12 March 2017

Pope Nicholas I, Letter to the Bulgars, 67.

Pope Nicholas I, Letter to the Bulgars, 67.

Written c. 866 CE.

Source: The Responses of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars A.D. 866 (Letter 99). Trans.: William L. North. Fordham University: Internet History Sourcebooks. 1998. Available online at: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/866nicholas-bulgar.asp

Chapter LXVII.
You say that you had a custom that whenever you decided to oblige someone for some matter by swearing an oath, you brought a sword into the center of the gathering and swore an oath by it. Now however, you ask to be instructed by us on what thing you should swear by. We, however, consider it completely unfitting to swear not only by a sword but by any other man-made object. For by whomever someone swears, so, too, does he love and venerate this person and commends his trust to him with firm stability. Therefore, one should swear by God, Whom people should love and venerate, in Whom all hope and trust should be placed, and from Whom all creatures should always expect aid. For when the Lord commands someone not to swear by heaven, earth, one's head or Jerusalem, nothing else is forbidden except to swear by something created. But that we are ordered to swear by the name of God, we learn from Him teaching us. Clearly we can swear at least by those created things which have been assigned to the divine cult, i.e. the temple and the altar, and someone who swears upon them, also swears upon the very people who live in them, if there are any such things there. Therefore, one should rightly swear by the Gospel, for whatever is contained therein is clearly recognized to be no one's if not God's, Who is written and read to be in it. This, indeed, is our law, this our testament, which the Lord our savior, bearer of the law and maker of the will, has assigned to His elect, and if we love it, we also swear by it; for everyone who speaks the truth swears by the one whom he loves. Therefore, if we swear by the Gospel, we are proven to love both the testator and the testament itself and we indicate beyond all doubt that we do not wish to depart from His commandments.

Photius of Constantinople, Epistle to Boris I of Bulgaria, 68 (72)

Photius of Constantinople, Epistle to Boris I of Bulgaria, 68 (72)

Written c. 865 CE to recently converted Boris I of Bulgaria. An example of mirrors for princes. The paragraph on oaths is given in Montagu's edition as 72, while in White & Berrigan's translation it is given as 68.

Source: Photius, The Patriarch and the Prince, p. 69, Trans: Despina S. White & Joseph R. Berrigan Jr.. Brookline MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. 1982.

A hasty oath makes perjury easy. In addition, swearing is the mark of an unstable and ignoble character, The man who is stable and magnanimous will be ashamed to affirm his words only by oath and thus to dishonor the credibility of his usual behaviour. Very providently the Maker's law, too, forbids the oath.


Source: Photius, Epistolae, p. 34. Edited by Richard Montagu. London: 1651.


9 March 2017

Council of Tribur (895 CE), Cap. 21

Council of Tribur (895 CE), Cap. 21

Source: MGH CRF II: 224-225

Cap. 21. De querimonia inter presbyterum et laicum. Si quis presbyter contra laicum vel laicus contra presbyterum aliquam habet querimoniae controversiam, episcopo regente sine personarum acceptione finiatur: et laicus praeiuramento, si necesse sit, constringatur, presbyter vero vice praeiuramenti per sanctam consecrationem interrogetur, quia sacerdotes ex levi causa iurare non debent. Manus enim, per quam corpus et sanguis Christi conficitur, iuramento polluitur. Absit, cum Dominus in evangelio discipulis suis, quorum vicem nos indigni in sancta gerimus ecclesia, dicat: 'Nolite omnino iurare. Sit autem sermo vester: est, est; non, non: quod autem his abundantius est, a malo est'. Non dixit: quod amplius est, malum est; sed: a malo, id est: a malo homine, de cuius incredulitate cogimur iurare. Ut enim in quadam omelia beati Bedae presbyteri legimus: 'Si forte nos incautious iurasse contigerit, quod scilicet observatum peiorem vergat in exitum, libere illud mutandum noverimus salubriori consilio.’

Council of Pavia (850 CE) Cap. 4

Council of Pavia (850 CE) Cap. 4 

Source: MGH CRF II: 117-118 (c.f. MGH Concilia III, p.221)

Cap. 4. Ut episcopus omnes affectiones, quae a sancta conversatione et sacerdotali abhorrent officio, poenitus repudiet et non cum canibus aut accipitribus vel capis, quos vulgus falcones vocat, per se ipsum venationes exerceat, equorum quoque mulorumque superfluam curam contemnat preciosarumque vestium cultum et dissolutum ac velut ad pompam compositum vitet incessum. Sit sacerdotis eloquium spiritali sale conditum, non iniuriosis et protervis et coturnosis vocibus tumidum. Sit sermo episcopi iuxta evangelium: 'Est, est. Non, non': si quid enixius adfirmandum durae forsitan audientium mentes exigunt, more potius apostolico interponat suae locutioni: 'Deus scit'! aut 'coram Deo'! quam 'per imperatoris gratiam’, sicut militantibus seculo iurare celebre est, sua dicta confirmet. Purgetur sane Domino suffragante ab omni levitate atque iactantia dignitas episcopalis, ut omnibus christianis bonae conversationis speculum fieri valeat.

Council of Meaux (845CE), Can. 38

Council of Meaux (845CE), Can. 38

Source: MGH Concilia III, p. 85

XXXVIII. Ut nullus episcopus super sacra iurare presumat.

Council of Tours (813 CE), Can. 43

Council of Tours (813 CE), Can. 43

Source: MGH Concilia II: p, 292

XLIII. Omnes homines admonemus, ne per singula verba quasi ad confirmationem suae assertionis nomen Domini in vanum assumant, quod ipse Dominus interdicit faciendum, ubi ait: Ne adsumas nomen Dei tui in vanum. In vanum etenim nomen Dei adsumitur, quando aliquis ad singula verba, quibus vult, ut sibi ab alio credatur, Deum omnipotentem testem rei invocat, de qua ait, eumque sibi ita esse adiutorem, sicut ea vera sint, quae loquitur. Nam et ipse Dominus in evangelio hoc modo prohibens omne genus iuramenti: Nolite, inquit, omnino iurare neque per coelum neque per terram neque per caput tuum et caetera.

8 March 2017

Mass Perjury of the Roman Clergy in the mid-Fourth Century

Mass Perjury of the Roman Clergy in the mid-Fourth Century


Two sources, Jerome of Stridon [Chronicon] and an anonymous [Quae Gesta] supporter of Ursinus (claimant to the episcopacy of Rome, in opposition to Damasus), testify to a large occasion of perjury by the clergy in the Roman Church in the mid-Fourth century (355 CE), both dating 15-25 years after the alleged event. Following the resistance of Liberius, bishop of Rome, to condemn Athanasius of Alexandria, Emperor Constantius II sends Liberius into exile, along with a number of other bishops. Prior to the exile the "entire clergy" swore an oath not to support any bishop of Rome over Liberius. However; following Liberius' exile, most of the clergy perjured themselves and supported Felix's election to the episcopacy of Rome. On the return of Liberius from exile, he ejected from their offices, those who had perjured themselves. The anonymous Que Gesta is eager to note that Damasus was among those who had perjured themselves and also notes that Liberius reinstated the perjured clergy following the death of Felix.

                                                                                                                   

Sources

Anon., Quae Gesta sunt inter Liberium et Felicem episcopos, 1-4, in Collectio Avellana

Written c. 370 CE. by an anonymous supporter of Ursinus, claimant to the episcopy of Rome against Damasus.

Source: The Collectio Avellana, Fourth Century Christianity: Online project. Translated by Aaron J. West. Available at: http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/avellana-1-english

1. In the time of emperor Constantius, the son of Constantine, there arose a very difficult persecution of Christians, arising from those impious heretics, the Arians, whom Constantius supported. He also persecuted Athanasius who had resisted the heretics, by commanding that he be condemned by all bishops. Because they feared the prince, all the priests everywhere were tempted to do this, to condemn an innocent man without a trial. But Liberius, bishop of Rome, and Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Hilary of Poitiers were unwilling to pronounce the guilty verdict. Therefore, these four were sent into exile for their obedience to the faith.

2. Damasus, a deacon under Liberius, pretended that he was going to go along with his bishop. But fleeing from that course, he returned to Rome, corrupted by ambition. But on the day when Liberius went off into exile, the entire clergy, that is, the priests, and the archdeacon Felix, and Damasus, himself a deacon, and all the church officials, in the presence of the people of Rome, swore assuredly that they would have no other bishop as long as Liberius was alive. But, contrary to sacred duty, the clergy did something that was in no way proper. They perjured themselves most wickedly and supported Felix, who had been ordained as an archdeacon, as bishop in the place of Liberius. What was done displeased the entire population of the city and they boycotted his inaugural procession.

3. After two years, the emperor Constantius came to Rome. The people asked for Liberius’s return. He soon agreed, saying, “You may have Liberius, who will return to you better than he was when he departed.” But this revealed that by his agreement he was extending the hand of treachery. In the third year, Liberius returned, and the Roman people went out to meet him with great joy. Felix, censured either by the Senate or by the people themselves, was forced out of the city. But after a little time, at the instigation of the clergy, who broke their oaths, he broke into the city again and dared to set himself up in the Basilica of Julius across the Tiber. The entire population of the city, along with the nobility, again threw him out of the city with great shame.

4. After 8 years, in the consulship of Valentinian and Valens, on the 10th day before the Kalends of December, Felix died. Liberius had mercy on the clergy who had broken their oaths, and received them into their former positions. Likewise on the 8th day before the Kalends of October in the consulship of Gratian and Dagalais, Liberius was removed from worldly cares.

---

Jerome, Continuation of Eusebius' Chronicon, from 349CE

In c. 380 CE Jerome translated Eusebius of Caesarea's Chronicon and brought it upto the date of 378 CE. Jerome places this event in the timeline of the 282nd Olympiad in his Chronicon, corresponding to 349 CE. The event takes place in 355 CE which would correspond to the 283rd Olympiad. However, as Liberius was elected bishop of Rome in 352 CE, he discusses the event of his exile from this reference point.

Source: The Chronicle of St. Jerome, 2005. Collaborative online translation project led by Roger Pearse. Available at: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_00_eintro.htm

Liberius is ordained 34th bishop of the Roman church, to whom, when he had been driven into exile on account of the faith, all the clergy swore that they would receive no-one else. However when Felix was substituted by the Arians, most perjured themselves and after a year they were ejected with Felix because Liberius, having been conquered by the tedium of exile and subscribing to the heretical depravity, had entered Rome as if a conqueror.