ON SS. JOHN AND GEORGE, PATRIARCHS OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
Their cult, deeds, and age.
DXX AND DCLXXXIII.
CommentaryJohn, patriarch of Constantinople (St.)
George, patriarch of Constantinople (St.)
BY J. P.
On this XVIII day of August the printed Great Menæa commemorate both these Patriarchs in these words: The cult of both. On the same day, the memory of our holy fathers John and George, patriarchs of Constantinople. In the same tenor they are then noted in our Greek transcript from the Turin Manuscript: Μνήμη τῶν ἐν ἁγίοις πατέρων ἡμῶν καὶ ἀρχιεπισκόπων ΚΠ. Ἰωάννου καὶ Γεωργίου. That is: The memory of our holy fathers and archbishops of Constantinople, John and George. To these add our Sirmond-Chifflet supplement to the printed Greek Menæa. In our Arabic-Egyptian Martyrology is set down The contest of SS. John and George. The word contest, which is there attributed to them, is wont to be ascribed only to martyrs. The Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, prefixed to our first volume of the month of August, treats of SS. John and George; but since their Acts either do not exist, or at least are not at hand for me, I shall abridge into a compendium what is there contained, collected from various documents. And first let something be said of St. John, whom we think to be the same who in the cited History, page 56 [*], is set down as the twenty-fifth in order among those patriarchs, and the second of this name, surnamed the Cappadocian, but without the title of Saint — not because anything stood against his sanctity, as is indicated on the following page; but, as had been premised, because it was not established that that John was meant in the Menæa: of which matter I shall speak below.
[2] As regards the time, you will find in the same place that this Patriarch succeeded Timothy in the month of April of the year 518, The time and praises of St. John and after a brief governance of his see departed from this life in the year 520, from what is there said on page [] 57. Among other things which have been collected concerning him on that occasion, praises worthy of the Man are brought forward. And with how great effort he labored to establish the bond of concord between the western and the eastern church, that is a proof which St. Pope Hormisdas, in Labbe, volume 4, column [ ], after other things praises him thus: Such a man has divine providence given as prelate to his church in thy Fraternity, that it was not doubtful that he would enter with our See, that is the Apostolic See, into a holy and abiding concord of faith: for since, the little book of faith being gladly received from us, thou wast eager for restoration in Christ, thou art known never to have been estranged from us in the divine predestination. Therefore, most beloved brother, press on with the benefits of our God as they run of their own accord; gather more fully the members of the flock once scattered, and guard them when gathered. Very brief indeed, but illustrious, is that which, from the Library of Photius, codex 231, column 889, was given to this Patriarch by St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, which you have in the same place among us, and which in Latin runs thus: John of Constantinople, drawing his race and surname from Cappadocia, a man who was the dwelling place of virtue.*
[3] with which he is honored. Moreover that eulogy, wrongly attributed by some to John the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople, is claimed for John the Cappadocian in the said History, page [] 69. There may also be read, concerning that notable union of the two churches of which I have spoken, the seventh letter of Avitus, bishop of Vienne, given to our John, which is contained in Sirmond's Paris edition of his works of the year 1643, page 48 and following. But the letter or little book which the same John sent to Pope Hormisdas is found in Labbe, volume 4 of the Councils, from column 1486. In the aforesaid History also, page 56 [], there is adduced a passage of Baronius at the year 517, number 61, and John the Cappadocian is praised as a cultivator of the orthodox faith; whom nevertheless the emperor Anastasius outlived, nor was he permitted to breathe freely: but when he died a few months later, how strenuously he labored for Catholic unity and concord, the things which shall be said in their place will make plain. But an accusation would tarnish these praises of the Man, of which I shall now briefly speak, if it rested upon a solid foundation.
[4] In the cited Chronological History, Parergon 5, page [] 57 and following, it is asked The accusation imputed to him is refuted. whether John the Cappadocian first usurped the name of œcumenical patriarch: and it is there answered that by Pagi in the Critica at the year of Christ 520, number 5, by Banduri in volume 2 of the Eastern Empire, page 895, and by some other writers, John the Cappadocian is accused of this arrogance, their accusation resting without doubt, as was there indicated among us, upon the superscriptions of the letters which the clergy of Antioch and the bishops of Syria Secunda sent to this John, and which Labbe in volume 5 of the Councils, columns 158 and 211, recites, as is said in the same Parergon; and that the same could be inferred from the acclamations of the people of Constantinople, which are related in the Council of Constantinople under Mennas in Labbe, in the same volume 5 from column 177, where that John is often called œcumenical patriarch. But that this title, foisted upon certain bishops of that see, was fraudulently inserted into ancient instruments by later Greeks, we have with Baronius judged more probable in the same Parergon (whose words are there recited from the Annals* at the year 518, number 14) against Thomassin and others; and we have proved it from a like fraud of a Greekling impostor, and also that John the Faster was the first who usurped the title of œcumenical. This I have extracted from the Parergon.
[5] But among other things which of John the Cappadocian
have been collected on page [] 56, Who this John may be who on this day is inscribed in the Greek Calendars. you will find that he is perhaps the same who is celebrated as a Saint in the Menæa of the Greeks, as our Rader judged, although no distinguishing mark is added by force of which this matter may be established with certainty, any more than by force of the announcement, in which only the name of John is marked in the Menæa and in the Menology of Sirlet on the XXV day of this month. It remains to indicate why I think — or, if you prefer, suspect — that on this XVIII day of August John the Cappadocian is meant. The reason is: first, because St. John I, surnamed Chrysostom, belongs elsewhere. Secondly, John III, although a crafty flatterer and a favorer of heretics, is nevertheless wrongly honored as a Saint in the printed Menæa of the Greeks on the XXI day of February, and is there distinguished from our namesake by the surname Scholasticus. Thirdly, John IV, surnamed the Faster, is likewise wrongly inscribed in the Calendars of the Greeks on the second day of September, and is distinguished by his surname. Fourthly, of John V we said in the Chronological History indicated before, page [] 83, that we know scarcely anything, and that therefore only his chronology is to be investigated; whom nevertheless we acknowledged to be a Catholic, not a Monothelite, as Baronius suspected. Fifthly, John VI, vindicated from the same heresy against the same most eminent founder of the Annals from page 90 [*], belongs to the eighth century, and therefore not to our present question — he himself, as it appears, still less other later namesakes. For since John and George are above set down in the Calendars under one and the same announcement, and John indeed in the first place, it appears to me altogether probable that there are conveniently to be understood John the Cappadocian, who lived in the sixth century, and St. George I, who lived in the seventh. Yet suppose that John belongs to another day, suppose that another is there meant — since we see nothing standing in the way of the public cult of the praised John, we have judged this to be a suitable place for treating of him, that something at least may be said concerning him.
[6] [St. George's conversion from Monothelitism, his age; the place of his cult and of John's.] Of St. George I there is treatment in the Chronological History, page [] 85, whence I extract the following. Having left the heresy of the Monothelites, he gave such signs of a sincere and true conversion that he deserved to be reckoned not only among Catholic prelates but even among the Saints — in the Typicon indeed which is called that of St. Sabbas, on the VI day of April; but in the printed Menæa on this XVIII day of August, as seems to us more probable, according to what has been said of St. John. Add that George II was not raised to the see of Constantinople save at the end of the twelfth century, as may be seen in our History, page [] 145, so that consequently he does not belong here. The cult of both Patriarchs is noted in our Greek supplement mentioned above at this day: And their solemnity is celebrated in the most holy great church, by which I understand that of Constantinople. St. George I sat from the year 678 until the year 683, in which he either died or was driven from his see, from the said History, page 85 [*] and following. We above, at the beginning of this collection, have set down the year 683, whether he then died or survived longer.