The Sacred Writings of The Twelve Patriarchs E-Book

• Herausgeber: Jazzybee Verlag
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 172

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Beschreibung

"The Sacred Writings Of ..." provides you with the essential works among the Christian writings. The volumes cover the beginning of Christianity until medieval times. Contents: Patriarch and Patriarchate I.-The Testament of Reuben Concerning Thoughts II.-The Testament of Simeon Concerning Envy. III.-The Testament of Levi Concerning the Priesthood and Arrogance. IV.-The Testament of Judah Concerning Fortitude, and Love of Money, and Fornication. V.-The Testament of Issachar Concerning Simplicity. VI.-The Testament of Zebulun Concerning Compassion and Mercy. VII.-The Testament of Dan Concerning Anger and Lying. VIII.-The Testament of Naphtali Concerning Natural Goodness. IX.-The Testament of Gad Concerning Hatred. X.-The Testament of Asher Concerning Two Faces of Vice and Virtue. XI.-The Testament of Joseph Concerning Sobriety. XII.-The Testament of Benjamin Concerning a Pure Mind.

Leseprobe

The Sacred Writings of The Twelve Patriarchs

Contents:

Patriarch and Patriarchate

The Sacred Writings of The Twelve Patriarchs

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE TO THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

I.-The Testament of Reuben Concerning Thoughts

II.-The Testament of Simeon Concerning Envy.

III.-The Testament of Levi Concerning the Priesthood and Arrogance.

IV.-The Testament of Judah Concerning Fortitude, and Love of Money, and Fornication.

V.-The Testament of Issachar Concerning Simplicity.

VI.-The Testament of Zebulun Concerning Compassion and Mercy.

VII.-The Testament of Dan Concerning Anger and Lying.

VIII.-The Testament of Naphtali Concerning Natural Goodness.

IX.-The Testament of Gad Concerning Hatred.

X.-The Testament of Asher Concerning Two Faces of Vice and Virtue.

XI.-The Testament of Joseph Concerning Sobriety.

XII.-The Testament of Benjamin Concerning a Pure Mind.

The Sacred Writings of The Twelve Patriarchs

Jazzybee Verlag Jürgen Beck

86450 Altenmünster, Germany

ISBN: 9783849621629

www.jazzybee-verlag.de

[email protected]

Cover Design: © Sue Colvil - Fotolia.com

Patriarch and Patriarchate

By Adrian Fortescue

Definition: Names of the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries after the pope, and of the territory they rule.

I. ORIGIN OF THE TITLE

Patriarch (Gr. patriarches; Lat. patriarcha) means the father or chief of a race (patria, a clan or family). The word occurs in the Septuagint for the chiefs of the tribes (e.g. I Par., xxiv, 31; xxvii, 22, patriarchai ton phylon; cf. II Par., xxiii, 20 etc.); in the New Testament (Heb., vii, 4) it is applied to Abraham as a version of his title "father of many nations" (Gen., xvii, 4), to David (Acts, ii, 29), and to the twelve sons of Jacob (Acts, vii, 8-9). This last became the special meaning of the word when used of Scriptural characters. The heads of the tribes were the "Twelve Patriarchs", though the word is used also in a more general sense for the fathers of the Old Law in general, e.g. the invocation in the litany, "All ye holy Patriarchs and Prophets".

Names of Christian dignitaries were in early days taken sometimes from civil life (episkopos, diakonos), sometimes borrowed from the Jews (presbyteros). The name patriarch is one of the latter class. Bishops of special dignity were called patriarchs just as deacons were called levites, because their place corresponded by analogy to those in the Old Law. All such titles became technical terms, official titles, only gradually. At first they were used loosely as names of honour without any strict connotation; but in all such cases the reality existed before any special name was used. There were ecclesiastical dignitaries with all the rights and prerogatives of patriarchs in the first three centuries; but the official title does not occur till later. As a Christian title of honour the word patriarch appears first as applied to Pope Leo I in a letter of Theodosius II (408-50; Mansi, VI, 68). The bishops of the Byzantine jurisdiction apply it to their chief, Acacius (471-89; Evagrius, "H. E.", III, 9). But it was still merely an honourable epithet that might be given to any venerable bishop. St. Gregory of Nazianzus says: "the elder bishops, or more rightly, the patriarchs" (Orat., xlii, 23). Socrates says that the Fathers of Constantinople I (381) "set up patriarchs", meaning apparently metropolitans of province (H. E., V, viii). As late as the fifth and sixth centuries Celidonius of Besançon and Nicetius of Lyons are still called patriarchs (Acta SS., Feb., III, 742; Gregory of Tours, "Hist. Francorum", V, xx).

Gradually then — certainly from the eighth and ninth centuries — the word becomes an official title, used henceforth only as connoting a definite rank in the hierarchy, that of the chief bishops who ruled over metropolitans as metropolitans over their suffragan bishops, being themselves subject only to the first patriarch at Rome. During these earlier centuries the name appears generally in conjunction with "archbishop", "archbishop and patriarch", as in the Code of Justinian (Gelzer, "Der Streit über den Titel des ökumen. Patriarchen" in "Jahrbuch für protest. Theol.", 1887). The dispute about the title Œcumenical Patriarch in the sixth century (see JOHN THE FASTER) shows that even then the name was receiving a technical sense. Later medieval and modern developments, schisms, and the creation of titular and so-called "minor" patriarchates have produced the result that a great number of persons now claim the title; but in all cases it connotes the idea of a special rank — the highest, except among Catholics who admit the still higher papacy.

Patriarchate (Gr. patriarcheia; Lat. patriarchatus) is the derived word meaning a patriarch's office, see, reign, or, most often, the territory he governs. It corresponds to episcopacy, episcopate, and diocese in relation to a bishop.

II. THE THREE PATRIARCHS

The oldest canon law admitted only three bishops as having what later ages called patriarchal rights — the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The successor of St. Peter as a matter of course held the highest place and combined in his own person all dignities. He was not only bishop, but metropolitan, primate, and patriarch; Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, and first of the patriarchs. As soon as a hierarchy was organized among bishops, the chief authority and dignity were retained by the Bishop of Rome. The pope combines the above positions and each of them gives him a special relation to the faithful and the bishops in the territory corresponding. As pope he is visible head of the whole Church; no Christian is outside his papal jurisdiction. As Bishop of Rome he is the diocesan bishop of that diocese only; as metropolitan he governs the Roman Province; as primate he governs the Italian bishops; as patriarch he rules only the West. As patriarch the Roman pontiff has from the beginning ruled all the Western lands where Latin was once the civilized, and is still the liturgical language, where the Roman Rite is now used almost exclusively and the Roman canon law (e.g. celibacy, our rules of fasting and abstinence, etc.) obtains. To Christians in the East he is supreme pontiff, not patriarch. Hence there has always been a closer relation between Western bishops and the pope than between him and their [../Eastern Churches|Eastern]] brethren, just as there is a still closer relation between him and the [../Cardinal (1)|suburban bishops]] of the Roman Province of which he is metropolitan. Many laws that we obey are not universal Catholic laws, but those of the Western patriarchate. Before the Council of Nicæa (325) two bishops in the East had the same patriarchal authority over large territories, those of Alexandria and Antioch. It is difficult to say exactly how they obtained this position. The organization of provinces under metropolitans followed, as a matter of obvious convenience, the organization of the empire arranged by Diocletian (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 21-23). In this arrangement the most important cities in the East were Alexandria of Egypt and Antioch of Syria. So the Bishop of Alexandria became the chief of all Egyptian bishops and metropolitans; the Bishop of Antioch held the same place over Syria and at the same time extended his sway over Asia Minor, Greece and the rest of the East. Diocletian had divided the empire into four great prefectures. Three of these (Italy, Gaul, and Illyricum) made up the Roman patriarchate, the other, the "East" (Præfectura Orientis) had five (civil) "dioceses" — Thrace, Asia, Pontus, the Diocese of the East, and Egypt. Egypt was the Alexandrine patriarchate. The Antiochene patriarchate embraced the civil "Diocese" of the East. The other three civil divisions of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus would have probably developed into separate patriarchates, but for the rise of Constantinople (ibid., 22-25). Later it became a popular idea to connect all three patriarchates with the Prince of the Apostles. St. Peter had also reigned at Antioch; he had founded the Church of Alexandria by his disciple St. Mark. At any rate the Council of Nicæa in 325 recognizes the supreme place of the bishops of these three cities as an "ancient custom" (can. vi). Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the three old patriarchates whose unique position and order were disturbed by later developments.

III. THE FIVE PATRIARCHATES

When pilgrims began to flock to the Holy City, the Bishop of Jerusalem, the guardian of the sacred shrines, began to be considered as more than a mere suffragan of Cæsarea. The Council of Nicæa (325) gave him an honorary primacy, saving, however, the metropolitical rights of Cæsarea (can. vii). Juvenal of Jerusalem (420-58) succeeded finally, after much dispute, in changing this honorary position into a real patriarchate. The Council of Chalcedon (451) cut away Palestine and Arabia (Sinai) from Antioch and of them formed the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (Sess. VII and VIII). Since that time Jerusalem has always been counted among the patriarchal sees as the smallest and last (ibid., 25-28). But the greatest change, the one that met most opposition, was the rise of Constantinople to patriarchal rank. Because Constantine had made Byzantium "New Rome", its bishop, once the humble suffragan of Heraclea, thought that he should become second only, if not almost equal, to the Bishop of Old Rome. For many centuries the popes opposed this ambition, not because any one thought of disputing their first place, but because they were unwilling to change the old order of the hierarchy. In 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that: "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome" (can. iii). The popes (Damasus, Gregory the Great) refused to confirm this canon. Nevertheless Constantinople grew by favour of the emperor, whose centralizing policy found a ready help in the authority of his court bishop. Chalcedon (451) established Constantinople as a patriarchate with jurisdiction over Asia Minor and Thrace and gave it the second place after Rome (can. xxviii). Pope Leo I (440-61) refused to admit this canon, which was made in the absence of his legates; for centuries Rome still refused to give the second place to Constantinople. It was not until the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) that the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was allowed this place; in 1439 the Council of Florence gave it to the Greek patriarch. Nevertheless in the East the emperor's wish was powerful enough to obtain recognition for his patriarch; from Chalcedon we must count Constantinople as practically, if not legally, the second patriarchate (ibid., 28-47). So we have the new order of five patriarchs — Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem — that seemed, to Eastern theologians especially, an essential element of the constitution of the Church [see (ibid., 46-47) the letter of Peter III of Antioch, c. 1054].

IV. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

At the time of Cerularius's schism (1054) the great Church of the empire knew practically these five patriarchs only, though "minor" patriarchates had already begun in the West. The Eighth General Council (Constantinople IV, in 869) had solemnly affirmed their position (can. xxi). The schism, and further distinctions that would not have existed but for it, considerably augmented the number of bishops who claimed the title. But before the great schism the earlier Nestorian and Monophysite separations had resulted in the existence of various heretical patriarchs. To be under a patriarch had come to be the normal, apparently necessary, condition for any Church. So it was natural that these heretics when they broke from the Catholic patriarchs should sooner or later set up rivals of their own. But in most cases they have been neither consistent nor logical. Instead of being merely an honourable title for the occupants of the five chief sees, the name patriarch was looked upon as denoting a rank of its own. So there was the idea that one might be patriarch of any place. We shall understand the confusion of this idea if we imagine some sect setting up a Pope of London or New York in opposition to the Pope of Rome. The Nestorians broke away from Antioch in the fifth century. They then called their catholicus (originally a vicar of the Antiochene pontiff), patriarch; though he has never claimed to be Patriarch of Antioch, which alone would have given a reason for his title. Babæus (Bab-Hai, 498-503) is said to be the first who usurped the title, as Patriarch of Seleucia and Ctesiphon (Assemani, "Bibl. Orient.", III, 427). The Copts and Jacobites have been more consistent. During the long Monophysite quarrels (fifth to seventh cent.) there were continually rival or alternate Catholic and Monophysite patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. Eventually, since the Moslem conquest of Egypt and Syria, rival lines were formed. So there is a line of Coptic patriarchs of Alexandria and of Jacobite patriarchs of Antioch as rivals to the [../Melchites|Melchite]] ones. But in this case each claims to represent the old line and refuses to recognize its rivals, which is a possible position.

The Armenian Church has made the same mistake as the Nestorians. It has now four so-called patriarchs, of which two bear titles of sees that cannot by any rule of antiquity claim to be patriarchal at all, and the other two have not even the pretence of descent from the old lines. The Armenian Catholicus of Etchmiadzin began to call himself a patriarch on the same basis as the Nestorian primate — simply as head of a large and, after the Monophysite schism (Synod of Duin in 527), independent Church. It is difficult to say at what date he assumed the title. Armenian writers call all their catholici patriarchs, back to St. Gregory the Illuminator (fourth cent.). Silbernagl counts Nerses I (353-73?) first patriarch (Verfassung u. gegenw. Bestand, 216). But a claim to patriarchal rank could hardly have been made at a time when Armenia was still in union with and subject to the See of Cæsarea. The Catholicus's title is not local; he is "Patriarch of all Armenians." In 1461 Mohammed II set up an Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople to balance the Orthodox one. A temporary schism among the Armenians resulted in a Patriarchate of Sis, and in the seventeenth century the Armenian Bishop of Jerusalem began to call himself patriarch. It is clear then how entirely the Armenians ignore what the title really means.

The next multiplication of patriarchs was produced by the Crusades. The crusaders naturally refused to recognize the claims of the old, now schismatical, patriarchal lines, whose representatives moreover in most cases fled; so they set up Latin patriarchs in their place. The first Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem was Dagobert of Pisa (1099-1107); the Orthodox rival (Simon II) had fled to Cyprus in 1099 and died there the same year (for the list of his successors see Le Quien, III, 1241-68). It was not till 1142 that the Orthodox continued their broken line by electing Arsenios II, who like most Orthodox patriarchs at that time lived at Constantinople. At Antioch, too, the crusaders had a scruple against two patriarchs of the same place. They took the city in 1098, but as long as the Orthodox patriarch (John IV) remained there they tried to make him a Catholic instead of appointing a rival. However, when at last he fled to Constantinople they considered the see vacant, and Bernard, Bishop of Arthesia, a Frenchman, was elected to it (the succession in Le Quien, III, 1154-84).

In 1167 Amaury II, King of Jerusalem, captured Alexandria, as did Peter I, King of Cyprus, in 1365. But both times the city was given hack to the Moslems at once. Nor were there any Latin inhabitants to justify the establishment of a Latin patriarchate. On the other hand, the Orthodox patriarch, Nicholas I (c. 1210-after 1223; Le Quien, II, 490) was well disposed towards reunion, wrote friendly letters to the pope, and was invited to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). There was then a special reason for not setting up a Latin rival to him. Eventually a Latin patriarchate was established rather to complete what had been done in other cases than for any practical reason. Giles, Patriarch of [[../Aquileia |Grado]], a Dominican, was made first Latin Patriarch of Alexandria by Clement V in 1310. An earlier Latin Athanasius seems to be mythical (Le Quien, III, 1143). For the list of Giles's line see Le Quien (III, 1141-1151). When the Fourth Crusade took Constantinople in 1204, the patriarch John X fled to Nicæa with the emperor, and Thomas Morosini was made Latin patriarch to balance the Latin emperor (Le Quien, III, 793-836). It will be seen then that the crusaders acted from their point of view correctly enough. But the result was for each see double lines that have continued ever since. The Orthodox lines went on; the Latin patriarchs ruled as long as the Latins held those lands. When the crusaders' kingdoms came to an end they went on as titular patriarchs and have been for many centuries dignitaries of the papal court. Only the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem was sent back in 1847 to be the head of all Latins in Palestine. By that time people were so accustomed to see different patriarchs of the same place ruling each his own "nation" that this seemed a natural proceeding.

The formation of Uniat Churches since the sixteenth century again increased the number of patriarchates. These people could no longer obey the old schismatical lines. On the other hand each group came out of a corresponding schismatical Church; they were accustomed to a chief of their own rite, their own "nation" in the Turkish sense. The only course seemed to be to give to each a Uniat patriarch corresponding to his schismatical rival. Moreover, in many cases the line of Uniat patriarchs comes from a disputed succession among the schismatics, one claimant having submitted to Rome and being therefore deposed by the schismatical majority. The oldest of these Uniat patriarchates is that of the Maronites. In 680 the Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, was deposed by the Sixth General Council for Monotheletism. The Monotheletes then grouped themselves around the hegumenos of the Maronite monastery, John (died 707). This begins the separated Maronite (at that time undoubtedly Monothelete) Church. John made himself Patriarch of Antioch for his followers, who wanted a head and were in communion with neither the Jacobites nor the Melchites. At the time of the crusades the Maronites united with Rome (1182 and again in 1216). They are allowed to keep their Patriarch of Antioch as head of their rite; but he in no way represents the old line of St. Peter and St. Ignatius. The next oldest Uniat patriarchate is that of Babylon for the Chaldees (converted Nestorians). It began with the submission of the Nestorian patriarch, John Sulaga (died 1555). There has been a complicated series of rivalries and schisms since, of which the final curious result is that the present Uniat patriarch represents the old Nestorian line, and his Nestorian rival the originally Catholic line of Sulaga. The title of "Babylon" was not used till Pope Innocent XI conferred it in 1681. The Melchite patriarchate dates from 1724 (Cyril VI, 1724-1759). It began again with a disputed succession to the old patriarchal See of Antioch; the Melchite occupant has quite a good claim to represent the old line. The Uniat Byzantine Sees of Alexandria and Jerusalem are for the present considered as joined to that of Antioch; the Melchite patriarch uses all three titles (see MELCHITES). The Uniat Armenians have a patriarch who resides at Constantinople, but does not take his title from that city. His line began with a disputed election to Sis, one of the secondary Armenian patriarchates, in 1739. He is called Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenians. In 1781 Ignatius Giarve, Jacobite Bishop of Aleppo, was elected canonically Patriarch of Antioch. He then made his submission to Rome and the heretical bishops deposed him and chose a Monophysite as patriarch. From Giarve the line of Uniat Syrian patriarchs of Antioch descends. Lastly, in 1895, Pope Leo XIII erected a Uniat Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria for the many Copts who were at that time becoming Catholics. This exhausts the list of Uniat patriarchs. In three cases (the Chaldees, Melchites, and Syrians) the Uniat patriarch has, on purely historical grounds, at least as good a claim as his schismatical rival, if not better, to represent the old succession. On the other hand, the existence of several Catholic patriarchs of the same see, for instance, the Melchite, Jacobite, Maronite, and Latin titulars of Antioch, is a concession to the national feeling of Eastern Christians, or, in the case of the Latin, a relic of the crusades that archæologically can hardly be justified.