Priests, Laity and the Sacrament of the Eucharist in sixth century Syria†
Volker
Menze
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2004
Vol. 7, No. 2
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv7n2menze
Volker Menze
Priests, Laity and the Sacrament of the Eucharist in sixth century Syria†
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol7/HV7N2Menze.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute,
vol 7
issue 2
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
Syriac Studies
Chalcedonian Schism
Eucharist
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
The Eucharist formed the visible boundary
between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians in the fifth and
sixth centuries. Non-Chalcedonian texts emphasize the
difference of the Eucharists, but this does not necessarily
imply that it was a widely accepted view. This paper analyzes
the understanding of the Eucharist among parish priests and the
laity.
[1] At the
end of the fifth century, the non-Chalcedonian John Rufus,
allegedly the bishop of Maiuma in Palestine, wrote about his
deceased spiritual father Peter the Iberian who had been bishop
of Maiuma in 452/3 CE:
About Peter the Iberian see C. Horn’s
dissertation Beyond Theology: the Career of Peter the
Iberian in the Christological Controversies of Fifth-Century
Palestine, Diss. Washington D.C. 2001; for John Rufus and
the question of whether he was bishop of Maiuma see J.-E.
Steppa, John Rufus and the World Vision of
Anti-Chalcedonian Culture, GDECS 1 (Piscataway: Gorgias
Press, 2002), 18f.
"And he celebrated the entire [liturgy of
the] Eucharist: when he came to the breaking of the almighty
bread, with continuous [lit. entirely] weeping and
disturbance of his heart and many tears, as it was custom to
him, so much blood burst forth when he broke [the bread] that
the entire holy altar was sprinkled [with blood]." When he
turned around he saw Christ next to him who told him:
"‘Bishop, break [it]! Don’t fear. For my glory
I did this, and not for yours; that everyone learns of what
manner the truth is, and who are those that hold the glory of
the right faith.’"
Life of Peter the Iberian, ed. R. Raabe,
Petrus der Iberer. Ein Charakterbild zur Kirchen-und
Sittengeschichte des fünften Jahrhunderts (Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs, 1895), 56 (English translation mine). The
authorship of John Rufus for Peter’s Life, which survived
anonymously, was established by E. Schwartz, Johannes
Rufus, ein monophysitischer Schriftsteller, SHAW.PH 3.16
(Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1912).
[2] Peter
was a famous non-Chalcedonian bishop and saint who spent most
of his life wandering from place to place in Egypt and
Palestine. His follower and hagiographer John Rufus wrote
Peter’s life shortly after Peter’s death in 491
CE.
For the date of Peter’s death see E.
Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum Acacianischen
Schisma, ABAW.PH N.F. 10 (München: Verlag der
Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1934), 211 note 2.
In a recent article, Vincent Déroche points out that
this story does not illustrate any theology of the Eucharist,
but the Eucharistic miracle is used here in an instrumental
fashion.
V. Déroche, "Représentations de
l’eucharistie dans la haute époque Byzantine," in
Mélanges Gilbert Dagron, Travaux et Mémoires 14
(2002), 167-180, here 170f. See also W. de Vries,
Sakramententheologie bei den syrischen Monophysiten,
OCA 125 (Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum 1940),
142-155.
The hagiographic texts should demonstrate to the
non-Chalcedonian reader or listener that Christ is on the side
of the non-Chalcedonians and that communion forms the visible
boundary between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. Taking
the Eucharist from the hands of an "orthodox"—i.e., a
non-Chalcedonian—priest is part of practicing the right
faith—and this is described as necessary for
salvation.
For right communion as necessary precondition for
salvation: the non-Chalcedonian John Rufus,
Plérophories, 87 ed. F. Nau, PO 8
(Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1912), 140f; the Chalcedonian John
Moschus, Pratum Spirituale 26, ed. Migne in PG 87,
2872; trans. into English by J. Wortley, The
Spiritual Meadow, CS139 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian, c1992),
17-19. Cf. also S. Ashbrook Harvey, Asceticism and Society
in Crisis. John of Ephesus and The Lives of the Eastern
Saints (Berkeley: University of California Press c1990),
101.
John bar Qursus was the bishop of Tella, a small
town in the province of Osrhoene east of the Euphrates, and one
of the prominent Syrian non-Chalcedonian leaders after 519 CE.
He demonized the Chalcedonians when he wrote that their
Eucharist should be avoided like "the poison of death."
Communis opinio is that John of Tella and
John bar Qursus (with various spellings in the manuscripts),
bishop of Tella de-Mauzelat, were the same person. He is
called John of Tella in his two biographies by Elias and John
of Ephesus, and an unpublished letter in which he states his
faith (BL Add. 14549, fols. 219b-226b; W. Wright, Catalogue
of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, Vol. 2
(London: British Museum 1871), 431). He is called John bar
Qursus in his Canons (see note 16), Questions and
Answers (see below), Comment on the Trisagion (V.
Poggi, Mar Grigorios, "Il commento al Trisagio di Giovanni Bar
Qūrsūs," OCP 52 (1986), 202-210) and an
unpublished letter to a deacon (Cambr. Add. 2023, fols.
250b-252b; cf. W. Wright, A Catalogue of the Syriac
Manuscripts preserved at the Library of the University of
Cambridge, Vol. 2 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1901], 622.). See also E. Honigmann, Évêques
et Évêchés Monophysites d’Asie
antérieure au Vie siècle, CSCO 127, Subsidia
2 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1951), 51f.
"Poison of death:" John of Tella, Questions and
Answers 44. The text is difficult to date (sometime
between 521 and John’s death in 538 CE), and survived in
several different versions. For an overview see A.
Vööbus, Syrische Kanonessammlungen. Ein Beitrag
zur Quellenkunde, Vol. 2, CSCO 317, (Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1970), 263-5. It was first
edited with Latin translation by Th. Lamy in Dissertatio de
Syrorum Fide et Disciplina in Re Eucharistica (Louvain:
Vanlinthout, 1859), 61-97. A slightly different version which
is more accessible (with English translation) can be found in
The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition, ed. and trans. A.
Vööbus, 2 Vols., CSCO 367, 368 (Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1975), Ed. in CSCO 367,
211-221 [Trans. in CSCO 368, 197-205].
[3] However,
these texts reflect only how the clergy, especially the
bishops, wanted to present the sacrament of the Eucharist to
the laity, not what the supposed recipients thought of it. It
may be therefore worthwhile to circumvent the idealized image
of the Eucharist that hagiographic texts present by analyzing
the interactions of the average non-Chalcedonian layperson with
his (parish) priest. The local priest represented the church,
and what he taught the laity would certainly shape their
understanding of the Eucharist.
Although certainly very influential on a local
level, village priests are not well represented in the sources.
As R.I. Moore, The first European Revolution, c.
970-1215 (Blackwell: Oxford, c2000), 60 rightly states for
the village priest in Europe: "At most periods in European
history the parish priest is a figure as poorly documented as
he is obviously influential."
[4] Although
also bishops wrote the sources used here, Severus’
letters, in which the non-Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch
(512-518 CE) dealt mainly with ecclesiastical problems, and
John of Ephesus’ Lives of the Eastern Saints,
written in 566/8 CE, give some hints concerning the average
priest and the laity.
The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of
Severus, ed. and trans. E.W. Brooks, 4 Vols. (London: Text
and Translation Society 1902-4); John of Ephesus, Lives of
the Eastern Saints, ed. and trans. E.W. Brooks, in PO
17-19 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1923-25).
Furthermore, a mainly unexplored source for
the 6th century constitute the canons and decisions
given in form of questions and answers: these are legal texts,
rules for the life of the church preserved in ecclesiastical
synodica.
Fundamental are A. Vööbus, Syrische
Kanonessammlungen. Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkunde, 2 Vols.,
CSCO 307, 317, (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1970)
and W. Selb, Orientalisches Kirchenrecht, Vol. 1: Die
Geschichte des Kirchenrechts der Westsyrer (von den
Anfängen bis zur Mongolenzeit), SÖAW.PH 543
(Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1989),
here especially 88-92. Edition and translation of one version
of the synodicon see: The Synodicon, ed. and
trans. Vööbus (as note 6).
Several of these texts were written between
521 and 538 CE—a time when the emperor Justin I exiled
non-Chalcedonian bishops because they refused to sign the papal
libellus which became the cornerstone of Orthodoxy for
the Chalcedonians after 518 CE.
Canons of Ordinations were probably
written earlier, at the end of fifth/beginning of sixth
century; Vööbus, Kanonessammlungen I.1,
146-156. Every bishop in the East had to sign the
libellus, but fifty-four non-Chalcedonian bishops
preferred exile. For the libellus see: W. Haacke,
Die Glaubensformel des Papstes Hormisdas im Acacianischen
Schisma, Analecta Gregoriana 20 (Rome: Apud Aedes
Universitatis Gregorianae, 1939) and A. Fortescue, The
Reunion Formula of Hormisdas (Garrison, N.Y.: National
Office, Chair of Unity Octave, 1955).
These canons originated as
exchange between the exiled non-Chalcedonian bishops and their
flock, which approached their shepherds with questions
concerning the ecclesiastical life of their
communities.
Therefore they may be preserved in different
forms: Extracts from a letter by John of Tella (Cambr. Add.
2023, fols. 250b-252b) seem to bear the same content as six
canons which are preserved in Sharfeh 4/1 (cf.
Vööbus, Kanonessammlungen I, 236-240. I did
not have a chance to see the Sharfeh manuscript). The letter
may have been the original form of the text although today the
canons seem to preserve the text more complete.
Other canons suggest that bishops perceived
problems among the priests or in the church communities and
tried to correct them by sending admonishing letters or
reminding their communities of the appropriate church
canons.
For example John of Tella’s
Canons (see note 16).
This paper suggests that between 510 and 540
CE the laity and to a certain extent also the priests had only
a vague understanding of the Eucharist if any.
[5] Some
villages did not have a priest at all who could instruct the
laity about the importance of the Eucharist. In that case, the
canons ruled that the deacon should take the offerings from the
villagers, and go to the nearest village in which a priest
lived. He should ask the priest to consecrate the bread, and on
his return the deacon should hand it out to the
villagers.
Canons of Ordinations, [4], ed. and
trans. by Ignatius Rahmani, Studia Syriaca III: Vetusta
Documenta Liturgica, Typis Patriarchalibus: Sharfeh, 1908,
kw [=26] [Trans. 57].
However, according to John of Ephesus’
story of Simeon the Mountaineer, not every village had
its own deacon, and was also not enthusiastic to change this.
When in 515 CE Simeon reached a quite prosperous village near
the Euphrates, bordering to the territory of Claudias, and
inquired about their church and how they would receive
communion, some of the villagers laughed at him and said:
"‘How, blessed sir, does the oblation that a man receives
profit him? For what [purpose] is the oblation?’"
John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern
Saints, in PO 17, 233 (for the date see 245).
Nevertheless, these shepherds felt quite offended when Simeon
asked them if they were Jews. They wholeheartedly considered
themselves to be Christians although they had been cut off from
the sacraments for years. The shepherds even related to the
saint that people lived in the mountains who did not know what
a church was, and most of their fellows had only seen one at
the time they were baptized as children or when their own
children were baptized. The neighboring village still had a
church, but it was no longer in use, and one of the villagers
told Simeon that they would receive the Eucharist only if they
had business in a village which had a priest: "‘If not,
no one here has this concern for the oblation.’" John of
Ephesus, of course, intends to point out the villagers’
outrageous unchristian behavior in order to make the
achievement of his saint—who installed himself as priest
in the second village—even greater. Nevertheless, it is
obvious that not every village had a priest and it is necessary
to ask why.
[6] An
answer may be found if it is possible to find out who became a
priest and how. It was important that prospective members of
the clergy be taught the Scriptures, and John of Ephesus,
recording the achievements of John of Tella, was anxious to
point out that the bishop of Tella was very careful in
selecting his candidates for the priesthood. John of Tella was
"performing the ordinations after careful investigation and
many testimonies given, subjecting every man to a careful
examination and test in reading the Scriptures and repeating
the psalms, and ability to write their names and
signatures."
John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern
Saints, in PO 18, 518. Cf. Harvey, Asceticism and
Society in Crisis, 100-103.
This statement is hard to reconcile with the
biographer’s claim that John ordained sometimes fifty or
even a hundred priests a day. Even basic knowledge about the
Scripture and the canons of the church may have not been known
by all priests. However, as it is reasonable to assume that
John of Tella’s Canons—which were written
for priests "particularly [for] those who are in the
villages"—supplemented his practical work of performing
ordinations, it seems that John of Tella had perceived this
problem and tried to enhance his candidates’
education.
John of Tella Canons, easily
accessible with English translation in The Synodicon, ed.
Vööbus, 145 [Trans. 142]. First edited from other
manuscripts by Carolus Kuberczyk, Canones Iohannis bar
Cursus, Tellae Mauzlatae Episcopi, e Codicibus Syriacis
Parisino et Quattuor Londiniensibus editi (Leipzig: Guil.
Drugulini, 1901); French translation: F. Nau, Les Canons et
les Résolutions Canoniques (Paris: P. Lethielleux,
1906). If John of Tella started to ordain priests sometime
before 527 CE (Harvey, Asceticism and Society in
Crisis, 101), the Canons can be roughly dated to
the same time; see also Vööbus, Kanonessammlungen
I, 156-164, but he does not suggest a date.
[7]
Nevertheless, when village priests are mentioned in the texts
they often appear as "of great ignorance" and making "many
transgressions" at best—or fornicating, having two wives,
and defecting from the true faith at worst.
Ignorance: From a Letter which one of
the venerable Bishops wrote to his Friend, 2, in The
Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 180f [Trans. 171f ];
transgressions: John of Tella, Canons post scriptum,
in The Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 156 [Trans. 151];
fornicating: Severus, Select Letters I. 41, ed.
Brooks, 130 [Trans. 116]; two wives: From a Letter which
one of the venerable Bishops wrote to his Friend, 8, in
The Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 182 [Trans. 173];
defecting: Ecclesiastical Canons which were given by the
Holy Fathers during the time of persecution 1;
Chapters which were written from the Orient 32 and 36;
From a Letter written by the Holy Fathers to the Presbyters
and Rishai Dairata Paula and Paula 1, all in The
Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 159f [Trans. 154]; 173f
[Trans. 165f], 174f [Trans. 166f]; 177 [Trans. 168f]. These
texts were written c. 532-535CE; see Vööbus,
Kanonessammlungen I-II, 269-273, 167-175, 164-167.
There may be
several explanations for the low educational level or improper
conduct of the priests.
Complaints about priests are almost as old
as the office; for a thorough compilation of transgressions of
clergy in the ancient and early medieval world according to
Greek and Latin accounts see K.L. Noethlichs, "Anspruch und
Wirklichkeit. Fehlverhalten und Amtspflichtverletzungen des
christlichen Klerus anhand der Konzilskanones des 4. bis 8.
Jahrhunderts" (ZSRG.K 76 [1990]), 1-61.
The villagers reminded Simeon the
Mountaineer that their children "have not time to leave the
goats and learn anything."
John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern
Saints, in PO 17, 241.
Aristocratic parents probably
sent their children often to secular places of learning instead
of preparing for the priesthood.
As John of Tella in his Canons 27,
in The Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 156 [Trans. 151],
complains that children were sent "to far off countries because
of the instruction of this world."
A specific non-Chalcedonian
problem at this time might have been that the non-Chalcedonian
monasteries—an obvious place of learning especially of
the orders of the church
See From a Letter which one of the
venerable Bishops wrote to his Friend, 2, in The
Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 180f [Trans. 172f], in which
it is ruled that a priest who did not know the order of the
church should preferably learn them in a monastery.
—were shut down for years in
the regions around Amida and Edessa.
For a decade around Edessa, for at least two
decades around Amida; see Incerti Auctoris Chronicon
Pseudo-Dionysianum Vulgo Dictum, ed. I.-B. Chabot, CSCO
104 (Paris: E Typographeo Reipublicae, 1933), 21-24, 27-30
(trans. into English: Amir Harrak, Chronicle of Zuqnin Pars
III and IV A.D. 488-775 (Pontifical Institute of Medieval
Studies: Toronto, c1999), 53f, 57-59); John of Ephesus’
account on the Amidean monasteries, in his Lives of the
Eastern Saints in PO 18, 607-623; see also Ps.-Zachariah
Rhetor, H.E. 8.5, ed. and trans. E.W. Brooks,
Historia ecclesiastica Zachariae rhetori vulgo
adscripta, 4 Vols. CSCO 83-84, 87-88 (Paris: E Typographeo
Reipublicae 1919-24), here CSCO 84 [Trans. CSCO 88], 80f
[Trans. 55f] also translated as The Chronicle known as that
of Zachariah of Mytilene, trans. by F.J. Hamilton and E.W.
Brooks (London: Methuen & Co., 1899), 209-211.
[8] However,
in many villages able candidates might have been available, but
it seems that nevertheless inept candidates were often chosen
for this office instead. John of Tella complained that
suitable, but poor candidates were not ordained because a
richer candidate had paid a bribe in order to be ordained to
the office.
John of Tella, Canons 14, see also
5, in The Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 152f [Trans. 148];
148 [Trans. 144]. Severus also complained about priests (or
bishops?) who bought their office from Flavian, Severus’
predecessor as patriarch of Antioch: Select Letters I.
48, ed. Brooks, 145 [Trans. 131].
It seems unlikely that money changed hands as
such an obvious form of bribery could be easily condemned by
long established church canons.
See John of Tella, Canons 5, in The
Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 148 [Trans. 144], referring
back to Acts 8:20: "May your silver perish with you, because
you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money!"
However, a more subtle form
of bribery may have been quite common: well-to-do candidates
would "give certain precious gifts to the church as
‘offerings of the priesthood’; and again to the
villagers they give another present in exchange for the banquet
of joy of the [recent] ordination [lit. priesthood]."
John of Tella, Canons 14, in The
Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 152f [Trans. 148]. The
translation is my own as Vööbus’ translation is
a bit problematic, but seems to be pretty much the same as F.
Nau’s French translation (see note 16).
The
gifts to the church might have been, in exceptional cases,
expensive liturgical vessels like the chalice which is part of
the Beth Misona Treasure and which was donated by a
priest.
The inscription does not say why the priest
donated the chalice; M. Mundell Mango, Silver from early
Byzantium. The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures
(Baltimore: Walters Art Gallery, 1986), 228. Mango locates Beth
Misona south of Antioch and Beroea.
Although it is unlikely that the average
village priest could afford such offerings, the gifts given on
his installation to the church might have been an opportunity
for the new priest to present himself as a benefactor of the
church and his village. It might have been a gift to embellish
the church or add to its equipment, or an endowment which would
then allow the newly ordained to fulfill his duties as village
priest—like hosting strangers or protecting the poor,
orphans and widows.
John of Tella, Canons 12, in The
Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 151f [Trans. 147].
[9]
Therefore a well-to-do man who became priest would make the
local church more powerful, while at the same time he would
increase his own social status. As priest he became a respected
figure in the village and might have been treated as a guest of
honor at banquets or feasts in the village.
See John of Tella Canons 15, in The
Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 153 [Trans. 149]. The priests
were invited as special guests to banquets to bless the hosts
of the banquet, and it seems reasonable to assume that they
also stayed as special guests. However, to linger there is
exactly what John of Tella requests priests not to do.
In a society
which believed that people could be possessed by demons and
would not allow them to take part in the communion, the priest
was influential as he could suspend people from communion
temporarily, or even excommunicate or anathematize them. The
canons show that priests abused this power in order to
anathematize people out of vengeance or for other personal
reasons.
Chapters which were written from the
Orient, 26-29, in The Synodicon, ed. Vööbus,
171f [Trans. 164f]: priests suspended or anathematized people
out of personal reasons. For suspension from communion see also
the story of Simeon the Mountaineer in The Lives of the
Eastern Saints in PO 17, 241; for anathema: John of Tella,
Canons 3, The Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 147
[Trans. 144].
[10] The
villagers must have been aware of these problems. Therefore the
question remains: why did the villagers nevertheless accept
rather unsuitable candidates for the priesthood? An answer may
lie in the advantages a well-to-do priest brought to the
villagers. They would be rewarded twice: immediately after the
installment as the new priest would enable the villagers to
arrange a banquet in order to celebrate the recent ordination.
In fact, they could profit also in the long run as the
well-to-do priest may have endowed the church with his own
money and therefore lighten the burden of the villagers who
usually had to contribute to the church’s expenses. As
John of Tella reminds the priests, the hospitality for
strangers, but also the care of the poor, orphans and widows
was a joint-partnership of church, priest and
villagers.
See note 27 above.
The more the priest could come up with and had
endowed the church, the less the villagers had to
contribute.
From Justinian’s Novellae it
is clear that at least in Chalcedonian churches people paid
bribes in order to receive ordination because they would then
be paid by the church. In the end, the churches had too many
priests to feed and became poor; Novella VI.4 and 8
(and also Novella 3, introduction): Corpus Iuris
Civilis, Vol.3: Novellae, ed. R. Schoell and G. Kroll,
Dublin: Weidmann 1972, 42 and 45f (18-20). John of Tella,
however, seems to write his rules for a different audience.
[11] On
the other hand, a poor and dedicated priest was likely to
pester the villagers more often to spend money on the church to
finance its duties. He would always be on the payroll of the
villagers as priests were entitled to "take the tenth and the
first-fruits, and receive the offering from the people, and
offer [them] for them [i.e., the people] to God."
John of Tella Canons 14, in The
Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 153 [Trans. 148] (Translation
mine).
In a
worst case scenario, this poor priest would be a zealous man
like Simeon the Mountaineer. Deceiving the villagers, Simeon
took away one third of their children and dedicated them to the
church.
John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern
Saints, in PO 17, 241.
The villagers reacted with pure hatred for
having lost a much needed work force, and only a miracle could
save Simeon’s work.
For the availability of work force see J.
Banaji, Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity. Gold, Labour,
and Aristocratic Dominance (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, c2001), 180ff.
[12]
Outside hagiography, the zealous priest does not show up, but
in the canons only the type of well-to-do and inept priest can
be found.
A fact that is of course inherent to this
genre in the same way as hagiography only remembers the "good"
priest or saint.
Although he was not a burden for the
villagers, such a priest could not bring any spiritual profit
to them either. Some of the priests were not aware of which
things were supposed to be in the sanctuary and on the altar.
John of Tella’s rule that martyr bones—although
profitable for the sick—should not lie around on the
altar shows that negligent priests left them there.
John of Tella, Questions and
Answers 12, The Synodicon, ed. Vööbus, 213
[Trans. 199].
Worse, however, some
priests were apparently even unable to consecrate the
Eucharist:
John of Tella Canons 13, in Canones
Iohannis bar Cursus, ed. Kuberczyk, 29f which seems to be more
reliable than the edition in The Synodicon by Vööbus
(Translation mine).
[13] It
came to our attention that [certain] people [i.e., priests]
from the villages, not having learned completely
Vööbus’ edition, 152 reads
"well."
the offering of the
Eucharist, transgress boldly
Vööbus’ edition, 152 reads
"with Authority, particularly," which must be a misprint as he
also translates "audaciously."
and ascend [to the altar] at the
awe-inspiring moment: they offer the Eucharist, and when they
pray they are confused and a cause of laughter and improper
talk
Vööbus’ edition, 152 reads
only "talk," but he also translates "improper murmurs."
at [this] moment for those who are gathered
for prayer.
Vööbus’ edition and
translation misses "for prayer" which may be due to the
manuscript. As John of Tella does not complain the lack of
proper ordination, but of instruction for the celebration of
the Eucharist, it is reasonable to suppose that "people from
the villages" means village priests.
[14]
Mistrusting the character of these local non-Chalcedonian
priests might have led some more privileged non-Chalcedonian
laypersons write to Severus, the patriarch of Antioch, to ask
him to send them the Eucharist.
Severus dealt with people who asked him to
send them the Eucharist in several letters: Severus, Select
Letters III.1-4, ed. Brooks 261-282 [Trans. 231-249].
Severus denied most
requests since Gregory Nazianzus had already condemned the
custom of some laypersons who preferred to receive the
sacraments from clergy whom they believed to be morally sound,
or maybe even holy.
Severus, Select Letters III.2, ed.
Brooks 265-7 [Trans. 235f] quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus,
Oration 40.26, ed. with French translation C. Moreschini and
Paul Gallay, Discours 38-41, SC 358 (Paris: CERF,
1990), 256-259.
Severus assured his addressees that the
priest "fulfils a mere subsidiary function only, [and] makes no
addition whatever to the rites that are performed, although he
be an angelic and heavenly man in his character, nor does he
detract anything from the divine grace, if he has lived a
degraded and low life."
Severus, Select Letters III.3, ed.
Brooks 269f [Trans. 238f].
[15] The
dark image of the village priest can be balanced by two
documents that suggest that at least some clergy cared for
proper instructions. Sergius, a priest, asked John of Tella
forty-eight questions concerning liturgical issues which the
bishop answered meticulously.
John of Tella, Questions and
Answers in The Synodicon, ed. Vööbus 211-221
[Trans. 197-205]. Cf. also Vööbus,
Kanonessammlungen II, 263-269.
What was he to do with
a vessel which could no longer be used for the liturgy? What
was he to do with a sponge that could no longer be used for
cleaning? What should Sergius do with the water that was used
for cleaning the vessels?
John of Tella, Questions and
Answers 1-3, 14; in The Synodicon, ed. Vööbus,
211, 213 [Trans. 197, 199].
The majority of the questions
concern the Eucharist: What was to be done when a particle of
the Eucharist or some of the holy blood fell to the
ground?
John of Tella, Questions and
Answers 4, 6; in The Synodicon, ed. Vööbus,
211f [Trans. 197f]
Could a layperson bring the Eucharist to the
sick, and could someone who had eaten or someone whose "blood
goes from his nose into the throat" take the Eucharist?
John of Tella, Questions and
Answers 8, 16, 20; in The Synodicon, ed.
Vööbus, 212-215 [Trans. 198-200].
[16] The
second document provides an answer by John of Tella to a
deacon’s inquiry about how he had to prepare the
Eucharist, and what his tasks were in the sanctuary.
Cambr. Add. 2023, fols. 240b-252b. See note
6 above.
John
explained only the physical steps, but remained silent about
what the deacon actually had to say in the liturgy. It may well
be that the village in which the deacon served had a book of
the liturgy available where the deacon could look that
up.
A Church should have books: John of Tella,
Canons 14, in: The Synodicon, ed. Vööbus,
152f [Trans. 148].
[17]
These texts demonstrate the need for basic knowledge concerning
the sacramental life of the church as well as some
clerics’ desire to learn what they needed to know. The
essential problem remains that priests and deacons could not
learn their profession in the cathedral of their bishops
because their bishops were in exile. Bishops like John of Tella
had to send instructions by letter from exile. These letters
also show the concern of the exiled non-Chalcedonian bishops:
would the priests stand by their bishops or convert under
pressure from the Chalcedonians? Several canons deal in part
with clergy who had been at some point in the service of the
Chalcedonians; they distinguish between clergy who were
ordained by non-Chalcedonians and "joined the heretics
[…] by necessity or by transgression,"
Canons written during the time of
persecution 1; in The Synodicon, ed. Vööbus,
159f [Trans. 154f].
and clergy who
had been ordained by Chalcedonians and later joined the
non-Chalcedonians. The former seem to have been quite common,
but the priests had ample reason to defect. They were on the
front lines when the papal libellus was enforced in
the east 519-522 CE, but not prepared to face this
challenge.
[18] When
Severus escaped Antioch and went into exile in Egypt in
September 518 CE, he left at least part of his clergy behind,
which probably then had to deal with Severus’ successor,
the Chalcedonian Paul "the Jew."
Severus, Select Letters IV.8, ed.
Brooks 302-304 [Trans. 268-270]. For the date of Severus'
flight see: The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius.
IV.4, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (London: Methuen 1898),
155 [English translation by M. Whitby, The Ecclesiastical
History of Evagrius Scholasticus (Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press 2000), 203]; for the cognomen of Paul see
Philoxenus, Lettre aux Moines de Senoun, ed. and
trans. A. de Halleux, CSCO 231, 232 (Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO 1963), 75 [Trans. 61].
The clergy in Tella seemed
to have been in an even more difficult situation. At a time
when the emperor Justin already enforced Chalcedon west of the
Euphrates, John became bishop of Tella in 519 CE. Part of the
nobles and clergy thought "‘[i]f the imperial edict
should also come here requiring that we accept the Council of
Chalcedon, then we would easily persuade him [John of Tella] to
accept it, since this is nothing. There are none who can really
stand against the imperial order.’"
Elias, Life of John of Tella, ed.
E.W. Brooks in Vitae virorum apud Monophysitas celeberrimorum,
CSCO 7-8 (Paris: E Typographeo Reipublicae, 1907), 55 [Trans.
from Joseph R. Ghanem, The Biography of John of Tella by
Elias (Diss. Madison/WI, 1970), 64f]. Although it is only
stated that "some people, those attached to material things,
who shunned and despised spiritual things" said the quotation
given above, it seems reasonable to conclude that these
"people" were part of the nobles and clergy as only those had
been gathered by John.
However, John surprised the
nobles and clergy of Tella with his willingness to oppose the
imperial will.
John of Tella’s strong opposition to
Chalcedon is clearly visible in
his—unpublished—letter to the monks around Tella
which he probably wrote on his installment as bishop of this
city: BL Add. 14549, 219b-226b (see note 6 above).
He erased from the diptychs all Chalcedonian
names—probably bishops of Tella.
Only Sophronius is mentioned by name; for
Sophronius see E. Honigmann, "The original lists of the members
of the Council of Nicaea, the Robber-Synod and the Council of
Chalcedon" (Byzantion 16 [1942/3]), 51 and 70.
When two years later Chalcedon
was enforced also in Osrhoene, John had to leave the city, and
there can be no doubt that the new Chalcedonian bishop erased
John from the diptychs.
[19] If
Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian bishops alternated several
times, as had certainly been the case in Tella, then this
instability must have left theologically less trained lower
clergy numbed and confused about which Eucharist was orthodox.
They may have accepted the different christological preferences
of their overlords without opposition.
Nothing is said about non-Chalcedonian names
in the diptychs, but as John apparently erased "only" some
names from the diptychs, there must have been also
non-Chalcedonian bishops before John who did not erase
Chalcedonian names.
The
non-Chalcedonians were threatened by the fact that Chalcedon
was now backed up by an imperial edict which, as quoted above,
made an impact on the nobles and clergy of Tella. It is highly
likely that the lower clergy in most towns in the
East—left behind by their non-Chalcedonian
bishop—first accepted the libellus as the canons
also forced them to obey their bishops.
It is not clear, however, if clergymen who
remained in the city were always employed under the new bishop.
For obedience to higher clergy, intended of course only for
non-Chalcedonians towards a non-Chalcedonian bishop, see John
of Tella, Canons 25, in The Synodicon, ed.
Vööbus, 155 [Trans. 151].
That would mean
that "defections," or rather the shifting of loyalty, may have
been more common among the average priests than it was among
bishops and monks. In this situation the average priest may not
have been able to live up to his supposed duty to give
spiritual guidance to the laity and advise them on the
sacrament of the Eucharist.
[20] In
conclusion, the high cosmological boundary between
Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians drawn in hagiography was
more permeable in everyday life in the cities and villages in
the East. Some villagers were completely cut off from the
sacrament, and did not have the desire to get a priest who
would take away the tenth of their harvest. In their
understanding, baptism was crucial and would make them
Christians regardless of whether they took the Eucharist or
not. Other villagers probably did not know much about the
Eucharist because it is likely that their priests did not know
much about this sacrament either.
[21] The
addressees in Severus’ letters were certainly not the
average laity, but aristocrats who obviously cared for the
Eucharist. They wanted to receive the sacrament from someone
who was like the saints they knew from reading the
non-Chalcedonian hagiographic accounts—someone like Peter
the Iberian. They believed that this would ensure the validity
of the sacrament, certified by the celebrant who, like Severus
of Antioch, lived up to the standards set in hagiographic
accounts. Other non-Chalcedonians may have also seen a division
between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians but, like the
nobles and clergy in Tella, considered the imperial edict
paramount. It was therefore the bishops who tried to draw a
clear line, and enforce the understanding of the "orthodox"
Eucharist as necessary for salvation, but the demarcation often
had less impact on their followers than the bishops may have
wished._______
Notes
† I would like to thank Peter Brown, Manolis
Papoutsakis, Craig Caldwell, Brooke Blower and an anonymous
reviewer for helpful comments.
_______
Bibliography
Banaji, J., Agrarian Change in
Late Antiquity. Gold, Labour, and Aristocratic Dominance,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, c2001.
The Biography of John of Tella by
Elias, trans. J. R. Ghanem. Diss. Madison/WI, 1970.
The Chronicle known as that of
Zachariah of Mitylene, trans. by F.J. Hamilton and E.W.
Brooks. London: Methuen & Co., 1899.
The Chronicle of Zuqnin Pars III
and IV A.D. 488-775, trans. A. Harrak. Pontifical
Institute of Medieval Studies: Toronto, c1999.
Corpus Iuris Civilis, Vol.3:
Novellae, ed. R. Schoell and G. Kroll, Dublin: Weidmann,
1972.
Déroche, V.
"Représentations de l’eucharistie dans la haute
époque Byzantine." in Mélanges Gilbert Dagron,
Travaux et Mémoires 14 (2002): 167-180.
The Ecclesiastical History of
Evagrius, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier. London: Methuen,
1898.
The Ecclesiastical History of
Evagrius Scholasticus, trans. M. Whitby. Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, c2000
Elias, Life of John of
Tella, ed. and trans. E.W. Brooks in Vitae
virorum apud Monophysitas celeberrimorum, CSCO 7-8. Paris:
E Typographeo Reipublicae, 1907.
Fortescue, A. The Reunion
Formula of Hormisdas. Garrison, N.Y.: National Office,
Chair of Unity Octave, 1955.
Gregory of Nazianzus Discours
38-41, ed. and trans. C. Moreschini and Paul Gallay, SC
358. Paris: CERF, 1990.
Haacke, W. Die Glaubensformel
des Papstes Hormisdas im Acacianischen Schisma, Analecta
Gregoriana 20. Rome: Apud Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae,
1939.
Harvey, S. Ashbrook Asceticism
and Society in Crisis. John of Ephesus and The Lives of the
Eastern Saints. Berkeley: University of California Press,
c1990.
Honigmann, E. "The original
Lists of the members of the Council of Nicaea, the Robber-Synod
and the Council of Chalcedon." Byzantion 16 (1942/3):
20-80.
—, Évêques et
Évêchés Monophysites d’Asie
antérieure au Vie siècle, CSCO 127, Subsidia
2. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1951.
Horn, C. Beyond Theology: the
Career of Peter the Iberian in the Christological Controversies
of Fifth-Century Palestine. Diss. Washington D.C.,
2001.
Incerti Auctoris Chronicon
Pseudo-Dionysianum Vulgo Dictum, ed. I.-B. Chabot, CSCO
104. Paris: E Typographeo Reipublicae, 1933.
John of Ephesus, Lives of the
Eastern Saints, ed. and trans. E.W. Brooks, in PO
17-19. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1923-25.
John Moschus. Pratum
Spirituale 26, ed. Migne in PG 87:3:
2852-3112.
John Moschus. The Spiritual
Meadow, trans. J. Wortley, CS 139. Kalamazoo: Cistercian,
c1992.
John Rufus.
Plérophories, ed. and trans. F. Nau, in
PO 8. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1912: 1-208.
Kuberczyk, C. Canones Iohannis
bar Cursus, Tellae Mauzlatae Episcopi, e Codicibus Syriacis
Parisino et Quattuor Londiniensibus editi. Leipzig: Guil.
Drugulini, 1901.
Lamy Th. Dissertatio de Syrorum
Fide et Disciplina in Re Eucharistica. Louvain:
Vanlinthout, 1859.
Mango, M. Mundell. Silver from
early Byzantium. The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures.
Baltimore: Walters Art Gallery, 1986.
Moore, R.I. The first European
Revolution, c. 970-1215. Blackwell: Oxford, c2000.
Nau, F. Les Canons et les
Résolutions Canoniques. Paris: P. Lethielleux,
1906.
Petrus der Iberer. Ein
Charakterbild zur Kirchen-und Sittengeschichte des fünften
Jahrhunderts, ed. R. Raabe. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs,
1895.
Noethlichs, K.L., "Anspruch und
Wirklichkeit. Fehlverhalten und Amtspflichtverletzungen des
christlichen Klerus anhand der Konzilskanones des 4. bis 8.
Jahrhunderts." ZSRG.K 76 (1990): 1-61.
Philoxenus. Lettre aux Moines de
Senoun, ed. and trans. A. de Halleux, CSCO 231, 232.
Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1963.
Poggi, V. and Mar Grigorios, "Il
commento al Trisagio di Giovanni Bar Qūrsūs."
OCP 52 (1986): 202-210.
Rahmani, I. Studia Syriaca III:
Vetusta Documenta Liturgica. Typis Patriarchalibus:
Sharfeh, 1908.
Schwartz, E. Johannes Rufus, ein
monophysitischer Schriftsteller, SHAW.PH 3.16. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter, 1912.
—, Publizistische
Sammlungen zum Acacianischen Schisma, ABAW.PH N.F. 10.
München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1934.
Selb, W. Orientalisches
Kirchenrecht, Vol.1: Die Geschichte des Kirchenrechts der
Westsyrer (von den Anfängen bis zur Mongolenzeit),
SÖAW.PH 543. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1989.
The Sixth Book of the Select
Letters of Severus, ed. and trans. E.W. Brooks, 4 Vols.
London: Text and Translation Society, 1902-4.
Steppa, J.-E. John Rufus and the
World Vision of Anti-Chalcedonian Culture. GDECS 1.
Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2002.
The Synodicon in the West Syrian
Tradition, ed. and trans. A. Vööbus, 2 Vols.,
CSCO 367, 368. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO,
1975.
Vööbus, A. Syrische
Kanonessammlungen. Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkunde, 2 Vols.,
CSCO 307, 317. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO,
1970.
Vries, W. de
Sakramententheologie bei den syrischen Monophysiten,
OCA 125. Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum,
1940.
Wright, W. Catalogue of Syriac
Manuscripts in the British Museum, Vol. 2. London: British
Museum, 1871.
Wright, W. A Catalogue of the
Syriac Manuscripts preserved at the Library of the University
of Cambridge, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1901.