fought with the Arabs for Palestine, after their defeat the Greek Emperors again arrived in time and administered the holy places through embassies, gifts, and aid, as Isaac [Emperor Isaac Angelus] did when Saladin took Jerusalem from the Latins; Also, other Emperors cared for the Jerusalem Church even before the captivity of Constantinople, and the Emperors of Trebizond cared for it as much as possible, and their Empresses came to worship, having a hotel-monastery of Saint Euphemia; the Serbian Zumbans, who have the monastery of the Archangel in Jerusalem, also did the same. But from the time the Ottomans took possession of Constantinople, the Greeks began to be despised in Jerusalem, and they found only consolation in the Georgians; since the sultans in Egypt were Circassians, Abkhaz, and Georgians, then the Georgians could defend holy places and monasteries; therefore they have six monasteries in Jerusalem: the monastery of Saint Thekla and the Forerunner Patriarchs, much later, a gift was received from the Georgians: the Monastery of the Theologian, which is now owned by the French, also belonged to the Georgians, as well as the monastery of Saint James, now owned by the Armenians. I will also mention in part that the Georgians did not like the Greek Patriarchs and they were very proud. Because the Greeks, as Euripides says, cannot and should not have close, friendly relations with the barbarians, but that is why the Patriarchs lived in poverty; for Palestine was under the rule of the Egyptian Sultan, and the Greeks for the most part under the rule of the Ottomans, and Christians could not go to worship. And note, firstly, that when the monasteries, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and Church of Bethlehem, in some parts, collapsed and were at threat of falling, they were not renovated. Secondly, the Patriarchs had neither sacred vessels nor vestments, but served on wooden vessels and with iron tri-candles.

Thirdly, the Patriarchs lived according to the example of the Apostle, doing things with their own hands, receiving neither alms nor income, as a result of which the entire Christian community fell into poverty, and everyone knows what the consequences of poverty are.

In 1534, the Patriarch of Jerusalem was the aforementioned Germanus II, a native of the Peloponnese, from a region called Arachova which belongs to the diocese of the Corinthian Metropolitanate, not from mine, but from that which is located in the regions of Tripolitsa.

Section 3 - The Rule of Patriarch Germanus

Since Germanus was a Greek, and Jerusalem at that time was under the rule of Constantinople, the Greeks began to come to worship at the holy places. He went to Constantinople and other places for alms, and he brought much benefit to the apostolic see on many occasions. It is worthy of note that when the Arabs took Jerusalem from the Latins, they destroyed the small canopy that was over the chapel of the Holy Sepulchre, alongside the many other disasters and devastations that they brought to the monasteries of the Holy Land. But this Patriarch Germanus renewed it, as we see now, with marble columns and lead. He lived mostly on the other side of the Jordan, because there were many Christians there, and rich ones at that, who had disappeared under the previous Sultan Mohammed. It is worthy of note that when Germanus was traveling on the other side of the Jordan, the Frankish Franciscans made an iron ark with a hole at the bottom in the likeness of a canopy, placed it over the Descent from the Cross and served. Patriarch Germanus, having learned about this, came and threw them out of there. Also, under Germanus, during an earthquake, the dome of the copper bell tower fell, which was the bell tower of the Holy Sepulcher to the nearby Church of the Resurrection. It’s fall destroyed the dome of this temple, which still remains in the same form. The bell tower of the Holy Bethlehem from the same earthquake as we see now. Only these two temples were left intact by the Arabs, but they too were destroyed by an earthquake, as Germanus writes to some friend of his in Crete. Patriarch Germanus, who was in Constantinople, found a certain lay Peloponnesian priest who was at the Church of Saint Nicholas near the wall of Constantinople, outside the city, called in Turkish-Greek Agiakapi, and, returning to Jerusalem, he took him with him, tonsured him to the monastic schema, and before his death appointed him as his successor. We found in Jerusalem the abdication of Germanus and the arrival of Sophronius IV (as his successor was called), signed by the Council that was then in force; it is written in Arabic and translated by us into Greek. Here it is:

Section 4 - The Abdication of Germanus and Elevation of Sophronius

In the summer of 7087 (1579), on the third day, the Patriarch, Lord Germanus, gathered in his cell for a council the rulers of Jerusalem and the clergy, minor and major, and said to them: “My children! God bless you! Since, due to my old age, I cannot sit on the Patriarchal throne and, due to the weakness of my strength, I cannot rule it any longer, I must entreat that you choose another instead of me and elevate him to my place.”

Everyone approved of his intention and called the Patriarch of Alexandria Sylvester to the cell where they were: Metropolitan Dorotheuss, Metropolitan Nectarius, Bishop Eugene of Sinai, and Bishop Simeon of Saint Anna from Damascus, and everyone agreed, that is, the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Metropolitans and other Bishops, to ordain a new Patriarch instead of the current Patriarch, Lord Germanus, by his own request. According to the establishment of the sacred law, they cast lots and wrote three names on three pieces of paper; then the next day the Patriarch of Alexandria and the other bishops took these three leaves, placed them on the Holy Altar, served the Liturgy that day, and everyone prayed to God. After the liturgy was completed, a youth was brought into the altar, who took out one of the three leaves and the name of Father Sophronius was written on it. And that’s was the end of the election, so the Patriarch of Alexandria and the people of Jerusalem, great and small, received him, both according to his own disposition and at the request of Patriarch Germanus. Patriarch Germanus asked Patriarch Sophronius to be given the cities of Lydda and Rembli, in order to own it until the end of his life and have power over it alone, and so that Patriarch Sophronius would not have power over it.

All Christians of Jerusalem said to Patriarch Germanus: “Our Father, do not move away from us, but live with us in Jerusalem.”

He told them: “My children! May God’s blessing be upon you! As long as I can stay in Jerusalem, I will stay if I find peace, but if I don’t find peace, I will go to Lydda and Rembli.”

All the Christians in Jerusalem answered him: “Do whatever pleases thee.”

All the Jerusalem Christians agreed to this, in the presence of the Patriarch of Alexandria, Metropolitan Nectarius, and Bishop Eugene of Sinai. And moreover, they added that the Christians of Jerusalem, great and small, do not have any complaint, denunciation, request, or matter related to the Holy Sepulcher or the sacred service against the Patriarch, nor regarding gold, nor silver, or anything else like this. Everyone accepted the election from God and the Council of Holy and Elected Fathers. May they themselves be chosen from God: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, from the three hundred and eighty fathers and the mentioned bishops (for the Jerusalem Christians received this election from them). If, of their own free will, they oppose him, accuse, or insult him, and if the Priest Nasarlas al-Kandilaat and his brother Khalil, and Iakup al-Zarurs, and Michael al-Sambans and his brother Riskala, and Isa al-Soliman the Abramite, John al-Lutaif and others, if they oppose him, accuse him, or insult him, according to the court’s determination they will have to contribute 50 Venetian florins to the temple. Patriarch Germanus renounced the throne of his own free will. Let Patriarch Sophronius rule over Patriarch Germanus and have him instead of his father, and let there be a blessing on the servants, the prayers of our Lady the Birthgiver of God and Ever-Virgin Mary and the Holy Glorious Apostle James, Brother of the Lord, and all the saints.

Date: The Third Day of Summer, 7084 years from the Creation of Adam.

Section 5 - Patriarch Sophronius IV of Jerusalem

Sophronius was a well-behaved man and very reverent of the Holy Place. He rebuilt the Church of Saint Constantine, located inside the Patriarchal residence, as can be seen from the following inscription on the temple itself:

“This Divine and Holy Temple was renovated in the name of the holy glorious great Emperors and Equal to the Apostles Constantine and Helena, through the labors and support of His Holiness the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Lord Sophronius, in the eternal memory of him and his parents, in the summer of 7116 [1607], during the reign of Sultan Ahmed.”

He made many other amendments. Having set out on a journey, he reached Constantinople and even Iași of Moldova-Wallachia under Peter the Voivode [Prince]. He wanted to go to Moscow, but he didn’t go, because Jeremiah of Constantinople was there; and then the Metropolitan of Moscow was honored with the rank of Patriarch. He [Sophronius] returned to Wallachia, where he received the monastery of Kruia, and through Byzantium returned to Jerusalem. Sophronius began to prepare the iconostasis of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and it was completed under Theophanes, as can be seen from the following inscription located at the top of the iconostasis on the back side:

“The iconostasis of the Holy and Life-Giving Sepulcher was renewed in 1602, in the month of April, by Hieromonk Macarius from the island of Crete, also the cross in 1608 in the month March. All the decorations of white, red, and heavenly colors with stars were made by the labors and dependence of the same above-mentioned sinner Macarius, under the Patriarch, His Beatitude Lord Theophanes. And when we were making the iconostasis, there was His Beatitude Lord Sophronius, who died at that time: the iconostasis was gilded by the Cretan hieromonk Maximus. At the same time, our ores made a canopy over the Holy See. Everything was renewed by the Cretans. This inscription was written by my hand — the sinful hieromonk Macarius from the island of Chios, in 1611 on the 20th day of March.”

Section 6 - Sophronius, Theophanes, and Paisius

You need to know that in Bethlehem the Orthodox were determined with the Patriarch to preserve the Great Church and the Holy Cave. On the day of Holy Saturday (I don’t know what year) the fathers went to Jerusalem, and only one lamp-lighter remained, but he also wanted to go, and in his simplicity he credulously put the keys to the Holy Cave into the hands of one brother (a monk of the Western church), and, having ordered him to light the lamps in the Holy Cave in the evening, and not to extinguish them all night, he himself went to Jerusalem to worship. (And this really happened, but not as Patriarch Nectarius says in his book). Returning in the morning, he began to ask his brother for the keys, but the Westerner began to scold him, and the brothers (of the same order) came to the judges and bribed them to take possession of the Holy Cave and had it in their power until the time of Lord Theophanes, Patriarch of Jerusalem. Also, during the time of Lord Sophronius, one French pilgrim came from Jerusalem to worship at the holy places and, having given the judges six thousand gold florins, took away Holy Golgotha ​​from the Orthodox. But Lord Sophronius gave twelve thousand and returned it, but not all of it, only a large square lying on the side of the Great Church, where the place of execution itself is located. The other square, lying on the midday side, remained in the possession of the Franks until the time of Master Theophanes. And since Lord Sophronius borrowed the indicated twelve thousand, then in his old age, having ordained Lord Theophanes III in his place in his youth, he sent him to foreign countries to collect alms; and [Sophronius] himself was a Patriarch for twenty years.

This Sophronius built four vaults in the Great Church of Bethlehem on both sides of the Holy Cave: for the Great Church was tending to fall, but having made these vaults, he supported it. However, now these vaults from the western side cannot be recognized, since we, with the help of God, renewed this Temple, destroyed these vaults and bricked up the doors; but from the eastern side they are visible and can be clearly distinguished because their side doors, separating the altars of the Great Church from the outside and from the western side of it, remained intact.

The blessed Patriarch Paisius, while Sophronius was still alive, was his adviser and assistant, and when I was a deacon with him in my youth, he told me many times that he often forgot the food left in the vessels at the foot (of the columns), and that they, standing there for a long time, did not go rotten or spoil. Since the royal guards, according to custom and by royal command, locked the doors of the Holy Sepulchre, and men and women spent the night there, and consequently there were dinners and public gatherings, Sophronius wanted to prohibit this; but Christ appeared to him in a dream and said: “Bishop! I tolerate this, but why do you want to forbid my people to stay in the Temple? Their piety is sufficient, and they must take care of the rest.”

So by the general election of the elders of Lord Sophronius and the entire Council, Lord Theophanes was installed as Pariarch of Jerusalem in 1608, and he lived in Jerusalem for several years, then with the most worthy and noble Prince Scarlat he went to Constantinople, and from there to Moscow.

Chapter 8 — The Sinful Gregorian Calendar

Rome and Pope Gregory XIII gave the greatest temptation to the whole world and all peoples with the Christian innovation in the celebration of Holy Easter. This innovation in the celebration of Holy Easter does not require explanation, since every year the deed itself clearly testifies to it; only it must be said that this so-called “correction” we mention is not true; for the Latins sometimes celebrate Easter before the Jews, and sometimes they celebrate together: and this clearly reveals the error of the Latins, who transgress the rules of the Eastern Church.

And that the Eastern Church, which preserves the ancient paternal decree, is not subject to this error, but is immaculate and pure both in this and in everything else, this is seen by everyone who knows the four definitions and rules of the Church according to which the celebration of Holy Easter must be observed. But here it would be unnecessary to talk much about this decree regarding Holy Easter, since the Council, assembled in Constantinople in the presence of Patriarchs Jeremiah of Constantinople, Meletius of Alexandria, and Sophronius of Jerusalem, rejected this as more than an innovation, but a delusion regarding Holy Easter, as not true, unnecessary, contradictory to the Holy Canons and, as was said above, how it can present many temptations for the entire Christian world.

Chapter 9

Section 1 - The Patriarchs in Constantinople during the reigns of the abovementioned Patriarchs of Jerusalem

We cannot say anything definite about the Patriarchs of Jerusalem who were before Timothy [Timothy II Marmarinos of Constantinople], and there is no chronicle in the Patriarchal house from which we could learn anything more, and in the dark, so to speak, we have found yesterday’s chronicles, we do not find a single remarkable deed of any Patriarch, except that in 7047 (1539) (there is no chronicle before this year) Jeremiah [Jeremiah II Tranos], having built himself houses, vineyards, and gardens in the town of Arinka, dedicated them to the monastery of the Mother of God, that in the same place there was a temple of Saint Paraskeva, that in 7072 (1564) Joasaph was Patriarch [of Constantinople], in 7077 (1569) Mitrophanes, in 7093 (1585) Theoleptus, and in 7109 Matthew, and before this latter, Meletius of Alexandria ruled the Patriarchate of Constantinople¹⁹. In 7111 (1603) Raphael was Patriarch, in 7110 (1602) and 7113 (1605) Neophyte, in 7114 (1606) Raphael again, in 7116 again Neophyte. Under Raphael, a decree was issued correcting the previous disorders, namely, that a bishop who did not deliver the tribute determined by the Patriarch would be deprived of the throne. Under Neophytos in 7111 (1603), a Council resolution was issued so that no bishop would be ordained in Polyphengi, but that bishoprics without their own bishop should be under the authority of Corinth. Matthew, whom we spoke about above, writes to the bishops and clergy of Cyprus: since Meletius of Alexandria wrote to their Archbishop Athanasius, instructing and denouncing him, firstly, that he tore and burned ancient antimensions in order to sell new ones made by him by ourselves; secondly, that he destroyed the throne of His Beatitude Germanus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, with an axe, and took the holy relics that were in it; thirdly, he allowed illegal marriages, but as Athanasius did not listen to the instructions of Meletius in all this, he also deposed him by a synod, just as Meletius of Alexandria had deposed him before.

Section 2 - The Troublesome Times of the Patriarchs in Constantinople

Under Theophanes of Jerusalem, Timothy was Patriarch of Constantinople. This can be seen from the synodikon, which he himself wrote for the inhabitants of Mount Sinai in 7117 (1609) when he was the patriarch, which is in the first book against Ananias. Having previously been the Metropolitan of Ancient Patras, he arrived from the pier of Cyzicus. Leo Allatius unfairly writes that Lucaris poisoned Timothy with poison. That Timothy died of poison on the Great Week of Easter is true, but who poisoned him is unknown. After the death of Timothy, the Council and clergy assembled in Constantinople summoned Cyril Lucaris, who was the Patriarch of Alexandria and lived in Hungary-Wallachia, and elevated him to the throne of Constantinople. Gregory of Amasea overthrew him from the throne and, having been Patriarch for three months, was himself overthrown with the assistance of the Bishops and exiled to Rhodes. Anthimus of Adrianople was elevated to the Patriarchal throne, and he excommunicated and anathematized Gregory in 7131. When Anthimus, two months after his enthronement, resigned and retired to the Great Lavra of Mount Athos, Lucaris was called again.

Isaac of Chalcedon¹⁸, who by cunning achieved Patriarchal dignity, was forbidden to wear Kabbadion on the famous day because the royal chamber burned down in Diplokion; therefore there was confusion; he was exiled to Hungary, and Cyril [Lucaris] again, for the third time, took the Patriarchal throne. When, after a little time, the bishops wanted to depose Cyril [Lucaris] from the throne, he, taking advantage of the vagueness of circumstances, put on the Kabbadion and, against their will, ascended to the Patriarchate for the fourth time. Then Cyril [Kontaris] of Verria, agreeing with Zechariah of Amasea, accepted the Patriarchate. And Cyril [Lucaris], who was hiding with Ambassador Fiamenkov, expelled both of them eight days later and remained Patriarch for the fifth time. But when the one of Amasea [Zechariah] died in exile, the one of Verria [Cyril Kontaris] was returned and again received Verria. Then Athanasius Patelarius of Thessalonica and Crete expelled Cyril [Lucaris] to Tenedos, took possession of the Patriarchal throne. But after forty days he was overthrown, and on Great Pentecost Cyril [Lucaris] ascended the throne for the sixth time, and Patelarius again received Thessalonica; from here, traveling to Ancon, and intending to go to Rome, he sent the Bishop of Dricopolis as an ambassador to Pope Callixtus and wrote to him that he intended to go over to the side of Rome if only he received the throne and place of Constantinople. And the pope answered him that if he himself converted to the Roman faith, he would give him the throne of cardinal. Finally, having fallen ill, Patelarius returned and went to Bogdania [Moldovia], and from there to Moscow.

A year after he occupied the Patriarchal throne for the sixth time, Lucaris was expelled by Cyril [Kontaris] of Verria to Rhodes and, having been Patriarch for sixteen months, he himself was overthrown for his greed, and Neophyte of Heraclius, a pious man, was promoted to Patriarch. But when Cyril [Lucaris] returned, Neophyte honored him as his friend, renounced the throne and went to rest in the Holy Monastery on the island of Chios, and Lucaris was enthroned for the seventh time. But the one of Verria [Cyril Kontaris] again deposed him, imprisoned him in Lemokopia, a new western fortress on the Black Sea, and strangled him there. He gave twenty purses to the then ruler of Constantinople, who denounced Cyril [Lucaris] to Sultan Murat, and slandered him for many crimes, so that the Sultan himself approved the order to strangle the elder Patriarch. This is how the famous and wisest man ended his life.

His body, thrown into the sea, was found and meagerly buried in Rigia, as Michael Paleologus had once been. Afterwards, Patriarch Parthenius I, with the help of Cyril [Lucaris]’s friends, brought his remains into the Patriarchal house, buried them and sent them to the island of Halki, where they were buried in the monastery of the Most Holy Birthgiver of God. After the death of Cyril Lucaris, the one of Verria [Cyril Kontaris] was overthrown from the throne and exiled to Carthage, where, following a denunciation by Lucaris’ friends, he was strangled in 1639. And after his expulsion in the same 1639, Parthenius I, or otherwise called the Elder, who arrived from Epirus, was Patriarch. But just as he did not like long services and vigils, he was accused of violating with his negligence the extended service of Simeon of Thessalonica, the so-called song service. This was in 1644, in which Parthenius was overthrown, and the so-called Parthenius the Younger was erected. In 1646, this one was overthrown and elevated to the rank of Patriarch Joannicius, who was again deposed by Parthenius the Younger, and again became Patriarch. But he was strangled by order of the government, as will be discussed below.

Chapter 10

Section 1 - Concerning Cyril Lucaris and the confession that bears his name

First, Cyril Lucaris, who was the Patriarch, was Orthodox, as he was before, and he died in the communion of the Church, that is, Orthodox, as we indicated in our handbook and in the letter we co-wrote to confirm the Orthodox Confession that was printed in Bucharest in the year 1690. However, that he was a secret heretic is evident from many testimonies, albeit concealed and kept hidden. Furthermore, in the year 1632, a booklet appeared in Constantinople under the name of Cyril. It had 18 Chapters and 4 Questions, and it subscribed to the Calvinistic Heresy. It also contained a printed letter in the Calvinistic style, which itself claimed to be a work of Cyril. Cyril, after surviving for 6 years from the publication of the booklet, wrote nothing against it, nor did he condemn the booklet by name. He only said so much that the chapters do not correspond to his work and that it is not his composition, as Marcello the Galatian once justified his heresy. Wherefore, his adversary Cyril from Verria, convoking a Synod in the year 1628, in the month of September, with the presence of the lords Metrophanes of Alexandria and Theophanes of Jerusalem, anathematized Cyril Lucaris and his chapters. But the evil did not cease, for the Jesuits violently pursued the Orthodox Russians in Lithuania, Ukraine, Podolia, and in the very Lechia, in order to convert them to Papism. They presented the so-called Calvinism of their Patriarch as a supposed reason, displaying the aforementioned booklet. Thus, the then Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter [Mogila], being a high priest, compiled the so-called confession of the Eastern Church, showing that the Russians professed to the highest degree of piety. Even the then ruler of Moldavia, the honorable man Basil Boebodas, of Albanian descent and with ancestors from Epirus, sent envoys to the Synod in Constantinople, presided by Patriarch Parthenius the Elder. Parthenius also sent certain bishops to Iași [Jassy] and the teacher Meletius Syrigos. He also negotiated with the Lech ruler, and Peter of Kiev and some others went again to Iași [Jassy]. There, in a Synod convened in the year 1632, the heretical chapters were again condemned, and their author anathematized. However, the Fathers of the Synod did not anathematize Cyril by name since they never heard him say or write anything against the Orthodox faith. The confession that was distorted was examined, corrected, and confirmed by this Synod.

Section 2 - Theophilus Corydalleus, Lucaris, Syrigos, and Mohammad

Secondly, whenever a great evil was about to come into the world, God immediately preordained and provided His antidote, as we mentioned in Chapter 9 of this book. Theophilus of Athens, known as Corydalleus, first learned letters in Rome and later in Padua, becoming a disciple of the most impious Cremoninus. He was later ordained a priest and came to Constantinople to meet Cyril Lucaris, and the deceiver joined the hypocrite. Though their blasphemies were concealed in secret, as Eunomius the impious did in Cyzicus, they were destined to become the worst of heretics. What did God foresee? Meletius of Syrigos, who had turned, sailed from Crete to Venice. There, finding Corydalleus as his teacher, he gave him a hundred florins to learn the art of logic. While learning this, he understood that Corydalleus was lame in matters of faith. He then heard about some Sciences in Padua and returned to Crete, strongly opposing the Papists. However, the Pharisees accused him before the Cretan governor and the governor sought to put him to death. Fleeing with God’s approval, he left for Alexandria. There, he learned that Cyril Bryennius was there, and he wrote to him and came to Constantinople, aiming to counter both Cyril Lucaris and Corydalleus. When Cyril Bryennius was exiled from Verria, Parthenius ordained him. On the day of his ordination, he entrusted Corydalleus to teach him. Willing to say something about the previous Patriarchs and Cyril Lucaris, he stated this to the others: “the chapters of Cyril contain the true faith of Christians.” It was known, therefore, that he was corrupt in matters of faith. However, to avoid causing confusion in the Church, everyone remained silent. After his dismissal, the Patriarch instructed Cyril Lucaris to express Orthodox beliefs concerning the Church and to renounce the blasphemies of Corydalleus, particularly those related to the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. Furthermore, on the Sunday of the Holy Fathers after 11 October, Cyril Lucaris raised his voice in the Great Church on the Ambo. He shouted with force, lightning, and thundering against Corydalleus. He first enumerated the philosophers as heretics, such as Origen, Porphyrius, Aetius, Eunomius, and Philoponus, and all the former heretics, and he included Corydalleus in this list. He anathematized him. Corydalleus was present in the Church and, as the people sought to disperse him, he fled to the house of the nobleman Demetrius Julius. There, sitting down and teaching philosophy, he secretly continued to sow atheism in philosophy and Calvinism in theology. However, some who were seduced by him soon fell away. After the death of Cyril Lucaris, as well as Corydalleus, their impiety also perished, leaving only the Calvinists. During that discussion about the Divine Transubstantiation, Cyril Lucaris stated what was appropriate. He asked, “Does the Church agree with this?” Exiting their seats, the Patriarch, the Archbishops, the Clergy, and the leaders shouted these words in unison, along with the entire congregation: “This is the apostolic faith, the faith handed down by the fathers, the faith of the Orthodox, the faith received and kept by the Catholic Church of Christ.” And they anathematized countless times those who do not believe and confess in this manner. Not only in Italy, with those around Cremoninus, and in Anatolia, with Corydalleus, but also among the Ottomans, there was a certain Muhammad Effendi who walked into the houses of Romans in Byzantium, teaching complete atheism. The companions of Corydalleus loved him, as if his soul were their own. But behold the divine providence: Cyril died miserably, while Corydalleus, ordained as the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Arta, was cast away. Just as Dionysius, the tyrant of the Syracusans, played in the markets of Corinth in abject poverty, so Corydalleus, found in extreme destitution, wandered from place to place, practicing medicine. He died in Athens, leaving behind more possessions to Theophilus, the son of his friend, to the extent that his intestines were visible. As for Muhammad Effendi, an Armenian man who had insulted him, he was brought to trial in Constantinople. After confirming his insult against Christ by Armenius, Muhammad Effendi, the insulter, was beheaded. For the Quran requires the death of one who blasphemes the Prophet.

Section 3 - Alatius lied about Lucaris, and Lucaris kept his heresy a secret

First, note that Alatius, who is considered to be against the Eastern Church, said regarding the Synods against Cyril Lucaris by the one of Verria [Kontaris] and by Parthenius, that Cyril was Calvinistic in the synods, and later, he was synodically reproached, and it is a wonder how a Greek Synod removed a Greek Synod. But, it must first be stated that Cyril was not [a heretic] synodically, but was secretly and mysteriously branded so. Hence, the Synods that removed Cyril did not establish another Synod, and the one of Chios [Alatius] is obviously lying, as is evident in other matters. Secondly, if perhaps he [Alatius] had deviated at times, what is remarkable is that a most complete Synod of the lesser and irregular ones expelled the wrongdoing. There have been many times when those who had formed illegal Synods were a principal part in lawful Synods for the rejection of those previously spoken of wrongly. For example, during the Chalcedonian Synod, those who had erred against Saint Flavian and the faith at the Ephesus Synod under Dioscorus; and at the Sixth and Seventh Synods, many Monothelites and Iconoclast Bishops became a part of the Synods. See also the events regarding Vigilius of Rome in Book 5. So, even here, the Latins seem to speak persuasively, but it is clear that persuasiveness does not come from the caller

Section 4 - The Simplified Translation of the New Testament is Abominable

Third, that a certain Maximus from Callipolis, a disciple of Cyril Lucaris, transcribed the entire New Testament into simple language. This work was reprehensible to the Universal Church. The Calvinists printed this translation in a substantial number of books, and brought them to Byzantium. The violent Patriarch, known as Parthenius II, was persuaded to distribute them to the Churches. However, Syrigos, upon learning of this, plotted and obtained two books of these translations, one containing the Gospels for worship, and the other containing the Epistles, Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation. He taught these in the Patriarchal Church on a Sunday, and, by gaining the Patriarch’s favor, received the books from his servant who stood behind him. He showed them to the people and demonstrated convincingly that the translator, printers, readers, and supporters were all far from Orthodoxy and were placed under anathema. With this unexpected outcome, the teacher of Syrigos was exiled to Chios for other reasons, but the work remained. The Patriarch did not dare to condemn the books; therefore, they were not distributed, and consequently, they disappeared.

Section 5 - How the Papists Stole the Wisdom of the Fathers from the Orthodox Monasteries

Fourth, a certain Cypriot Athanasius, though a Papist, disguised himself as a Greek and pretended to be Orthodox. He went to Mount Athos and to other monasteries in Thrace, Thessaly, and Macedonia. He selected many books of the Holy Fathers and external wisdom and bought them at a low price. He deceived the fathers of the Monastery called Meteora to such an extent that he bought the books of their monastery in each trilitron [a measure of weight] by giving them a certain agreed amount of silver coins, even purchasing trifles, which is commonly called a stater for their books. This is how the Franks acted when they took the books in Crete from the Ottomans during their capture, so they took many of these books from the Holy Fathers with various writings that were found there by many deceitful means. Thus, the Greek people were fought both from within and outside by the Papists, both in the East and the West.

Section 6 - Emperors may not unlawfully make rules for the Church

Fifth, Cyril Lucaris, in the year 1621, appointed Nicodemus Metaxas as the Archbishop of Cephalonia and Zakynthos, wrongly and unlawfully separating it from Corinth, a diocese that had been under the authority of the Holy Apostles since ancient times. Even if some argue that Emperors and Patriarchs have the authority to do such things, it must be stated that this is a falsehood. For Nicholas of Constantinople said to Alexius Komnenos, “The Emperor’s authority is preserved in matters that do not harm others.” Emperors should not extend their benefactions at the expense of others, and the honors of one should not be detrimental to others. Therefore, the Canons, affirming the privileges of Cyprus, state that the rights of the Churches should not be confused. What is introduced without reason, but maintained by tradition and habit, should not prevail among equals. Furthermore, the Diocese of Rizaeum, under Germanus the Confessor, became an Archdiocese. However, after 200 years, during the time of Theophylakt and Romanus, it was given to Nicephorus of Neocaesarea. It should be noted that the Monastery of Birthgiver of God, known as that of the Philosopher, located in the Peloponnese, was raised by John Lopardopoulos, a philosopher and Protasekritis, and it was consecrated as Stavropigion by Constantine Polyeuktos of Constantinople in the year 1556. During this time, Cyril also had great affection for the holy tomb, and thus, he appeared as a significant helper to the Latins in various ways during the wars of Theophanes.

Section 7 - How the Printing Press in Constantinople was Destroyed

During the time of this Cyril Lucaris, the aforementioned Nicodemus Metaxas and some others brought Greek typography to Constantinople. They printed the “Syntagma” of Palamas, and of Scholarius, Margounios’ “Dialogue on the Procession,” several letters of Meletius of Alexandria, Barlaam the Monk’s work against the purifying fire, and Gabriel of Philadelphia’s work on the five differences. However, the Latins, driven by a substantial sum of money, sought the favor of the heathens and threw the printing press into the sea.

Section 8 - How Cyril Lucaris Abandoned the Indian Orthodox

During the time of this Cyril, an Armenian merchant arrived from the Eastern Indies and told the Patriarch that there were numerous people in India who were in harmony with the Eastern Church, but they were being influenced by the Catholics. He requested the Patriarch to send a wise man to help them so that they wouldn’t be deceived by the Catholics. However, the Ecumenical Patriarch did not pay attention to this, as he was more focused on retaining his own power and authority, even though the Universal Church had not accepted him and had rejected him.

Section 9 - On the Burned Churches during Ibrahim’s Reign

In the year when Sultan Ibrahim reigned, which was the year 1640, in the month of August, a great fire occurred in Balat and Phanar, during which the property of the Holy Tomb and nine other Churches were consumed and left in ruins. In the year 1647, in the month of July, Sultan Ibrahim was assassinated. His son, Sultan Mohammed, then ascended to the throne.

Section 10 - Patriarch Parthenius II was a Simoniac and was Choked to Death

When Lord Nicephorus, the Pope of Alexandria, was canonically ordained, and he came to Byzantium to travel to Iberia due to the debt against him by the Apostolic See, the elder Parthenius, serving as the Patriarch, fabricated baseless accusations, through which he also received 2000 grosia from him. Therefore, when Lord Paisius of Jerusalem was ordained in Chios under the Patriarchate of the young Parthenius, and he came to Byzantium to travel to Jerusalem, Parthenius demanded money from him, just as the one before him had received from Alexandria. But Paisius, knowing the Simoniac heresy, did not give him a single obol. Later, when Lord Paisius returned from the Holy City of Jerusalem and traveled to Moscow for the sake of mercy, Parthenius fabricated accusations and wrote against him to the renowned Autocrat Alexius Mihailovich, but the wickedness of Parthenius had no effect. But when Lord Paisius returned from Moscow to go to Jerusalem and came to Byzantium, Parthenius accused him of supposedly conspiring against the Empire to the then Vizier Djouba Kapitsimpashi of Sultan Ibrahim. The Vizier, after summoning Lord Paisius and questioning him in person, recognized him as a just man and released him peacefully. Nonetheless, he received a gift of four thousand florins from him. However, when Lord Paisius returned again from the Holy City and went to Wallachia, Patriarch Parthenius again pursued him and accused him of conspiracy at the royal gate, before the Governor Basil of Moldavia and Matanai of Wallachia. And what happened next? The Governors acted at the gate with the help of friends and money, and they choked Parthenius and put an end to the evils introduced into the Holy Church of Christ, as well as the tyrannical and violent practices.

Section 11 - The Rebuilding of the Church in the Courtyard of the Sepulchre

There was once a house which is now the courtyard of the Holy Sepulcher in Constantinople belonging to the Kantakuzenos family; there was a small Church in it and with it only one priest who performed Divine services. Patriarch Theophanes bought this house and turned it into the courtyard of the Holy Sepulchre; but at the same time, when Phanaria burned, the courtyard also burned down. Therefore, the main fur merchants went to the then vizier and asked him for permission to again build the Church in the courtyard in its previous form. But when the vizier, without giving them any answer, ordered Subaziy and Khasazbasiya to be summoned to him, the merchants thought that the vizier wanted to put them in prison, for these two officials supervised all dungeons, torture, punishments and capital punishments. When they arrived, the vizier ordered them to go to Casasker Rumelia, take him and force him to make a description of the Church for renewal. And thus the fur traders, having spent a considerable sum of money, made a description of the circle, and consequently of the Church, in the form in which it all appears to us now.

Section 12 - The Relics of Saint Paraskeva

Parthenius the Younger, having taken money from the ruler of Moldavia, Basil, to pay the debt for the patriarchal house, at night lowered the relics of Saint Paraskeva, which were in the patriarchal house, through the Phanarian city wall and sent them to Iași, where they are now in the Monastery of the Three Hierarchs. These relics were in the Serbian Belgrade, but the Ottomans, having taken Belgrade, sent the relics to Byzantium. And Parthenius sent the relics to Iași secretly, because he was afraid of those around him. This Saint Paraskeva is not the ancient one who was from Italy, but another from the village of horsemen located in Silivri.

Section 13

Athanasius Patelarius, who lived in Iași, accidentally came to Constantinople and was on the patriarchal throne for 14 days; then, when on the Feast of the Holy Apostle gave a talk in Church about the rights of papal power, Athanasius of Cyprus, whom we spoke about above, rebelled against him and published a book about his teaching, which will be discussed below.

Chapter 11 - The Tumultuous Patriarchate of Constantinople

Section 1 - Parthenius I to Parthenius IV

We said that in 1639 Parthenius the Elder [Parthenius I] was Patriarch, and in 1644 Parthenius the Younger [Parthenius II] of Adrianople deposed him. In 1646, Joannicius of Heraclea overthrew Parthenius [II] and exiled him to Cyprus, but Parthenius, having run away from the path, came to Iași and, with the help of Basil the governor, occupied the Patriarchal throne for the second time, where he was killed in May of 1650. In the same year and month, for the second time, Joannicius reigned as Patriarch for a year and 30 days. After him, Cyril [Cyril III Spanos], who was formerly in Corinth and was overthrown before he was installed, was Patriarch for 18 days. After him, for the second time, Athanasius Patelarius was Patriarch, as we said above, for 14 days. Then, on 1 July 1651, Paisius of Larisa ascended the Patriarchal throne, but was overthrown and, retiring to Dozva, his fatherland [his homeland was Lesvos], lived in retirement for 37 years and died. After him, Joannicius was Patriarch for the third time, but in 1656 he was overthrown, and his place was taken by Parthenius of Chios [Parthenius III], nicknamed the virgin, a kind and pious man. With him, the ambassador of the Tatar khan, sent to the Cossack hetman, saw there a certain metropolitan, formerly of Nicaea, in close relations with the hetman and, returning, said a lot to the khan. The Khan complained to the vizier about the Patriarch in a letter, and the vizier, calling the Patriarch, asked him: did he send someone to the hetman? And although he found the Patriarch innocent, despite this, following the denunciation of the khan in 1657, he hanged him on Lazarus Saturday. He hung for three days and then was thrown into the sea, after which he was found and buried in Nissia, mourned by the whole city [he was buried on Halki/Heybeliada in the Kamariotissa Monastery].

The vizier looked for Paisius of Jerusalem, known to him, in order to install him as Patriarch [of Constantinople], but he disappeared; and a certain unlearned Metropolitan of Ganos and Chora, named Gabriel, came to the vizier and, having received the right to the Patriarchate, was promoted by some poor bishops. But two months later, while celebrating the marriage of a noble official, he did not say his prayers well, and for this the bishops deposed him, and in his place they elevated Parthenius of Prousa [Parthenius IV], the fourth Patriarch of Constantinople of this name, nicknamed the Dumb²⁰, because he pronounced many words through his nose. Gabriel, living in retirement in his homeland, baptized a Jew during the Sultan’s stay in Prousa; but the Jews slandered him, as if he had baptized not a Jew, but a Turk; therefore the vizier, who lived with the sultan in Prousa, hanged him. At the same time, when Archbishop Gabriel of Serbia went to Moscow, a certain Maximus burst into his throne as a robber. Returning, Gabriel began to demand his throne, but Maximus slandered him as an attacker against the government, and his vizier also hanged him innocently in Prousa. These three men were repeatedly forced by the infidels to renounce the faith, but by the goodness of God this did not happen in the Church, therefore three martyred bishops appeared in it — true imitators of Christ.

[If it has been difficult to keep track of the timeline of Patriarchs of Constantinople through this narrative, I will summarize it below:

• Parthenius I (July 1639 — September 1644)
• Parthenius II (September 1644 — November 1646)
• Joannicius II (November 1646 — October 1648)
• Parthenius II (October 1648 — May 1651)
• Joannicius II (June 1651 — June 1652)
• Cyril III Spanos (18 Days in June 1652)
• Athanasius III Patelarius (15 Days in June 1652)
• Paisius I (August 1652 — April 1653)
• Joannicius II (April 1653 — July 1656)
• (The 14 day March 1654 Patriarchate by Cyril III Spanos is not recorded by Blessed Dositheus. It seems as though he did not recognize the legality of it or perhaps did not have the historical record of it.)
• Parthenius III the Virgin (July 1656 — March 1657)
• Gabriel II (23 April 1657–30 April 1657) (Blessed Dositheus says his Patriarchate was 2 months, which appears to simply be an inaccuracy.)
• Parthenius IV ]

Section 2 - Nicholas against the Papist Athanasius

During the patriarchate of Parthenius III, nicknamed the Virgin, there lived in Constantinople a certain Nicholas, originally from the Ioannina, nicknamed the Potter, and a physician and philosopher. He, at the request of Patriarch Parthenius and the council, wrote against Athanasius of Cyprus, whom we mentioned above, and the second after George Coresius composed a book about the power of the pope in the form of objections and reasoning, he also wrote about other subjects — about the art of medicine, about the performance of the holy Confirmation, about theological principles, about friendship and love, and against those who slander some places of Holy Scriptures, considering them counterfeit. He died in Iași in 1670.

Section 3

In 1658, a book, the so-called Shield (Ταργα), was brought to Constantinople and generally to the Eastern Church from France. Patriarch Parthenius IV, having received permission from the government, wrote about it to the residents of Constantinople and Galatia, also to Smyrna and to every city and country where there were Orthodox Christians. And they, having bought the Targa, burned a great many copies in the squares to dishonor the papists. Three years later, Parthenius was deprived of the patriarchate and, by common consent, Dionysius of Larisa, originally from the island of Andros, was elected, after Timothy, who to this day has no equal among the Patriarchs of Constantinople in intelligence and virtuous life. He was Patriarch in 1660, but retired to the Lavra of Athos and died there in August 1696; to him we dedicated Reconciliation.

Section 4 - Parthenius IV to Gabriel III

Nectarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, having come to Constantinople in 1661, prompted the God-loving husbandmen Monolacus Castorian to establish schools, one in Constantinople, another in Chios and a third in Arta. This Monolacus donated 20,000 florins and a precious Cross for the construction of the great Bethlehem Church. At the same time, an ambassador arrived from Moscow so that the four Patriarchs would give permission to ordain the Patriarch of Moscow by their Council, without referring to the Patriarch of Constantinople, as they had done before. Meanwhile, the most holy Dionysius was deposed by the aforementioned Parthenius the Dumb in 1665 and he, as will be said, united with Patriarch John of Alexandria and committed other wicked and lawless deeds. However, a certain Metropolitan of Iconium [Clement], a stern man, deposed and imprisoned him in Tenedos. But before Clement was installed, he was deposed by the council, and Methodius of Heraclea was promoted to Patriarch at great expense, who loved pomp in Adrianople and returned from the palace to the metropolis, carrying a red silk umbrella over his head, that is, velvet with white-gilded crosses, which after him came into use among later Patriarchs. But he was also deposed and retired to Venice, and after the death of the Philadelphian²¹, he represented the throne there. Although the Pope wrote with great anger to the Venetian Senate against Methodius and that it was incompatible for two Patriarchs to be in the same diocese, arguing that it was unfair and illegal for the Patriarch to be the Bishop of Venice, they did not listen to him, and Methodius remained chairman until his death.

During the patriarchate of this Methodius, at the expense of the great translator of the sovereign Ottoman kingdom, Panagiotes, a book entitled “The Orthodox Confession” was published in Holland. Having been a vizier in Crete, Panagiotes took the books of the Orthodox Confession and sent them to the Patriarch, and the Patriarch publicly distributed them to the Orthodox people. Methodius was elevated to the patriarchate in 1667, and the Dumb [Parthenius IV] deposed him in 1671, at a time when the vizier, after the capture of Handak, came to Adrianople, and we, building the famous Bethlehem Temple, had almost spent 20,000 florins. Parthenius, being denounced by the bishops and leaders for his willful accession to the throne, united with John of Alexandria, who profited in an impermissible manner. They found a certain Arab lawyer from Verria of Syria and wrote a denunciation to the Sultan, in which they slandered that the bishops and leaders of Constantinople (of course, those who opposed their iniquities) were plotting against the government; but God was pleased to justify both them and the chief state translator Panagiotes, beloved by the vizier. The paper was given to the Sultan when he was on the mountain, the so-called Lord, lying between Phillipopolis and Nevrokopolis (Nicopolis of Macedon), and he sent it to the vizier. The vizier, knowing their deceitfulness, imprisoned the author of the paper, where he died, and deposed the Dumb and installed Dionysius Muselim [Dionysius IV Muselimes] of Larisa as Patriarch.

Dionysius was deposed by Gerasimus of Tarnovo, and this was again deposed by the Dumb in 1675 in Adrianople. The Dumb was deposed by Dionysius Muselim, who took the patriarchal throne for the second time, this was overthrown by the Bishop of Raidestos [Athanasius IV], but due to his inability he himself was not installed, but was exiled to prison, and James of Chios from Larissa was conciliarly ordained to the patriarchal throne, who was summoned by the Council, but in 1686 in Adrianople he was lawlessly overthrown by Dionysius [IV], whom we spoke about above. James, during the indignation of the army against Sultan Mohammed, withdrew to Philippolis, but the vizier in a certain village, called in Turkish όζγντζε οβα, without a Council or election, assigned the Kabbadion to him. Four months later he was condemned and, by general election and our consent, Callinicus Akarnan of Prousa was elevated to the patriarchate, who eight months later was deposed by Neophytus of Adrianople [Neophytus IV], who was installed as usual in Adrianople. Three months later he was deposed and again Callinicus occupied the patriarchal throne, who was first installed as patriarch on March 11, 1689 in Adrianople. But in 1693, when the vizier went against the Germans and passed through Hungary-Wallachia, where Dionysius Muselim lived, the ruler of Wallachia, Constantine Bazarambas, a pious man, being seduced by Dionysius, interceded for him with the vizier, and Dionysius was brought the Kabbadion, he received the patriarchate and went to Adrianople, and from there he arrived in Constantinople. When the vizier returned to Adrianople from the German war, while Dionysius was misruling the Church, some informed Callinicus, who arrived in Adrianople. Having learned about this, Dionysius himself went there. Finally, after many temptations and various disputes before the Sultan’s court, the patriarchate was given to Callinicus in April 1694. Dionysius fled to Byzantium, from there to Wallachia and died in the city of Târgoviște. Callinicus also died in August of 1702 and by general election Gabriel of Chalcedon [Gabriel III] was elevated to the throne of Constantinople, who in the same month put on the Kabbadion in Adrianople, where, according to the decision of the Council that was therefore held, his installation took place.

[The timeline of Patriarchs of Constantinople thus far:

• Parthenius IV the Dumb (October 1665 — September 1667)
• Clement (9 September 1667–21 October 1667)
• Methodius III (January 1668 — March 1671)
• Parthenius IV (March 1671 — September 1671)
• Dionysius IV Muselimes (November 1671 — July 1673)
• Gerasimus II (1673–1674)
• Parthenius IV (January 1675 — July 1676)
• Dionysius IV (July 1676 — July 1679)
• Athansius IV (30 July 1679–10 August 1679)
• James (August 1679 — July 1682)
• Dionysius IV (July 1682 — March 1684)
• Parthenius IV (March 1684 — March 1685) (Blessed Dositheus recounts James’ reign as being from 1679 to 1686 with no indicated interruptions)
• James (March 1685 — March 1686)
• Dionysius IV (March 1686 — October 1687)
• James (October 1687 — March 1688)
• Callinicus II (March 1688 — November 1688)
• Neophytus IV (November 1688 — March 1689)
• Callinicus II (March 1689 — July 1693)
• Dionysius IV (August 1693 — April 1694)
• Callinicus II (April 1694 — August 1702)
• Gabriel III ]

Section 5 - On George Coresius of Chios

George Coresius of Chios studied science and external wisdom in Italy, and he himself taught many in Venice and Florence, where he was persecuted by the papists. Then he was a teacher of philosophy and theology in Chios; His disciples were: Hieromonk Gregory, Protosyncellus of the Great Church of Constantinople, who wrote a book on the sacraments; Hieromonks Clement and Lawrence, Priest Nicholas, and many others. He wrote a lot about external education and theology, as his writings testify. He died old and a virgin. He was an irreconcilable enemy of those who thought in accordance with the Latins and wrote a lot against them. Once the Jesuits, unable to resist his writings, after his death invented some kind of letter supposedly composed by Coresius himself, which testifies that Coresius stopped writing against the Latins, having become convinced of the truth of the papal “church.” But this is a clear slander against him: for until his death he did not say anything like that to any of his relatives, nor to his disciples, nor to any other Orthodox, but almost until the last minute of his life he denounced papism. So, the papists slander the saints and are not ashamed even to lie about the dead. And Coresius not only opposed the papists, but was an implacable enemy of the Luthero-Calvinists, he heartily loved the truth and heartily hated lies.

Section 6 - The Meetings of Patriarchs in Foreign Lands

How the Patriarchs of Constantinople received other Patriarchs who visited Constantinople, we have said enough about this in the Book 5, Chapter 4, but we will say something else here. How Pope Agapetus was received when he came to Constantinople is said in the same chapter and book. And the Goldenmouth also received Epiphanius of Cyprus with honor, for Sozomenos in Book 8, Chapter 14 says that the Goldenmouth prepared a place for Epiphanius in the Church and honored him with a meeting of the entire clergy. But a place was prepared for the Patriarchs next to the royal one; first, they entered the patriarchal chamber with an ordinary meeting and from there, together with the Patriarch of Constantinople, retreated to the places prepared by him. Hermias in the Book 8, Chapter 17 says that Theophilus, who arrived from Chalcedon to Constantinople, was not met by any of the clergy, because he was an obvious enemy of the bishop (the Goldenmouth), but first the Egyptians who were in Constantinople sent him to meet him and he, having passed the Church, passed to the royal palace, where he was assigned to stay. The Patriarchs of Constantinople received the Eastern Patriarchs when they entered the Patriarchal Chamber according to the following ancient custom. When the Patriarch entered the patriarchal house, the clergy, dressed in sacred vestments greeted him with the Holy Gospel, with candles, censers and singing at the gates of the vestibule. The Patriarch entered the Church and, having bowed to the holy icons, after blessing and commemorating him, left the temple. And the Patriarch of Constantinople, dressed in a mantle, with a staff in his right hand, with the entire council of the city or even foreign bishops, stood near the gates, outside the temple, and received him there. Having declared and kissed each other about the Lord, taking each other’s hands, they went to the cells of Constantinople and, having talked there about what was necessary, the visiting Patriarch, accompanied by a sufficient number of bishops and clergy, went to his appointed home. This custom continued in Constantinople until the Patriarchate of Cyril the Elder [Lucaris] and Parthenius the Elder [Parthenius I]. But Parthenius the Younger [Parthenius II], mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, nicknamed Goliath, a very proud man, left him; then the incessant upheavals and changes of Patriarchs that followed completely destroyed such a good institution. Note that now, due to the rule of the Ottomans, there is no such meeting for Patriarchs visiting Constantinople; but with only one of their retinue they go to the house prepared for them, from there they go to the patriarchal chamber, where they are met as described above. However, when I traveled from Jerusalem to Damascus, the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius the Elder sent me some bishops and clergy to meet me at a distance of five hours, and he himself with the clergy and people went out for a whole hour; he himself was on horseback, and the people were on foot, and thus they all entered the patriarchal house together.

Section 7 - The Enemies of the Luthero-Calvinists

Since the time of the Calvinist heresy, i.e. since 1580, there have been writers in the Eastern Church, of whom we know the following:

1. First, Jeremiah [II] of Constantinople²², who wrote a response to the letter of the Wittenberg Lutheran theologians.
2. Second, Theodosius Zygomalas, who composed a book called Turco-Graecia.
3. Third, Gabriel Severus of Philadelphia — wrote an essay on the sacraments, on five controversial subjects and some other books.
4. Fourth, Meletius Pegas, Pope of Alexandria — wrote in the form of a conversation an interpretation of the Symbol [Creed] and the Lord’s Prayer, a book against purgatory, and in general many works against Calvinists, papists, and some philosophical ones.
5. Fifth, Maximus of the Peloponnese, a student of Meletius, composed a hand-written book about five controversial subjects (which we published), sermons for all Sundays of the year, translated into the common language, the word of Basil the Great about virginity, and he collected from ancient scriptures a lot of evidence to prove the incarnation of the Lord our Saviour.
6. Sixth, Maximus Margounius, he left behind many works, which we do not list here without knowing them in detail.
7. Seventh, George Coresius of Chios — we talked about him above.
8. Eighth, Patriarch Theophanes of Jerusalem — wrote various letters to Russia and an essay directed against the Latins about the origin of the Holy Ghost.
9. Ninth, Cyril Lucaris, mentioned above.
10. Tenth, Patriarch Gerasimus of Alexandria — his message is known against the Calvinists, who translated the Scriptures of the Holy New Testament into the vernacular, as we said above.
11. Eleventh, Philip of Constantinople — his short essay on the clergy of the apostolic see itself was published.
12. Twelvth, Nicholas of the Peloponnese, the great Ecclesiarch, whose writings were burned during the fire of the Phanar.
13. Thirteenth, Theophilus Corydalleus of Athens, whom we spoke about above, who wrote about various works of Aristotle.
14. Fourteenth, Gregory of Chios, the Protosyncellus, who wrote a book on the sacraments, also Clement and Lawrence the Hieromonks, and Nicholas the Priest — students of George Coresius.
15. Fifteenth, Meletius Syrigos, the Protosyncellus, we talked about him above, and his life was described at the beginning of his book against the Calvinists.
16. Sixteenth, Metropolitan Nathanael of Nicaea, Patriarch Athanasius Patelarius of Constantinople, and Patriarch Nicephorus of Alexandria are friends and compatriots of Patriarch Nectarius of Jerusalem.
17. Seventeenth, Hieromonk Meletius, nicknamed Maris, who preached edifyingly in Crete and Handaka [Heraklion]. He was a disciple of Hieromonk Joannicius, and was glorified by the famous Venetian Senate for his wisdom and strict life.
18. Eighteenth, Pope Joannicius of Alexandria, a man worthy of surprise, not only a scientist, but also a profound politician, respected by most of the infidels.
19. Nintheenth, Metropolitan Gerasim Blachus of Philadelphia. Some other Philadelphia metropolitans wrote various works; but since they did not reach us, we do not talk about them.
20. Twentieth, Peter Mogila, Metropolitan of Kiev, who wrote the Orthodox Confession, which was considered by Meletius Syrigos.
21. Twenty-First, Nicholas Kerameus is a doctor and philosopher — we talked about him above.
22. Twenty-Second, Germanus — this one, although a student of Corydalleus, is Orthodox, and was the former Metropolitan of Nyssa.
23. Twenty-Third, Metropolitan Dionysius of Nauplia, an excellent philosopher and also a student of Corydalleus.
24. Twenty-Fourth, John Cariofilus — the great logothete.
25. Twenty-Fifth, Hieromonk Vissarion of Ioannina wrote a lengthy Orthodox Confession, which we published along with the first Orthodox Confession.
26. Twenty-Sixth, Panagiotes the translator of the Eastern and Western powers.
27. Twenty-Seventh, Sebastius of Kimina of Trebizond.
28. Twenty-Eighth, Paisius Ligarides of Chios, devoted to Latin. He wrote an interpretation of the Divine Liturgy, but in favor of the innovations of the Roman church. He also left behind him in manuscript, in 83 notebooks, the History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, which we have made considerable use of in our present work. In it he described the Patriarchs who were before Heraclius, but did not say anything worthy of attention about the Patriarchs after Heraclius. The third part of this work contains the history of the ascetic Patriarchs; two parts were written against the Eastern Church, and especially against Photius and in defense of papal power. Having learned about this History, Patriarch Methodius of Constantinople and Nectarius of Jerusalem, finding grave blasphemy in it, anathematized it, and Ligarides, as a heretic, was excommunicated. Targa and Arcudius in Varlaam’s refutation of purgatory mention Ligarides. He died and was buried in Kiev. We said something about him in the preface to the book about love. He was also called Pantaleon Ligarides in Targa.
29. Twenty-Ninth, Palas the great skeuophylax (vessel guard), a native of the Peloponnesus, a student of Corydalleus, a rhetorician and writer of the patriarchal charters kept in the Patriarchal Chamber of Constantinople.
30. Thirtieth, Archbishop Hilarion Kigalas of Cyprus. While still a hieromonk and living in Jerusalem, he helped Patriarch Nectarius when he wrote against papal power, translating for him many testimonies of Western fathers. Kigalas died in Constantinople while writing about the true celebration of Easter.
31. Thirty-First, Metropolitan Gabriel of Nafpaktos and Arta, a theologian and unshakable in Orthodoxy, wrote sermons for all Sundays of the whole year.
32. Thirty-Second, Metropolitan Matthew of Myra — wrote many poems and also ruled against the Latins.
33. Thirty-Third, Parthenius the Virgin, Patriarch of Constantinople and martyr; we talked about it above.
34. Thirty-Fourth, Metropolitan Meletius of Athens, who wrote church history.

Patriarch Chrysanthus of Jerusalem on the conversion of Ligarides from Latinism to Orthodoxy

This Paisius Ligarides, formerly truly devoted to Latinism, came to the reigning Moscow and became a zealous champion of the Eastern Church. Therefore, he wrote a lot in Latin against the Luthero-Calvinists, was an opponent of Nikon, and having come to Kiev, he taught a lot there concerning the purity of Orthodoxy, with benefit, both publicly and privately; for he wrote at length in Latin about the origin of the Holy Ghost from the Father alone and against papal authority. We saw these works of his in Kiev thanks to the God-loving Metropolitan of this city, Barlaam of Giachin. He died in repentance and confession, and Orthodox Russians in Kiev remember him with love and respect. And our glorious lord [Dositheus], having known only the previous life of this man, and not his subsequent repentance and correction, both here and in the preface to the book about Love shows how even zealots of Orthodoxy can write against his writings.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. “Saracen” is an ancient term meaning “Muslim.”
2. The “addition” mentioned is the addition of the filioque clause to the Creed. This clause identified the Holy Ghost as having His eternal generation from the Father and from the Son. The latins added this, and the rest of the Patriarchates and Churches rejected it as heretical.
3. King Louis II of France
4. Deuteronomy 18:15–22
5. Charles Martel, Prince of the Franks
6. Letter 107 of Saint Basil
7. The Antimension Lip is the liturgical sponge which is used to wipe crumbs of the Body and Blood of Christ to the center of the Antimension. It symbolizes the sponge which gave Christ vinegar while He suffered on the Cross.
8. The heresy of Docetism taught that God did not really die on the Cross, but rather it was an illusion or phantasm of Christ, which could not possibly die.
9. The All-Armament of Euthymius Zigabenus is also known as the “Panopoly of Doctrine” or the “Full Armor of Belief.”
10. “Gothia” or “The Land of the Goths” refers to Crimea, where the last of the Goths remained in the entire world. They possessed a far greater extent of land in the past, but had been almost completely replaced by Slavs even in this time. Saint Ignatius of Mariupol was the last Bishop of the Goths.
11. The Sacrament of Chrismation is called in the Western confessions “Confirmation,” and Blessed Dositheus frequently made use of Western theological terminology.
12. Patriarch Athanasius V Margunius of Constantinople
13. Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor
14. Florins were a currency of gold coins used primarily by Venice and their merchants
15. At this time, I am unable to track down each reference Blessed Dositheus mentions from the Talmud. Some of the references have been
16. The Birkat haMinim (Hebrew: ברכת המינים “Blessing on the heretics”) is a curse on those who the Jews consider heretics, which includes Christians. The text is as such:
    .
    “For the apostates let there be no hope, and uproot the kingdom of arrogance, speedily and in our days. May the Nazarenes [Christians] and the sectarians perish as in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the book of life, and not be written together with the righteous. You are praised, O Lord, who subdues the arrogant”
    .
17. Emperor Justinian II was called “the Noseless” because he was deposed from the throne and the mutilation was a method of preventing him from seeking the throne again. This plan did not succeed.
18. Metropolitan Isaac of Chalcedon sought to usurp the Patriarchal throne during Saint Cyril Lucaris’ second reign as Patriarch, which was 1623–1633. He is seen as illegitimate and is therefore not in the official lists of the Patriarchs of Constantinople. Isaac’s scheme occurred in 1629 or 1630.
19. Meletius I Pegas was Patriarch of Alexandria from 1590 to 1601, and simultaneously was the locum tenens of Constantinople from 1597 to 1598.
20. The Greek text uses Mogilalon (Μογιλάλον) and the Russian uses Gugnivym (Гугнивым), both of which refer to those who had difficulty speaking, had a speach impediment, spoke nasally, or spoke with grumbling. Thus, I chose to translate the word as “Dumb” which is medically identified as poor speaking or no speaking.
21. The Greek Bishops in Venice were given the title of “Metropolitan of Philadelphia.”
22. The Three Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah II