Book 7 - Dodecabiblius (Twelve-Books) of Blessed Dositheus of Jerusalem

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

Book 7 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 - The Seventh Ecumenical Council and Papal Power

Section 1 - The Seven Days and Seven Councils

On the seventh day, God rested from all His works that He had done. Also on the seventh day, the walls of Jericho fell as the priests walked around it with the sound of trumpets. Likewise, the Seventh Council was revealed by God as reassurance from the research and decrees regarding the Orthodox faith, for the Holy Fathers with these seven Holy Councils destroyed all malice and rebellion of Satan and his accomplices against the Church, and set forth completely and without the slightest omission all the necessary knowledge of piety, which although it was revealed by the Lord in total completeness, but because of the heretics who were blind to this, the Fathers explained everything that was necessary to understand why after this Seventh Ecumenical Council no council was awarded the honor of being assembled as an Ecumenical Council and according to the laws of these holy councils; for any newly arising doubts are resolved on the basis of the seven decrees. And only these alone are called Ecumenical because at them, by order of the Emperors, bishops from the entire Roman Empire were convened and were present either personally or sent locums, and because at each of them a study was made regarding the faith and a decision was made, a decree was announced about any dogma of faith, while others did not set out something dogmatic, but were compiled either to confirm what had already been determined by these Ecumenical Councils, or to overthrow those who opposed, or to establish rules and resolve issues related to Church deanery .

Section 2 - The Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council

The fathers and primates of the Church of Jerusalem, and Their Holinesses the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch wrote a response to Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, and this letter was brought by John and Thomas, hieromonks and locum tenens of the three Patriarchal thrones, since more of the mentioned persons could not come to this godly council due to obstacles from outside regional leaders and they ask for an apology for this. From the Apostolic See in Rome, the priests Peter and Peter appeared as locum tenens, and when Tarasius and the bishops subordinate to him, who were appointed to come to the council, were with them, then it was ordained that the Emperors should hold a council in the Church of the Holy Apostles in the twelfth year from the birth of the Emperor and the reign of his and his Mother in the sixth. But some iconoclast bishops and some other eminent laymen, who firmly adhered to iconoclasm, won over a great many soldiers to their side and created a strong disturbance, wanting to prevent the meeting of the council. But the Emperors opposed this and decided to have a council, which, when they gathered again in the same Church, and when some council resolutions were read, that said that the Ecumenical Council was not allowed to be without the consent of the other Patriarchs, and when the Emperors sat and listened to what was read, the soldiers again made rebellion at the instigation of the same iconoclasts and shouted: “Enough of the former” - that is, the council that was held during the reign of Copronymus [Emperor Constantine V], moreover, threatening to kill Tarasius and other Orthodox bishops and monks. When the Patriarch and the bishops hid in the holy altar, these madmen came out, saying: “We have won,” and went to their places. But the Empress, pretending that she considers this an invasion of Hagarenes, expels the soldiers from the city, and, upon restoration of calm, the council is immediately transferred to Nicaea. There were Patriarchs on it: Hadrian, the Pope of Rome, Constantinople, as it is said, Tarasius, Cosmas of Alexandria, of whom the last died during the meeting of the council, and Politianus was elevated to his place, with which and from the latest agreements Ignatius as stated in the presentation of someone Anonymous about Seven Ecumenical Councils. There were 350 fathers, as Psellus also confirms, although in the Menologion of Emperor Basil it is written that there were 367 of them at this council; however, what is certain is that there were 350 of them, and the rest, that is, seventeen, were iconoclasts who, together with the iconoclasts of the rest of the world, rebelled against the holy council, but later, when they agreed with the council, they were accepted, so that all the bishops numbered were 357. But the monks also had great power at this council, for there were 136 archimandrites.

There are eight acts of this council:

1. In the first of which the letter of the Emperors to the council and bishops was read. The iconoclasts asked the council for forgiveness, on which occasion they spoke about which of the ordained should be accepted and which should not.
2. In the second, the attitude of the Roman Hadrian towards the Emperors and his letter to Tarasius was read.
3. In the third, bishops who were once iconoclasts brought a petition, which is why they were accepted. Then the letter of Tarasius to the Eastern Patriarchs and their answer to Tarasius was read, and the petition of Patriarch Theodore of Jerusalem to the Patriarch Cosmas of Alexandria and to Patriarch Theodore of Antioch.
4. The fourth sets out the evidence of Scripture and the Fathers about the veneration of holy icons.
5. The fifth also sets forth evidence that the iconoclasts are equal to the heresiarchs and the wicked.
6. The sixth examines the definition of the false council that was held under Copronymus¹ concerning Gregory of Neocaesarea and is refuted by the holy council.
7. In the seventh, the definition of the holy council is read, and the iconoclasts are anathematized, mainly Anastasius, Constantine and Nicetas, installed as false-patriarchs of the Constantinopolitan iconoclasts, and on the contrary, praise is given to John of Damascus, Saint Hermogenes, and George of Cyprus, and a greeting is drawn up to the Emperors.
8. In the eighth, the fathers are invited to Constantinople, and in the presence of the presiding Emperors and the council sitting together with them, they are asked whether they pronounced the definition with a constrained spirit and approve it, the council writes a greeting to the Emperors and a circular letter to all the Churches, the Emperor boasts, and the heretics are anathematized, and the Fathers proclaim twenty-two canons, Tarasius writes one letter to Hadrian of Rome about the acts of the council, and another against the Simonians, and this ends the council, in the eighth year of the autocratic rule of the Emperors.

Section 3 - Proof that the Iconoclast Synod was not Ecumenical

During the reign of Copronymus, the Constantinopolitan people assembled a council in Blachernae, as was previously stated, and they called it Ecumenical; but the holy fathers Germanus, and the one of Damascus², and many others opposed this, saying that an Ecumenical Council does not happen without the consent of all the other Patriarchs. This very thing is shown in the present council. Firstly, in the abbreviated summary of the acts of this council it is said: and when certain council decrees were read, which clearly prohibit the council from ever being without the consent of the other Most Holy Patriarchs. And in the sixth act: when Gregory of Neocaesarea³, reading, reached the place where the council that was under the Equestrian [Constantine V] was called Ecumenical, then Epiphanius the deacon, reading from the side of the holy council, said: “how can that council be called Great and Ecumenical when it was not accepted by the other Churches and to which the other primates did not express consent, but instead they anathematized him?” Neither the then Pope of Rome, nor the priests belonging to his region participated in this council, either through their locums, or through the district message, as required by the laws of the councils. Further, neither the Eastern Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, nor the Holy City, nor those minor bishops who were with them expressed their consent to this (council). Truly, their word is smoke, a darkness that darkens the eyes of the foolish, and not a lamp placed on the candlestick in order let it shine for all who are in the temple. Therefore, what they said was said in deep secrecy, and not on the top of the mountain of Orthodoxy, and their broadcast did not go out to the whole earth, like the broadcast of the Apostles, whose sentences went out to the ends of the universe, like the sentences of the Six Ecumenical Councils. See above Book 6, Chapter 7, Saint Maximus, speaking the same to Pyrrhus. The same is said in the royal letter, in which Tarasius urgently demanded an ecumenical council, as long as there were locums from the Pope and from the eastern bishops. See the proof of this above in the Book 6, Chapter 27, Section 4; and Chapter 19, Section 13; and below in Chapter 8, section 8, and Chapter 11, Section 6.

Section 4 - The Papal Delegates Always Spoke First

In the first act, it is necessary to note, firstly, that at the Third Ecumenical Council Peter the Priest began to speak first; and at Chalcedon - the locum tenens of the Pope; at the present - the bishops of Sicily; at the council that was under Martin - the council itself; and at the former [council] under Menas - Euthymius the Deacon. Further, note that the position of the first at the general conferences at the council does not give anyone dignity, which is to say, special power.

Section 5 - The Emperor united the Church more than the Pope

In the Imperial Epistle to the Council, we can see the special influence of the Emperors on the Universal Church; for this is what they say: “we primarily want to take care of the improvement of the Holy Churches of God and intend to always promote the unity of the priests in the east, north, west, and south, and by the good will of God they are present here through their locums, who have lists of conciliar charters sent from His Holiness the Patriarch; for from ancient times this was the Law of the Councils of the Catholic [Ecumenical] Church, which everywhere accepted the Gospel.”

And below: “God has gathered you from the whole universe in order to confirm His will, while the Holy Gospel is presented here before you and mentally cries out: ‘judge righteously, become firm defenders of piety, and strive diligently to eradicate every new teaching and innovation, and like Peter, the first leader of the Apostolic Assembly, having struck down the wicked insolence, took away with the sword the instrument of sin in those that had turned to Jewish customs; and you lift up the axe of the spirit, and cut off the tall tree which creates the fruit of bickering, differences of opinion, and innovations; either make use of your voice of teaching, or make legal prohibition.’”

And in the end: “we have received letters sent from Hadrian, the Most Holy Pope of the clergy of Rome, through his locum tenens Peter and Peter, who are present here with you and we command, by virtue of a conciliar decree, to read them in the hearing of all. Listening to them with due attention, as well as the writings contained in two notebooks, sent from the Bishops and Priests of the eastern region, through the priests John and Thomas, who are also here with you; you will find out for yourself what the belief of the Catholic Church is.”

Here it should be noted, firstly, that the Emperor unites the Church through the council, and not the Pope. Secondly, that the locum tenens of the Roman and Eastern Patriarchs appeared as a result of invitations to the council made by Tarasius, but it never happened that the locum tenens of the Patriarchs appeared as a result of Papal Letters. Further: although Tarasius wrote, he did not assemble the council on his own, but he acted only as an instrument to its cause, for he was commanded by the Emperor. Therefore he wrote, and the council was assembled mainly by the Emperor, therefore it is not true that the Pope supposedly summons councils, for it was not he who convened the eastern Bishops, but, on the contrary, Tarasius alone; he invited the Pope in the same way as was said. In addition to this, it should also be noted: first, that all the Bishops present at the council are judges in equal measure and degree. The second thing is that the Fathers of the Council cut off and destroy every new teaching and every innovation that has crept in. This is exactly the same as what Constantine Pogonatus said to Leontius of Rome in a letter to him, found in the 18th act of the 6th Council. This is what it says: “we strive to eradicate every heretical tradition and teaching.” Therefore, Ecumenical Councils have incomparably greater power than the Patriarchs and the Pope, and it is in vain to insist that the Pope is superior to the councils. Third, it is the same thing that Pogonatus wrote to Pope Leontius, so that he should more actively try to bring Church affairs into … the body, cutting off everything contrary, like Peter’s ear, and now the Kings are writing to the council, which is why this appeal did not apply to the Pope of Rome alone. Also note that it is commanded to read the Papal and Patriarchal Charters, both one and the other, and with equal honor, and what is especially important and worthy of note is that it is commanded to learn from them what the thought of the Catholic Church is. Finally, it is an obvious absurdity that the papists claim that the Pope is actually the teacher of the Church.

Section 6 - The Pope is only a portion of the Church

Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, an iconoclast, wishing to unite again with the Orthodox Church, says to the council: “Church law, canonically transmitted from above and from the very beginning from the Holy Apostles and their successors, our Holy Fathers, also from the Holy and Ecumenical Six Councils and pious local assemblies, accepts the applications of heretics [who repent]; why I also Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, having decided to unite again with the Catholic Church, with His Holiness Pope Hadrian of the Priesthood of Rome and His Beatitude Patriarch Tarasius, also with the Most Holy and Apostolic Thrones, those of Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, and further with all the Orthodox Bishops and Priests; I make the following confession written by me and I offer it to you who have received power from the Apostolic Authority.” Having said this, he anathematized the icon-destroyers.

Here it is necessary to notice, firstly, the source from which the decree and teaching of the faith, and that the Pope is not at all specially mentioned. Secondly, note concerning the Catholic Church that the Roman Church is only a part of the Catholic Church. See above in Book 5, Chapter 29, that there is the Catholic Church, and also Book 6, Chapter 7, Section 11. Thirdly, that the Pope is considered on an equal basis not only with the Patriarchs and Bishops, but also with the Priests in the Catholic Church, and this is because he is a member of it, like everyone else, and not the head, which is what the papal admirers preach. Fourthly, it is said: “and I offer it to you who have received power from the Apostolic Authority.” And above in Book 6, Chapter 7 we talk about the council that took place under Martin, we said that by the name of the Apostolic Authority we mean spiritual power, as opposed to worldly and human power, and there it is attributed to Martin and the council. Here, obviously in in the truest sense, one council, and, however, not only the Pope of Rome as the Bishop of Rome has the Apostolic authority, but he has it together with his council, and not as one Bishop, but also with the other Bishops, just like him, who is primarily before everyone. Without any comparison, this is the united action of the Catholic Church. Fifthly, that all Bishops are equal successors of all Apostles, and it is a lie to say that supposedly the Pope alone is the successor of Peter.

Section 7 - The Church Rules by Equality and Harmony, Not Autocracy

In the same act, a letter from Saint Athanasius to Rufinus was read, in which, when the conversation came up about those converting from the Arian heresy, and Rufinus asked the Saint about them, whether the Church should accept them. Moreover, he did not ask what the Pope thinks, or if the Pope laid down a definition regarding them, but asked what was determined by the councils. The Saint, answering this, writes that there was a council of the bishops who were here in Alexandria and other bishops who did not belong to these countries; there was also a council among our fellow ministers living in Hellas, but no less among those living in Spain and Gaul, and it [the council] established everywhere what was pleasing to Him. This was written about in Rome, and the Roman Church accepted it, “I declare the same thing to your piety, in the firm confidence that what was approved by the council will be accepted by your piety”. Here it should be noted that councils have the power to make decisions in the Church, and there was not the slightest mention of the Pope in these important matters, not even in the most important ones, but the determination was made at the Council of Alexandria, as stated above in Book 2, Chapter 12, and all the councils approved this, and the Roman Church accepted it in the same way as Rufinus accepted it, and it was written to her in the same way as it was written to Rufinus for approval, i.e. for confirmation and consent, as stated below in the same act. Saint Sava says that the great Justinian sent the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council to Jerusalem and, when all the Palestinian Bishops confirmed them with their hands and lips, only Alexander, Bishop of Avila, did not accept them. Of all these words: it was approved by the councils, the Roman Church accepted, the priest Rufinus accepted, the Bishops confirmed, the Bishop of Avila did not accept — shows equality and harmony, and not autocracy (μοναρχία) and special power.

Section 8 - The Standard of Faith is Universal Consent, not Papal Consent

In the second act, it should be noted, firstly, that Gregory of Neocaesarea, having joined Orthodoxy from iconoclasm, said: “When this entire assembly thinks and says the same thing, then from this I learned and was convinced that what was now examined and preached is the truth. Note here that he did not ask what the Pope of Rome thinks, and what the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome teach, but on the basis of faith he establishes the agreement of the council, since the council that was in the presence of the Pope of Rome, and this council alone is a preeminent and infallible teacher, and the Pope of Rome is student and subject to error.

Section 9 - How Papal Claims Are Not Found in the Councils or Emperors

The letter of Pope Hadrian⁴ towards the Emperors was read.

1. The first thing to note is that it was read by order of the Emperor, not in any special way, but in the same way as the Charters of the Eastern Bishops were ordered to be read.
2. Second, in all respects, it is shown in the most definite way that this council was assembled entirely by the Emperors alone, whom the Pope himself extols and magnifies with countless praises, as the culprits for the rise of Orthodoxy and as the restorers of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, it also shows that the Pope contributed as much to the meeting of the council as any Bishop, since he appeared by invitation, like other Patriarchal thrones, and nothing more.
3. Third, the Pope writes that Constantine and Helen established and brought the Orthodox faith to a flourishing state. These words show that since the mentioned Emperors, who became Christians, cared so much about piety, they were without a doubt great Christians. But they established Orthodoxy through the First Ecumenical Council, which is mentioned above in its place.
4. Fourth, he says that Constantine and Helen greatly exalted your Holy Mother, the Catholic, and Roman, and spiritual Church. Here it should be noted, first, that if he says this by the gift of prophecy, then, however, even before this prophecy came to pass that this was an obvious lie. The second thing is that if they exalted her more, then she has this exaltation not from Christ or Peter, but from the Emperors. Third: every Holy Church is the Mother of Christians and the Emperors themselves because of the same teaching and the same sacraments that it has with the Catholic Church, and it was said above repeatedly that not only Patriarchal Churches, but also Metropolitan Churches, and often even Bishops themselves, are called ecumenical (catholic) for the same reason. Moreover, the entire Holy Church is spiritual, in contrast to worldly meetings and gatherings, and that for these reasons Hadrian himself does not want to call the Roman Church simply universal, but recognizes it as private and part of the Catholic Church, this is obvious; for, having said this, he says: “and the Roman one,” to show which Church he is talking about. And he said the word “exalted” but rather, it is through the adoption of the Orthodox faith that the number of Christians in it was increased, as well as by the fact that the Roman Church itself was reverently revered, since in it they discovered their thought and intention regarding piety. However, it is obvious that they exalted not only the Roman Church, but the entire Church. This is also consistent with what the priest Alypius writes to Saint Cyril, saying: Athanasius restored Orthodoxy and elevated the Holy See of the Evangelist Mark, that is, he brought it into greater respect, which is characteristic of every Bishop: to affirm Orthodoxy and exalt the Church surrounding it, and indeed to every Emperor; for the great Theodosius exalted Constantinople, and the great Justinian exalted Ohrid and Carthage, about whom Pope Agatho also spoke in his regard: Justinian raised the civil status of Christians, and Justinian II raised Cyprus. Therefore, Hadrian, having said this, exposes those who reigned after them, i.e. Constantine and Helen, saying: “when the Emperors and Autocrats who preceded you were Orthodox, then your most pious and God-given name will be marked by the same as the name of the new Constantine and the new Helen, will be exalted with praise and glorified everywhere, since through you the Holy and Catholic Church is being renewed,” which means the same thing that the Catholic Church is exalted by Emperors, i.e. brought to a flourishing state, established and strengthened, as Hadrian clearly expressed here. Fourth: that Hadrian, let’s say again, did not mean autocracy, but, not knowing how the matter would end (since, as it seems from his letter to Tarasius, he suspected Tarasius of whether he wanted to turn to iconoclasm), he sacredly revered the Roman Church, which at that time believed correctly about the veneration of holy icons, in order through this he might attract the Emperors themselves to the same reverent veneration. This is clearly visible, for he did not say that the Emperors should follow exclusively Peter or the Pope, as the exclusive vicar of Peter, but tradition faith professed by the Church of Saints Peter and Paul, the Supreme Apostles, and to accept their vicar into their arms, since the Emperors who preceded them sacredly revered their vicar and loved them with all their hearts. [Paraphrasing Hadrian] May your God-given authority and power honor the Roman Holy Church of the Supreme Apostles, who were given the power from God the Word Himself to decide and bind sins in Heaven and on Earth.” Here it should be noted, first, that in the sense in which the Pope was the vicar of Paul, in the same sense he was the vicar of Peter; but he was the vicar of Paul as an Apostle, and not as a sovereign, therefore, in the same sense, he was also the vicar of Peter. Secondly, in the sense in which Paul was the supreme Apostle and the highest of the Apostles, in the same sense was Peter; but Paul was not supreme as an autocrat, therefore, Peter was not supreme as an autocrat. Third, in the sense in which the Roman Church was the Church of Peter and Paul, in the same sense every Church in which they taught was their Church, but these Churches do not have monarchical power, therefore, the Roman Church does not have it either. Fourth, in the sense in which Peter was given the power to decide and bind sins in Heaven and on earth, in the same sense this power was given to Paul; but it was also given to Paul following the example of the other Apostles, therefore, if Peter also has such power, he has it following the example of the other Apostles, since it is said to everyone equally: “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”
5. Fifth, just as it was given to the Pope from Christ through the Apostles to loose and bind sins in Heaven and on earth, so it is given to all other Bishops. For Pope Gregory, in his second letter to Maurus, says: We, Gregory the Pope and Germanus the Patriarch of Constantinople, forgive the Fall, as having received from the Lord the power and strength to resolve earthly and heavenly things, see above, Book 6, Chapter 19, Section 5.
6. Sixth, that, to the honor of Sylvester and the great Constantine, Hadrian writes here that in words and deeds they were like Peter and Paul, and just like Paul once, they were called gods, and with equal power and strength they [the East] betrayed the reverent veneration of the holy icons, serves as proof that the Pope of Rome, along with others and in the same way, is their successor, but Paul was not the autocrat, therefore the Pope is not the autocrat.
7. Seventh, below, for greater confirmation of faith regarding the Holy Icons, Hadrian says: “And all the Orthodox and Christian Emperors with all the Priests and the Christian people accepted in accordance with the ancient tradition of the Holy Fathers;” which has the same meaning as if it were said: “the Church does not recognize the Pope as the exclusive or only teacher, but the Apostles and Holy Fathers,” as Basil of Ancyra said above. The Church brings the Holy Fathers as witnesses to confirm the truth of the dogmas set forth in its regard, Augustine, the Nyssene⁵, Basil, the Goldenmouth⁶, Cyril, Athanasius, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Stephen of Bostra, and Jerome.
8. Eighth, that Hadrian, speaking about the rights of his own Church, sometimes discovered, both for the above reason and also out of human curiosity, excessive respect for the Roman Church, this is obvious, for he writes below that Popes Gregory and Gregory, Zacharias, Stephen, Paul, and another Stephen wrote against Leo the Isaurian, and against his son Constantine, concerning icons, but they kept silent about Saint Germanus who was the first of all opponents of the Isaurian, and they kept silent about John of Damascus and about other leaders of the Church who opposed the Poop-Named⁷, and the iconoclasts in general. But although Hadrian, seeking the glory of his Church, kept silent about the Saints mentioned above, the Ecumenical Council in Act 7 clearly extolled them with praise. And that Germanus, the Damascene, and George [of Cyprus] were more excellent accusers of the iconoclasts than the Popes, this is witnessed by the very council of the iconoclasts, which clearly pronounced a curse on three of them, but did not say a single word about the Popes.
9. Ninth, Hadrian writes to the Emperors: “with heartfelt love I revere your meekness, and as if in your presence I bow my knees, and creeping in the footsteps of your feet I beg.” This serves as clear proof that Hadrian did not at all think that the Pope was higher than the Kings, since he begs them like rulers, and crawls on his knees in the tracks of their feet; but for the present Popes to speak in this way to the autocrats existing by division, they cannot even hear about it. But Hadrian, recognizing the Roman Church as not monarchical, but subservient, as Agatho wrote to Pogonatus, and Martin to Constantius, who alone went to France to the then-King to help, and Pope Zachary alone also went to the King of the Lombards to make peace with him, since then, as has been said, Rome was not yet infected with the proud and arrogant assumption of exclusive power.
10. Tenth, the papists, in response to the above words of Hadrian, make a remark on the side that the words of Hadrian are not those said above, but these: “and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other Orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches.” So they are lying.⁸

But it must be said firstly that the whole Church, for the reason stated above, is called Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and spiritual. Secondly, the expression “Roman Church” shows that it is a private Church, although the false sages, with their inventions of divisions, have severed the connection with others. Thirdly, just as the Emperors honored the Roman Church, so they honored the other Patriarchal thrones, and in particular many of the Holy Fathers, but they did not recognize the Roman Church as the head in authority, but after the Second Ecumenical Council, they called it the head only by order of precedence, and if in any other relation, then no other than piety, and its supervision then over many Churches, but in this relation the Holy Fathers called many other Bishops and Metropolitans heads. Fourthly, Constantine the Great respected the Pope, for not only to the Pope, but with other bishops together, he ordered a council to be held and to judge Caecilian of Carthage, and he did not entrust the investigation of the case of Arius to the Pope, but made a council, and held councils in Tyre and other places, and acted through them, but not a single word was said about the autocracy of the Pope. His son Constantius completely destroyed the definitions of Pope Julius and the Roman Church about Athanasius and Paul, and convened councils at them and told Pope Liberius: “how great a part of the universe you are.” Then he condemned him to exile and forced him to approve the Arian heresy, just as Athanasius approved Orthodoxy. Valentinian, by his own order, convened councils without the knowledge of the Pope and made Ambrose of Milan into a bishop through a council of the diocese, but there was not a word about the Pope. The same Valentinian the Great, in the presence of the Pope, decreed by law that every Christian should take two wives. Jovian⁹ asked about faith not to the Pope, but to Athanasius the Great, and he believed him more than anyone else, and Athanasius, having given him a written outline of the faith, confirmed it by general consent, and not by the authority of the Pope. Theodosius the Great had equal respect for Pope Damasus and Peter of Alexandria, but he honored Ascholius of Thessaloniki more, and he listened and revered Meletius of Antioch more than all of them, and assembled a council of only bishops under his control, and he respected Ambrose more than the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople, and through Flavian of Antioch strongly denounced the Roman Church. Arcadius supplied legates of the Roman Church for nothing, and all the displeasures and embassies of Pope Innocent regarding the Goldenmouth were charged for nothing. Theodosius the Small instructed the consideration of the case of Nestorius not by the Pope, but by the Ecumenical Council, and having convened a council on Eutyches, he gave the right of deposition not to the Pope, but of Dioscorus of Alexandria, and to Pope Leo, who wanted the council to be appointed in Italy, he showed complete inattention despite to his begging, crying, tears, and the intercession of the Emperors of the West presented by him. Marcian, to resolve doubts regarding the two natures in Christ, convened the Council of Chalcedon, and on it gave the right to act to Pope Leo; but when this one became proud, and rebelled against the elders of the Church of Constantinople, wrote against them both to Marcian himself and to the Empress, they rejected him with contempt as a false wise man. Leo the Great, when the Alexandrians sent him a message about Timothy the Cat, asked about the truth and what should be done, not the Pope alone, but together with Constantinople and all the noble Metropolitans and their councils. Justinian the Thracian made a council in Constantinople, and without prior consultation and without the knowledge of the Pope, he established four councils, and included Leo of Rome in the diptychs (commemorations), as well as Euthymius and Macedonius who were the Patriarchs of Constantinople, whom the Roman Church had cursed, and transferred their remains to Constantinople, and the Patriarch of Constantinople was proclaimed by him Ecumenical and Father of Fathers. Justinian the Great brought Pope Agapetus from Peloponnese to Constantinople not on a four-horse chariot, but on a horse, and only after many petitions and prayers agreed to allow him to consider the case of Anthimus Eretius¹⁰, and, moreover, not as an autocrat, but together with the council of the district. He [Justinian] expelled Pope Silverius, and brought Pope Vigilius from Rome to Constantinople bound, and after many insults he [Justinian] finally cast him [Vigilius] out. Justin, the successor of Justinian, considering himself more worthy than the Pope to bear the title of teacher of the Catholic Church, sent the definition of the Second Council [of Constantinople] to all the Churches, exhorting and imploring that everyone believe according to it. Tiberius¹¹ did not call on the Pope to judge Gregory of Antioch, but assembled a universal council, at which he confirmed the right of the title of Ecumenical to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and during his reign, Pope Gregory asked to be given an Exarch in Narea in Italy, and called him his master. Maurice¹² decreed a Law regarding soldiers, according to which they were forbidden to enter into monasticism, and when the Pope opposed this, he respected his voice the least, although he spoke right. Everyone knows how Heraclius, famous for his innovations in faith¹³, treated the Roman Church¹⁴. Constantius expelled Pope Martin, but when he intended to enter Rome, Pope Vitalian met him outside the city. Pogonatus revered the Roman Church on an equal basis with the Church of Constantinople. And his son Justinian¹⁵, without the Pope, summoned the Council of Trullo. When all this is so, then on what basis does Pope Hadrian say here that the Emperors all showed the Roman Church some special respect and veneration? But what madness! How could the truth be hidden from us? One Emperor Phocas paid special respect to the Roman Church. Following the example of the council that took place under Tiberius Caesar, at which the position was adopted and approved that God could not ordain anyone without His will, he called the Roman Church the First of the Churches. But the papal admirers do not take not of the initiative of Emperor Phocas, who was the first and only one to establish by law that the Roman Church was the Mother of all Churches. Instead, they depend on Pope Hadrian allegedly claiming that all the faithful Emperors revered the Roman Church as the Mother of all Churches, which is a lie conjured up by innovators, and a complete perversion of the letter of the Holy Pope, but the truth cannot hide from those who honor nothing higher than truth. Fifthly, almost at the end of this relationship, the Papal admirers present Anastasius the Librarian as saying the following: “Since Tarasius was ordained from the laity and publicly denounced by the Apostolic See, he intended to give the heretics an opportunity for contradiction, and one could fear that the council would not help, because many obstacles, then the Greeks, for the sake of goodness, decided to keep silent about everything that the Pope’s letter of denunciation speaks of ordination from the laity, and about the title of Ecumenical (which, against the rules, was assigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople), and decided not only not to read this at the council, but and not to be included at all in the number of acts,” and thus this letter in some places suffered false interpretations, additions and subtractions, and in general very important distortions. Similarly, in the letter of the same Pope to Tarasius, they dared to do something, omitting much that was useful, about which the same Anastasius testifies concerning the papists. But it must be said that Anastasius and his interpretation will be discussed below. The second thing is that here too… the Romans slander the holy council, just as they dared to say about the Sixth Council that its Acts were damaged. Third, that Anastasius was a deceitful person and omitted much that was necessary, without mentioning it in his stories, as was said above in Book 6, Chapter 10, Section 12. Fourth, the Latins, seeking a primacy unknown to the ancient Christians in Rome, and seeing that the false interpretations and distortions that they often made in the writings of the Holy Fathers will not help them in this, as an aid to themselves, bring as witnesses such people who were the first to invent autocracy , which should not be: for about the ancients it is necessary to bring ancient witnesses, and in general and important matters it is necessary to bring in testimony the Fathers who are known for their special importance, and the general voice, and not those who love to introduce divisions, and not false wise men. Fifth, they lie, supposedly in Hadrian’s letter it was not read that Tarasius was ordained from the laity; for since Tarasius’s letter sent to Rome was of such a nature that it declared Tarasius the successor to the Patriarchal throne and invited the viceroy of the Pope to an Ecumenical Council, then Hadrian, responding to it, praises him, shares joy with him, and calls him worthy of respect, prudently in among other things, on the basis of Canon Law, he adds the following: “If they [Emperors] do not erect sacred and venerable icons in the countries where the Christians are located, then we will not dare to accept your ordination, especially if you will follow those who disobey the truth.” Concerning Hadrian. Here it should be noted that it was read about the ordination of Tarasius from the laity, and that Hadrian rightly said: “if Church correction does not follow, then Tarasius will not be accepted,” both as one ordained from the laity, and, moreover, by heretics, and as writing a lie to the Pope, and that the main thing is if he joins the iconoclasts; therefore Anastasius is lying. Sixth, even if Adrian wrote to the Emperors about the ordination of Tarasius from the laity, he did not do anything reprehensible or worthy of reproach, even though he did not express his consent, although he wrote to Tarasius himself about this. Seventh, to refute that the Pope is more than other Patriarchs, it also serves (if we assume that what Anastasius said is the truth) that, as soon as what was written for the council, the fathers found it indecent, they ordered to keep silent about it, since this led to differences of opinion, it was unfounded, it provided an opportunity for temptation, and on top of this, according to Anastasius, so that the Pope would not be reproached at the Ecumenical Council, presenting him as saying something that was not proper for him. And that this Anastasius was of bad morality is very clear, for he was refuted by the council of 75 Bishops, which took place under [Pope] Leo IV in 853, and was even cursed for an inappropriate relationship with the wife of Leo’s closest relative. But Leo, having depicted the cathedral in the picture, also depicted the overthrow of Anastasius, so that the shame of his unclean life would be known to everyone and everywhere. But when Leo died, Anastasius, using the assistance of the secular authorities, entered the temple of Saint Peter and stole from there the image of the council, and then the very definition made against him. But when Benedict became Pope, Anastasius was immediately deprived of the priesthood, and the image of the cathedral was resumed. But in 858, Benedict died and Nicholas I became Pope in his place; Anastasius was accepted into his fellowship. And in 867, Adrian II, who was at that time, made him custodian of manuscripts in Rome, but again convicted of countless reprehensible acts, Anastasius was excommunicated, but again received by Hadrian, and together with the ambassadors of Louis was sent to Constantinople; There he was present at the last meetings of the council against Photius, which took place in 871. Then he was sent by Hadrian to Naples to carry out the trial of Athanasius the Bishop, when he condemned the clergy and people to excommunication. And in 872, Pope John VIII took him under his patronage, and on his orders he reinterpreted the acts of the Seventh Council. Throughout his life he was cunning, cunning, fickle, and skilled in writing. From Constantinople he took many Greek books, which he translated and distorted, and in many places he acted as a defender of the Roman Church, or better to say an prideful zealot of it, not that he had in mind the primacy so glorified today, he did not think about it either, but he tried to assign some most brilliant honor to the Roman Church. This is why, when describing the life of some Patriarchs, he added some and omitted others. However, no matter how daring and cunning he was, he could not say anything about her primacy, which was later invented. Eighth, the eastern ones were prudent and wise, and more skillful in government than the Pope and his Church, since they always had in mind only the main and essential things, and did not concern themselves with outsiders. Ninth, the eastern locums of Hadrian did not ask about anything other than icons; and what he wrote besides this, they did not pay any attention to; Likewise, what Pope Agatho wrote about the two wills and actions in Christ was accepted with courtesy, and it was praised very much, but that the councils obeyed the Roman Church, and the opinion about the non-sinlessness of the Roman Church was not honored with a single word. The Latins do the same when they accept the words of John of Thessaloniki in Act 5 of this council about holy icons with love; but they reject what they assert that Angels and souls have subtle bodies and do not consider doing so to be a sin. Tenth: if the letter had not all been read, as the Latins assume, then the papal locums would not have dared to say anything, for the sole reason that what they assumed to be silent contained obvious absurdity, for this is a false speculation that the title of Ecumenical was attributed to the Patriarch of Constantinople incorrectly. For it is true that it is not attributed according to the rules; however, it is attributed in the same way as to the Pope, as we will see below. But just as the Catholic Church and the Latins admit the name Ecumenical in relation to the Pope of Rome, which is incorrectly attributed to him, so also concerning the Patriarch of Constantinople does the Catholic Church admit the title of Ecumenical. The Latins must allow this, if they do not want to show obvious madness and deviate from the tradition and unanimity of the Catholic Church and, most importantly, turn out to be opponents of the Romans themselves of the ancient Christian Church, for these, hearing the title of Ecumenical, gave it to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and proclaimed about him in general both privately and at Ecumenical Councils that they accepted it without any displeasure, and even with love.

Section 10 - The Letter of Pope Hadrian proves Rome accepted Trullo

In the letter of Pope Hadrian to Tarasius of Constantinople, it should be noted firstly: He says: “In the above-mentioned letter of Your Holiness, after a complete exposition of the faith and confession of the Creed and all the saints of the Six Councils, speaking of sacred images and of the reverent veneration of them, you present a miracle worthy of veneration and any acceptance, leading me to the fact that I accept everything from this Holy Sixth Council with all the laws and canons divinely uttered from it, including the rule about the veneration of icons” and so on. In these words, note the first thing that Hadrian accepts the canons of the Council of Trullo. Secondly, the testimony about the council, which praises and extols to the skies the 82nd canon about holy icons. Third, the Trullo Council is simply called the Holy Sixth. Fourthly, all his canons are said to be uttered in a legal and divine manner. This is what Hadrian says. But the impudent papists say otherwise, supposedly Hadrian did not say speak the way we see in the letter, but rather said this: “and these Holy Six Councils I accept with all the canons lawfully and divinely uttered from them.” This is what the papists believe. That they are telling lies is evident, firstly, from the connection of the whole letter, which in no way allows for such a forgery; for having said before: after the complete exposition of the faith, and the confession of the Holy Creed, and all six councils, i.e. after Tarasius said everything that needed to be said about the faith, and the Creed, and the Six Councils, about the faith that he believes rightly, about the Creed that is well interpreted, about the Six Councils, that he accepts them, after a complete presentation of all these subjects, Hadrian speaks directly about the Sixth Council and its canons of which he says they are lawfully and divinely uttered, among which is the canon about sacred images, and this is a miracle; for previously the former Fathers were content with the Church tradition about the holy icons, but the Sixth Council in its canons decreed the veneration of them. So the papists maliciously reject the sanctity of the Council, and clearly oppose themselves to Pope Hadrian. Secondly, since Tarasius’ letter to the Pope has not been found, then the proof of exactly how it was written is the letter written by Tarasius himself to the Patriarchs of the East: for in this letter, having said what should have been said about each of the Six Ecumenical Councils separately, and having completely finished the letter, he added: “as for this Sixth Holy Council, I accept it with all the legal and divine dogmas uttered by it, as well as all the canons established by it, including the rule on veneration of icons,” etc. Thus, from this it is clear that the indicated connection in Hadrian’s letter is true, and not false. On the contrary, the words cited by the papists are an obvious invention. But even in Act 4 of this Council, the Council of Trullo is called by all the Fathers simply Holy and the Sixth Ecumenical, and when it was said in particular about the Council of Trullo, it was proven and accepted that it is the true Sixth, as we said above in Book 6, Chapter 26. Thirdly, the words: “in a legal and divine manner” do not mean that some rules are divine and legal, and others are not in accordance with the laws and are false, but that they are all spoken in a legal and divine manner. This image of expression is characteristic of the Fathers; so Meletius, Eusebius and the great Basil, writing to the Bishops of Italy and Gaul, at the end of the letter they say: “truly worthy of the highest glorification is the gift given from the Lord to your piety, the gift to clearly distinguish between the counterfeit and the true, and without any fear to preach the faith of the Fathers, which we accepted and recognized those in accordance with the Apostolic outlines, agreeing at the same time to everything correctly and legally stated in the conciliar charter.” And note that when they say this, the Fathers do not mean to say that in the conciliar charter some things were in accordance with the canons and legal, and others were inconsistent and illegal, for they have already said that they accept the right faith contained in the conciliar charter, and thus agree to everything contained in this document, since all this was correct, and the teaching was presented in a correct and legal manner; therefore, here too, when Hadrian and Tarasius say: “with all the legal and divinely uttered canons,” they want to say through this that all the canons uttered by the Sixth Council of Trullo are in accordance with the laws and are divine. Fourthly, John of Damascus, as stated in Book 6, Chapter 11, Section 33, says: “consider the definitions of the Sixth council, in the 83rd Chapter, and you will find proof there.” And note that he accepts all the definitions and calls them the definitions of the Sixth Council. Fifthly, Blessed Pope Gregory II, writing to Saint Germanus, as appears in the letter found in Act 4, and explaining the aforementioned canon, says: “therefore, the council of saints acted in a godly manner, giving this chapter to the Church as the foundation of the greatest salvation, so that in the sight of all to place in an elevated place in picturesque considerations a worthy of reverent veneration and a holy mark according to human nature, having taken away the sin of the world.” Note here that he calls the fathers of the Council of Trullo a council of saints, and therefore everything decreed by them is legal and divine. Sixthly, great wickedness on the part of the papists, not only what they reject, although the connection of the letter necessarily requires it. They reject these words: “I accept everything from this holy Sixth Council with all the laws and canons divinely uttered from it,” and instead they make the above-mentioned forgery and add these words: “and these Holy Six Councils I accept with all the canons lawfully and divinely uttered from them.” Understand these words in such a way that some canons of the Holy Six Councils are in accordance with the laws and are divine, while others are not. This means blaspheming all the Holy Ecumenical Councils; for this means to assume that they can sin in the dogmas and teachings of the faith; Moreover, not only the heresiarchs: Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches, but also the newest heretics claim that only the Holy Scripture is infallible, but the holy fathers and councils, even Ecumenical Councils, cannot be infallible in everything, and on this basis they accept some while others are rejected, as was said above in Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 208, and below it will be said in Book (?), Chapter 5. Thus the Catholic Church, whose organs are the fathers, according to the teaching of the Italians, sins and misleads, and is itself led into error. Let their perfidious lips be numb, and let their completely darkened nous be torn away from the communion of the Catholic Church: for in order to establish the autocracy of the Pope, they overthrow every truth of the Church as much as they can, and confuse everything with each other. Secondly, Hadrian says: “but Your Holiness, take the trouble to convince the most pious and victorious Emperors to curse this false council, which was without the Apostolic See.” In these words, the first thing to note is that both here and below this, Hadrian introduces Tarasius as a mediator with the Emperors: so how do you derive that the Pope is higher than Emperors? Where is the harmful teaching that whoever does not believe the Pope is not a Christian? How can it be seen that the Emperors wrote and asked the Pope, when the Pope asks, begs, tries to persuade, and does not command? Third, Hadrian acts ambitiously in praising his throne. For he did not say: a false council, assembled without the Apostolic thrones, as Germanus says to Leo the Isaurian, as John of Damascus wrote to Constantine the Poop-Named, as at the beginning of this council it was read in the council documents, as it appears in the royal letter, as it was read in Act 6, in the first section, and how Saint Maximus spoke in a conversation with Pyrrhus about the Monothelites, but [Hadrian] mentioned only his throne, which he should not have done. Fourthly, Hadrian says: the throne of Peter shines throughout the universe with the glory of primacy and is the head of all the Churches of God, and would that Your Holiness would listen to our Apostolic See, which is the head of all the Churches of God. That’s what Hadrian says. Here two circumstances must be considered: First, that Hadrian wrote this in simplicity of heart. But how did the Roman Church think about the law regarding holy icons, and how did they think of the primacy of the Church given that Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were in agreement with each other (as Tarasius said above at the beginning, and as it appears in the Royal Epistle, and below will be said by the fathers, after reading their letters)? Then Adrian found it sufficient to say that the council, the former without the Apostolic Throne, was a false council, and for Tarasius to join the Roman See, with which the Apostolic Sees of the East were in agreement, just as the Roman See was in agreement with them. Here, to join does not mean autocracy, but agreement: see the 5th, and especially the 17th the chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, which mentions the accession of certain persons, and the accession of Dionysius the Areopagite to Paul not as a King, but as one who agreed to accept his faith, which Paul preached. So that’s why Hadrian wrote this way, and wrote it well. But if opponents say that these words: “to join the Roman throne,” are said about the Roman throne as having some greater or more perfect power or authority than what other Apostolic thrones have, then Hadrian certainly did not say well: for it was said above in many places, and in this Holy Council in every act it is said repeatedly that one should follow the fathers in general, but nothing is mentioned about the Pope in particular in this regard. Secondly, it is true that Rome is the throne of Peter, but it is not the only one. Third, regarding what Hadrian said: that the Roman throne shines with the glory of primacy, it is true that it is primacy and is the head, but only by order; and the opinion that he was supposedly the superior or surpassed other thrones in some special power is a criminal innovation, and therefore must be rejected. And if Hadrian understood this not only about order, but also about some piety and holiness of the Roman See, then it should be said that other Bishops of the Church and Bishopric were called in this way, see above in Book 1 what was said about Athanasius, in Book 2 what was said about Basil; Book 3, Chapter 3; Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 1; Book 5, Chapter 11, and in many other places and below Book 10, Part 2, Chapter 7. Fifth, the shameless papists, seeing that even here the dignity of the Pope they sought was being overthrown, they came up with the idea of saying that Theodore the Studite in one of his letters called the Pope the head of the heads. But the first thing must be said: where was such an expression hidden from Christ for so many years? And how did one Studite come up with the idea that a great many fathers, and so many councils did not know it, and one Studite was inspired to say in his third letter to Arsenius about this Ecumenical Council that it is a private (local) council ? Second: in which letter is this expression found? And why is this letter not opened and accepted by the entire Church as beyond doubt? Third: in the 3rd Council it is said that the Fathers who were present at it were called the heads, and Cyril and Memnon the heads of the assembled Fathers of that council; therefore, Cyril and Memnon were called heads of heads, and moreover, not from one, but from many, and not in secret, but before the face of the Emperor, the Synclite and the entire universe. About the chapters, see below, where it is said about the Council of Photius. So papism received no benefit from here either. Fifth: Hadrian, writing to Tarasius, calls him: Your Venerable Holiness, and: Your Most Venerable Holiness. And about the Emperors he says: Our Emperors. And: “they laid it before the face of all their Christ-loving people, piously prompted by your intercession, and determined that the council should be held in their reigning city, and we, with all readiness, fulfilling their Divine command, sent locums.” And: “we throw the ambassadors at the feet of the most luminous and pious Emperors, may they remain in all protection and favor.” That’s what Hdrian says. From here it is clearly revealed that the Pope is neither higher than the Emperor nor equal to him, but his servant, as well as his locums. How can it be seen that the Legates of the Apostolic See are equal to the Emperors?

Section 11 - Pope Hadrian’s letter perpetuates the Apostolic Tradition

When the Pope’s letters were read, his legates asked the fathers of the council whether they accepted them. Then Tarasius, being the first to answer, did not say, as the Pope prescribes: “we join the throne of Peter,” or “the head of all Churches,” or “the primacy of the throne,” as Hadrian demanded, nor did he say: “Adrian taught us the truths of the faith;” but having praised the fidelity of the Roman faith, and saying that it would be prudent not to resist it, he added that Hadrian is not a monarch or autocrat and supreme head, but what? Hadrian, the first to preside of the Priesthood of Rome, confirms in his letters that he adheres strictly to the original tradition of the Catholic Church. This is relative to the Roman Church. About the other Churches he added: “we too,” i.e. The Patriarchal thrones, and all the priests belonging to them, “are in agreement with the Scriptures and with sound reason, not daring to resist obvious evidence, as they were instructed by the teaching of the fathers, so they have always confessed, and we confess, and we will confess, and without the slightest contradiction we affirm that depicted in read documents, taking icon outlines based on the original tradition of our fathers.” This is what Tarasius said. What he said contains three points.

1. Firstly: the Pope does not say anything from himself, as if by the revelation of God, or from the infallibility of the Roman See, but only affirms the original tradition of the Catholic Church. For this is the faith of the Roman Church, which anyone who opposes is opposed to the original teaching of the fathers.
2. Secondly: both he and we, considering the writings of the fathers, the reasoning and evidence they offer, confess the same thing and accept the letters of the Pope.
3. Thirdly: we accept the veneration of icons.

From everything that has now been said, the conclusion emerges that Tarasius did not confirm anything else from what was said in the letters, neither what was said about the name “Ecumenical,” nor the remarks regarding the ordination of the laity, but only the veneration of icons. And even if the council said about the papal charters, that we follow them and accept them and approve them, then this would only show agreement [and not submission]; Therefore, John, the locum tenens of the eastern regions, said: “Hadrian and Tarasius are the most holy Ecumenical Patriarchs and are called such, they think and confess the same,” and so on. See also the conversations of other Bishops.

Section 12 - Act 3 of Nicaea II disproves Papal Claims

In Act 3, note that just as it was required that the letters of the Pope be read, it was equally required that the letters of Tarasius and the Eastern Patriarchs be read for the same reason. What should be noted in the letter of Tarasius, first of all, are these words: “the rejected and separated members will form an increase in a single consonant and well-ordered body, upon their joining to it, when Christ will be the head in them, and they will no longer be in division, and finally I ask Your Holiness to send locum tenens with your divinely prophesied letter, and if anything has been inspired to you from God about this subject, which is subject to our general judgment, reveal it to us, since both your locum tenens and your letters must conciliarly speak in front of everyone, the former speak, and the latter be read so that what is divided may be united. I also asked the first to preside of the Roman Priesthood for this very thing, and I fraternally beseech you, calling to you with the Apostolic voice: We beseech you by God, having tested everything carefully, as required by the intention inspired by God. Open to us, for it is written: the mouth of the priests will keep the knowledge, and the law will be revealed from their mouths. For we are confident that you retain the seeds of truth within yourself, and our pious and completely faithful Emperors joyfully accept confirmation in the truth, and pray to the Lord God that we, as Gregory the Theologian says, as belonging to the one God, may be one, and as the children of the Trinity were united with each other, and of one integrity and one accord, as children of the Holy Ghost, they were not against each other, but with each other, as children of truth, they would think and speak the same thing, and so that there would be no discord and disagreement between us, but just as we have one baptism and one faith, so we would have one agreement in every matter related to the Church. Regards, Tarasius.” In these words, note that, since the abovementioned John, the locum tenens of the eastern region, said that Hadrian and Tarasius think the same thing, so that no one says that since Tarasius follows Hadrian as the autocrat, Tarasius in this letter, as it were, explains to John and says , that the added members will (re)establish the growth of the Church, of which Christ is the head, to whom believers are brought and made one as the name… said the Lord in prayer, let them be…but also Paul: One Lord, one faith, one baptism, and, moreover, one foundation, besides which no one can lay another. As Gregory the Theologian says: so that we, as belonging to the One God, may be one, and, as children of the Trinity, united, and of one honor, and of one mind, as children of the Holy Ghost, would not be against each other, but with each other. But we can also say: not against each other, and not over each other, but with each other. Do you hear, papist? Who unites Christians? I ask you, who does the follower of papism believe in? Is it Tarasius and Gregory and Paul and the Lord, or George of Trebizond? For they say that the union of the Churches is Christ, of which he is both the head and the foundation, and one Lord. But the one of Trebizond says that the Holy Fathers demand that you believe in the One God, and in the One Lord, and in the Holy Ghost, and then in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which he says not in a collection of believers, but rather is specifically the Roman church. And [he says] all the Churches are united in Rome, and this unity is in the Pope. So if you, papist, say the first thing, then we will accept you, converting from heresy, just as the present holy council accepted such. And if the latter, then you will clearly show that papism is anti-Christianity, and not anything else. Secondly, note the necessary need for the presence of all the Patriarchs to draw up an Ecumenical Council. Thirdly, that (Tarasius) not only on the part of the Pope, but also on the part of the Eastern Patriarchs, demands the discovery of the truth, and the unification of the separated parts, as he demanded from the Pope, so that all Patriarchs, and among them the Pope, are equally teachers Church, and equal honor belongs to them all. And therefore the opinion that the Pope is above councils, and that he is the primary teacher of the Church, is an empty invention. Fourthly, after reading this letter, the Pope’s locums said: Our Holiness the Pope accepted… the letters, and that is why he sent us with lists of what had already been read. Then John, the locum tenens of the Eastern Bishops, said: these letters and the piety of the Empress are the reason for our presence here. Here it should be noted that in the same way Tarasius wrote to the Pope, in the same way he wrote to the Patriarchs, just as, according to what we said above, Theodosius and Marcian wrote to them, and this is because the Patriarchs all have equal dignity; for this reason, Tarasius writes to them, so that they would open their thoughts in writing regarding the holy icons and that what was written from them would be read at the council, and the governors would say what was found necessary, for we demanded this from the Pope, and that he send locums and letters. Consequently, this teaching of the papists, that the Pope of Rome is first not in order and number, but in some dignity, and that he alone has power at Ecumenical Councils, is news invented by a heretical mind to destroy the faith.

Section 13 - The Ecumenicity of the Seventh Council and its superiority to the Pope

In the letter of the Eastern Bishops, note that they call their thrones simply Apostolic, and note also that when you hear the Roman Church called the Apostolic Cathedra, and the Apostolic See, and sometimes simply the Roman Church, then consider these names to be unambiguous. Secondly, they [the Eastern Bishops] say that they were fulfilling the proposal of the Patriarch, i.e. Tarasius and the Emperors to send governors. Where is the teaching of the papists that the Pope autocratically convenes and holds councils? For he does not convene, and it is not at his suggestion that they converge. Thirdly, they say: “but you, most holy and blessed, acted as the duty and decency of your Patriarchal dominion required, you willingly accepted your brothers, and without embarrassment or human fear presented them to the rulers of the universe; for you will find them carefully instructed in the like-minded and concordant Orthodoxy of the Three Thrones of the Apostles.” They unanimously preach the Holy and Ecumenical Six Councils, not allowing another one besides these [the Synod of Hieria], which some call the seventh, but completely rejecting it as one that was convened to refute the Apostolic and teaching traditions, and for the deposition and complete destruction of holy and venerable icons. “But you, most holy ones, having been inflamed by Divine zeal, having, moreover, like-minded with you, according to the righteous Judgment of God, God-saved rulers have been appointed to reign over you, also a God-protected and God-protected synclite, empower and take courage, and let your heart be strengthened, apostolically punishing and converting all disobedience into obedience to Christ. But we find it necessary to ask you, as the supreme head of the Hierarchs, about the following: if, by the Grace of the All-Emperor Christ our God, and our most pious and victorious rulers who have been worthy to reign with him, you desire to assemble a council, then you will not be burdened by the acceptance into its composition of the three Apostolic Thrones of the Most Holy Patriarchs and the Most Reverend Bishops under their jurisdiction; (then?) the obstacle came not from their own arbitrariness, but from terrible threats and the death penalty from the sovereign rulers ruling over them. But this can be seen better from the Holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council, at which you will not find any of the then-Bishops in these regions present because of the dominion of the pagans; and this was not the case for any unfavorable opinion about the holy council, and there was no obstacle to compiling it and making the right teaching of piety known to everyone, especially since the Most Holy Apostolic Pope agreed with it, and was on it through his own attorneys; — — and now also, most holy may this be with God, and just as then the faith of that council swept to the end of the universe, so the faith of the present council, which has gathered by the grace of Christ through the mediation of you and the head of the ruling Apostolic Throne, will be proclaimed throughout sunflower. Regards, The Eastern Bishops.” Here the first thing to be noted is that the Emperors are called the rulers of the universe, and regarding the Pope and Tarasius of Constantinople, it is necessary to notice how they are called Ecumenical, as we have said above in many places. Secondly, just as Hadrian asked Tarasius for his locums, so that the Emperors would deign to have them in their human favor, so the Eastern Bishops ask him to present their locums to the Emperors. He and the others ask, he and the other servants have the same honor, and therefore the same dignity. Third, the three Apostolic Sees individually accept the holy councils, and reject the false council, in exactly the same way as Hadrian wrote above; the same strength and single strength, therefore the same dignity. Fourth, it is said that they, having, in addition to Tarasius, the like-minded Emperors and the Synclite, will receive great power and will be able to apostolically punish any disobedience and convert it to the obedience of Christ. And note the word: Apostolic, that it is connected not only with the concept of the Pope, and of the Patriarch in particular, but mainly with the concept of the council, and other words spoken against the papists, who do not allow the worldly authorities to be present at the council, so that they would not discover that their teachings are strange to everyone; However, this is not how the Church did it, but it had Emperors as chairmen and leaders as interlocutors, as was the case in the present council. Fifth, although the Patriarchs of the three Apostolic Thrones, and the Bishops under them, are not present personally, they nevertheless say: “let it not be a burden to receive them, for at the Sixth Ecumenical Council there were no Bishops belonging to these three Thrones.” Note here, first, that at the Sixth Council, although there were no Patriarchs and Bishops belonging to the two Patriarchal thrones, Alexandria and Jerusalem, there were, however, their locums, men worthy of respect, from the side of the Alexandrian throne, Peter the Hieromonk, from the side of Jerusalem, George the Hieromonk, and from the side of Antioch, first Macarius, and after his deposition, Theophanes was elected on behalf of the council. But this does not mean, as the fathers supposedly wanted to say, that in the absence of the Patriarchs, the Pope of Rome can do everything in their place, since the Patriarchal thrones were in cramped circumstances, and the Roman throne enjoyed peace, the consent of the Pope is sufficient, of course for the present time. But the Fathers said this, having in mind the council of iconoclasts that took place in Blachernae, which asserted that in order to draw up an Ecumenical Council, which should be the rule of faith and confirmation of the traditions of the Church, the Church of Constantinople alone is sufficient, as the papal admirers also say about their Bishop, but the Eastern Fathers are saying that, although they aren’t present, it is fine for matters to be considered at a general council since the Pope of Rome is present, and things should not be considered solely by the Church of Constantinople, which was rather the belief of the Monothelite Patriarchs, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Peter, and Paul, who all taught that Constantinople universally and autocratically convened Ecumenical Councils. But when the Sixth Ecumenical Council took place, at which not only the Constantinople people were present, but also the Roman Church through the locum tenens, the heretics could not do it their own way, when, with a general discussion about the common matter, the bewilderment was resolved and the pure truth was revealed to everyone. Secondly, if, hypothetically speaking, there had been no locum tenens on the part of the Eastern Bishops at the Sixth Council due to constraint from the pagans, this council would nevertheless have been Ecumenical, for, after its conclusion, the Eastern Patriarchs unanimously approved and accepted it, like Maximus accepted the Third Council, Vigilius accepted the fifth, Hadrian accepted Trullo, and Proterius accepted Chalcedon. For this reason, the [iconoclast] Council of Blachernae — in the first part, in Act 6 of this council, is condemned for not having the consent of the Eastern Patriarchs. Third, that they [the fathers of the Seventh Council] give testimony to Tarasius and the Pope regarding their equality, saying in honor of him and the Pope that the provisions of the future council will be preached throughout the world, as the provisions of the Sixth Council were preached. Fourth, they place the council above Tarasius and Hadrian, for the resolution of the provisions is assigned to the council that has to assemble, and the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope are called mediators and heralds of the council’s provisions, just as Alexander of Constantinople and Alexander of Alexandria were the heralds of the first Council of Nicaea; look about this in its place. And note that this place also forces the verbose Latins to remain silent.

Section 14 - Hadrian enforced iconodulia in the West

In the petition of Theodore of Jerusalem, note firstly that the King of Gaul [Charlemagne], who wrote to Pope Hadrian some objections regarding the Holy Seventh Council, at the same time expressed his indignation at this Theodore, who argued that in the Divinity there is one principle, which is the Father. Hadrian, responding to him, spoke a lot in praise of Theodore, and that he, together with Cosmas of Alexandria and Theodore of Antioch, wrote a conciliar letter to the then Pope Paul, which Paul’s successor, Pope Stephen, took into account and convened a council of Italian and Western Bishops about the holy icons, sent his conciliar letters and the conciliar message of the Patriarchs to the Bishops of Gaul and Italy, who, having received them, accepted them with thanksgiving. But the Patriarchs wrote to the Pope in their conciliar message, among other things, the following: “If anyone has another definition of faith, or a symbol, or a tradition, or a teaching, other than that handed down by the Six Councils and approved by the holy fathers, and if he does not venerate the icons as he venerates the image of the Lord, he is subject to anathema and alienated from the Universal Church.” They also wrote to the Pope: “May Your Holiness abide forever in this good faith, on which we are established, like on the rock of faith, as the Lord says.” Note here that the Pope received help from the Patriarchal conciliar letters. Secondly, just as the Eastern Bishops wrote to Tarasius: “take courage and be strong,” so they write to the Pope: remain constant, etc. Whence comes the mutual need for each other in the affairs of the Church and agreement, and therefore any advantage of autocracy is taken away.

Section 15 - How Unanimity Drove the Seventh Council

After reading the letters of the Eastern Bishops, the Pope’s locums modestly said: we are now convinced that Hadrian has expressed consent to the letter sent to him from Tarasius, and blesses God that the Eastern Bishops agree with their saints, Hadrian the Pope and Tarasius of Constantinople in the Orthodox faith, and in the veneration of holy icons. After this, the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said: “I accept the charters of the Eastern Bishops as a statement of piety, I agree with them and firmly adhere to them.” And the others all said, one: “I agree,” another: “I have absolutely the same thoughts,” another: “I agree and firmly adhere to it,” another: “I accept their communication,” another: “I completely agree,” another: “I accept and honor,” another: “I agree and have the same thoughts with them,” and everyone said: “I anathematize those who think differently.” The entire council generally called Tarasius’ letter a decree of Orthodoxy, and said about the Patriarchal charters: “we accept and agree, and we kiss the venerable icons and honor them with reverence, we curse the false council, and may God save the Emperors and the Holy Patriarch.” Tarasius said: “the source¹⁶ of enmity, which… the Churches of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem had with Constantinople, has been destroyed; for the East, North, Eest and South submitted themselves to one yoke and accepted one agreement.” Then the council praised the Emperors, Patriarchs, and Synclite. Here we should note first the words of the locum tenens of the Pope: “we are convinced,” and the words of Saint Cyril to John of Antioch: “what is needed to assure those who sincerely desire perfect unity with the West.” Also the words of Menas: “we follow and obey the Apostolic See,” and the above word of Tarasius: “we agree. “Further, with the words of both the entire council in general, and each of the fathers in particular, with which they expressed their consent to the letters of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, as well as the Eastern Patriarchs: “we agree,” “we follow,” “I have the same thoughts,” “I completely agree,” “I stand firmly in this,” “I accept,” “I can’t say anything against this,” “I accept with respect,” “I think completely in agreement with this,” “I affirm the same,” and so on. Everything that was said by all the Ecumenical Councils in general and those present at them the fathers in particular, for the same reason, and on the same ground of agreement of faith. They all say the same thing as the locum tenens of the Pope: “we are convinced,” and do not show any subordination or dignity of special authority, but agreement and unanimity without any change, contrary to what was said above in many places. Secondly, the Eastern Patriarchs agree with Hadrian and Tarasius, which equally serves to overthrow autocracy, for just as the Fathers agree with the Pope, so do the others, and in the same way the Pope agrees with them. Thirdly, the letters of the Patriarchs are called the decree of Orthodoxy. This is exactly the same as the letter of the Pope to Flavian of Constantinople is called a reinforcement of Orthodoxy. Fourthly, that the source of iconoclasm was taken away, and East and West and North and South became one, not through the Pope, who was invited to the council in the same way as the other Patriarchs, with the same letters, with the same dignities, and titles, and with equal love, and his envoys acted in the same way as the envoys of others, but by the study, position and determination of the Ecumenical Council, the separate parts of the Churches were united into one, joining not only the Pope, not only the Patriarchs, but the EcumenicalCouncil, who, glorifying the Emperors, Patriarchs, Synclite, does not say a word in a special way about the Pope, but on the contrary, the Patriarch of Constantinople is especially mentioned, in the words: “But may God preserve our good rulers, and the most holy Patriarch.” And thus the dignity of autocracy is completely taken away from the Catholic Church.

Section 16 - Act 4 of Nicaea II disproves Papal Claims

In Act 4, it is necessary to pay attention, firstly, to the fact that the Fathers, although they accepted the messages of the Pope of Rome, and the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Eastern Bishops, as Orthodox, Tarasius commanded that the sayings of the Holy Fathers about the veneration of the Holy Icons be read, as this was also the case at the previous Ecumenical Councils, which were not content with the messages of the Popes and Patriarchs alone, but also read the sayings of the Holy Fathers on subjects subject to discussion, about which see the places of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth councils, and thus the sayings of the Holy Fathers were read, first the Scriptures from the books: Exodus, Numbers, the Prophet Ezekiel, from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and then from the Fathers: the Goldenmouth, (illegible), Cyril, Antipater of Bostra, Asterius of Amasia, from the martyrdom of Anastasius of Persia, from Athanasius, Nilus, Maximus, from the Sixth Ecumenical Council, from Leontius of Naples of Cyprus, Anastasius of Antioch, Sophronius of Jerusalem, from the miracles of Cosmas and Damian, Basil, Theodoret, Simeon of the Wonderful Mountain, from the life of [John] the Faster, from the life of Mary of Egypt, from the martyrdom of Saint Procopius, from the life of Theodore (illegible), and from the epistles of Gregory the Pope to Saint Germanus, and from the epistles of Saint Germanus to John of Sipados, to Constantine of Nakolia, and to Thomas of Claudiopolis. Secondly, it must be said here that what Hadrian said: “you agree with the throne of Peter,” and: “join the throne of Peter,” was said by the movement of immoderate curiosity; for Tarasius, after reading the sayings of the Holy Fathers, said loudly: “The Guardians of the Catholic Church, our Holy Fathers, have cried out,” and besides this he spoke a lot about them with great respect, which see in its place. He did not call the Pope alone the guardian, but the Holy Fathers in general, and then added: “Christ is our peace, having created all as one.” Note that it is not the Pope, who is one of the Fathers of the Church and the Bishop of a particular Church, but Christ is the one Head of the one Catholic Church, who through the Fathers generally created all, i.e. East, West, North and South are one, for to Him alone be glory forever, Amen. For he gives his glory to others, and he who attempts to share the same glory which is due only to Christ is the Antichrist. Thirdly, the fathers of the council proclaimed: “The teachings of the God-bearing fathers have corrected us; drawing the truth from them, we have drunk; following them, we have driven out lies; we follow the ancient Law of the Catholic Church, we keep the decrees of the fathers, and we excommunicate from the Catholic Church all those who add anything arbitrarily or take away anything.” From this it is clear that power in the Church does not belong to anyone alone, and that the Pope is a private Bishop and rector of a private Church, and at councils he has no advantage over the fathers, except for the rank that others have according to the dignity given on the basis of every known and ruled throne. Therefore, the words: “that the Pope is above councils, that he is the autocrat and the supreme power, that he must be followed, that he must be joined,” in the understanding that he has a special dignity, all this is nothing other than a lie.

Section 17 - Act 5 of Nicaea II disproves Papal Claims

In Act 5, you should pay attention, firstly, to the fact that other testimonies of the Fathers are given about the holy icons, and that the iconoclasts stand on a par with the most evil heresiarchs, both the Samaritans and the Manichaeans. And the sayings related to this [to justify iconodulia] are: Cyril of Jerusalem, Simeon the Stylite, John of Thessaloniki, Antipater of Bostra, Theodore the Reader, John the Elect, from the life of Saint Sava, John of Haval, Constantine the Deacon, Evagrius Scholasticus, and from L..narius (illegible). Therefore, here too there is not the slightest evidence of the infallibility or exclusive teaching of the Pope, but of the Fathers in general, and the Pope is not mentioned at all.

Section 18 -t The Papal Library is full of many forgeries

In Act 4, a passage from the life of John the Faster is given, but the Latins, arguing with him about the name of the universal, and rejecting his holiness, make a note on the side that in the Apostolic Library there is an ancient book in which, in addition to those read at the council, many other sayings from fathers and entire passages, which obviously do not belong to the connection of the reasoning there, and which are not in other books. So, it seems that this saying from the life of the Faster also belongs to the number of such passages, since it is not found in all the books of this council. This is what Latins regard. But let’s say to this, the first thing they should have said: in the Papal Library, not in the Apostolic Library, for the Apostolic Library is a treasury of truth, on the contrary, the Papal Library is a nest of lies, fabrications, insidious deceitful gossip and slander. Secondly, not only here, but also in many other places, which the Papists attack, not being able to prove on their own, they refer to this library, filled with various slander and innovations, but we, following this holy council, all those whoever spontaneously adds or subtracts anything to the decrees of the Catholic Church is condemned to excommunication, therefore we accept the description of the life of the Faster, given to us by the Church, as true; We accept the Acts of the Holy Council as not being corrupt in any way, and accepted by the entire Catholic Church, and attested to in their authenticity, we despise… the vanity of the so-called Apostolic Library. Concerning the Papists, we understand them as nothing other than vile slanderers of the holy councils.

Section 19 - Anastasius the Librarian’s attack on the title “Ecumenical”

In Act 5, also note that Peter, the Vicar of the Pope, called Tarasius of Constantinople the Ecumenical Patriarch, but the Latins again note on the side that the ancient interpreter Anastasius [the Librarian] did not read this word, but it seems that it was added later. But it must be said, first, that this reading was ancient, and contemporary to the characters involved, and Peter, having a noble spirit, did not want to disagree on what should be agreed upon, but said what had been said before by so many and so great men, yes and in his presence, all the Fathers of the Council and the Eastern Bishops in their letters clearly and loudly proclaimed Tarasius of Constantinople as the Ecumenical Patriarch, and that Anastasius really rejected this word, then he did this as the Roman chartophylax and a long-time avowed enemy of the Hellenes, who shamelessly exterminated from the number of deeds what was said by the Council in front of the entire universe. Second, since the Patriarch of Constantinople was named Ecumenical at the Council of Constantinople, which was held under Cappodocius, and at the Council of Menas, and at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and at the present one in the presence of the legates of the Pope, who, moreover, were silent and could not contradict, then it becomes an indisputable truth, first, that it is really called Ecumenical, second, the Popes did not have universal power over the Church and councils; for if they had, they would have opposed this name, which they are attacking, but they did not resist, because they did not have such power, and, moreover, they were afraid of obvious reproach and contempt. Third, if the Pope was higher than the Emperors, then when so many autocrats wrote and verbally called the Patriarch of Constantinople “Ecumenical,” why didn’t he forbid them and punish them for that? The reason is obvious, that he was one of the fathers, and nothing more, and could not say anything where he should not. Fourth, that the name “Ecumenical” has some special meaning, we have spoken about this above in many places, and we will speak more in Book 10; let us say, however, that it does not mean power; for although here the Patriarch of Constantinople is named countless times and proclaimed “Ecumenical” from everyone, even from the Emperors, and the Pope is called only the Most Holy Bishop of Rome, still the Patriarch of Constantinople was not higher in rank than the Pope. But just as the name “Ecumenical” in relation to the Patriarch of Constantinople does not have the meaning of special power, so in relation to the Pope of Rome it does not have this meaning, and therefore in vain Anastasius became a denier of the truth and introduced lies, and his defenders, the papal adherents, vainly boast of their false wisdom, through of which they are trying to create papism from subtractions and additions and various evil tricks, as stated above.

Section 20 - Act 6 of Nicaea II disproves Papal Claims

In Act 6, the definition of the false council that was in Blachernae is set out, Gregory of Neocaesarea reads it, and the fathers refute it through the deacons John and Epiphanius, the dispute and refutation of the false council is set out, and the divine dogmas are explained by the testimony of ancient councils and the Fathers; and the Pope is not mentioned at all as a special person, i.e. neither as the supreme head, nor even as the preeminent Bishop, but the dignity and ultimate advantage is attributed more clearly than the sun to all the Holy Fathers in general, thereby destroying all autocracy.

Section 21 - Act 7 of Nicaea II disproves Papal Claims

In Act 7, the definition of the holy council is proclaimed, in which it is necessary to consider the first thing that is said here: “Seeing which things, our Lord God has of his good pleasure called us together, the chief of his priests, from every quarter, moved with a divine zeal and brought hither by the will of our princes, Constantine and Irene, to the end that the traditions of the Catholic Church may receive stability by our common decree.” This is what the Council regards. Notice here, first, that the beginning of the leaders of the priesthood are many, as in previous books we said that there are many primates of the Church, and this book speaks about this in many places, and the Great Basil speaks about the same in the book about the judgment of God, and therefore the papists falsely assert that the Pope alone is the beginning and leader of the priesthood. For here he, in the person of his governors, is considered as one of the chief leaders, placed on an equal basis with others of the same kind, without any difference from them in the Church. Second, God, through the Emperors, called the chief leaders of the priesthood to a council. Therefore, it is false that the papists shamelessly claim that the Pope autocratically assembled it. Third, Gregory II, Germanus of Constantinople, John of Damascus, and George of Cyprus, also the Popes: Gregory III, Zechariah, Stephen, Paul, and the other Stephen, and John, and Theodore of Jerusalem, Theodore of Antioch, and Cosmas of Alexandria wrote and spoke a lot against the iconoclasts, but bewilderment remained and the heresy intensified; but having carefully examined and examined the council, as Marcian said in the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, and having in mind one truth, and without adding or subtracting anything from the Catholic Church, strictly also following the Six Ecumenical Councils, and adhering to the divinely inspired tradition of the fathers, it was unanimously given the right of decision of the universal Church, stretching from end to end of the universe. Thus, the infallibility of the Pope is destroyed, and the fact that the councils followed the Roman Church, as we said in its place, and therefore these words spoken by Hadrian become insignificant: “join the throne of Peter, who shines with the glory of primacy and is the head of all the Churches of God.” For here he, together with others, accepts the unshakable authority of the universal Church from the council, which follows not him, but the fathers and Six Councils and Paul and the Apostolic Tradition, but primarily before all: Christ.

Section 22 - Nicaea II does not profess the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son

In the resolution of the council, the Latins make a note on the side that Cardinal Julius, in Act 5 of the false Council of Florence, said that the present council supposedly accepted and approved the opinion about the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. But the first thing must be said: Julius, like the Spirit-Destroyers [Pneumatomachians], told a lie, according to the custom of heretics who, plotting against the common faith, say different things about different persons. Secondly, the acts of this council, found in the Church everywhere, never had this. Third, the council follows the Ecumenical Councils that preceded it, and does not contradict them, therefore it could not say anything contrary to them. Fourth, where did Julius get this from when he spoke in this way, from what history, or from what saint, famous for his glory? Fifth, all those who spoke about this addition after it was included in the symbol of the division of the Churches, and wrote about it, had no other strong evidence besides this, as Gemistus and other wise men from the Greeks spoke about this in the same act of the Council of Florence, in refutation of this, Julius, therefore Julius clearly lied and it is clear from everything that the Latins replaced the conciliar definition, as they did with other councils and with many Holy Fathers. Sixth, Binius notes that the conciliar acts were translated three times from the Hellenic language into Latin, and the first translation was word for word, but it was so awkward that the scribes did not want to rewrite; After its destruction, the translator Anastasius the Librarian appeared in good time, and for the second time translated from Hellenic to Latin, not word for word, but carefully explaining the thoughts. This translation, together with other translations of the holy Ecumenical Councils, is stored in the Roman archives. After this, the third translator, not knowing about Anastasius’s translation, made his own translation, which, having been published along with other councils, is now in general use; but how much better this translation is than Anastasius’ translation, this can be seen by anyone who wants to compare them with each other when reading. For in Anastasius we will find much that is not in the published version, and, moreover, something that requires important consideration. But what is in the Hellenic edition that is superfluous in comparison with the translation of Anastasius, and what is not in this translation, and what is superfluous in the Hellenic edition, Anastasius apparently read differently, we have already shown (this includes everything that is written on the side in the letter Pope Hadrian to the Emperors, and at the end of it, also in Act 5, where Peter called Tarasius Ecumenical, also what was said about the Faster, and in the position that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son). This is what Binius and Gar…nium regard. But the first thing must be said: the translation word for word deserves to be generally accepted and is the most correct; for the Acts of the Holy Councils are translated, like the Holy Scriptures, from word to word, and not just from thought.

Section 23 - The Emperor presides at Councils, not the Pope

In Act 8, note that the Emperors, at the end of the council in the month of November, the 11th Indiction, in the 8th year of their reign, wrote to the Patriarch [while] in Nicaea, so that he, together with all the fathers of the holy council, would arrive in Constantinople, and when they arrived, they were received favorably by Emperors. The Empress appointed a special day for the joint meeting of the Emperors and Fathers in the palace, which was called Magnaura, and while the Holy Gospel was presented in front of everyone, the entire council shared the meeting with them, presided over by the Empress and her son the autocrat. Then Tarasius, having departed a little from the Emperors, said, turning to the holy council, something necessary. After this, the Patriarch and the council greeted the Emperors in a proper manner. When this was over, by order of the Emperors, the resolution of the council was read loudly in the presence of the Synclite and the people, for the whole city was present along with the ranks of soldiers. After reading, the Emperors asked, “was this definition proclaimed with your consent?” They exclaimed: “we all believe this way,” “we think this way,” “we all signed our consent,” “this is the Faith of the Apostles, this is the Faith of the Fathers, this is the Faith of the Orthodox, this is the Faith which has established the Universe,” “we follow the ancient law of the Catholic Church,” and so on. Then the Patriarch presents the definition/decree to the Emperors and, together with the entire council, asks them to seal and approve it with their pious signature, and the most pious Empress, with a radiant look of goodness, took it and signed it and gave it to her co-reigning son, so that he would also sign. At the end of which, they gave the Patriarch a decree back through Stavracius the Famous Patrician and Logothetus the messenger, then the fathers expressed gratitude to the Emperors, and after this the Emperors ordered to read those sayings of the fathers that had already been read before in Nicaea, such as: the Goldenmouth, Asterius of Amasia, John of Thessaloniki, Simeon the Stylite, Nilus, and the 803rd [?] rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and everyone stood up and thanked God, having become convinced of the truth. Here it is necessary to notice, firstly, the supreme power of the Emperors over the Ecumenical Councils. Secondly, that they sat together with the council, however, as presiding officers, not as Pope Eugene at the false Council of Florence sat above the Emperor. Thirdly: The Emperors asked the fathers in the presence of the council, city and army, did they freely pronounce this definition? Not as in Florence, some consulted some extraordinary secrets with the Pope, others plotted tricks with some Cardinals, others made too intricate plans with the Emperor, and, moreover, others mourned poverty, hunger and wandering, others demanded money and gifts, others ran around at night in unknown ways, so as not to sign, others valued property, others received promises that they would become cardinals if they deceived others, the Emperor’s brother, together with the wise men worthy of this name, did not want to sign, and always withdrew from this with disgust, the Emperor confessed the papal faith at the barking of the dog this very time, the Pope signed first, alone in a certain house, the others also signed separately in bedrooms and dark corners, the Emperor secretly gave orders that the Hellenes should not sign the second paper until they received their salaries, and, exposed in all this from E..a (illegible), they could neither expel him nor subject him to a curse, for they together could not resist him, since he also told the Pope and the entire false council that Pope Liberius was Constantine, that is: not for me alone the teaching of faith is subject to humiliation. From this know, Orthodox Christian, that the Council of Florence was a council of Caiaphas, autocratic, and not according to God’s measure, but compiled for human purposes.

Section 24 - Concluding the matter of the Seventh Council

In the letter sent from Tarasius to Pope Hadrian, note that the fathers have supreme power, and unity comes from the One Christ. The Council is established by the command of the Emperors, and the council’s judgment on faith is the supreme court, the Pope has equal dignity with the Patriarchs, and Tarasius wrote the letter solely out of a movement of spiritual joy. This letter to the Pope, the appeal of the council to the Emperor and the district letter of the council, as if some conclusion thereof, exist and have a signature. This is how the Seventh Council is to be regarded.

Section 25 - The Equality of the Five Patriarchs

The ancient Synodikon says that this Seventh Ecumenical Council was presided over by: Tarasius of Constantinople, the locum tenens of Pope Hadrian Peter and Peter, the locum tenens of the Eastern Patriarchs - Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem the Hieromonks John and Thomas. Photius, in a letter to Michael, the ruler of Bulgaria, says: “This Council was rich in leaders of order and primates, such as: Tarasius of Constantinople, locum tenens of Hadrian Peter and Peter, John and Thomas, locum tenens of the three Apostolic and great thrones of Apolinarius of Alexandria, Theodoret of Antioch, and Elijah of Jerusalem.” But Nilus says that the council was ruled by Hadrian, Tarasius, Politianus of Alexandria, Theodoret, and Elijah. Here you should notice, first, that in this place, either the Pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople is indifferently placed in front. Secondly, the three eastern thrones are called Apostolic and great. Third, Photius alone speaks about the existence of Apolinarius of Alexandria at the council. Fourth, it is generally said about all five thrones that they were in charge, presided over the council, governed the council, and were present at it as primates and guardians of order. Therefore, all five thrones are equally apostolic and great, they are all leaders, rulers, guardians of order, and primates, and no special honor belongs to the Roman. And therefore the same honor and the same advantages belong to all of them, and the Roman Church has equal dignity with the others, and therefore all autocracy must be removed from the Catholic Church, like a plague and a disgusting abomination. Fifth, that Tarasius had full power regarding this council, and that he persuaded the Emperors to convene it, and wrote to the Patriarchs so that they would come, or send someone to draw it up; equally, both the Pope and other Patriarchs wrote to him on this subject, the Emperors wrote to him, and he transferred the council to Constantinople, the definition of the council was given to him for preservation, and regarding everything that belonged to the council, he commanded and disposed and acted, and from everyone was called Ecumenical, and Lord, and Master, and most holy and most blessed, and for all this he was not arrogant, so that he said at least one word of authority about the special dignity of his throne, although he could say a lot if he wanted, but he said and did only that he gave all power to the totality of the Apostolic Sees and the holy council.

Section 26 - Papal innovators distort Nicaea II

Binius proves that this council was assembled with the help and assistance of the Emperor, however, by the authority and command of Pope Hadrian, and as evidence of this he cites some letter from the Emperors to Hadrian, recently printed, which clearly states the following: “Therefore we firmly and with a pure heart and with true reverence for God and with the wise priests subordinate to us, we decided to hold an Ecumenical Council, and we beg you, most blessed father, to express your consent to this, and confirm it with your usual boldness.” And below: “come here to confirm the ancient tradition about the holy icons, since nothing is considered firm in the Church that is not confirmed with authority, therefore we ask you, may you be worthy to confirm collectively the ancient tradition about the holy icons, beloved, you, without whose authority, no council took place legally.” But to this we must say: where was this letter from the Emperors to Hadrian hidden for so many years, and now has it appeared? Otherwise, it is clear that it did not exist before, but was invented later. Secondly, whoever, in addition to the acts of this council known from time immemorial in the universal Church, accepts anything that disagrees with it, does something stupid, especially if he accepts it from the Latins, who, in addition to the innovations of papism, daily invent in the most shameless manner introductory statements, additions and subtractions. Third, in the royal letters to the Popes it is said: “we direct and command,” it is also said out of respect: “we encourage;” but where does it say simply: “we beg?” Fourth, how could Irene and Constantine say something that no Emperor wrote to any Pope? Fifth, even if they said: “we beg”, it still does not follow that this council was assembled by the authority of the Pope, for it is said above that the word: “we beg,” was spoken on behalf of the councils and autocrats regarding the faith, not only to high-ranking persons, but even to innkeepers. Sixth, in all councils, and in this council at the beginning it is said that without the consent of the Patriarchs there is no council, therefore there is no council without the Orthodox Pope. Seventh, it was said above in many places that for the approval of Ecumenical Councils, not only Popes and Patriarchs are convened, but also local synods, and local Bishops, and they all approve with their own authority, not as slaves, but as Bishops, and the reason for this was stated by Constantine Pogonatus. See above in Book 6, Chapter 8, Section 11. Eighth, if the Pope affirms in a conciliar manner, then this can be said in the sense that he affirms as a member of the council on behalf of his Church, and not by monarchical power, which does not require a council, but authorizes one person. Ninth, every Bishop gives his own consent to the approval of the council, for he agrees not under coercion, which is why in Ecumenical Councils there is always a speech on the question of whether the fathers proclaimed the definitions with violence of conscience, freedom and will. Tenth, these words, both in themselves and their particularly poor and unprocessed composition, testify that they have no similarity with all the other Royal epistles to councils and Patriarchs and with the acts of all holy councils, but are of exactly the same nature as those which are invented by Papal admirers and presented as genuine about papism. Eleventh, the acts of all holy councils clearly testify in all their acts that the Emperors, by their own command and authority, convened councils. Twelfth, that Binius’ testimonies clearly contradict the letters of the Pope and the Patriarchs and the Royal Epistle, and all the acts of this holy council, and therefore are fictitious, and Binius turns out to be a pure liar and a distorter of the truth here too.

Section 27 - Pope Hadrian never rejected Nicaea II

In addition to what was said above, Binius shows that the present holy council was approved by Leo III, as testified by Ibos, according to whose legend the council in Paris says that Hadrian approved it and again the same Hadrian rejected it, allegedly because this council made a decree to worship the Icon of Christ as God, and therefore as a council is incorrect; for this reason, Hadrian supposedly rejected it, and his successor, Pope Leo III, approved it. But it must be said: it is true that Leo III approved the Seventh Council, i.e. accepted it and agreed with it, which belongs to every Bishop. Second: everyone knows that Hadrian approved it, since he was the first to announce and recognize as true the definitions of this council, as the Eastern Patriarchs wrote, and before his former Popes Gregory and Gregory, Zechariah and Stephen, Paul and Stephen decreed in a conciliar manner, then he courageously resisted Charlemagne’s attacks on icons, and translated the acts of the council into Latin, word for word, in which liturgical worship [of icons] is decisively refuted and one relative one [relative honor] is affirmed. Third: the legend that Hadrian supposedly rejected this council is a complete fabrication and slander of heretics, and the false council of Paris expressed an obvious lie here. The Universal Church of Christ, stretching from end to end of the universe, has venerated, venerates, and will forever venerate this Pope Hadrian as the first of the Orthodox.

Chapter 2 - Icons, False Icons, Statues, and Papist Innovations

Section 1 - The meaning of “icon” at Nicaea II

The word “icon” is often used, and at this council a definition was made about icons depicting the appearance of a face, since a painted person represents the image of a person, and the Christ - Christ, or about the similarity of a face drawn through pictorial art with a prototype. Therefore, an icon differs from an idol, firstly, in that although an idol is called at the same time an icon, an icon is not called an idol, because an icon is an image and likeness of something true, and an idol is an image of a false god, and vainly worshiped. Therefore, the images of Cherubim that were in the Old Testament sanctuary were not idols, because they were called images of God, but of Angels. Secondly, because these images were not the subject of worship befitting the one God. Thirdly, the fact that these were images of holy angels, and not demons and soulless creatures. But we, following the present council, in Act 7 of it, depict the holy angels as they appeared to the prophets, and the Holy Ghost as He appeared in the form of a dove. But the word “venerate” means together I kiss with my lips and love [eros, the love of passion and will, not the love of emotions], and in this way we venerate icons, and we serve God alone, for service mainly shows a slavish attitude, as Augustine says in the 405th chapter about true service. But we give relative respect to icons, that is, we honor them, therefore, serving God alone, we serve Him unconditionally and necessarily, and mainly and firstly as the Creator and the One Savior. Service contains faith and hope, which is why the Holy Council in its definition says: “and they should be given respectful worship and kissing, but not service in the true and required sense of this word by our faith, for such service befits the one Divine being.” When the word “service” is used in another sense, it is used casually and simply means honor. Veneration of an icon is understood in a threefold sense:

1. For it means either to venerate who is depicted on the icon, and not the image together and what is depicted on it, since that is, the icon serves as some kind of reminder; but such honor is not accepted. For in this way many other things can be icons.
2. Or, of course, together the image and what is depicted on the icon, and the honor given to both is exactly the same, and thus some venerate the icon of Christ, honoring the icon in an official way, as well as Christ, but this is also contrary to Church tradition.
3. Or, of course, the veneration of an icon is relative, as if it were the image of what is depicted, in which veneration of the icon is given in it the veneration of the person depicted, as the council says in its resolution. For the honor given to the image goes back to the prototype, another honor to the image, and another to the prototype. The veneration given to an image is called relative, because it belongs entirely to something else, and because the image is not honored in equal measure with what is depicted. For when we honor the messenger, we give one honor to him, and another to his King, just as the bleeding woman honored the garment of Christ in another way, and another to Christ himself. In this way, a real holy council began to believe by the Holy Ghost.

Section 2 - We do not venerate Statues

We venerate icons, but we do not venerate statues and sculptures of saints, and it is indecent for us to make statues and sculptures of Christ or Saints, since this is not in accordance with the thoughts and actions of the Catholic Church. But we call icons of Saints (which we honor) those that are painted with paint on boards, and on walls, and also on canvases, and those that we inscribe on sacred vessels, and on the Divine Gospels and other holy books, and on the Crosses that we venerate. Silver and gold, which also includes icons made of cast wax and embroidered with silk, gold and silver. And by the name of sculptures, and simply different images, also by the name of statues we mean such images that depict the entire body in volume, and not only the veneration of such images (icons), but also the work itself is completely unknown to the Catholic Church; and this, firstly, because the 82nd Canon of the Council of Trullo, and the letters of the Patriarchs to each other, to the Emperors and other persons, among whom are the Popes: Gregory, who wrote to Germanus of Constantinople, and Hadrian — to the present holy council, in addition, moreover, the conversations spoken by the Bishops to the entire present holy council, and all the evidence given regarding the holy icons, call paintings and drawings icons, and not works of carved or sculpted art. Secondly: Blachernae [754] and other councils of the iconoclasts, and their writers, who wrote against the icons, meant by this name pictorial images and the outlines depicted through paints, and not at all any sculptures and statues, which, if they really existed, the iconoclasts would not have kept silent, but they would write against them to greater Orthodox accusations. Thirdly: Anastasius, Patriarch of the Holy City, writing to Simeon the Bishop of Bostra, says: “an icon is nothing more than wood and paint mixed and co-dissolved with wax.” Consequently, speaking about icons in general, this Holy Man said that there is an icon, but he did not mention carved icons or statues at all. Fourthly: the council, in its definition, establishing the rule on icons, prescribes, like the image of a Cross, to place images of paints and chalk and other substances, decently arranged, in the holy Churches of God on sacred vessels and clothes, on walls and decks, in houses and on the roads. Here, the council spoke about icons made with chalk and paints, and other substances, such as gold and silver, and other metals, as Theodosius of Amoria said in Act 4 of this council: from every substance of gold and silver and with every picturesque art, therefore he defined it on sacred clothes, on walls and decks, and did not mention the making of sculptures and statues at all. On the contrary, these words exclude it and reject sculptures and carved images. Saint Constantine made icons, but on decks, as evidenced by the chronicler Ankirian in his decalogue, in which he proves that the Arians are iconoclasts. But Constantine’s successors also made icons in palaces and in public places, but not sculptures, about which see also in this council the letters of the Patriarchs, the conversations of Bishops and testimonies about icons, and the very definition of the council, which clearly states that both in houses and on paths, on the walls and on the decks were icons depicted, saying: and on canvases, which is revealed through clothes. Canon 82 of the Council of Trullo, which is adopted by this council, says: “In some pictures of the venerable icons, a lamb is painted to which the Precursor points his finger, which is received as a type of grace;” then he adds: “we prefer grace and truth.” So, “in order therefore that that which is perfect may be delineated to the eyes of all, at least in colored expression, we decree that the figure in human form of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, Christ our God, be henceforth exhibited in images.” He says that, according to Scripture, the Forerunner showed the Lamb, but there should be no picturesque images of the Lamb, as a type and shadow; on the contrary, we prescribe, honoring grace and truth, that both of them should be depicted together, i.e. so that the image of the Lord (not the prototype, which is this lamb) can be depicted on icons. It is said: to represent it on icons and picturesque images, but does not say to place it in various sculptures and statues. Moreover, the Bleeding One made a copper statue in Paneada representing Christ, about which, as stated in Book 2, some say that the predecessor of Constantine the Great, King Maximinus, broke it and took the copper for himself. And someone Anonymous says that Julian, in one of his campaigns, destroyed the statue that was in Paneada, representing our Savior, and in its place put the statue of Zeus. And Martyrius the Bishop, who showed contempt to Julian himself, was burned near the Temple as a sacrifice to the gods. But Philostorius the Arian tells that he was taken into the Church by Christians, who gave him due honor and looked at him with pleasure from excessive love [agape, divine and all-encompassing love]. But Gregory II, Archbishop of Rome, writing to Saint Germanus, says that the act of Great Bleeding was the condescension of God, and a legitimate monument. Note that, as the Council of Trullo said in the mentioned rule: “In some pictures of the venerable icons,” which is to say, through painting we represent a Lamb, which was accepted as a type of grace, and then added that although we do not reject types, on the contrary, we accept them with love, but we prefer grace and truth to them. So, so that in works of pictorial art the very fulfillment (of the prototype) can be presented to everyone’s gaze, for this purpose we determine that on icons, instead of the Old Testament Lamb, we should represent the mark of Christ in human form. So here too, Pope Gregory says that the statue of the Bleeding One, by the condescension and goodness of God, was a cure for all diseases, and that its erection was more in accordance with the law; however, grace itself is preferable to the shadow that typifies it; therefore, the council of saints (i.e., the Fathers of the Council of Trullo) committed the Church to put in picturesque images the mark of Christ in human form. For just as the council accepted the Lamb in this rule, so the Divine Gregory accepted the Bleeding Statue, and therefore in his letter he clearly cited the words of the rule. But the council commands to paint the image of Christ not in the form of a Lamb, which is a prototype and a shadow; therefore, grace and perfection should be preferred, and to paint the image of Christ in this regard not in any other way, but on icons and pictorial images. Saint Germanus, whom Pope Gregory extols with countless praises in a letter to him and in a letter to Leo the Isaurian, in a letter to Thomas of Claudiopolis, found that Act 4 of this council also mentions the Bleeding Statue, but, mentioning it, on the one hand overthrows the statues, and on the other hand, it accepts and approves icons; he says the following: “when the Savior, in His condescension, clearly performed miracles of special grace through the faith of the wife, which shows that one does not just look at the deed being done, but the intention of the one doing it is tested.” But Eusebius himself says there, narrating the incidents regarding the statue, that he personally saw the icons of Peter and Paul, and Christ Himself, which were painted with paints. But we say this not with the intention of praising the copper monuments, but only to show that if the Lord did not reject what was done according to pagan custom, but was pleased in it for a long time to demonstrate the miraculous power of His goodness, then it was unfair I would like to condemn the habit that has intensified among us in some way more sacred. Here the Holy Man says, first: “God, by condescension, accepted the action of the wife.” The second thing is that Eusebius, narrating the incidents regarding the statue, says that he himself saw the icons of Christ, and Peter and Paul, painted with paints. The third thing is that we do not just accept every action, but look at the goal, for what is rare is not the law, also see above in Book 6, Chapter 3. Fourth, it pleased God for a long time to demonstrate His power in a statue constructed according to pagan custom. Fifthly, that our custom, which forms one part of the history of Eusebius, i.e. An icon painted with paints contains more sacred importance, and let such icons always exist. Sixth, we should not get too carried away with copper monuments, i.e. There should be no monuments made of copper or any other substance.

Section 3 - The Latin Defense of Statuary is Innovative

The Latins object to this in defense of statues, firstly, that statues have been in Churches since ancient times. The second thing is that the Bleeding Statue worked miracles, as was said above. But in response to the first, it must be said that there have never been statues in the Church, unless the Latins here mean by the name of “the Church,” they mean the church newly introduced by them, which Catholic and ancient. If there were statues in the Universal Church, then they should have indicated the places, since we also indicate them when writing about the truth, and not try to create something too complicated with unclear, doubtful and ambiguous expressions. In response to the second, I must also say what was said above about the Bleeding Statue, what Patriarch Germanus and Pope Gregory said about it. Moreover, when in the same conciliar act the saying of Antipater of Bostra about the Bleeding One was read, Tarasius said that whoever writes an icon on a pillar also brings it to the Lord, like a Bleeding Statue. He did not say: whoever paints a statue and an icon on a pillar, but rather he mentioned only an icon, speaking according to Saint Hermogenes and Gregory, i.e. that the statue was allowed for a time by the condescension of God, and not forever, which is why, later on, neither the Emperors, nor the Bishops, nor any other Christians ever made statues in the Church; but the use of icons, in accordance with the definition of the council, was and is and will remain until the Day of the Lord. In one place in Germanus’ letter, where he condemns the passion for statues, a certain dissenter makes the following remark: “The Greeks, not wanting the Divine secrets to be revealed to everyone, fence the Holy Altar with bars and place the icons they honor on them, through which the inaccessible secrets are protected, and images of saints are venerated.” So, it seems that Germanus has this in mind; for just as he finds it difficult to achieve this through statues, he also calls the use of icons as more general and more convenient for enclosing shrines through them, in some way the most sacred. For that erecting sacred statues is a pious deed, and not unusual for the universal Church, this is very clearly evident from the conversations of some Bishops, and from the definition of this holy council itself. But it must be said that it was said above about Germanus’ intention that it is not any other than that there should be no statues in the Church; look about this in its place. As for the other words of the detractor, we will say that for the ancient customs and way of acting of the universal Church this is a completely unusual thing, and in no conversation of the Bishops who were at the council is there any mention of any other statue, just the Bleeding One. Read all the acts of the council, you will see that both the definition of the council in general, and in particular the Fathers, the testimonies of the ancient saints, although they talk about painting, about painting with paints, and about icons cast from wax, on walls, on decks, on temples, on houses, on roads, they also talk about icons on sacred vessels, clothes, etc., but there is not a single word about statues or sculptures, except for the Bleeding Statue, and even this is not for imitation, but for destruction, since the use of statues and veneration of them is not an ordinary thing, and not a pious one, as the apostate says, but on the contrary, it is an extraordinary thing, unknown, not in use, not accepted, and a clear Latin innovation.

Section 4 - Latin innovations concerning the composition of icons

Opponents introduce into the veneration of holy icons some icons cast from wax, and say that they should be venerated, firstly, because they are composed of the wax of pure and holy myrrh, and the water of consecration (Αγίασμα). Secondly, because the Pope constitutes them not as a mere man, but as the Vicar of Christ. Thirdly, because the Pope reads prayers over them. Fourthly, because they work miracles. Fifthly, because they destroy sins, just like the Body of Christ. Sixthly, because Christians wear them, just as Hellenes wear images of Alexander. Seventhly, because ancient tradition also reported this type of icons. Eighthly, because Pope Leo III sent one of these icons to Charlemagne the King of France and reverently honored it, and Pope Urban [V] also sent one to John [V] Palaiologos, by whose command it was honored with prayer in Churches. But it must be said first that icons are venerated not because of the holiness of their substance or structure, but because they depict a prototype; but to venerate because of a substance anointed with fragrant ointments, or because of some special dispensation, the Holy Church of Christ is very far from this. Therefore, the council in its decree says that icons are made of paints, stone, and other decent substances, therefore not from a composition or holy substance, whether it be composed of fragrant ointments or anointed with them. Then in Act 4 of this council it is said that a woman who suffered from bloody diarrhea, scraped the ointment from the wall on which the Holy Unmercenaries were written, and put it in water, drank it and recovered. Therefore, the substance of the icon produced a miracle: but where are the miracles from the icon created by the Vicar of Christ, the Pope? Although even at the current council, the Fathers in some conversations completely neglect the substance, saying that when the trees that make up the image of the Cross become dilapidated and damaged, they are given over to fire; Likewise, when the paints are damaged, the deck is consigned to fire. In response to the second, it must be said that Emperor Theophilus, who rushed furiously against the holy icons, tortured the painter Lazarus, and kept him in prison, and he, being there in prison, although he was not the Pope and not the vicar of Christ, but a simple Christian, wrote however, the icon of the Forerunner, which then remained for a long time and worked miracles, and also other icons, whether because they were painted, for example, by Saint Luke, or another saint, or for some other reason, according to the distribution of the Divine economy, produced miracles, and you can see in Act 4 of this council many amazing miracles from many icons, but they did not demonstrate miraculous power because they were the works of the vicar (of Christ); for even in the most ancient Church of the Universal Church this was completely unknown. In response to the third, it must be said that prayers themselves are not necessary, even useless for icons, why in Act 6 of this council, in Section 4, it is said that the council that was held under the Poop-Named, condemning icons, says: “for the name of an icon there is no prayer sanctifying it, so that in this way the icon can be transferred from its usual place to the sanctuary, but remains simply and without any veneration, in the same state as the painter finished it.” Responding to this, the Holy Council through Deacon Epiphanius did not say that there is prayer with icons, but says that the image of the Cross does not need prayer, and exists without prayer, and by veneration it we receive some blessings, and by kissing the sacred vessels, of which we have different types, we hope to receive sanctification from them. In response to the fourth: Eudoxius performed miracles through coins, and Balaam’s donkey spoke, and Nebuchadnezzar, and Pharaoh, and Caiaphas prophesied according to some Divine vision, but in this way no honor is given, for we honor only what the Church commanded us to honor, and therefore not those intermediate things that, not belonging in themselves to the number of revered ones, are used by God as a means to perform saving actions, according to His wise vision, such as Peter’s shadow and many other things. Moreover, if such icons worked miracles, then they worked miracles like icons, and not by the power of balms, or myrrh, or sanctification, or the Papal dispensation: for this is false and ridiculous. False: for what icon was created by the Pope, the miraculousness of which would be witnessed by the entire Church. There isn’t one. False: for from here it would clearly follow that icons not made in this way do not work miracles. In response to the fifth: in truth, icons serve as secondary causes of blessings, since they are images of prototypes, which is why the council in the above place says: “by kissing the Cross and reverently honoring it, we receive blessings, just as we kiss and salute the sacred vessels, and hope to receive through them there is some sanctification.” So, through the veneration of holy icons we receive sanctification, but Christ alone, depicted on the icon, and His Body and Blood, which are Christ Himself, absolves sin. But if icons have the dignity of the Body and Blood of the Lord, then it follows that the icon is one with the object depicted on it, which the Church rejects as blasphemy. Sixthly: although this example does not relate to the present subject, that the Hellenes have an image of Alexander, however, it must be said that Christians, instead of Hellenic images, have a venerable cross, as both the Church and ancient tradition testify, and together the Holy Gospel. For the Goldenmouth, in his 11th discourse to the people of Antioch, says: wives and small children hang the Gospels on their necks as a great protection, and carry them everywhere they go. And in Letter 44 in the 72nd discourse: “nowadays many women wear the Gospels on their necks.” And Isidore of Pelusium in Letter 150 in Book 2: “there were small books resembling the law, which, like amulets, were worn by Jewish teachers, just as women now carry small Gospels.” And if they wear icons, then they wear holy icons, and not ones made up of substances and preparations. This is an extraordinary thing and unknown in ancient times. Orthodox Christians make indentations in the sides of holy icons, or even cut out gold or silver and place holy wood and holy relics into these parts, to which they pay veneration along with the icons, and this is not prohibited. But that the Pope puts balm, wax, and water of great consecration, and sings prayers over them, then arranges icons and allows them to be venerated mainly because they are made of such a substance, and through such an artist, this is prohibited, since this action is unknown to the Church, it was not laid down by the fathers, the councils did not teach this, the ancient historians did not speak about this, but it was invented by the schism of the papists to seduce the poor renegades. On the seventh: the ancient tradition is that which the Catholic Church contains, but everything ancient in a different sense must be rejected, since such are the essence of the traditions of heretical antiquity, according to which Baronius was and is a miracle worker, for where did he get that such icons were back in the 58th year after the Nativity of Christ; and why is it that neither the real holy council, neither Gregory II, nor Hadrian I and Leo III, nor the Patriarchs Germanus, Nicephorus, Methodius, and Tarasius, nor Damascus, nor Plato and Theodore the Studite, nor Euthymius of Sardis, nor Theodore and Theophanes inscribed, nor Michael Spikell, neither the great and almost-ecumenical council that was held in Jerusalem under Theophilus the Emperor, nor the other Orthodox who spoke about the antiquity of icons, spoke up about this history, as well as about the statues, but rather kept silent? Therefore, these icons are an innovation of the papists, and therefore should be rejected. Eighth: that Leo sent one of these icons to Charlemagne, we don’t quite believe this (see, however, about this below in Chapter 3). And who testifies that Urban sent the same icon to John Palaiologos, and that it was venerated with prayer? Again the innovators are the Latins. Why didn’t any of the eastern people notice this? But even if this were true, everything had to be rejected, because the innovation of Urban and the condescending disposition of John cannot establish this dogma in the Church, unless someone says that they accepted them simply as icons, and not as icons, made of such and such substance and papistic whispering. For under Photius, the former council in Act 10 in the 7th canon says that those subject to damnation, like heretics, do not make icons in holy temples. But the fact that an icon is only made to be so as a result of prayer and certain compositions is a lawlessness peculiar to the papists alone. Some say that the icon of Christ has an advantage over the image of the Cross, since the icon depicts Christ himself, and the image of the Cross is connected only with the memory that He was crucified. However, the council says that we must venerate the image of the Cross on a par with the icon of Christ, because although icons are sometimes larger, sometimes smaller, this does not prevent, since the appearance of the Cross is not as large as the tree of the cross, but sometimes narrower, sometimes wider, shorter and longer, but there is always the same image. See the 64th letter of Photius, in which five reasons are given regarding the veneration of icons. The first is that they decorate temples, just as the cherubim decorated the sanctuary. The second is that they teach prophecies, teachings, examples of piety, martyrdom, sufferings, and miracles of Christ, which is why they are called books for both the wise and the unlearned, as the Double-Speaker says in the book of Secundus. The third is that they stimulate the imitation of the saints, as Saint Basil says writing to Gordius, and other saints, and the current council. The fourth is that they implant in the souls of Christians the memory of the past. Fifth: they strengthen love, because by bringing to memory, we hope to call on God as the Savior, and the saints with love, as intercessors to Christ, so that through their intercession he may grant us all the petitions for salvation.

Chapter 3 - The Frankish Council against the Holy Icons

In the 726th year, the Isaurian [Leo III] issued a command not to venerate the holy icons, and in 754, the Equestrian [Constantine V] assembled a council against the holy icons, and in 784, a real council was assembled, from which the Papal Legates returned to Rome and had with them the Acts of the council, which, as usual, were reported to the entire West. But Calvin say that at that time the King of France, Charlemagne, opposed to the worship of icons, assembled a council of some Bishops of France, Italy, and other places subject to him, and there were 300 Bishops who met in the country of Frankfurt in the year 794, and their meeting was with the knowledge of Pope Hadrian, who also sent Bishops Theophylact and Stephen as Legates. This council condemned Felix and Elipantus, the heretics who wanted to renew the heresy of Nestorius; and it also rejected the Seventh Council because it was claimed to have assented to worship icons with servile worship (λατρευτικώς), as it appears in its second canon, then he even wrote a book against icons, called The Capitulary [Libri Carolini], and sent it to the Pope, but this one rejected it with contempt. And although heretics say that Hadrian first accepted the Capitulary, and then rejected it, some of the Latins also say that Hadrian, seduced by the book of the Capitulary, rejected the Seventh Council, but after learning the deception, he again admitted it, but we affirm regarding the first that it lies and slander, and regarding the second, that Hadrian always had a good opinion about icons, and knew well the acts and definition of the council, and it was absolutely impossible for him to be deceived, therefore this is a lie. This book contains, among other things, that pictorial icons are not needed, unless they only bring a little benefit, however, their position was completely rejected by Charles and his council, at which much was read that served to expose the fathers of the Seventh Council. And this is what the Calvinists say. However, you should know that some Westerners reject this council, but Bellarmine, in Chapter 14 of the books on icons, and Baronius in his chronicler say that the book of the Capitulary contains the acts of the council that was under Charlemagne in Frankfurt, but was rejected by Hadrian, and, as can be seen in the seventh section of councils, much more is said about it, to the placement of which we have here there seems to be no need, but suffice it to say that the Calvinists cite the following in their defense: although Hadrian rejected this council, it was not rejected by the truth, just as Leo the Pope did not accept Canon 8 of the Council of Chalcedon about the Patriarch of Constantinople, nevertheless the canon of this council remained unshakable. But it must be said, firstly, that the Calvinists who think in this way are in vain thinking to defend themselves, since the Ecumenical Council is and is called the one at which the five Patriarchs meet, either themselves personally, or through Legates, and, moreover, many of those subordinate to them have earned universal approval as Bishops, and other priests and wise men, and a council that does not have a Pope and Patriarchs, as stated, is not Ecumenical, but local, and not even local, for an incorrect council cannot be called not only local, but rather it is not a council in general, like the council former under the Poop-Named, and this Frankfurt. Secondly, although Leo did not accept the aforementioned canon of the Council of Chalcedon about the Patriarch of Constantinople, it was approved by other Patriarchs and Fathers gathered from all over the earth, while at the Council of Frankfurt, except for the Pope (for let us also assume that the Papal Legates were present) from there were no other Patriarchs. Thirdly, although Leo did not accept the established canon, it was accepted by the Popes who came after him; therefore, under Justin of Thrace, the Legates of Pope Hormisdas who were present were silent, when Patriarch John of Constantinople was proclaimed Ecumenical, and when Justinian wrote that Epiphanius and Menas were Ecumenical, then Agapetus and Basil, who were also present, were also silent. So Heraclius wrote to Sergius, and Mauritius wrote to … (illegible) and Cyprian, and at the 5th, 6th, and 7th Councils, the Patriarch of Constantinople took second place and was loudly proclaimed Ecumenical in their presence, and in the synodic books it was written like this, and the Popes accepted it willingly, even at the Council of Chalcedon, the very legates of Pope Leo, condemning Dioscorus for autocratically placing Flavian of Constantinople in the fifth place at the fraudulent council that took place in Ephesus, said that they had Anatolius of Constantinople first. And in the Sixth Ecumenical Council it is shown that the autocrat Constantine of Rome wrote the Pope as the Ecumenical Pope, and the Patriarch of Constantinople as the Ecumenical Patriarch. And at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, all the Fathers proclaimed Tarasius Ecumenical, not once, but many times, and the Lateran Council, according to the 1215 rule, decided to call the Patriarch of Constantinople Ecumenical. Even at the Council of Florence, in the presence of Eugene, the Patriarch of Constantinople took second place and was called Ecumenical. So, although Leo rejected the canon, the Popes who followed him accepted it, but from the time of Hadrian to this day all the Popes and Patriarchs did curse and still curse the Council of Frankfurt, both because it deviated from the fatherly and ancient traditions, and because it despised the rules established by general consent, witnessed by the entire Universal Church, and constantly approved and enacted. Why do these heretics [iconoclasts and protestants] disagree with each other, for some accept icons, but do not venerate them, while others do not accept them at all, and even insult them. The Isaurian [Leo III] and the Equestrian [Constantine V] rejected the veneration of Holy icons, but venerated the Holy Gospels and Honest Trees [relics of the True Cross], reverently revered the clothes of the Birthgiver of God and the Holy Sepulcher and other similar objects. But the Calvinists did not miss anything that only referred to their insult and contempt. Lutherans, although they do not venerate icons, do revere them; however, half-honoring is the same as inflicting dishonor. It is obvious that these, having deviated from the right path, and each trying to establish their own opinion, are at enmity not only against the Church, but also against each other due to the special property of evil in each of them.

Chapter 4

Section 1 - the Impious Adulterer Constantine VI

Charlemagne, whom we above repeatedly called the Emperor of Gaul, had a desire to enter into kinship with Emperor Constantine [VI], since Empress-Regent Irene sent the sacellarium¹⁷ also-named Constantine to him as an intermediary with a proposal that he give his daughter to her son Constantine, and in advance sent the eunuch Elisha to teach her the Greek language, as well as Greek literature, as evidenced by Theophanes [the Confessor] among others. However, due to the war that arose with the Franks, Empress Irene sent and received Maria from Amnia and rejected Rotrude the daughter of Charlemagne, which was the beginning of displeasure between mother and son, for Emperor Constantine did not at all want to have Maria from Amnia betrothed to him, but rather he had such an aversion to her, that he forced her to go to the monastery, and took Theodote Kammerdinersha (Greek) instead of her, whom he crowned Empress, as Theophanes writes. But having learned about this, the Monk Plato¹⁸ was embarrassed and interrupted the communication with Patriarch Tarasius because he tonsured Maria into monasticism under duress, and ordered Joseph Ikonomou of the Great Church to crown the Emperor together with Theodote. Together with Plato, the persecuted mother Irene complained, denouncing and mourning the great lawlessness of the wicked Autocrat, who did not acquire her righteous life, as well as faith, but followed the adulterous Herod, as noted by Theodore the Studite, who says that Plato denounced the Emperor as the Forerunner of Herod (here is another monk denouncing the Emperor) and clearly called him an adulterer, according to Zonaras¹⁹. But for this, the ascetic Plato, together with his monks, suffered a lot from this Emperor throughout his entire life, and there was an even greater fight with the Patriarch because he did not prohibit the Emperor from entering the Church and the priest Joseph, who crowned him, was not under his oversight. However, Tarasius treated the Emperor very carefully, seeing his inexperience and frantic passion, and finding the council that was against the iconoclasts still weak and recently established, and therefore did not dare to raise his iron rod, for of two evils one must choose the lesser as the better. Let us also add to the justification of the Patriarch that the Emperor used an allegation of attempted poisoning asthe pretext for excommunicating Maria, and thus the divorce was legal. However, the Patriarch did not abandon his duties in relation to the Emperor under sacred cover, citing various sayings as evidence to him, such as: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder [Mt19:6]. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery [Mt19:9]. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife [1Cor7:27].” - then presenting him with a temptation, since the people are carried away by the example of the Emperor, and that he finally followed in this case the example of Herod, who rejected his lawful wife, the daughter of Aretas, and instead took Herodias, which is why Aretas, the Emperor of Arabia, launched a war against Herod, as having dishonored his daughter, and defeated him, and that both there during the life of Philip, so here during the life of his wife Maria or Martina, lawlessness was committed.

Section 2

At this time, the Exarch John was there, who at the Seventh Council was called the governor of the eastern region, and then, as Theophanes writes, was called the Patriarch of Antioch. He also did not approve of this shameless act, and did not quite believe the malicious intent against the Emperor. He said: “And what more could your wife, O Emperor, hope for than to be a Empress out of the poverty and misery in which she found herself? Where could she find a most beautiful young man like this autocrat, so famous, so victorious, so courageous, and like a giant?” But he and Tarasius with him were driven out of the court with dishonor. For Tarasius threatened Constantine that he would not allow him to enter the interior of the sanctuary, as before he usually entered with complete freedom when the Patriarch celebrated the liturgy. Constantine mutually threatened Tarasius, following the example of his ancestors, to take up arms against the icons and overthrow them, if he did not leave him in his complete will, as the monk Michael narrates about this in the life of Saint Theodore the Studite, where he clearly accuses and declares this Emperor and his wife Theodote as being worthy of excommunication. The Emperor, on whom what was said by the tributary was fulfilled: “He that puts away a good wife, puts away a good thing, and he that keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly.” [Prv18:22 LXX] However, Constantine reigned with his mother Irene for 10 years, and alone for 7. Seeing the inconstancy of her son, who, out of love for his concubine Theodote, threatened to open idol temples and close Christian ones if they separated him from her, at a time when this same Constantine went to Byzantium to celebrate and enjoy the birth of his son Leo, Irene, together with the army, made every effort to incite the main military leader against him, which she succeeded in doing, and Constantine was without mercy deprived of the sweetest light of his eyes, not on the advice of Irene (although some falsely accuse her of this), but according to the judgment of God, because he himself unrighteously blinded his uncles Nicephorus and Alexius [Mosele]. Agrippina said out of love for her son Nero: “I will not live if only my son reigns.” But Irene, driven by her love for Christianity, said: “Let the reign of my son Constantine end, if only Christianity flourishes in my time.”

Section 3 - The Deposition of Empress Irene and the Death of the Usurper Nicephorus

Charlemagne had the intention of entering into marriage with Empress Irene, and he very much sought this, for the glory of his kingdom. But one of the Patricians, Nicephorus [I], caused an indignation, and having deceived the guards of the copper gates, together with the chiefs ruling the night guards, early in the morning he proclaimed himself Emperor, and was crowned by Patriarch Tarasius. And Empress Irene, after showing Nicephorus all the treasures of the Empire, was expelled by him to the island of Principa, and from there again exiled to Mytilene, where she concluded her life. However, she was honored with praise from Theodore the Studite for her mercy, by which she satisfied all the needs that anyone had due to their profession of faith. But Nicephorus was secretly an iconoclast, especially following the Manichaean heresy, as Theophanes testifies, and he was a man thirsty for war and breathing murder and greed beyond all measure, and therefore he burdened the people a lot. And most of all, he introduced the custom of collecting a poll tax, which the Turks still take today, and which is usually called Kharatzion. He waged war with Krum, the Khan of Bulgaria, and was defeated by him, and Krum covered his skull with silver, tore off the skin from it, and filling it to the very brim, drank with everyone around him, as Michael the Studite writes about this. Moreover, Krum made a beginning and said: “in honor of our victory, I drink this cup full.”

Section 4 - The Avars in Greece

During the reign of Maurice, the Avars, who were then called Slavins (Slavs), having conquered Thrace, Macedonia, Illyria, took possession of the Peloponnese, from where Patra moved to Calabria, and the Argives to the island of Orobium, the Corinthians to Aegina, and from the Lacedaemonians some to Spugilia, and others to Demena, which the natives also call Mani, and some built Monemvasia, which did not exist before, while others, settling in cramped places, were called Tsakoni instead of the Lacedaemonians. The Avars ruled the Peloponnese for 215 years, which is from the sixth year of the reign of Maurice to the fourth year of the reign of this Nicephorus, by whom they were defeated and forced to accept Christianity, and the destroyed cities were restored, which is why the Patrians, returning from Calabria together with their Bishop Athanasius, rebuilt their city, and for the fact that they returned. The Bishopric of Patras, in order to honor them through this, was honored with the dignity of the Metropolis, under Patriarch Tarasius, and three Bishoprics were given to it — Lacedaemonian, Coronian, and Methonic. Something should be noted here, firstly: that Lacedaemon, destroyed by the Avars and then restored, was inhabited by inhabitants of different tribes, Kavirs, Thracians, and Armenians, intermingled with each other. Secondly, that the Arcadians, living in the difficult and inconveniently approachable regions of the Peloponnese, did not submit to the Avars. But during the reign of Justinian the Great, there were Ungrian (Hunnic) ambassadors in Constantinople, who had long and intertwined hair and their language was similar to the language of the Ungros, for the Avars are also Ungros.

Section 5 - Patriarch Nicephorus and Emperor Nicephorus

Finally, the wise and holy Tarasius died, as Ignatius the Monk calls him, and in his place Nicephorus was ordained Patriarch. Since this man was a layman, having a position of secretary in his service, the Monk Plato and Theodore of Studium, the abbot, did not like him, which resulted in a division among the people. For this reason, he retired to the monastery to undergo a test and was among the monks as a catechumen, why it seemed to the abbots (ηγούμενος) not to be in accordance with the rules of prudence to immediately introduce him to the rights of the Patriarch, although he was dear to God, and adorned with virtues, and rich knowledge. Then Nicephorus, with the conviction of Nicephorus the Emperor, declared forgiveness to Joseph the Priest, who crowned Constantine to the Empire, having previously been cleared by Tarasius. This circumstance was also the reason for the difference of opinion between the mentioned persons and the Patriarch, to whose side Joseph of Thessaloniki also adhered. However, they thought wrongly, for the fact that Nicephorus became Patriarch from a layman was not lawless, since Nectarius and Tarasius of Constantinople, Ambrose of Milan, and Ephraim of Antioch became in the same way; and that he, yielding to the harsh character of Nicephorus, agreed to the forgiveness of Priest, this was also not an unusual thing, since Epiphanius ruled in the same way with Eudocia, and Tarasius with Constantine, and Ananias and Euthymius, and Macedonius with Zeno, and Anastasius, and Gregory the Great with many, as it is said in Book 5. So the Emperor, having convened a council, expelled Theodore from the city and his place of residence, and with him and everyone who thought the same with him, to Thessaloniki, and Zonaras adds that Plato and Theodore were indignant and rebelled against Nicephorus, out of a move of ambition, since they themselves wanted rule over the Church of Constantinople, and be Patriarchs. Of course, it should be said about them that, if in general someone who attacks any hierarch is subject to trial, then to what kind of judgment does he expose himself who opposes such Bishops, or especially the Bishops of Bishops, and how reprehensible it should be for monks to have such strife, to whom it is said: You should not investigate the affairs of the Bishops, for it is not given to you to command, but to obey. However, although they apparently fell, they soon rose again, and upon returning from exile they had a strong love with Priest Nicephorus, for it is said about them: “When he falls, he will not be broken, for the Lord strengthens his hand.” It should be noted that Theodore of Studium cannot be praised for the fact that he was pleased with the action of the Seventh Council, when it accepted the iconoclastic bishops. For it is indecent for a priest to follow and judge a lawful Ecumenical Council, since there is nothing in the Church above it, and no one can follow and judge it.

Section 6 - The Death Penalty is in the just power of Emperors

In the year 811, according to Theophanes, Michael the Kouropalates²⁰ was crowned king, from whom Patriarch Nicephorus for the first time asked with his own hand a certificate of the right faith, and that he would keep his hands clean from Christian blood, both with priests or monks, and in general the Church clergy will not be treated harshly. Michael returned the Studite and his companions from exile, and (illegible) the Patriarch and other strong people, reconciled the three, says Theophanes. Moreover, the Emperor, being favorable, generous and merciful, donated a rich decoration decorated with precious stones to the Great Church. Also led by divine jealousy and the advice of Nicephorus the Patriarch and other God-loving men, he set out to initiate a persecution against the Manichaeans, who are also called Paulicians and Athenians, and who live in Lycaonia, Phrygia, and other places in Asia, but was stopped by some, who told him that must agree with the Patriarch regarding death of the most wicked; however, they said it unfairly, because Peter killed Ananias and Sapphira, and Paul said that those who do such things are worthy of death, and Maurice, following the advice of [John] the Faster, killed Lecapomantinus, the Peacock, see also the letter of Simeon the Stylite to Emperor Justin, found in Act 5 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. For the Bishop should by no means agree or have a short relationship with secular people, and equally, he should not put any obstacle in the killing of these embodied demons, or at least not stop his intentions. Moreover, some malefactors from the Athenians, and Paulicians, opposing (illegible), had no intention of hiding through this the children of the Equestrian [Constantine V], exiled to the island of Antigone, and enthroning them and again restoring iconoclasm. But Michael knew how to deal with him, and some of these malicious people he put to death, some he exiled. And Empress Procopia, having built a monument in honor of Saint Tarasius, lined his coffin with silver, using ninety liters for this.

Section 7 - The Bloodthirsty Advocated for War with Bulgaria

Under Theodosius of Adramyttium and Germanus the Holy Patriarch, there was peace between the Romans and the Bulgarians, under the terms of which the renegades on both sides were given back. So Krum the Bulgarian tried to persuade Michael to the same love and deviate from the war. Both the Patriarch and some of the Bishops desperately desired peace, but, according to the testimony of Zonaras and Theodore the Studite, there were people, precisely from among those close to the Emperor, who, having evil intentions, tried to prevent this. They followed the word of Christ, who said: “and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. [Jn6:37]” And these said, firstly, that we did not give up a single deserter, if only we could save him and have peace. Secondly: although they are changemakers, their number is very small, but it is much more necessary to take care of those who make up a large number and are in agreement, rather than enrich themselves with suspicious people. For it is more pleasing to God that many be preserved than not many. Besides this, whoever is ill-disposed toward his own is, according to Paul, worse than an infidel. But where is the word of the Psalmist: “be peaceable with those who hate”? Do those who reason in this way have more wisdom than Patriarchs Paul and Germanus? However, these malicious people prevailed, and the consequence of this was wars, destruction and extermination of not only cities and villages, but also entire vast Dioceses.

(Chapters 5 through 12 were not included in the Russian text)

Chapter 13

Section 1 - The Enthronement of Photius

After the death of Saint Methodius, in the year 847, Saint Ignatius was elevated to the throne of Constantinople. At this time, Bardas the Caesar, the maternal uncle of the then reigning Michael, who was divorced from his wife, was suspected of an adulterous relationship with his daughter-in-law: therefore, when Bardas wanted to commune on the day of Epiphany, Ignatius did not allow him in because he did not listen his denunciations. But Bardas, harboring anger against Ignatius because he did not want to fulfill his request not to expose him, slandered him before the Emperor with malicious intent against his Royal person, so that the Emperor, in the 855th year, cast Ignatius from the throne, and he ordered his place to be Patriarch Photius, who was at that time Protasyncritus, a most learned man, as Leo the Grammarian testifies about him, and Ignatius was imprisoned in the coffin of the Poop-Named, and starved, and from there he exiled him to the island of Terebinth. Here they demanded his justification; but when Ignatius did not give it, he was exiled to Mytilene. Meanwhile, Photius wrote, as usual, to the Patriarchs and the Pope, about his elevation to the Patriarchal throne. Since at that time the governors of the Pope were in Constantinople, who were sent against the iconoclasts, the adherents of Bardas won them over to their side, and in the 861st year, they convened a council in the Church of the Holy Wisdom, known as the First-Second [Protodeutera], at which 318 fathers were present, and having summoned Ignatius from Mytilene, they completely deposed him, or, as others claim, the Emperor, wanting to end the discord caused by the iconoclasts, and special circumstances affecting the Patriarchs, sent the Archon and gifts to Rome, bestowing also the governors. However, this false determination made against Ignatius was the reason for the condemnation of Photius himself for something that he not only did not do, and did not even have in his thoughts. Meanwhile, Bardas opened a public school for teaching science in Constantinople, in which the glory of learned men had almost completely faded, which is why John the Kouropalates, writing about Leo the Philosopher of that time, directly says that in Constantinople he studied both Grammar and Pitica and all the sciences, but in Andre, while with Michael Psellus, he carefully studied philosophy. The Translator²¹ also lived at the same time, which is why Psellus, on the occasion of his death, wrote a word of praise in his honor. But Bardas also, by frequently visiting judicial places, resumed the lost precise meaning of civil laws. These are the good actions of Bardas, but which are completely darkened by his actions against Ignatius and others.

Section 2 - Pope Nicholas steals Bulgaria from Constantinople

After the deposition of Ignatius, when letters of notification were sent to Rome along with the Papal Legates, Nicholas, having accepted those of them that contained provisions against the iconoclasts, did not agree to the deposition of Ignatius. Then something else happened. For although the Bulgarians partially accepted Christianity, both their Emperor Michael and the entire people accepted to be added to the careful care of Patriarch Photius for the reasons stated above. For Photius even wrote a letter to Michael of Bulgaria, consisting of 18 chapters, where, from Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils, he teaches him the Orthodox faith, and teaches him the rules of piety, and how a leader should act. But Nicholas the Pope, moved by the spirit of arrogance, appropriated Bulgaria to himself under false pretenses, and sent some Bishops and other Church members, who, completely contrary to all the rules, chrismated those baptized who had already been chrismated by the priests of Constantinople, claiming that the performance of chrismation belongs to the Bishops themselves, and not to the priests, and that Photius sent the priests without being consecrated himself. Moreover, they taught to fast on Saturday, on the contrary, on the first two days of Pentecost, to leave the fast on the second and third, and some other innovations, but mainly they taught in a secret way about the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. But Photius, on the contrary, tried to keep Bulgaria behind him, since the conversion of the Bulgarians was the fruit of the efforts of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Bulgaria was once under the control of the Bishop of Thessaloniki, as stated above in Book 5, and Thessaloniki depended on the Patriarch of Constantinople, which is why Photius did not respect Nicholas with any pretexts, but absolutely despised him. But this one gathers its council in Rome, that is, from the Western Bishops, and deposes Photius, among other reasons, such as the fact that from a layman he became Patriarch, and moreover, during the life of Ignatius, whom he deposed unjustly, that he was ordained by Gregory of Syracuse, who he himself had previously been deposed by Leo and Benedict, the Roman Bishops, and Ignatius of Constantinople, besides these reasons, mainly because he did not cede Bulgaria to the Pope of Rome, he sent this deposition to Constantinople, adding to that the deposition of those who were ordained by Photius. But the Constantinopolitans considered the deposition of the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Pope without an Ecumenical Council to be unfounded, and therefore they rejected the deposition sent from him and drove out those who brought it. Emperor Michael writes to Nicholas, and, denouncing him, gives him a severe reprimand for his cruelty and covetousness, and also calls the Latin language barbaric. Pope Nicholas also answered him with a letter in which he justified himself, and he told him about the Latin language that just as in Rome the Gospel and the Apostol are read in the Liturgy in Greek, so in Constantinople in the Church of the Holy Wisdom it is read in Latin, although the latter is not true. But notice what the synaxist says, namely, that the words: “Constantine, in this Sign, Conquer,” were written in Latin, but Leo the Wise says that they were written in Greek, however, reliable historians claim that these letters were Latin. But despite all this, Nicholas did not cease to show great pride, and wrote and demanded that the Emperor send both Photius and Ignatius to Rome so that he could judge them.

Section 3 - The Conflict of Pope Nicholas and Patriarch Photius

Offended by this, Photius writes district letters to the Eastern Patriarchs, and demands that they send governors against the Pope of Rome, presenting to them that those sent from this Pope chrismated the Bulgarians a second time, taught them to fast on Saturdays, and on the contrary, on the second and third days of the first week of fasting allow milk and cheese, force their priests to be wifeless, and preach about the origin of the Holy Ghost and from the Son. However, the Patriarchal governors had not yet had time to arrive to draw up an Ecumenical Council, when Photius convened a council after being forced by the violence of the Pope of Rome, and presented before everyone the above-mentioned and other faults of the Pope Nicholas, Photius deposed him, and sent the deposition to Rome. But Nicholas convenes a council in Rome, and deposes Photius a second time. In the letter Photius writes to the Patriarchs, it should be noted, firstly, that the Bulgarians were idolaters. Secondly, that the Armenians during his time joined the Catholic Church, although after that they separated again. Thirdly, that Photius rightly denounces the Romans for these five innovations. Fourthly, that at that time the Russians also accepted Christianity. Fifthly, that Photius calls the Apostolic power the dignity of the Patriarchs. Sixthly, that a conciliar message was sent from Italy through the Priests Basil, Zosimas and Metrophanes, and some others, filled with complaints, confirmed by an oath, and accusations against Pope Nicholas, and demanding a conciliar trial. Seventhly, that those who sent this message wrote to Photius regarding the cruelty of Nicholas, <…> to make it known to the other Patriarchal thrones, also asked that the Seventh Council be finally approved. Eighth, what Photius says to the Patriarchs: “I know that even a small deviation from the truths handed down to us leads to contempt for the entire teaching. Therefore, I consider it fair, following the ancient custom of the Church, to again show your brotherhood the importance of knowledge and knowledge of them, to be a zealous supporter in the overthrow of these wicked and godless foundations. Meanwhile, I earnestly ask you not to abandon the paternal institution, which was dedicated to you by your ancestors, but with great care and readiness to choose and send famous men in your place as governors, representing your person, to be it for the general meeting.” And below: “So those whom you have to send in your place, and who will have to represent your sacred and reverend person, must try to ensure that your full authority, which you inherited in the Holy Ghost, is entrusted to them, so that they are able to with the authoritative characteristic of the Apostolic Sees, to speak about these main points and about other subjects close to them, and in their actions regarding them they had complete freedom.” So Photius wrote to the Patriarchs, adding among other things about how the assembly of Ecumenical Councils takes place, and for what purpose, and what power they have. This message is printed by us and is at the beginning. But Caesar Bardas dies, and Photius’s circumstances change. For suddenly Basil the Macedonian reigned, having killed Michael, whose natural son he was, and Zonaras says that when Photius did not want to stick to the side of Basil for having killed Michael, even after this Basil accepted him, because, as can be seen from Photius’ letters to him, Photius anointed and crowned him to the Empire, however, out of his hateful disposition towards Michael, and because Photius denounced him for the murder of Michael, Basil, citing the rule of the Church as the reason that the legitimate Patriarch Ignatius was still alive, expels Photius, and again introduces Ignatius. And that he expelled Photius because he was rebuked by him, this is evidenced by Joel, who says about Basil: “This one deprived Photius of the throne because he was reproached by him for the murder of Michael.” Secondly, Zonaras says: “Basil, having come to the great Church on a holiday when he wanted to partake of a bloodless sacrifice, was forbidden by Patriarch Photius, who called him a murderer. So, being angry for this, he convened a council, and Photius was expelled from the Church, under the pretext that Ignatius was lawlessly overthrown from the bishop’s throne, and Photius had not correctly ascended to the holy throne, which pretext, as they say, was presented by Patroclus.” Thirdly, Simeon the Magister also says: “When Basil wanted to join, Photius called him a robber and murderer, and not worthy of divine communion, and Basil sent him to Rome, that is, to the enemies of Photius. For this denunciation, Basil expelled Photius.” Fourthly, George the monk says: “When Basil came to the Church and wanted to commune, Photius called him a robber and murderer and unworthy of divine communion. He, being angry, sent to Rome, and calling the Roman Bishops, expelled Photius from the Church.” Fifthly, Leo the Grammarian says: “When the Emperor came to the Church and wanted to commune, Patriarch Photius called him a robber and a murderer, and unworthy of divine communion. He, angry, sent to Rome and summoned the Bishops to condemn Photius.” Sixthly, Naucritus says: “He introduces a certain Photius, who was then an eminent scribe, and always famous for his piety and knowledge, whom he suddenly ordered to be installed in the place of the Patriarch, and entrusts to him all the honors of the High-Priesthood. But Basil the Caesar, having accepted the scepter of the Roman Empire, commands the establishment of a holy council, and gives the High Hierarchal throne to the God-bearing Ignatius.” This is taken from the life of Nicholas the Studite. Of course, judging by the piety of Photius, Basil would not have expelled him, but he did this out of his own anger, aroused in him by the righteousness of Photius. Meanwhile, Pope Nicholas died, having been Patriarch for 7 years and 9 months. It is remarkable that when he was Pope, and he had to make a solemn welcome to King Louis [the Pious], who had then arrived in Rome, this Louis led a thousand steps by the bridle of the horse on which the Pope was sitting, since this king was crowned by the Pope. On this basis, Anastasius the librarian, who was then in glory, and who was writing the history of the Popes, invented this tale that Justinian always preceded the meeting of Agapetus and Vigilius and the Slit-Nosed [son] of Constantine [IV], as we said about this in its place.

Section 4 - The 869 Antiphotian Council

So Basil, wanting to show that he acted justly, writes to Rome and to the Eastern Patriarchs, and now the viceroys of the Roman Pope Hadrian, the Bishops Denatus and Stephen, and Marinus the Deacon appear; and from the side of the Patriarch of Antioch, since there were no governors, the adherents of Ignatius, having found one certain Archbishop Thomas of Tyre, they elect him governor by a majority vote; on the part of the Patriarch of Alexandria, the vicar was John the Archdeacon, who arrived after, and already towards the end of the council, and the vicar of the Patriarch of Jerusalem was Elijah the Syncellus. Among the acts of this council are considered: the life of Ignatius, described by Nicetas and David of Paphlagonia, and the praise of Michael the Syncellus to Ignatius, a note from Ignatius to Nicholas of Rome, a letter from Nicholas to the East, West and Libya, and another to Ignatius, and a letter from Epiphanius of Cyprus to the same Ignatius; and in total there are ten acts. This council also laid down forty canons. And this council was assembled in the 869th year, and in the next year thereafter - during the reign of Basil.

Section 5

In the life of Ignatius, described by Nicetas, notice the following false legend. The first lie: he says that Photius wrote to Pope Nicholas to send governors to draw up a council against the iconoclasts; and about Ignatius he said that, due to old age, having asked for dismissal, he was resting in his monastery, which is why the deceived Pope sent two Bishops, Zacharias and Roduald, as governors. It’s a lie. For how could it be possible to exclude from the life of Ignatius the time of his punishment and exile, and how could it be that for such a long time this circumstance did not become public. When people of all kinds are present in Constantinople? It is impossible for this to remain unknown for such a long time, therefore it was known. Why didn’t Nicholas, following his governors, write to them to move away from Photius? And when this same Nicetas testifies that Ignatius spent six months in Mytilene, how much more time passed? And why was this incident not known in Rome? So Kedrin, who says that the ambassadors were in Constantinople, is more worthy of credibility, for his evidence is consistent with the essence of the matter. Also, Stylianus of Neoceasaria, the cruel enemy of Photius, writing to Pope Stephen, says about Photius that, having deposed Ignatius, he demanded from the Pope governors to testify to what he had done against Ignatius, which was actually done, and the Bishops Zechariah and Roduald were sent. Notice that if Photius demanded governors to testify to what he did against Ignatius, as Stylianus says, then how does Nicetas claim that he deceived Nicholas regarding his actions against Ignatius? Therefore Stylianus and Nicetas are both lying. This is the second lie. He says that Bardas had a dream that the Apostle Peter was sitting at the throne in the Church, and two people stood near him, and Ignatius, who happened to be there, said to him: “O keeper of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the stone on which Christ established His Church.” And Peter ordered one of these two young men to kill Bardas. Here’s the second lie. For this dream is either fictitious or incorrectly retold, because it contains blasphemy. The stone of faith is not Peter, but Christ, in whose place no one can lay another foundation; and the keeper of the keys is not Peter alone, as has already been said and will be said again. This is the third lie. He says that Photius, having deposed Nicholas, sent ambassadors and gifts to Louis, the King of France, and Ermengarde his wife, promising to proclaim them Kings in Constantinople if they helped him expel Nicholas from the Roman Bishopric. But, beloved, what gifts did Photius have that he could send to the Kings to persuade them to do such a thing? Moreover, how could the Patriarch proclaim the King of France as a King in Constantinople, when John Cinnamus, in Book 2 of his history, in Chapter 7 says that the King of France, during his journey to Jerusalem, was in Constantinople with Manuel Komnenos, and meanwhile this the autocrat sat on an elevated place, the King took a place on some low seat brought specially for him, called in the Roman language [Greek]: (illegible). In addition to these, Metropolitan of Smyrna, the mortal enemy of Photius, writing to Manuel the Logathete and Patricius, says that Photius proclaimed Louis as King and Ermengarde as Queen, just as the Council of Chalcedon proclaimed Pulcheria, although Louis’s officials at this council opposite Photius sat behind the left side of the council, and officials of the glorious Michael of Bulgaria on the right side. Do you see in what honor the Gauls were then, and how Photius, according to Metrophanes, proclaimed them Kings, or, according to the Paphlagonian, promised to proclaim them? Therefore, these two are also lying. Note that Canon 12 of this council says: “Secular officials should not be present at councils other than Ecumenical ones.” But this is not true, since in Constantinople at local councils, under Flavian and Eutychus and at other private councils, secular officials were present and sat with them. This is the fourth lie. He says that Basil was clearly quarreling with Photius. For it is known that he quarreled, but this quarrel was not obvious. So he says that the Emperor, having taken action against Ignatius and the deposition of Nicholas, showed it to the council, and was seethed with anger at Photius, and Kedrin says that Basil conciliarly expels Photius, who opposed the authorities, commanding him to remain idle, (…) God will deliver to himself the one who was staged correctly, like Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the life of Basil, among other things, writes that Basil, wanting to return his father (Ignatius) to the children, ordered the one who put the ball in his place (Photius) to remain idle until God resigns him to Himself. However, from these two testimonies it is revealed that Basil expelled Photius by the council because he was angry with him because Photius had severely rebuked him, but he expelled him without doing injustice in this case, but in some way legally, ordering him to remain idle while the former lived correctly placed. But if he cursed Photius and considered him as a layman, then how could he say: so that he could remain idle until Ignatius died? Therefore, the Paphlagonian lies when he attributes the words of the enemies of Photius and the words of the Italians to the Emperor. The fifth lie involves blasphemy. For he says that Tarasius was guided more by mercy than by justice in accepting persons ordained by heretics, or those who abandoned heresy, although we are all saved, not by our own imputed truth, for Christ did not become a man for the sake of our righteousness, but by His mercy. The Church, following this Law, justly accepts those who sin, since it itself has the height of righteousness in the mercy of God. And that this happened in other times can be seen in many places in this book, wherever it is said about councils. In addition, this was done not by Saint Tarasius, but by the Seventh Ecumenical Council. What is surprising if the one who slanders Tarasius also slanders Photius? The sixth lie also includes blasphemy. For he says that the repeal of Photius was signed with a pen dipped in the terrible Blood of Christ. But if the Blood of Christ was put in ink, then those who did this acted completely recklessly, since the whole Christ is contained in the Blood of Christ in the sacrament; how could He mix with the ink, if only in this way they dipped the pen into the Blood of the sacrament? But in the sacrament only such things appear in a sensual image that happen by chance from the damage of the wine, and not the Blood of Christ itself, so that one can dip a pen in it and give it its crimson color, although this is doubtful because other historians also talk about Pope Theodore, that he dipped his pen in the Blood of Christ when he signed the deposition of Patriarch Pyrrhus of Constantinople. The seventh lie concludes a new blasphemy. For he says that the Patriarch could not do whatever he wanted autocratically, but on the contrary, in accordance with Church tradition, he granted the right of judgment to the Popes. That the Patriarch could not do whatever he wanted autocratically is true; but the words: “granted the right of trial to the Popes” are ridiculous and imply blasphemy. Funny, because if the Popes had such a right, then how could it be given to them? It concludes blasphemy because the Ecumenical Council had the custom according to which the Church carried out the judgment, and not the Pope. If he says that he was called a predominant judge, then it is not possible for anyone in the Church to be a judge who was not given such power by the canons, but the canons gave this power only to the Ecumenical Council, which is why the Eusebians, although they called Julius a judge, later abandoned it. And Athanasius the Great, when this Julius was proclaimed a judge from the above-mentioned Eusebian, although, due to the demands of circumstances, he himself wanted this, but without success, he demanded an Ecumenical Council. And when Eutyches demanded that the Pope be the judge, the Pope, although he spoke and wrote a lot of arrogant things, could not do anything until the Ecumenical Council was assembled and judged him. So here too, although the Popes were much stronger and insistent, they could not do anything alone until the council was assembled, and decided what was pleasing to him. Further, if, according to the ancient tradition of the Church, the Pope had the power to judge, then what forced the Emperors to convene an Ecumenical Council? Finally, it does not agree with Stylianus and Metrophanes, with these enemies of Photius, and therefore both he and they turn out to be enemies of Photius, for they not only do not agree in their stories about Photius, but also insult and revile in a pagan way, which is characteristic only of mortal enemies, and the testimony of such is a complete lie, therefore a lie and everything else that this false council did, contrary to the rules and customs of Ecumenical Councils, especially being carried away by malice and the spirit of paganism. As for the history of the Paphlagonian, let’s say that the Paphlagonian lived after Photius, and wrote not only what Photius’ enemies wrote, but also everything that he heard even from old women, and therefore, taking into account, firstly, the face of the writer, that is, that he is the enemy of Photius; secondly, the image, as he wrote, that is, biased and contrary to paternal custom; thirdly, time, and a false rumor, we completely despise this work of his, and reject it as full of satanic blasphemies. However, it should be noted that although the Paphlagonian, as an enemy of Photius, and as if blinded by an evil disposition towards him, accuses him falsely, he writes very strongly about the procession of the Holy Ghost, contrary to the opinion of those who claim that He proceeds from the Son. For, speaking about man as a man, he could very well, for some known reasons, even reach the point of shamelessness, but speaking about God, he kept his conscience completely unshakable.

Section 6 - An Explanation of Patriarch Ignatius’ behavior towards Pope Nicholas

In the Syncellus’ laudatory speech to Ignatius, note firstly that he calls all Patriarchs equally Patriarchs and does not give the Roman one any advantage over the others when he says: “Basil the Macedonian elevates Ignatius to the Patriarchal throne, which, as the primates of the other Patriarchal thrones soon learned, we were very happy.” And secondly, that the Syncellus, beacause he was a holy man, does not revile Photius, like the Paphlagonian. However, if there were deeds related to Photius, as the Paphlagonian says, something should have been said, or even if it was not enough to expose him, but he, saying only that there were truths, that is, that the Patriarchate went to Photius incorrectly, about other things, as false, he did not mention it. Thirdly, that the Syncellus, in agreement with others, speaks of the omophorion of the Brother of God, that Ignatius had it, but does not say that he was buried with it. Fourthly, that it is not the Angels of the Saints, but the souls of the Saints who watch over us, and note this against the Calvinists. In Ignatius’s letter to Nicholas the Pope (for one must agree that it is true), note first the words: “To my Lord,” and see about this in Book 10, Part 2. Secondly, that he calls him the Patriarch of all thrones, and if he calls him first in order, then he speaks the truth, but if he calls him by dignity, in relation to others, then he speaks a lie. For this is contrary to Scripture and the Church, as has already been said and will be. But Ignatius said this, of course, wanting to flatter the Pope. And that Ignatius received his completely final justification not from the Pope, but from the general council, the Paphlagonian testifies to this when he says: “Ignatius convincingly asks the Emperor to convene an Ecumenical Council to heal all temptations.” And note that the Paphlagonian does not call the Pope a monarch, since he assigns the main power to the Ecumenical Council. Thirdly, he calls him the successor of Peter, but this name befits all Bishops, and not just the Bishop of Rome. See the Goldenmouth in Chapter 3 on the Priesthood²², where he, explaining one text in the Gospel of Matthew, in Chapter 16, says: “and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, ‘Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?’ John 20:23 What authority could be greater than this?” Who can be greater than this power? But if there is no power higher than the episcopal, which the Goldenmouth means through the priesthood, then the power of the Pope is nothing more than an invention. Fourthly, that, although he was forced to make the Pope the Predominant Judge, he does not believe him alone, but calls him his judge together with the council, for he says: “And the Most Holy Bishops subordinate to him and the entire Roman Church.” Therefore, the Pope, in himself, is nothing more than one of the bishops, and when he wanted to act without an Ecumenical Council, he could not have any success, as evidenced by the affairs that happened under Julius with the Eusebians, the affairs of Innocent regarding the Goldenmouth, Simplicius, and Felix regarding Acacius, the case of Leo regarding Stephen of Ephesus and Eutyches, the case of Zosimus and those who came after him, regarding the Carthaginians, and [Gregory] the Dialogist with [John] the Faster, and countless others, which were mentioned above. Fifthly, that the testimony presented by Ignatius to Nicholas to prevent any confusion that might arise in him, if it refers to the Goldenmouth, then look at this in its place, but if it refers to the fourth canon of the Council of Sardis, then look again in its place, above in Book 2, Chapter 6.

Section 8 - The Pope’s Power is the same as any other Bishop

In Nicholas’ letter to Ignatius, note firstly why he says that he bases all his judgments on the evidence of Scripture and on conciliar rules, then look below, where he says that he does not accept the deposition of Ignatius. What conciliar rule does he provide as proof of this? For when Dioscorus accepted into communion Eutyches, who had been deposed by the Council of Constantinople, having done this without first considering him at the Ecumenical Council, he was condemned for this. And Nicholas should have said that without a conciliar court he would not accept the deposition of Ignatius, and not blaspheme and not arrogate to himself the dignity of the conciliar Church. And this is the reason why his double deposition of Photius and acquittal of Ignatius had no force, just as the one that Felix did against Acacius alone was considered nothing. So Flavian the Patriarch of Antioch and many others rejected the deposition of the Goldenmouth, and John of Antioch, upon his arrival from Ephesus to Antioch, having gathered many Bishops, deposed Cyril, who was already in Alexandria, although after they ceased enmity and became friends, and mutually exchanged thrones, as Socrates writes about this in Book 7 in the 304th Chapter. Why be surprised if Nicholas did what the Patriarch of Antioch and many Metropolitans and simply Bishops did? Secondly, he says that the first throne is not subject to the judgment of another, as the Papists claim that the Clergy of Rome said this to Charlemagne about Leo III. However, he is subject to the trial of Ecumenical Councils, like Honorius and Vigilius, and is subject to the trial of private councils, as many private councils tried and condemned Popes, just as the present council, by the thirteenth rule, states that the Pope of Rome is tried and excommunicated as a heretic, and see about this in their places above, and especially in the last chapter of Book 1. Thirdly, he says that he and Westerners think and decide this way. But how could anyone say that a private council, without any need, makes determinations about outsiders? Fourthly, he says that he follows his predecessors. But if by the name of predecessors he means the common Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, then he should have demanded an Ecumenical Council, as Innocent demanded in the case of the Goldenmouth. If the Pope alone speaks, then in vain he raises his voice, which is why he is subject to contempt and is deprived of all right to demand that he be listened to. Fifthly, that if he is recognized as a predominant judge, firstly by Ignatius, secondly by Photius, as is revealed from Act 6 of the same council, where Ignatius’s friend, Metrophanes of Smyrna, speaks to Zechariah of Chalcedon, a friend of Photius, who does not accept the decisions of the council that are not beneficial for Photius: “Ecclesiastical and civil laws prescribe not to oppose the person who is elected to be a judge, and not to reject what he has decided at his trial. So, when we asked His Holiness Pope Nicholas to be a judge, why don’t you accept what he laid down at his trial?” This is also revealed from the letter of Stylianus to Stephen of Rome, and from the letter of Ignatius to the Pope of Rome, in which he says: “Summoned to trial, we loudly cried out to your Holiness, but no one listened.” So, even if he judged as a predominant judge according to the rank of the Bishop, he still should not show pride, and judge according to his own will, but he should judge Church affairs according to Church rules. If, thirdly, he was recognized as the predominant judge, according to the authority given to him by the Emperor; as it was given to Dioscorus from Theodosius, and to Leo from Marcian at the Fourth Council (about which see in its place), then in this case he had to, having received such power, dispose in common with others, and not alone (see, however, the mentioned book ). Why, although he strengthened himself a lot, he could not do anything alone, for as soon as the council was completed, Photius was deposed, as said. However, this legend that Photius recognized Nicholas as the superior judge, and in such a mind demanded him, is an undoubted lie. Further, if he is called an elected judge, then he does not have the authority from Christ or Peter to judge everyone. Moreover, if he is called chosen by Photius, then he is not named at the beginning, but after a long time, and, moreover, with a special purpose.

Section 9

There is, apparently, no doubt that this so-called “eighth council” [869] really once existed; for whether driven by anger at Photius, or prompted by the indignation that occurred in the Church on the occasion of the overthrow of Ignatius, the Emperor tried to investigate the truth, as Porphyrogenitus speaks of this, but nevertheless he tamed the sea storm, through a council, to which he convened the Bishops of the Church of God from all sides. Moreover, he confirmed the Seventh Holy Council in all its power, and excommunicated the remaining iconoclasts, and returned to the Church the true bridegroom, and the true father to her children, and commanded the overthrown Photius to remain idle until God reposed him to Himself. So there really was a council, but not only for Photius, but also for other general church meetings, only the acts of this council were damaged and many forgeries and inconsistencies were introduced. And firstly, he accuses Photius of many very reprehensible things, and not decent for any Christian, although Photius was not involved in anything like that, since no one spoke about it, and no one among the historians mentioned it, below his enemies are the Romans, and the Paphlagonian and Stylianus of Neoceasaria, and Metrophanes of Smyrna. Secondly, in Act 2 he allows those who were previously in company with Photius, but who later repented, to eat fish on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent, since they did not eat meat, and to eat oil and wine, which is completely contrary to the ancient custom, and the general belief of the conciliar Church, since on Wednesday and Friday no one eats fish, for on Great Pentecost, fasting is equally observed on Wednesdays and Fridays according to the Apostolic Rule (see above Epiphanius, Basil and other fathers about the Council of Trullo).

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

1. The 754 Synod at Hieria
2. Saint John of Damascus
3. Saint Gregory the Wonderworker
4. The Letter of Pope Hadrian to the 7th Council
5. Saint Gregory of Nyssa
6. Also called Chrysostom
7. Emperor Constantine V Copronymous (Poop-Named)
8. The Latin text of the Letter of Pope Hadrian contains an addition to the text not found in the Greek, which says “venerated it as the head of all Churches.” This is part of the polemics against Orthodox given by the papists who claim that Pope Hadrian claimed universal jurisdiction, but this is not actually contained within the original Acts of the Council.
9. Emperor Jovian of Rome
10. Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople
11. Emperor Tiberius II Constantine
12. Emperor Maurice
13. Emperor Heraclius was a monothelite heretic.
14. Heraclius refused to recognize Pope Severinus’ election as Pope for 18 months because Severinus would not accept monothelitism.
15. Emperor Justinian II
16. The Russian word “средостение” translates to “mediastinum,” which is the chest cavity that contains the heart and lungs. This could not literally fit in the sentence, so I chose to interpret it metaphorically as a container, point of origin, or place of importance, which in all can be consolidated in the word of choice, “source.”
17. Sacellarium were senior Church dignitaries usually occupying the rank of archpriest or deacon.
18. Plato, Abbot of Sakkoudionos Monastery in Olympus
19. John Zonaras, Byzantine Greek historian, chronicle, theologian, and canonist.
20. Kouropalates, Byzantine court title meaning the administrator of the palace
21. Saint Simeon the Translator
22. Saint John the Goldenmouth, “On the Priesthood,” Book 3, Paragraph 5