Manual Homilies on the Statues

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Homilies on the Statues file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Homilies on the Statues book. Happy reading Homilies on the Statues Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Homilies on the Statues at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Homilies on the Statues Pocket Guide.

Section Redemptions 7.

More Books by John Chrysostom

Section Rule on slaves and female slaves 8. Place of origin 8. Paenitentiale Vallicellanum E 15 9. MS Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibliothek 9. Pontifical of Noyon Penitentials and manuscripts of penitentials Reception of Quotiescumque in Paenitentiale Merseburgense a Works associating confession with Ash Wednesday Ordinary penitents and a special category of penitents Three Rituals from Germany of the 16th, 18th and 19th centuries Prayer Lk 13 in the Ritual of Constance of Introduction Reception of Quotiescumque in the Hamilton ordo II libris Montecassino, Archivio della Badia and Paris, Bibl.

Mazarine , Ordo of Paris, B. Paenitentiale Casinense Paenitentiale Vaticanum T 27, Sup. Summary of the first part of the text on penitential rites of P. Comment Ordo of Codex Vallicellanus C 32 Collectio IX librorum Ordo of Farfa Ordo of Paenitentiale Lucense Ordo of Paenitentiale Vallicellanum E 62 Ordo of San Biagio di Fabriano Conclusion of section 10 - 11 Blaise , Lexicon latinitatis medii aevi, repr.

Noret , Editio secunda, anastatica, addendis locupletata of vol. Dekkers, with the cooperation of AE.

Journal of Early Christian Studies

Balz - G. Liddel, R. Scott, H. Brinkhoff et alii - Jahrhundert, Berlin ff. Cross ed. Martini ed. Quotiescumque is especially found in penitential books. Among other ways in which it was transmitted, Quotiescumque or sections of it also appear in descriptions of confession rites and I had also to familiarize myself with these rites.

Jungmann is still an indispensable tool for the study of the Latin orders of confession. However, the dissertation Gaastra was of equal importance to me. It shows the relevance of the distinction between Italian and non-Italian orders of confession. It also makes the reader aware of the fact that, although they belong to the same family and are comparable with each other, the Latin orders of confession are the products of individual authors, not of simple copyists.

There are many manuscripts containing penitentials that are unpublished. Gaastra discovered several of them in various Italian libraries. Certain of these penitentials include orders of confession embodying sections of Quotiescumque. Gaastra sent me copies of his transcriptions of these orders. He was also always prepared to answer questions when I needed some clarification. For this I am very grateful to him. I also want to thank the staff of the University Library of Utrecht, through whom books not only of its own collection were available to me but also those of other libraries in and outside the Netherlands.

I am likewise indebted to the bookshop and publishing house Erven J. Bijleveld at Utrecht, which spared no pains to provide me with books published outside the Netherlands, which were often hard to obtain. Orders of confession In the West, it was only from the 12th century onwards that it was generally accepted that there are only seven sacraments and that penance was one of them.

In the Byzantine Churches, it was not until after the 14th century that this view prevailed2. Therefore I generally avoid the use of this expression. Like several modern authors, I also simply speak of ordo when the context shows that an order of confession is meant. After my book The Kanon- arion by John, Monk and Deacon and Didascalia Patrum had been printed Rome , I wanted to examine whether it is possible to make order out of the chaos of the Greek rites of 1 De Meester The author refers to Dmitrievskij - For the East see also ODB, s.

To this end, on large sheets of paper I drew columns, one for each specimen of the various Greek forms of confession, in order to compare them. Speaking of the evolution in the Byzantine Church of the order of the sacrament of penance, De Meester suggests that all Byzantine akolouthies of confession go back to a common prototype. However, trying to compare them, it became clear to me that the common structure of a group of ordines is so different from that of another group that they are incomparable.

It became obvious that there are two families of Byzantine orders of confession and that each family has its own, inde- pendent ancestor. Some akolouthies proved themselves to follow the scheme of the order of confession of DID, other forms are related to the taxis that is given by the MS Bodleianus, Auct. Jacob wrote a study on this MS.

His article is partly an edition and partly a detailed description of the contents of the codex. The MS includes two forms of confession. The first one belongs to the part of the MS that, according to Jacob, was written before The author even gives a more precise date.

The second ordo belongs to a younger part of the MS and can roughly be assigned to the end of the 16th century7. A few lines of this prayer are found in the Italo-Byzantine confession akolouthy of the Athonite MS Kostamonitou 60 16th cent. The best way of establishing the scheme of a Greek F confession form and of seeing whether it is related to other confession rites is to disregard the prayers of forgiveness. For the first ordo see Jacob - , for the second one, Jacob - Schmitz in his two volumes on the penitential practices of the Latin Church. Modern authors often use the capital P to indicate a Latin penitential and I adopt this custom.

The prayer is part of the set of instructions for confessors Quotiescumque. A comparison of the two prayers revealed that they are a Greek and a Latin version of the identical prayer. The existence of a Greek and a Latin text of Prayer Lk 13 raises the question of its original language. I was superficially familiar with Quotiescumque. Therefore it is not surprising that the writing includes rules on fasting. I happened to see this rule when arrange- ments had already been made for the publication of my book on the Kanonarion by John Monk and Deacon and Didascalia Patrum.

I spontaneously assumed that the rule was written by a Greek author, but had no time to verify this assumption. I took it that Quotiescumque was written towards the end of the eighth century and that by this time the Saturday was a fast day in the whole of the West. For the first assumption I refer to Vogel 45, and for the second assumption I cite Diet The question whether Latin Christians fasted on the Saturday is important for solving the problem of the original language of Prayer Lk If it can be demonstrated that a Latin theologian cannot have ordered a penitent on the Saturday to eat and drink whatever is set before him, the question whether a Greek or Latin theologian wrote Prayer Lk 13 is a considerable step closer to its solution, although we cannot regard it as completely settled.

Therefore in this study the mere assumption that this was not the case and a simple reference to an article of a dictionary to justify this assumption would be inexcusable. My research taught me that in Rome the Saturday was a collective fast day. My investigation also made clear to me that, although in Rome the Saturday fast was being observed, there is much evidence for the fact that this was not the case outside Rome.

Reason for section 3 - 4 of my book I not only became aware that the observance of the Saturday fast was confined to Rome and, maybe, to a few other Latin Churches, but also discovered that there does not exist any work that addresses the question whether the non-observance of the Saturday fast implies that fasting on a Saturday for a special reason also did not take place or could not take place.

Therefore it could be hypothesized that a T Latin author composed Prayer Lk 13, a Greek author found it and, having translated it, introduced it into the Greek text of Quotiescumque. I reject this a priori improbable hypothesis in my comment on section 5 of my division of the text of Quotiescumque. The solution of the problem whether in the West the Saturday was a potential fast day is crucial for answering the question whether the rule on fasting of Quotiescumque can have been written by a Latin theologian.

Since I did not find a work that pays attention to the question whether in the West the Saturday could be a fast day even in those Churches that did not observe the Saturday fast, I had to investigate the matter myself. This caused the writing of section 3 - 4 of my book. Introduction to Quotiescumque Despite the fact that Quotiescumque is mentioned in almost every book on the penitential practices of the Western Church, a special entry on this writing is missing from the diction- aries in which a student might expect to find it, and from the indices of liturgical manuals.

This is the more appropriate because Quotiescumque, the subject proper of this book, is not discussed in detail until section 5 of my book. The author of an article of a dictionary generally summarizes the results of other studies and in the bibliography refers the reader to these works so that a student can deeper explore the subject concerned. Summarizing my own findings, I refer the reader to section 5 - 8 of my book for the evidence of what I affirm below in the section on the contents of Quotiescumque.

However, before detailing these contents, I would like here to propose two theories, one regarding the origin of Quotiescumque and another one concerning the question why the Greek text of the writing did not survive. Origin of Quotiescumque Quotiescumque is a set of instructions for confessors, which was written in Italy between and I suggest this explanation. In the first five centuries it was generally the bishop who heard confessions. In this work he reports which penances he imposed for which sexual sins wanting his example to be followed by other confessors.

He heaps criticism on contemporaneous confessors, whom he accuses of ignorance, arrogance, mercilessness, inexperience and rusticity and cruelty and selfishness. It is scarcely thinkable that John levelled this criticism against bishops. Therefore he must have written his book for his peers. This suggests that in the sixth century people especially, if not exclusively, confessed to monks. The sermon begins with a strongly simplified version of the history of salvation. Unfortunately, it is hard to establish the date of origin of the sermon. John Monk and Deacon testifies to the fact that in the sixth century penitents certainly especially confessed to monks; the logos shows that at a certain moment after the year they certainly only confessed to monks.

I believe that the practice that unordained monks heard confessions ended in the 11th century. According to its summary, in ch. A sinner who had once confessed and had received a penance did non confess a second time because penance could only be undergone once in a lifetime. The latter could also repeatedly confess and their penance was secret. F 19 Holl There is not any evidence that this rule was also followed in the East. See also ODCC, s. Especially women who confessed adultery were only assigned to these stages, so that they did not run the risk of being killed.

See Basil of Caesarea, Ep. Canonica I Ep. As long as it was only bishops who heard confessions, there must have been little need for instructions explaining to them how they should do this. From bishops it could be expected that they knew how to receive a penitent. Therefore it is not surprising that there is not any evidence that in the first five centuries bishops followed a prescribed ritual for hearing confessions. It is possible that some bishop said an improvised prayer, but this is a matter of speculation. However, when in the East monks and in the West presbyters began to hear confessions, it is natural that it was considered as opportune that instructions were put together telling confessors how to receive a penitent.

This explains, I believe, the origin of guides for confessors in the Eastern and Western parts of the Byzantine Empire. However, first, it is quite possible that such guidelines were already written before the eighth century, but that they did not survive see also below. Second, it might indeed have taken some time before the moment was ripe that a theologian took the initiative to write a guide for confessors. Quotiescumque presupposes that penitents declare their sins to bishops and presbyters. Quotiescumque was written by a Greek author. Nevertheless he takes it for granted that penitents disclose their sins to priests, not to monks.

This is one of the two pieces of evidence that he was an Italo-Byzantine author. Non-survival of Greek and preservation of Latin text of Quotiescumque Why did the Greek text of Quotiescumque not survive? I suggest this answer. The set of instructions of Quotiescumque can scarcely have covered more than one leaf of paper. Perhaps it was copied by confessors for personal use but, apparently, it did not occur to any Italo-Greek copyist to reproduce it within the framework of a larger work so that its preserva- tion could easier be ensured.

See Van de Paverd - However, they are already found in P. For these words see Kottje This so-called P. Contents of Quotiescumque Quotiescumque can be divided into 14 sections, which follow upon its title. The various sections are not written by the same author. The analysis of Quotiescumque shows that three authors contributed to giving the writing the shape in which it has come down to us.

In the MSS, Quotiescumque is headed by shorter and longer titles. The part of Quotiescumque that immediately follows upon the title, section 1 of the writing, does not give instructions that the title makes the reader to expect. Section 1 of Quotiescumque is by the hand of Sympathicus. He underlines that, when a priest imposes fasting on a penitent, the priest himself should also fast, because a priest ought not to impose burdens on fellow-Christians that the priest himself is not prepared to carry on his own shoulders. Sympathicus further explains that all Christians are members of the same body cf.

  • Sex, Lies & Alka-Seltzer.
  • Product details!
  • Army Self-Development Handbook!
  • Byzantinische Zeitschrift?
  • Tremble Chin.

Rom 5 so that, when one member suffers, all members are affected cf. Therefore, when a priest sees that a fellow-member has fallen into sin, a priest should immediately recall the sinner to repentance. Considering section 1 and 3 of Quotiescumque, its second instruction is clearly a disso- nant. Section 2 is from the pen of the Latin Interpolator. Not showing any sign of the humility typical of Sympathicus, the Latin Interpolator declares that a confessor should not postpone the imposition of the penance — a period of fasting — and should immediately tell the penitent in what way he can replace the period of fasting by some other penitential work.

The Interpolator adds that in a case of emergency a deacon may admit a penitent to Holy Communion. Section 3 of Quotiescumque is entirely in harmony with section 1. Sections 4 - 5 was introduced by Euchetes. It seems that the title of Quotiescumque refers to these sections. Therefore the priest should retire into the inner room of his house, where he can pray in the usual way, aloud.

Even in this case the priest should say Prayer Lk 13, but in his heart. Sympathicus wrote section 6 - Not mentioning the place of confession, in section 7 Sympathicus indicates the time of confession: the moment that a penitent wishes to confess. Supposing that a priest knows how to hear a confession and which period of fasting he should impose as penance, Sympathicus only emphasizes that a priest should allow a penitent to prefer a short but severe fast to a long but mild one section 8.

Bearing this rule in mind, the confessor ought to impose the penance section 9. In section 10, Sympathicus writes that a penitent who performs his penance will be cleansed from his sins cf. Prov 11; 2 Pet 2: Next, first, Sympathicus states this paradoxical opinion: in addition to the imposed fast, a penitent ought to perform a voluntary fast; second, Sympathicus gives this theologi- cally dubious explanation of his opinion: through his voluntary fast, a penitent will earn himself a reward and the kingdom of heaven section It is this rule that is of crucial importance for my thesis that Sympathicus was a Greek.

The fact that Sympathicus speaks about fasting offers the Latin Interpolator a convenient opportunity to insert again a section on redemptions section In a legalistic way, he exactly indicates which amount of money equals which period of fasting. Finally, in section 14, Sympathicus explains that slaves and female slaves should only receive half the penance imposed on the rich, because the former are not in their own power.

Outline of my book My book is divided into 12 sections. It is not until section 5 that the subject proper of my study is discussed. The reason for this arrangement is the following. It might be hypothesized that Quotiescumque is not translated from the Greek into the Latin but that the reverse is true. This part of my study proves, first, that regarding the Sabbath as a compulsory non-fast day is in line with the Byzantine appreciation of the Saturday section 3 and, second, that in the West the Saturday had not the same significance as it has in the East in regard to fasting section 4.

The two sections are preceded by a number of preliminary remarks section 2. From the earliest times of the Church, this Saturday was a fast day and it always preserved this quality even in the East. For Methodius of Olympus it is the only fast day of the calendar. Relevant Greek and Latin texts The Fathers speak about fasting in a great amount of texts. Of the Greek Fathers, they are not the texts that testify to the fact that Eastern Christians did not fast on the Saturdays, and even disrupted their fasting on the Lenten Saturdays.

Section 2. It is obvious that of the Latin texts 2. However, this kind of texts was only produced in Rome. There are many Latin texts implying that Christians are allowed to fast on the Saturday, but the discussion of these texts would only yield an argument from silence. Fortunately, there is a limited number of Latin texts on the basis of which we may rule out that a Latin theologian would ever have forbidden a Christian, let alone a penitent, to fast on the Saturday.

In addition to the Roman texts, I only cites these texts. However, the justifica- tion of the fact that I confine myself to these texts, requires that in a kind of excursus I speak about three Latin Churches in which even the Lenten Saturdays were exempt from fasting. These Churches seem to have held the exactly same view of the Saturday as the Eastern Christians do. If that in reality were true, it could be argued that Quotiescumque was written in one of these three Latin Churches.

Online Medieval Sources Bibliography

Unfortunately, among them there are texts by two Greek Fathers, pseudo-Eusebius of Alexandria and pseudo-Athanasius of Alexandria, who are scarcely studied and are ill-known 3. C and 3. Looking for works whose titles suggest that these works might include testimonies for my thesis that Greek Fathers forbid Christians to fast on the Saturday, I went through M.

It was in this way that I traced the works of pseudo-Eusebius and pseudo-Atha- nasius and, if I am not mistaken, of the studies on the practices of fasting in patristic times my book is the first one that also considers the statements by the two Fathers in question. Many works are falsely attributed to St Athanasius. The short title of the writing that interests us is Syntagma doctrinae. The two studies that are devoted to this work, one by A.

Hyvernat and another by G. Garitte, were written in and As I do for pseudo-Eusebius, I first introduce Syntagma doctrinae before quoting and annotating the parts of it that forbid Christians to fast on the Saturday. In debate with Hyvernat, my introduction discusses the genre, the date and the structure of the work.

Therefore the two Fathers clarify a corrupt text of the Kanonarion by John Monk and Deacon, which touches upon the same subject and that I misinterpret in my book on the Kanonarion and Didascalia Patrum. Therefore, before discussing the other Greek texts that testify to the Byzantine appreciation of the Saturday as a day on which it is forbidden to fast 3.

K , I size the opportunity to insert an excursus on the duty of hospitality and the rules of fasting 3. Four typika and three guidebooks for confessors are the subject matter of the last two sections of the part devoted to the Greek texts forbidding Christians to fast on the Saturday 3.

The typika concerned are manuals, especially meant for monks, that explain how the liturgical year should be celebrated. They also explain which days of the calendar are fast days and to what extent they are such days. In section 3. J, I investigate whether the rules on fasting of the typika forbid monks to fast on the Saturday.

Section 3. Relevant Latin texts Section 4 discusses the texts of four Latin authors. Of the fourth figure, Silvester I, bishop of Rome from to , little is known. Nevertheless the dictionaries pay much attention to him. The well-known forgery of the Donation of Constantine was attributed to him. This happened in the second half of the eighth century. An earlier writing, the Acts of Silvester, which is important to our subject, was inserted into the Donatio Constantini.

Augustine and Jerome do not command that Christians should fast on the Saturday, but they maintain that, in principle, a believer may fast on any day of the week. Therefore it is especially on the basis of these texts that we may rule out that a Latin theolo- gian would ever have forbidden a Christian to fast on the Saturday.

They must have contributed to the fact that in the West the view prevailed that a Christian should not be forbidden to fast on the Saturday. Place and time of origin of Quotiescumque The analysis of Quotiescumque enables us to determine its place of origin and the time after which it must have been put together. Since Sympathicus borrowed the rule on slaves and female slaves from the Kanonarion by John Monk and Deacon, the analysis of Quoties- cumque also makes it possible to determine the terminus ante quem of the interpolated parts of the Kanonarion and the time before which Didascalia Patrum was written.

Therefore the analysis of Quotiescumque is followed by a section on these various dates 8. Reception of Quotiescumque Section 9 demonstrates the influence of Quotiescumque or its reception. In RGG, s. The fact that a text is received in a new setting is inter- esting for the Wirkungsgeschichte of a text, but the awareness that a text is received is especially important for the interpretation of this text in its new context. To explain this I confine myself to the reception of Quotiescumque. The writers discussed in section 9 are both copyists and creative authors. They prefer to copy texts but, introducing more or less radical changes, they become creative authors.

Therefore, if a writer proves himself to have modified a text of his model, we may take it that he did so to adapt the text to changed circumstances. By contrast, we cannot use a copied text as evidence for contemporaneous customs, because adapting a source to new circumstances requires the effort of turning oneself from a copyist into a creative author. We cannot assume that a writer was always capable or sufficiently motivated to make this effort.

The rubric preceding Prayer Lk 13 of Quotiescumque is a case in point. It tells the priest that he should prepare himself in his inner room. In some way, this rubric is received in many confession ordines. It is especially of this rubric that we should be prepared for the possibility that it does not reflect a real contemporaneous practice. Division of the works influenced by Quotiescumque The influence of Quotiescumque is visible in a great amount of works.

With the exception of P. Oxoniense II, all the works in which Quotiescumque is received have in common that the adopted matter is part of a text on confession. However, the influenced works differ from each other through the fact that they belong to all kinds of genres and are also characterized by various other features.

One of these features is the following. In the texts on confession of some works, Quotiescumque or sections of it are a prologue that precedes an order of confession; in the texts on confession of other works, instructions of Quotiescumque are integrated parts of a confession rite. An author who wants to show the reception of Quotiescumque is faced with the challenging task of finding a way in which the great variety of involved works can be divided into groups.

The division that I believe to be the most suitable one to our purpose is the following. In the second place, I apply a geographical criterion distinguishing between non-Italian and Italian works 10 and However, to mention only one example, P. Vallicellanum E 15 shows that my division is artificial and does not reflect the complex reality of the works influenced by Quotiescumque because, on the one hand, the penitential gives the full text of Quotiescumque and, on the other hand, it belongs to the group of Italian works.

A , works associating confession with Ash Wednesday B , and three Rituals from Germany of the 16th , 18th and 19th centuries One of the non-Italian works in which Quoties- cumque is received, is P. Oxoniense II Second, although it is a prologue, Quotiescumque is not followed by an order of confession but by penitential canons. It is not difficult to show that, like Sympathicus, the author of Propter corundam is also a Greek, and I believe that he was familiar with Quotiescumque.

Of the group of non-Italian works those that more or less directly associate confession with Ash Wednesday are the most complicated category. This, despite the fact that these ordines only received Prayer Lk 13 and PontPoit even only adopted the first part of the prayer. The distinction between these groups of penitents is necessary, because I have to consider these questions. Do these ordines show that they are intended for one of these groups or could they be followed for either group?

Does this affect the shape of their ordines or do they give a form that could also be used when someone wanted to confess on some other day of the year? Section 11 shows the influence of Quotiescumque on Italian works, which are discussed in chronological order. Devoting a chapter to Italian works presupposes that you know which works were written in Italy. If the MS of a work is being preserved in an Italian library and there is no evidence to the contrary, we may assume its Italian origin.

Mutatis mutandis this also applies to the MSS in the libraries of other countries. However, in section 11 I discuss three works of which the MSS are being kept in non-Italian libraries. Kottje I speak about the ordo of the Hamilton MS in the same section in which the ordo of P. The ordo of Paris, B. In addition, this ordo shows signs of Greek influence, which also points to its Italian origin A reader might believe that I pay excessive attention to even slight variants in the Italian ordines of the text of Quotiescumque as it stands in section 6.

However, it is probable that there are handwritten descriptions of confession rites that have not yet been brought to light. In addition, it is possible that some study on an order of confession escaped my notice. Another researcher might meet with a manuscript or printed order of confession influenced by Quotiescumque that is not discussed in my study. Sometimes a slight variant shows or confirms the Italian origin of a confession rite.

Therefore I even consider these variants. Finding certain variants in an order of confession not discussed in my book, a student can compare them with those mentioned by me and, maybe, be able to establish whether the concerned ordo was written in Italy or not.

John Chrysostom

In addition to finding other details, my elaborate general index is also meant as a tool for discovering the pertinent variants. Studying the Italian ordines, you cannot but notice that from the end of the ninth to the 12th century the Italo-Byzantine way of hearing a confession influenced the Latin Italian ordines. Although this goes beyond the scope of my book, I mention a few instances of this influence.

The last section of my book is a note in which I explain why this prayer is missing from the current confession orders of the Latin and Greek Churches Two remarks 1 I divide longer quotations of texts into lines or small sections. As far as I can see, it can have five meanings, which also apply to its derivatives. The paradoxical nature of this second meaning of fasting is clear in erotapokrisis 64 of the so-called Collectio a of erotapokriseis attributed to Anastasius Sinaita.

These words are not special entries in the mentioned Greek encyclopedia. The author describes the present-day Greek-Byzantine Lenten practice of fasting thus. This can also be said of the Byzantines of the seventh century. Quoting canon 64 of the Apostles, in its canon 55 the Council in Trullo condemns every Christian who fasts on the Sunday or Saturday. I suspect that the technical use of the term abstinentia is a rather recent phenomenon. Be this as it may, when in the texts of the period that interests us the word abstinentia is used, it is often a synonym of ieiunium.

If the matter from which is abstained is not specified, the term abstinentia implies abstinence from all food. This happened during the Eastertide. The custom is a compromise between the desire to fast even during this season and the obligation to respect the traditional festive character of the Eastertide. This way of fasting is prescribed by canon of the Latin Code of Canon Law that applied till its revision in The text is quoted by PGL, s. At the time of writing, MLW had not yet published the article on ieiunium. The pertinent text of the Responsa canonica is Questio et Responsum The following question was submitted to Timothy.

Therefore the question arises : is this proper or not? The reason must be that when these vigils fell on a Saturday, the Eucharist was not celebrated and the Saturday was a fast day. Timothy only addresses the second part of the question. His answer is this. Then he orders this practice. However, we should observe the fast of the vigil of Epiphany by only consuming the mentioned water at the moment immediately following the Sunday Mass of the morning.

In the vigil of Epiphany fell on a Sunday. For this circumstance Theophilus of Alexandria proposes this solution. According to the latter, Roman Catholics may take their only full meal of the day at noon but are allowed to take some food in the morning and evening in accordance with local customs. The Alexandrian authors take it for granted that the only full meal of the day is taken in the evening, and they rule that their communities should only consume water or a few dates rather than their normal midday meal.

Holy Saturday From the earliest times of the Church, the day before Easter was a fast day in the whole Catholic Church. The oldest piece of evidence for this practice is found in the Traditio Apostolica, which in ch. Metho- 13 Joannou II - In Ep. The continuation of the text shows that the brothers disagreed on the hour at which the Paschal Vigil should be concluded. The rule that the day before Easter or, for the period that interests us, Holy Saturday should be a fast day was universal. Therefore, when I write that in certain Churches people did not fast on the Saturday, I always imply that Holy Saturday is excepted.

This Saturday was such a special day that I do not associate it with the other Saturdays of the year. Psychicos 14, 3. The author sent me a copy of the pp. Texts relevant to the subject matter of the present study 2. Relevant Greek texts Scholars are so generally agreed that from the fifth century onwards Eastern Christians did not fast on the Saturday and Sunday that it is superfluous to me to discuss the evidence that proves this.

As we have just seen, in the fourth century an Egyptian Church made an exception for the case that the vigils of Christmas and Epiphany fell on a Saturday. The hortatory subjunctive expresses a command in a less crude way than the imperative mood does. This implies that he should consume the usual meals on these days. This does not mean that those Greek texts are only relevant to us that show that Christians should take two normal meals on the Saturday and Sunday. The rule of Quoties- cumque implies a more general view, viz. It is the obligation of respecting this view that distinguishes the Greek from the Latin tradition.

There are Greek texts that order Christians to break the fast on the Saturday and Sunday but, in contrast to what Quotiescumque does, do not command that they should take normal meals on these days. In the first place, we may assume that it was generally accepted that for Christians the Sabbath was not a day of rest. Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea end of the 4th cent.

This also applies to Didascalia Apostolorum 3rd C. V 20 21 in Syriac text , 11 - 12 and to the Council of Gangra ca. However, at Alexandria the practice was different. Athanasius of Alexandria states that even the Lenten Saturdays are free from fasting. However, it was only the Sunday Mass that the faithful were required to attend. In Hist. However, I must note that for some ascetics the Sunday was also of greater importance than the Saturday in regard to fasting.

Guy gives an apophthegma showing that Abbot Poimen learned about someone who continued his fast for six days, presumably for the first six days of the week. It is reported about Or that he often only enjoyed food once a week. Elia always practised this custom.

According to Hist. H 27 Ep. For other pieces of evidence suggesting that Mass was not everywhere celebrated on the Saturday in the East see Van de Paverd 64 - Pityrion ate twice a week, on the Thursday and the Sunday. Relevant Latin texts There is not any scholar who questions the fact that, from the fourth century onwards, the Saturday was a compulsory fast day in Rome.

That is why the command in Quotiescumque that a penitent should break his fast on the Saturday and Sunday led J. However, the fact that non-Roman Latin Churches did not accept the Roman practice does not mean that they shared the Greek view that the Saturday and Sunday are comparable in regard to fasting. There is a great amount of evidence demonstrating for almost all Latin Churches that, even if they did not keep the Saturday fast, they observed certain Saturdays as fast days, for instance, the Lenten Saturdays, or the ember Saturdays or the vigil of Pentecost.

As regards the ember days, the work by Fischer is still fundamental. As far as the vigil of Pentecost is concerned, there is not any canon dating from the period that interests us ruling that vigils should be fast days, but in so many texts praying and fasting are associated with keeping a vigil that we may accept that days of vigil were days of fasting.

There is a text from the second half of the 11th century which explicitly states that vigils are fast days. It is P. Vallicel- lanum E 62, canon The source of this canon is Collectio in V libris first three decades of the 11th cent. However, for however many Western Churches I might be able to show that they observed one or more Saturdays as fast days, this evidence is insufficient to prove that a Latin author cannot have commanded a penitent to disrupt his fast on the Saturday and Sunday.

It is insufficient for two reasons. WAS , where it is canon The source of canon 70 is Book 4 of Collectio in V libris see Gaastra [] Book 4 - 5 of the collection is unpublished. For Book 1 - 3 see Fornasari. Therefore it could be defended that an author of one of these Churches wrote the main part of Quotiescumque. Second, for however many Latin Churches I can show that the Saturday and Sunday were not of the same significance in regard to fasting, a critic can always point out that there might have been Latin Churches that followed the Byzantine practice but that the evidence for the existence of such Churches did not survive.

Symbolic Statues for Edwards' Sermon

In other words, an opponent of my thesis can always object that it is merely based on a argument from silence. Therefore two other kinds of texts are far more important for my theory than the many texts showing that in the Latin Churches in which these texts were written, a Christian could fast on the Saturday. These two other kinds of texts are even of decisive importance. Before explaining their nature, I must mention the three Churches for which there is direct or indirect evidence that in them even the Lenten Saturdays were free from fasting.

Lenten Saturdays in three Latin Churches For the following three Latin Churches there is evidence that in them the Saturdays of Lent were exempt from fasting. Milan Ambrose, De Helia et ieiunio 10, 34 shows that at Milan in the fourth century the Saturdays of Lent were exempt from fasting. The evidence is found in Carmassi. Among other MSS that are relevant for the reconstruction of the system of readings for the Mass followed in the ecclesiastical province of Milan, she also discusses a codex that is preserved in the library of the church of John the Baptist S.

Giovanni in Busto Arsizio south of Varese , codex M. The former only indicates the pericopes to be read as Gospel readings on the days of the ecclesiastical calendar and the evangeliary gives the full texts of the pericopes. The MS includes the indication of the reading of the vigil of Pentecost and the text of the pericope Jn 26 - The MS dates from the second half of the ninth century, but it goes back to a pre-Carolinian model.

This means that it was a potential fast day before it became an actual penitential day. The fact that the vigil of Pentecost was a fast day makes it likely that at a certain stage the Lenten Saturdays had become fast days as well. D 42 See below section 4. For the dates of the MS and its model see o. The Rule for monks speaks about the month October. The Rule for nuns shows that this should be the month November. Toledo It is very probable that in the Church of Toledo in the fifth or sixth century the Lenten Saturdays were free from fasting.

Perez de Urbel and A. Gonzalez y Ruiz-Zorilla published a critical edition of this work. In a study on Lent in the Mozarabic Rite, C. Callewaert writes that it is impossible to establish whether Christians fasted on the Saturday in Spain. Siglum S refers to Paris, B. This MS was written in the monas- tery that is currently called San Domingo de Silos and the MS was created before , maybe in The Lenten readings of this codex could reflect the customs of the fifth- or sixth-century Church of Toledo.

In addition to the monasteries of Aemilianus Cucullatus and San Domingo de Silos, the lectionary was copied at two other places. Incidentally, Jerome, Ep. Texts that must have defined the Latin view of the Saturday as possible fast day Above I state that there are two kinds of texts that are of decisive importance for my thesis that a Latin author cannot have commanded a penitent to disrupt his fast on the Saturday. The first kind is the texts of influential Fathers that put all customs of fasting into perspective.

Source Details

Morin - See also Fischer There are texts of authoritative Latin Fathers that emphasize that Christians are fundamentally free in their choice of days and times of fasting. These texts justify the theory that, from the sixth century onwards, it never occurred to a Latin theologian to forbid an individual Christian to fast on the Saturday. The sections 4. A and 4. B are devoted to these texts. The second kind of texts is two writings that have in common that in them a bishop of Rome explains that the Saturday should be a fast day. The section in which Silvester explains the importance of the Saturday fast belongs to these parts.

C and 4. Limitation of my evidence As we have seen, there are two Latin Churches in which even the Lenten Saturdays were exempt from fasting and one Church in which this was most probably the case. In addition to the texts referring to these Churches, I studied, I believe, all the printed Latin texts that in some way show that in the Churches in which these texts were written a Christian could fast on the Saturday.

See Colgrave 11 - For the special way in which medieval authors looked upon forgeries see Fuhrmann - I decided this, first because, as I say above, it only yields an argument from silence and, second, because I regard two other kinds of texts as conclusive for my thesis that a Latin author cannot have written the rule that whoever fasts for a whole week for his sins, on the Saturday and Sunday should eat and drink whatever is set before him. However, before concluding my Preliminary Remarks, I must note that, studying the practices of fasting of the British Islands, I met with one text that seems to belie my thesis that a Western author cannot have commanded a penitent to disrupt his fast on the Saturday and Sunday.

It is an excerpt from the so-called Book by David. The text of Excerpta quaedam is given by, among other authors, Bieler 70 - The work might be spurious but, even if this is the case, we may consider it to be of Welsh origin. Therefore, at first sight, the rule of excerpt 7 means that a penitent should relax his fast not only on the Sunday but also on the Saturday.

However, there are three differences between the rule of excerpt 7 and that of Quotiescumque ordering a penitent on the Saturday and Sunday to eat and drink whatever is set before him. First, according to the excerpt, a bishop who does penance for a serious crime is not allowed to relax his fast during the weekends. Therefore for the bishop concerned, if not both the Saturday and the Sunday are penitential days, this applies at any rate to the Saturday.

Quotiescumque orders all penitents to eat and drink normally on the Saturday. Second, taken literally, excerpt 7 orders a penitent to add a titbit to his regime of bread and water on the Saturday and Sunday. Therefore it is natural to interpret this rule to the effect that the titbit is meant as a concession, not as an obligation. Third, in contrast to what Quotiescumque does, excerpt 7 does not say that on the Saturday and Sunday a penitent should eat and drink whatever is set before him.

The same applies to Greek writers, see Van de Paverd Constitutiones apostolorum 3. On this Saturday, it is fitting to fast, but it is unfitting to celebrate it as a feast day 23, 4a. Egeria suggests that at Jerusalem a different view prevailed. She explains that at Jerusalem Christians fast for forty days before Easter, although they observe a eight-week Lent. Her explanation is that they do not fast on the Saturday and Sunday, with the exception of Holy Saturday. Be this as it may, the view that fasting and celebrating a feast are diametrically opposed to each other was so universal that, instead of writing that a day was a non-fast day, we may say that it was a feast day.

Didache 8, 1. If he is a cleric, he should be suspended from office, if he or she is a lay Christian, excommunication is the penalty. CPG and in one of the notes that M. Eusebius and Alexander are both fictional characters. Mac Coull explains why John the Notary stresses that such a pious man was the successor of Cyril.

John the Notary was a Chalcedo- nian, who wanted to show to the Melkite community that an orthodox bishop succeeded the great Cyril. The answer that follows is a kind of long apophthegma. It does not belong to the genre of the erotapokriseis because it is a third author who relates the question and the answer.

He exempts the Saturday and Sunday from fasting, but does not mention the festival of Annunciation. An objection can be made against this theory. Towards the end of his apophthegma, pseudo-Eusebius writes this. Therefore pseudo-Eusebius says that the Lenten fast should never be broken because it is compulsory to all, including visiting friends.

However, the Wednesday and Friday fast is voluntary, and someone who resolves to fast on these days ought to disrupt his fast when a friend visits him. In other words, hospitality is more important than a self-chosen fast. In line f, pseudo-Euse- bius only mentions the commemorations of the martyrs as occasions at which the self- imposed Wednesday and Friday fast should be broken.

This line could be adduced as evidence against the thesis that he was unacquainted with 25 March as celebration day of Annunciation. Someone might argue this. His reason is that he took it for granted that Christians were aware that these feast days, which are greater festivals than those of the martyrs, are non-fast days. Likewise, he took it for granted that people knew that they should disrupt their Lenten fast on 25 March. However, for the feast of Annunciation we cannot assume that it was obvious how it should be celebrated. The terminus post quem of Instante is AD , because the author of the Life of pseudo-Eusebius presents him as successor of Cyril of Alexandria.

In , the Council in Trullo accepted the authority of the Canons of the Apostles canon 2. This implies that the council also recognized the validity of the pseudo-apostolic canon 69, which prescribes a punishment for any Christian who fails to observe the Lenten fast and the Wednesday and Friday fast.

For pseudo-Eusebius, the latter fast is not a collective, but a voluntary practice. This collection consists of two parts. In the first part the names of the Fathers delivering a saying appear in alphabetical order, the second part is devoted to anonymous sayings. This collection is found in the MS Sinai , which was written in , as is shown by J. In footnote 1, Lafontaine cites Lafontaine The fragment is given by Mingarelli See bibliography.

J Henri Hyvernat and G. It is only found in one MS, Leydensis Vossianus graec. PG 28, - reproduces B. Hyvernat gives a somewhat more carefully copied text. There are a few texts that are inspired by Syntagma doctrinae. One of them is the MS Vatic. It is an adaptation of Syntagma doctrinae.

  • The Silent Witness?
  • Malignant Liver Tumors: Current and Emerging Therapies;
  • A Thorny Path — Volume 01;
  • What is Kobo Super Points?.

In terms of contents, its rules on fasting are in accordance with those of Syntagma doctrinae. On the same pages, Hyvernat gives the text of Ek tou Syntagmatos of Vatic. Giovanni Luigi Mingarelli published this work. Batiffol published Didascalia Patrum twice; the first time only using Marcianus gr. Batiffol []. Of the second edition, there are only copies. It is sections of only one MS, which Hyvernat does not specify and of which he does not give the variants. II The work consists of two parts. Pitra published and introduces an excerpt from a writing related to Syntagma doctrinae.

The excerpt includes a text that is missing from Syntagma doctrinae, but that is given by Est autem vita. Pitra states that he took the excerpt from two MSS, Coislin 37, f. The MS consists of 98 pages, written by F. Caspari produced a special edition of Expositio fidei using two other MSS in addition to Marcianus gr. II 42, see Garitte, Hyvernat ; PG 25, B; cf. PG 28, A In his opuscule 93 pp. De Clercq used the MS Coislin 14th cent. VI, codex 4 14th cent. The summary of this chapter shows that it is on the disruption of the fast because of the visits of fathers and brothers, and on the disruption of voluntary and obligatory fasts.

Nicholaus alludes to Syntagma doctrinae in canon 9 of the Synodicae constitutiones. Having detached them from the other rules of Syntagma doctrinae, Hyvernat separately gives the Fidei praecepta on p. The passage that especially interests us belongs to the Fidei praecepta. He also takes it that source y and Syntagma 29 Hyvernat , note 1. For the allusion see o. He devotes pp. From this he infers that source y also dates from - , which means that the terminus ante quem of source x is In fact, he argues that the Fidei praecepta were written by the end of the third century and the ascetic rules of Syntagma doctrinae were interpolated ca.

Hyvernat infers from a comparison of various passages of Syntagma doctrinae with Epiphanius, Panarion, De fide 23, 2 - 25, 1 that Epiphanius had read Syntagma doctrinae. I propose my date of Syntagma doctrinae below in section 3. Section on fasting of Syntagama doctrinae The section on fasting of Syntagma doctrinae is ch. Syntagma doctrinae 2, 9 rules that we should not pray with a heretic nor with pagans. Carefully observe the forty-day fast of the holy Church and the week of the holy pascha b.

Break the fast when a brother visits you c but not the stated fasts, the Wednesday and Friday fast and the Lenten fast, and that of the Passion Week d but the self-chosen fast, that on the Monday, Tuesday and Thursday e. The ninth hour is the stated end of the Wednesday and Friday fast and, if you do something more, you do this of your own accord h. But if you can even extend the fast over the next day, you courageously practise ascetism i. Fasting and performing ascetic exercises, take care that you do not get conceited … j.

Chrysostom in Exile. His Death. The Writings of Chrysostom. His Theology and Exegesis. Chrysostom as a Preacher. Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood. Letter to a Young Widow. Homilies on S. Ignatius and S. On the Holy Martyr, S. Homily Concerning Lowliness of Mind. Concerning Lowliness of Mind. Instructions to Catechumens. First Instruction. Second Instruction. Three Homilies Concerning the Power of Demons. Homily I. Homily II. On the Power of Man to Resist the Devil.

Homily III. Homily on the Passage Matt. Against Publishing the Errors of the Brethren. Two Homilies on Eutropius. After Eutropius having been found outside the Church had been taken captive. Letters of St. Chrysostom to Olympias. Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with the Bishop of Rome. Letter from St. John Chrysostom to Innocent, Bishop of Rome. To the Beloved Brother John, Innocent. The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch. Preface to the Benedictine Edition.