Dialogue on James, brother of the Lord

Protestant: [Meme on the Matthew 13:55-56 (brothers of the Lord)]

Catholic: deal with Galatians 1:19 EXPLICITLY naming a brother of the Lord as an apostle

Protestant: Catholic is really ignorant of the fact that others became "apostles" (Paul, Barnabas, Silas, James the brother of Jesus) later and that Jesus's brother James, who wasn't a believer or follower during Jesus's ministry, became an apostle and leader in the early church after Jesus appeared to post-resurrection. How not surprising!! 🤣

Catholic:

 I am not ignorant of that. They were only made apostle after Acts 13:1-2 and and called apostles in Acts 14:14. Galatians 1:19 refers to Acts 9:27 where ONLY the twelve were called Apostles. Furthermore, James the Apostle the Son of Alphaeus perfectly fits the brother of Jude, and the Son of Mary in Matthew 27:56

Protestant: //They were only made apostle after Acts 13:1-2//

Majorly begging the question, for one, as Luke doesn't tell us *when* they became apostles. And Jesus's brother James was already a leader in the church by Acts 12:17, as the apostle James the son of Zebedee had already been killed (cf. v. 2) and James the son of Alphaeus was never a major player in Acts nor even mentioned by name. Additionally, Barnabas was already functioning as an apostle (though not explicitly called one) in chapter 11, and James's post-resurrection appearance and likely apostleship was before Paul's based on 1 Cor 15:7, which puts him prior to Acts 9.

//Galatians 1:19 refers to Acts 9:27 where ONLY the twelve were called Apostles.//

Your comment breaks down—and thus is false—because:

• Acts 9:27 has "Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles" whereas Gal 1:18 has "I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas." Paul's stated intention in Gal 1 is to visit Cephas whereas Acts 9 has him rather "attempt[ing] to join the disciples" and Barnabas having to step in. 

• Acts 9:28 has "[Paul] went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly" whereas Gal 1:19, 21–22 has "But I saw none of the other apostles [besides Peter] except James the Lord's brother . . . Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea." 

• You also claim Acts 9:27 refers to "ONLY the twelve . . . Apostles" whereas Gal 1:18–19 has him only seeing the apostles Peter and Jesus's brother James. Yet if your comment is true, "Barnabas took him and brought him to the ['ONLY the twelve'] apostles," thus making Paul lie in Galatians since he would've really seen all the apostles. 

• After the Jerusalem visit Gal 1:21 has "Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia" whereas Acts 9:30 has him first going to Caesarea. I think anyone would acknowledge that it's *possible* he stopped in Caesarea prior to going to the regions of Syria and Cilicia, but it's still interesting that the geographical narrations are different. 

[GIF]

Catholic: 

I am begging the question? You INVENTED a 3rd James in the Luke-Acts narration. Luke's gospel only mentions 2 people named James--the son of zebedee and James son of Alphaeus. Luke's gospel never mentions a 'brother of the Lord' named James. 

You agree this James was a major player but you think Luke never bothers to mention who his parents are or to distinguish him from the son of Alphaeus. 

The burden is on you to prove James who was NOT one of the 12 is a brother of the Lord is the one in Acts 12:17. It provides 0 context except he is logically not the son of Zebedee. That leaves us with the son of Alphaeus! 

Barnabas was NOT considered an apostle until Acts 13. The text emphasis this is when the were SENT (G630), sent is related to the word APOSTLE. 

BEFORE you make more baseless claims about me ADMIT you are the one who has to explain why Luke SUDDENLY has a 3rd James without introduction in Acts. 

Your comment on Acts 9:27/Galatians 1 aren't mutually exclusive and there are even more seemingly contradictory accounts in the Bible that have to be reconciled. This doesn't even have contradiction you just imply there is. 

My point about Acts 9:27 wasn't that it was referring to the whole 12 but only people who were part of the original 12, not the later expansion seen in Acts 14. 

Also,did you catch your own contradiction about Barnabas? You he was an apostle BEFORE Acts 13 yet Acts 9 says Barnabas took Paul to apostles, suggesting he IS NOT an apostle.

Protestant: 

//I am begging the question? You INVENTED a 3rd James in the Luke-Acts narration//

Uh, James wasn't mentioned by name in Luke because the brothers were non-believes during Jesus's earthly ministry (Luke only records an abbreviated version of the same passage in Mt and Mk in 8:20–21) and thus were irrelevant, and the evidence proves James wasn't converted until after Jesus's resurrection—making Acts the only time he really becomes relevant. That's not "inventing" a 3rd James—it's called not cherry picking the NT.

Your argument also falsely assumes an author can't introduce other characters later—why is that? But Jesus's mom and his brothers were already brought into the book in 1:14, and it's an identical reference to his Lk 8:20–21 (note also the coupling of "your/his mother" and "your/his brothers" in each, while Matthew includes his father and Mark includes his sisters). Additionally, James the son of Alphaeus is not depicted as having a leadership role in the Jerusalem church anywhere in Acts, other New Testament writings, or extrabiblical writings. However, the James mentioned in Acts 12:17 is seen as a key figure in the Jerusalem church, and this aligns with how Jesus's brother James is portrayed elsewhere, not only in Galatians 1:19; 2:9 but early church tradition as well, which consistently identifies Jesus's brother James as the leader of the Jerusalem church (e.g., writings by Eusebius and Hegesippus).

There is no historical or biblical evidence suggesting James the son of Alphaeus held an influential position like the one Jesus's brother James has in Acts 12:17 and Acts 15 and elsewhere. The early church clearly understood the James in leadership as Jesus's brother, not the apostle son of Alphaeus, with no historical records suggesting otherwise.

It's more than evident to anyone reading along that you started with your conclusion (based on an inability to distinguish authentic sources from later forgeries with late legendary superstitions) and then are forcing whatever material you can to fit, however unnatural it may be.

//Barnabas was NOT considered an apostle until Acts 13. The text emphasis this is when the were SENT (G630), sent is related to the word APOSTLE.//

That's why I wrote, "Barnabas was already functioning as an apostle (though not explicitly called one) in chapter 11." Maybe review also 11:22.

//Your comment on Acts 9:27/Galatians 1 . . .//

I think the strongest part is that Acts 9:28 has "[Paul] went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly" whereas Gal 1:19, 21–22 has "But I saw none of the other apostles [besides Peter] except James the Lord's brother . . . Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea."

But somehow you expect us to believe that "[Paul] went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly" while nearly all the apostles are still there (see John in 8:14, 25) but he just happened to not encounter any.

//only people who were part of the original 12, not the later expansion seen in Acts 14.//

Still begging the question since Luke doesn't tell us *when* they became apostles, the above evidence strongly indicates Jesus's brother James was the one in view in Acts 12:17 and Acts 15, Barnabas already functioning as an apostle (though not explicitly called one) and being a known leader and being "sent" by the church in chapter 11, and James's (Jesus's brother) post-resurrection appearance and likely apostleship being before Paul's based on 1 Cor 15:7, putting him prior to Acts 9.

//Also, did you catch your own contradiction about Barnabas? You he was an apostle BEFORE Acts 13 yet Acts 9 says Barnabas took Paul to apostles, suggesting he IS NOT an apostle.//

There's a reason I've only mentioned chapter 11 this whole time….

Catholic: 

Protestant said: "James wasn't mentioned by name in Luke because the brothers were non-believers...., and the evidence proves James wasn't converted until after Jesus's resurrection—making Acts the only time he really becomes relevant. That's not "inventing" a 3rd James—it's called not cherry picking the NT."

My response: your position is absurd--Joseph and Mary have subsequent kids but they fail to instill in them that their miraculous older brother is God in the flesh? If they all lived together its hard to imagine them losing faith in Christ. Regardless, it doesn't say ALL his family outside of Mary and Joseph were unbelieving.

You would expect him to be NAMED in early Acts when he supposedly became a believer who would hold a very important role, but he wasn't named, only two James are named. Your 3rd James appears with no clarification who he is, nothing in the narrative of Luke saying there's a separate James who is a brother.

Protestant said: Your argument... falsely assumes an author can't introduce other characters later.... But Jesus's mom and his brothers were already brought into the book in 1:14... Additionally, James the son of Alphaeus is not depicted as having a leadership role in the Jerusalem church anywhere in Acts, other New Testament writings, or extrabiblical writings. However, the James mentioned in Acts 12:17 is seen as a key figure in the Jerusalem church, and this aligns with how Jesus's brother James is portrayed elsewhere, not only in Galatians 1:19; 2:9 but early church tradition as well, which consistently identifies Jesus's brother James as the leader of the Jerusalem church (e.g., writings by Eusebius and Hegesippus).

My response: Luke can introduce a 3rd James...if he states who he is. Good point about Acts 1 listing apostles and mentioning Jesus' brother! Acts 1 does not mention your James at all by name? Why?? Why confuse Theophilus later with another prominent member of the Church named James that he spontaneously introduced with no information about his father? Imagine you are Theophilus, who would you assume James in Acts 15 to be? Luke 8 only mentioned 2 James, and never said there was another James. You would logically think he was the 2nd apostle named James. If what you say is true Luke caused utter confusion. How can his audience think James in Acts 15 is anyone but the son of Alphaeus?

You mentioned Eusebius--Eusebius says James the brother of the Lord is 'know as the son of Joseph' then later he says James was 'called a brother of the Lord' and later when speaking of Jude (Judas) he speaks of the 'so-called brothers of the saviour' in Book III. 

In book II Eusebius quotes Clement of Alexandria saying there are *two James*, if he believed as you do then there should be *three*: 

"But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded. Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

It's odd you appeal to such late writers as Eusebius, considering this is the time the doctrine of semper virgin was being promoted more than before! Origen in the 3rd century said Jesus was an only child. John Chrysostom in the 4th century said James the Brother of the Lord is the son of Cleophas according to the gospels. There were a few that said there was a 3rd James but they still held to Mary being ever virgin.

I fully agree James the bishop of Jerusalem is brother of the Lord! His father just happens to be Alphaeus aka Cleophas as St John Chrysostom said.

Protestant said: "There is no historical or biblical evidence suggesting James the son of Alphaeus held an influential position like the one Jesus's brother James has in Acts 12:17....The early church clearly understood the James in leadership as Jesus's brother...not...son of Alphaeus, with no historical records suggesting otherwise."

my response: Again, Luke himself only explicitly names 2 James, if there's a third James there's no way we can know that from his gospel or Acts. If he meant a 3rd James then he was a HORRIBLE narrator. Also, go back to Eusebius' quote on Clement saying there are *two James* and Eusebius calls them 'so-called brothers'. 

My position has it Luke doesn't say James is a brother, but simply gives him a patronymic. Yours is he is a brother but never once called such explicitly by Luke. You view causes confusion, mine makes Luke coherent.

Protestant said: It's more than evident to anyone reading along that you started with your conclusion..... and then are forcing whatever material you can to fit, however unnatural it may be. 

My reponse: anyone reading will see you did this, you had to introduce a 3rd James where Acts 12 does not clarify which of the 2 James Peter left instructions for. But Luke is not this incompetent, he only introduces 2 James in his narrative--both mentioned in Luke 8 and Acts 1. Right exactly where you would expect Luke to name your 3 James along side the "brothers" he doesn't. Your James goes from obscurity to the point he doesn't have a name to the bishop of Jerusalem with no patronymic, no appellation as being a 'brother of the Lord'. If my position is true, this is not necessary because one James died and which James this is is OBVIOUS. 

My position can be reached by reading Luke's narration in Luke-Acts by itself without referring to outside sources you believe vindicate you position to clean up the mess Luke made.

Protestant said: That's why I wrote, "Barnabas was already functioning as an apostle (though not explicitly called one) in chapter 11." Maybe review also 11:22.

My response: Christ had 70 people preaching but they were not called apostles, Barnabas later got the title after being CALLED by the Spirit. Their mission was short-lived, Barnabas was sent by Jerusalem to work with Antioch, he was working under others, in Acts 12:25 his mission ended, and that's where he was made an apostle along with Paul where God directly called them to be ordained. In Acts 14 they now had the ability to ordained elders in the places they went to, rather than be under the Jerusalem church directly. 

Protestant said: I think the strongest part is that Acts 9:28 has "[Paul] went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly" whereas Gal 1:19, 21–22 has "But I saw none of the other apostles [besides Peter] except James the Lord's brother . . . Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea." 

Acts 22:17 says his first visit to Jerusalem ended with him being asked to get away from Jerusalem and preach to gentiles, he didn't hang around to preach outside the city, and Cilicia and Syria were mostly gentile. 

But somehow you expect us to believe that "[Paul] went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly" while nearly all the apostles are still there (see John in 8:14, 25) but he just happened to not encounter any. 

Catholic response: most Protestant commentaries I checked don't dispute Acts 9:27/Galatians 1:19 is the same event. He did meet at least 2, he preached boldly who a little while then was told to go the gentiles. 

Look at how Protestant commentators cross reference Galatians 1:19 when commenting on Acts 9:27

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/9-27.htm 

He did meet two apostles. Also, your reference to Acts 8 is the last time the Apostle John is named in Acts. Who knows what he did after that until the wrote his books, maybe attended the Council of Jerusalem. In Acts 10 it seems to have Peter traveling without John. 

Also you have a similar issue--Galatians 1:19 says he only met 2 apostles despite being in Jerusalem TWO WEEKS.

Protestant said: 

//only people who were part of the original 12, not the later expansion seen in Acts 14.//

Still begging the question since Luke doesn't tell us *when* they became apostles, the above evidence strongly indicates Jesus's brother James was the one in view in Acts 12:17 and Acts 15, Barnabas already functioning as an apostle (though not explicitly called one) and being a known leader and being "sent" by the church in chapter 11, and James's (Jesus's brother) post-resurrection appearance and likely apostleship being before Paul's based on 1 Cor 15:7, putting him prior to Acts 9.

Catholic: 

they being sent from the Jerusalem church for a specific and temporary mission and it expired. When the arrived back it says the Spirit Himself ordered them to be ordained. If they already were apostles, what's the point in the ritual and saying to set them aside. 

Again I have no issue with him being Jesus' 'brother'

Protestant said: There's a reason I've only mentioned chapter 11 this whole time….

Catholic: fine, but you still have Acts 13 having them being called by name and ordained then sent off.

Donation of Constantine in post Schism Byzantine and Russian Church

This article is still a draft with much more to be done including looking for primary sources.

Eastern Orthodox are often quick to point out the Donation of Constantine is a forgery, although ignoring the similar methods were used to declare the same about the beloved Corpus of Dionysius the Areopagite aka Pseudo-Dionysius. Regardless, the Byzantine Church did consider the Donation of Constantine valid for a long time and even quoted it and argued from it, generally internally in Constantinople or to justify Constantinople's patriarchal grandeur. 

The Donation of Constantine reached the peak of its popularity in Byzantium during the period after 1204, when it became well known to a wide array of churchmen ranging from canonists and compilers of legal manuscripts to bishops and patriarchs of Constantinople....Two or possibly three of these versions were produced during the late Byzantine period. The textual history of the Greek versions demonstrates by itself a contemporary fascination with this “document,” which was thought to have been issued by the... founder of Constantinople.

The Donation mattered for the late Byzantine church from both a constitutional and an ideological point of view. The range of its discussion and application broadened in this period. The Donation fueled the rhetoric of politically assertive high ecclesiastics, something which we can only suppose for earlier times, and inspired churchmen to adopt from the West the ceremony of groom service, which in Byzantium was to render honor to the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. The general tendency of the legal and ceremonial uses of the Donation in the period was toward enhancing the powers of the patriarch of Constantinople vis-à-vis imperial authority and the episcopal hierarchy. Thus, the predominant domestic application of the Donation corresponded to the centralization of the Byzantine church under the patriarchate of Constantinople in the course of the fourteenth century. The use of the Donation was one of the ideological expressions and underpinnings of this historical process--"Church and Society in Late Byzantium," The Donation of Constantine and the Church in Late Byzantium, DIMITER G. ANGELOV, page 125

see Emperor and Priest The Imperial Office in Byzantium By Gilbert Dagron · 2003 

The Russian Orthodox church at times used, and even incorporated the Donation of Constantine into Canon Law long after it was abandoned by the Latin Church!

The struggle between Nikon and the Tsar is well recorded... Of great significance for this study, however, is the manner in which Nikon chose to counter the influence of the Monastyrskii prikaz and the renewed drive toward secularization; for once again, in a desperate moment, the Russian Church relied upon the Donation of Constantine for its defense. It was at this time that the Donation was incorporated into the canon law of the Russian Orthodox Church. 

Although Nikon's predecessor in the Patriarchate had sponsored a new edition of the Russian book of canon law (Kormchaia) in 1651, Nikon called for a revision of the canons in 1653, in order to include in the Kormchaia materials favorable to his stand in the coming contest with the government. The result was canonization of the entire body of ideological writings that the Church had used to defend its possessions since the pronouncements of the council of 1503. In his additions to the canon law the patriarch included an account of how the Roman Church had fallen into heresy and thereby offended God, the doctrine of the "Third Rome" (as this notion had been expressed to Tsar Fedor by the first Russian Patriarch, Philaret), and the Donation of Constantine. These pieces thus formed an ideological and historical whole, for, taken together, these passages demonstrated the chain of events by which the possessions granted Pope Sylvester by Constantine had passed to Russia and were now under the protection of the office filled by Nikon.... 

Donation of Constantine became something of a canonical law in force for the Russian Church until the days of Peter the Great. In 1700, on the very eve of Peter's Church reforms, the last patriarch of Tsarist Russia, Adrian, when summoned before a court of the nobility to testify concerning the right of the Church to maintain independent ecclesiastical courts and large landed estates, adduced as part of his rejoinder several lengthy excerpts from the Donation. Even at this late date, more than two and a half centuries after its refutation in the West, the Donation retained sufficient authority to ensure that church property remained inviolate. Only after Adrian's death did Peter force his will upon the Church.--The Donation of Constantine in Medieval Russia Author(s): Joseph L. Wieczynski Source: The Catholic Historical Review , Jul., 1969, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Jul., 1969), pp. 159-172

To be continued....

Did the Acts of Chalcedon deny the authority of the Papacy?

The following is taken from a Russian Orthodox priest named Fr Ambrose M.: 

Chalcedon and the Rejection of Rome's Authority.

At the commencement of the Council the Roman legates conveyed to the Council Fathers the Pope of Rome's orders that Dioscorus must be expelled from the Council: 

"Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave." 

So what did the Council Fathers do? 

They rejected the authority of the Pope. They most certainly did not accept him as their head or the head of "all the churches." 

How did they show this rejection of the Pope's claims? They ignored the Pope's instructions not to allow Discorus to have a seat at the Council. 

The Council Fathers gave Dioscorus a seat and allowed him to speak. They refused to follow the Pope's instructions that he should be cast out if he attempted to speak. Even the papal legates acted in a dishonest fashion. After threatening to leave if Dioscorus was allowed to be there and to speak, they did not leave. 

The whole incident is NOT proof of papal authority. It is just the opposite. It is proof that the Council Fathers did *not* see the Pope as having authority over them or over the activities of the Council. 

A resounding and very public defeat for any claims of the Pope, and at an Ecumenical Council.

Read it all here, at the beginning of the webpage http://www1000.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm 

First let's read the standard address as presented in the link Father provided (an older translation):  

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.  

The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus? 

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.  

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.  

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.  

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop ["Pope" for "bishop" in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.  

The most glorious judges and the full senate, said: It is proper that you should set forth specifically in what he has gone astray.  

Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he who has come to be judged should sit down [as one to give judgment].  

The glorious judges and the whole senate said: If you hold the office of judge, you ought not to defend yourself as if you were to be judged.  

And when Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly (τῆς ἱερᾶς συγκλήτου ) had sat down in the midst, and the most reverend Roman bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence, Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of the city of Dorylæum, stepping into the midst, said...--Extracts of the Acts of Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451): Session I

Without understanding the context, on its face it appears like the senate is ignoring the Papal legates and letting Dioscorus sit down "in the midst." However, they are not ignoring the legates. The "midst" or "center" is where the trial happens.

Richard Price's comments about the positioning of the council as follows:

The council convened in the martyrium of St Euphemia in Chalcedon. The imperial commissioners sat in the middle, in front of the rails of the sanctuary. To their left sat the pope’s envoys, the archbishops Anatolius and Maximus, Thalassius of Caesarea, and the bishops of Syria and Asia Minor. To their right were seated the supporters of Dioscorus, initially including Juvenal and the bishops of Palestine and Illyricum as well as those of Egypt. As was customary at such gatherings, a copy of the Gospels was displayed in the centre, to signify the true presidency over the council held by Christ. The centre space was also reserved for those speaking, for those presenting accusations or those present as defendants.--The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, translated by Richard Price, Introduction, p.42-43

The center was where the action happened, where debate happened, accusations made, and where defendants sat.

Concerning the specific incident of Dioscorus' seat, Price comments:

This remark has generally been taken as a rebuke to Lucentius for acting as prosecutor when seated as a judge. But surely it is addressed to Dioscorus, and expresses agreement with the view Lucentius has just expressed, that Dioscorus as defendant cannot sit among the judges. Accordingly he now takes a place in the centre of the church.--The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, translated by Richard Price, The First Session. Page 130, note 55.

As you see, he said the instructions were given to Dioscorus, the Papal Legates were not being rebuked.

Evagrius' Church History gives a more complete account of what happened:

This was, then, the place of meeting of the beforementioned synod; at which the bishops Paschasinus  and Lucentius, and the presbyter Boniface, were the representatives of Leo, archpriest of the elder Rome;  there being present Anatolius president of Constantinople, Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, Maximus of  Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jerusalem: on whom attended  both their associate priests, and those who held the places  of highest rank in the most excellent senate. To the latter the representatives of Leo alleged, that Dioscorus  ought not to be seated with themselves; for such, they said, were their instructions from their bishop: as also that they would withdraw from the church, if they should be unable to maintain this point. In reply to the question of the senators, what were the charges against Dioscorus, they stated, that he ought himself to render an account of his own decision, since he had unduly assumed the character of a judge. After this statement had been made, and Dioscorus, according to a resolution of the senate, had taken his seat in the centre, Eusebius demanded, in the following words, that the petition should be read which he had presented to the sovereign power: “ I have been wronged by Dioscorus; the faith has been wronged: the bishop Flavian was murdered, and, together with myself, unjustly deposed by him. Give directions that my petition be read.” When the matter had been discussed, the petition was allowed to be read: it was couched in the following terms. Eusebius, the very humble bishop of Doryleum, who now pleads on behalf of himself and the orthodox faith,  and the sainted Flavian, formerly bishop of Constantinople. It is the aim of your majesty to exercise a providential care of all your subjects, and stretch forth a protecting hand to all who are suffering wrong, and to those especially who are invested with the priesthood...--Evagrius, Ecclesiatical History: Book II: Chapter IV: Council of Chalcedon, page 51-53

The description of the account describes Dioscorus taking a seat in the center, and immediately accusations are made against him.  Then eventually Dioscorus asks for Ephesus II (his attempt at an ecumenical council) to be read. He is accused of suppressing the letter of Pope Leo. Eventually he is condemned and ordered to be exiled (though he left before the final verdict).

Price translates the following, after the council's turmoil of yelling bishops:

The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Bishop Theodoret has been admitted as an accuser, as you have heard from his own mouth.’ 

195. Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Why is he seated among the bishops?’ 

196. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Bishop Eusebius and Bishop Theodoret are seated as accusers, just as you are seated among the accused. Let the rest be read.’--The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, translated by Richard Price, The First Session. Page 165.

 The officials outright say that Dioscorus sat in the chair of the accused. 

Going back to Father's claim:

The whole incident is NOT proof of papal authority.

No one said it should be. 

It is just the opposite.

 As demonstrated above, it's not proof of the opposite. Fr Ambrose got the whole incident wrong. 

It is proof that the Council Fathers did *not* see the Pope as having authority over them or over the activities of the Council. 

The council proceeded with the Papal Legate's directions. The Legates were the Presidents of the council formally, they were only ignored over canon 28, though in function the steps were done by laymen, not even clergy:

Since the peace of the church was clearly too important to be trusted to the bishops, effective presidency of the council was given to a committee of prestigious laymen who held either high-ranking posts in the imperial government or membership in the Constantinopolitan senate... 

Pope Leo...was represented by bishops Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, Lucentius of Asculanum, and Julian of Cos, and the presbyter Boniface. They were recognized as holding formal presidency over the council, although the imperial commissioners more typically directed the agenda in practice. The papal legates pronounced sentence on Dioscorus during the third session, and were able to dictate the terms of the Definition of Faith. But at the council’s final session, the twenty-eighth canon ratifying Constantinople’s ecclesiastical primacy in the east was adopted over their strenuous objections.--The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, translated by Richard Price, Introduction, p 41-42

Canon 28 is another issue, but Patriarch Anatolius later told the Pope that the ignored the legates on this matter since they were sure the Pope would agree with them over his own legates (which he soon found out that the Pope would not). 

But going back to the issue of Papal authority that the Council recognized. The Council involved several letters, including Conciliar letters to the Pope which includes the following:

and besides all this he stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour, we mean of course your holiness, and purposed excommunication against one who had at heart the unifying of the Church. And instead of showing penitence for this, instead of begging mercy with tears, he exulted as if over virtuous actions, rejecting your holiness' letter and resisting all the dogmas of the Truth. --Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo the Great

Lateran Council AD 649 Eastern delegates on the Papacy

The following are excerpts taken from Fr Richard Price's translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 that reflect a high view of the papacy:

The Council quotes a letter to the former Pope by the Archbishop of Cyprus

Christ our God founded your apostolic see, O sacred head, as a divinely fixed and immovable support and conspicuous inscription of the faith. For you, as the divine Word truly declared without deceit, are Peter, and on your foundation the pillars of the church are fixed; to you he committed the keys of the heavens and decreed that you are to bind and loose with authority on earth and in heaven. You have been made the destroyer of profane heresies, as the leader and teacher of the orthodox and unimpeachable faith.--Archbishop Sergius of Cyprus, AD 643, Letter to Pope Theodore, as read at Lateran AD 649.

Archbishop Sergius eventually would compromise with the heretical Emperor rather than keep strict orthodoxy of duothelitism. Yet, this doesn't change the fact he said this words.

Now we have monks from the East at the council:

we who are now present beg, entreat and beseech all you  most holy fathers and the apostolic and sovereign see not to overlook the petitions of Christians over so many years and from all quarters addressed  equally to God and to your most holy selves, nor the pleas presented with  tears on this matter by our humble selves, whether present or absent,  but canonically and in council to vindicate the most holy faith that is  under attack from the aforesaid men, and (after God) to keep it safe for  all, uncontaminated by innovation and resplendent as before with pious teaching for the benefit of orthodox priests, laymen and monks throughout the world, since the hearts of all rely on you (after God), knowing that under Christ you are the supreme head of the churches.--Greek Hegumens and Monks to the Lateran Council AD 649 and the Pope

Patriarch Paul of Constantinople, though not touching directly on the issue of the papacy, does state Peter is the pre-eminent, head apostle:

We, therefore, accepted the  conscientious proposal of the said God-beloved men: knowing what the  pre-eminent head of the apostles teaches, that we should be ‘ready to give  an answer to everyone who requests a word from us concerning the hope  that is in us’, and combining in ‘good conscience’ courtesy and the fear of  God, we shall set out our view of this single question in this letter, shunning  and eschewing verbosity and repetition as tedious and inappropriate for the present time.  

Bishop Stephen of Dora:

this authoritatively from the first and from of old, on the basis of its  apostolic and canonical authority, for the reason, evidently, that the truly  great Peter, the head of the apostles, was deemed worthy not only to be entrusted, alone out of all, with ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ for both opening them deservedly to those who believe and shutting them  justly to those who do not believe in the gospel of grace, but also because  he was the first to be entrusted with shepherding the sheep of the whole  catholic church. As the text runs, ‘Peter, do you love me? Shepherd my sheep.’ And again, because he possessed more than all others, in an exceptional and unique way, firm and unshakeable faith in our Lord, [he was deemed worthy] to turn and strengthen his comrades and spiritual brethren when they were wavering, since providentially he had been adorned by the God who became incarnate for our sake with power and priestly authority over them all.

Christ Our Savior Cathedral, Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow

Some Orthodox traditionalists mock western iconography as simply "art" or "secular art" and deny they are icons. Some mock Eastern Rite Catholic churches for including Western icons and decry it as Latinization! This article points out an example of Latinization in an Orthodox Cathedral despite no compulsion from Rome!

Years ago, before Russia's formal entry into Ukraine's then civil war, I visited Moscow and her famous Orthodox churches. Among them was the Cathedral of Christ Our Savior. It was built in pre-Soviet times, the Communists demolished the church and built a huge swimming pool, Moscow Pool, in its place.  After the collapse of the USSR, the city raised funds, and it was rebuilt (supposedly) to the exact specifications of the former Cathedral.

I was not able to take photos of the interior despite the church being a recent rebuild and the icons being recent (perhaps to retain a sense of the sacred).

There are a number of oddities to the Cathedral, a lot of Latinizations, despite its holding in prominence in the Russian Patriarchate.

The iconostasis has the first two bottom rows with western icons:

The icon behind the altar is in the tradition of Da Vinci's Last Supper:

If Latin iconography were so reprehensible as some ultra traditionalist Orthodox claim, why has not this prominent cathedral been corrected?

In addition, the Dome's iconography is particularly "non-canonical" with a unique depiction of the Trinity that differs from the famous depiction by Rublev.

Contrary to Orthodox canon, the Father is depicted, not just that, as an old man, rather than appearing the same as Christ! Christ is depicted as a Child! The Spirit as a dove.

Also, an aside, the Dome has a funny mistaken in the picture above with 3 angels above the Father:

The three words on top are Old Church Slavonic of свѧтъ svyat (holy) abbreviated. There is a tilda, or titlo above the T, just as in Greek for commonly used words showing the word is abbreviated. Though you would think they could simply make space and spell it out, this is common even in icons with plenty of space. This is not the interesting part though, this is an abbreviated trisagion (thrice holy), "Holy, Holy, Holy God...". 

Beneath it are Hebrew letters, or at least they should be. Presumably, and what appears to be attempted is the Hebrew spelling for God--אלֹהִים Elohim. The most embarrassing is the second letter (from the right) is nonsense. The top starts off as the correct letter--a lammed "L" but finishes at the bottom like the letter veit/beit. Correction the lammed looks likes somewhat similar to the number 7-- לֹ. The second most embarassing mistake is the next letters, presumably a heh--הִ. It is drawn instead as a ר -- resh with a dot or comma under the left end, rather than a line that extends to the bottom, or perhaps the dot is the 'i' diacritical. The diacritics are inconsistently used with nothing below the aleph, the failed lammed has the mark for the o sound, if the dot below the failed heh is a diacritical, its misplaced and should be under the yod. An attempt was made. I say this not to mock necessarily, I have seen a Church in France with questionable Hebrew!

Perhaps the poor Hebrew reflect the painstaking eye for detail to make an exact replica of the former Cathedral?

In addition, to western icon used for the iconostasis, there are scattered examples of western art:

The left of the altar is a very western nativity scene:

Going back to the art used, the exterior of the church also has reliefs, if not statues, which generally are not that common in Byzantine Christian churches.

to be continued

Tikkun Olam--Sikhun Olam? Funny dialectical result

Years ago I was given an example of the difference of Hebrew "dialects" ie Sefardic and Ashkenazi Hebrew. In many languages "th" sounds as in theta devolves into an s sound as in "saith" (said like faith) in middle English became "says" (after another shift where s becomes z). This happened in Ashkenazi Hebrew too with the phrase תִּקּוּן עוֹלָם --tikkun olam in modern Hebrew. The Hebrew alphabet has two t sounds: tet and tav. The tav in old Hebrew is generally believed to be a "th" sound as in sabbath or savvat, Ashkenazi pronunciation is shabbos, where the last "s" is a raphated tav. Another example of letters that sound alike in Hebrew are the k/q sounds: כ and ק, which are said mostly interchangeably.

The consequence of this is the Hebrew conception of repairing the world 'תִּקּוּן עוֹלָם' tikkun olam in modern Hebrew is changed to סִכּוּן עוֹלָם sikun olam which can be interpreted as "endangering the world," the opposite of the intention! 

"She is the subject of preaching and worship" Mary worship?

This meme has been circulating among some Protestant polemicists who go after Catholicism.

"Having entered deeply into the history of salvation, Mary, in a way, unites in her person and re-echoes the most important doctrines of the faith: and when she is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son, to his sacrifice and to the love of the Father."--Vatical Council II, Official Teachings of Roman Catholicism Vol. 1, pg. 420 and 421 

This article will deal with the first quote.

Like all good social media polemics, its fully of typos and poor references. Obviously, it is supposed to read "Vatican II." The citation is nonsense, probably is supposed to be a book on Vatican II. Regardless, it is taken from Lumen Gentium 65 of Vatican II. The translation I have only found on the Legion of Mary's website, retaining the archaic usage of worship. As I mentioned elsewhere, even Protestants in older English used the word worship in a broader sense which could be titles of justices, mayors etc, eg the Worshipful Smith.

The translation the Vatican's website has reads:

But while in the most holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she is without spot or wrinkle, the followers of Christ still strive to increase in holiness by conquering sin.(Cf. Eph 5, 27.) And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues. Piously meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church with reverence enters more intimately into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her Spouse. For Mary, who since her entry into salvation history unites in herself and re-echoes the greatest teachings of the faith as she is proclaimed and venerated, calls the faithful to her Son and His sacrifice and to the love of the Father. Seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes more like her exalted Type, and continually progresses in faith, hope and charity, seeking and doing the will of God in all things. Hence the Church, in her apostolic work also, justly looks to her, who, conceived of the Holy Spirit, brought forth Christ, who was born of the Virgin that through the Church He may be born and may increase in the hearts of the faithful also. The Virgin in her own life lived an example of that maternal love, by which it behooves that all should be animated who cooperate in the apostolic mission of the Church for the regeneration of men.--Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 65. (translation per the Vatican website)

The official Latin text is :

Dum autem Ecclesia in Beatissima Virgine ad perfectionem iam pertingit, qua sine macula et ruga existit (cf. Eph 5,27), christifideles adhuc nituntur, ut devincentes peccatum in sanctitate crescant; ideoque oculos suos ad Mariam attollunt, quae toti electorum communitati tamquam exemplar virtutum praefulget. Ecclesia de Ea pie recogitans Eamque in lumine Verbi hominis facti contemplans, in summum incarnationis mysterium venerabunda penitius intrat, Sponsoque suo magis magisque conformatur. Maria enim, quae, in historiam salutis intime ingressa, maxima fidei placita in se quodammodo unit et reverberat, dum praedicatur et colitur, ad Filium suum Eiusque sacrificium atque ad amorem Patris credentes advocat. Ecclesia vero, gloriam Christi prosequens, praecelso suo Typo similior efficitur, continuo progrediens in fide, spe et caritate, ac divinam voluntatem in omnibus quaerens et obsequens. Unde etiam in opere suo apostolico Ecclesia ad Eam merito respicit, quae genuit Christum, ideo de Spiritu Sancto conceptum et de Virgine natum, ut per Ecclesiam in cordibus quoque fidelium nascatur et crescat. Quae Virgo in sua vita exemplum exstitit materni illius affectus, quo cuncti in missione apostolica Ecclesiae cooperantes ad regenerandos homines animentur oportet.--Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 65

The Latin word in question is "colitur" which the Vatican's site reads as "venerated." 

This is not the ordinary word for worship, the word used literally means to cultivate (a field).

It sometimes is used for worship of God, or giving honor to someone else.

Wiktionary defines it as:

colō (present infinitive colere, perfect active coluī, supine cultum); third conjugation 

to cultivate the land, till, tend, take care of a field or garden (literal)

Synonyms: incolō, subigō 

to inhabit

Synonyms: habitō, obsideō, resideō, possideō, cōnsīdō, iaceō, subsīdō, stabulō, incolō, vīvō, versor 

to frequent, be the guardian of, cherish, care for, protect, nurture

Synonyms: cūrō, accūrō, prōcūrō, videō, respiciō, cōnsultō, cōnsulō, caveō, serviō 

(figuratively) to worship, honor, revere, reverence --https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/colo#Latin

The same entry provides the declensions which includes the nominative, masculine which is cultus, the word used for devotions to saints. 

A more formal dictionary, provide a very broad definition, it reads:

COL-, to till, tend, care for, cultivate: agrum, T.: agros, Cs.: colendi causā in agro esse: agri qui coluntur: hortos, V.: arbores, H.: fructūs, V.: fruges, O.: Pater ipse colendi, V.—To frequent, dwell in, stay in, inhabit, abide, live, dwell: colitur ea pars (urbis): urbem, V.: regnum, O.: arva gelidumque Anienem, and the banks of, V.: Rheni ripam, Ta.: anguis Stagna colit, haunts, V.: proximi Cattis Usipii colunt, Ta.: circa ripam Rhodani, L.—Fig., of the gods, to frequent, cherish, care for, protect, guard, watch over: quas condidit arces, Ipsa colat, V.: nymphis colentibus undas, O.: Iuno, quae Veios colis, L.: urbem, L.: terras hominumque genus, H. — To honor, revere, reverence, worship: Mercurium, Cs.: deos patrios: Musarum delubra: sacra: o colendi Semper et culti, H.: colebantur religiones pie, L.: numina, V.: caerimonias sepulcrorum: sacrarium summā caerimoniā, N. — To honor, esteem, love, adhere to, cherish: nos coluit maxime, T.: a quibus diligenter videmur coli: hunc virum, S.: poëtarum nomen: in amicis colendis: plebem Romanam, L.: alqm litteris, N.: nec illos arte, nec opulenter, S.—To attend to, dress, clothe, adorn, etc.: formamque augere colendo, by attire, O.—To cultivate, cherish, seek, practise, devote oneself to, follow, observe: studia: fidem rectumque, O.: ius et fas, L.: memoriam alicuius: bonos mores, S.: pietatem, T.: ius bonumque, S.: orationis genus: patrias artes, O.—To experience, live through, pass, spend: vitam illam: vitam inopem, T. -- Lewis, Charlton, T. An Elementary Latin Dictionary. New York, Cincinnati, and Chicago. American Book Company. 1890. Entry for Colo

The same Vatican II document cited (Lumen Genitum) does not regard colitur as interchangable with adoration, and actually clarifies the matter, this is the VERY next paragraph after the one cited in the OP with Latin in parenthesis:

Clearly from earliest times the Blessed Virgin is honored (colitur) under the title of Mother of God, under whose protection the faithful took refuge in all their dangers and necessities. [(21*) Sub tuum praesidium] Hence after the Synod of Ephesus the cult of the people of God toward Mary wonderfully increased in veneration and love (veneratione et dilectione), in invocation and imitation, according to her own prophetic words: “All generations shall call me blessed, because He that is mighty hath done great things to me”. (Lk. 1, 48.) This cult (cultus), as it always existed, although it is altogether singular, differs essentially from the cult of adoration (adorationis) which is offered to the Incarnate Word, as well to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and it is most favorable to it. --Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 66. (translation per the Vatican website)

The official Latin text reads: 

 Maria, per gratiam Dei post Filium prae omnibus angelis et hominibus exaltata, utpote sanctissima Dei Mater, quae mysteriis Christi interfuit, speciali cultu ab Ecclesia merito honoratur. Et sane ab antiquissimis temporibus Beata Virgo sub titulo "Deiparae" colitur, sub cuius praesidium fideles in cunctis periculis et necessitatibus suis deprecantes confugiunt(191). Inde praesertim ab Ephesina Synodo cultus Populi Dei erga Mariam mirabiliter crevit in veneratione et dilectione, in invocatione et imitatione, secundum ipsius verba prophetica: "Beatam me dicent omnes generationes, quia fecit mihi magna qui potens est" (Lc 1,48-49). Qui cultus, prout in Ecclesia semper exstitit, singularis omnino quamquam est, essentialiter differt a cultu adorationis, qui Verbo incarnato aeque ac Patri et Spiritui Sancto exhibetur, eidemque potissimum favet. Variae enim formae pietatis erga Dei Genitricem, quas Ecclesia intra limites sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae, pro temporum et locorum conditionibus et pro indole ingenioque fidelium approbavit, id efficiunt ut dum Mater honoratur, Filius, propter quem omnia (cf. Col 1,15-16) et in quo aeterno Patri "complacuit omnem plenitudinem inhabitare" (Col 1,19), rite noscatur, ametur, glorificetur, Eiusque mandata serventur.--Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 66

Another instance is modern Ecclesiastical Latin, is the Papal Encyclical by Pope John Paul II:

Vera libertas non est ubi vita non colitur et diligitur; neque plena est vita nisi in libertate.--Evangelium Vitae 96

There is no true freedom where life is not welcomed and loved; and there is no fullness of life except in freedom.--Evangelium Vitae 96

Also, John Paul II produced an Apostolic Letter called Maxime Colitur "Highest Veneration," which starts as:

Ad perpetuam rei memoriam. – Maxime colitur a populo christiano Deipara Maria, «quae signum sacrae virginitatis extulit, et intemeratae integritatis pium Christo vexillum erexit» (S. Ambrosius, De institutione Virginis, V).--Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, Maxime Coliter (Official Latin Vatican text)

My informal translation: 

For a perpetual record of the matter--Mary, the mother of God, is most venerated by the Christian people, "she who raised up the sign (signum) of sacred virginity and lifted up the pious standard (vexillum) of undefiled integrity for Christ" (St. Ambrose, An Instruction for a Virgin, 5).--Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, Maxime Coliter

John Paul seemed to be quite fond of using this word.

For its appearance in older Latin.

To be continued...

Divine Office, Menaion, Mass on who is damned

 Divine Office, Menaion, Mass, Catechism on who is damned:

The Byzantine version of Divine Office where Arius and Macedonius are declared damned:

Before the ages before the morning star, Thou wast begotten of the womb of the Father without mother; yet Arius calleth Thee a creature, refusing to glorify Thee as God, with audacity mindlessly confusing Thee, the Creator, with a creature, laying up for himself fuel for the everlasting fire. But the Council in Nicæa proclaimed Thee to be the Son of God, Who art equally enthroned with the Father and the Spirit. --COMMEMORATION OF THE HOLY FATHERS OF THE FIRST SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS At Great Vespers

The mindless Arius, showing himself to be a servant of a created being, and Macedonius, likewise revealed as abominable, are tormented together in the fire of Gehenna with the heathen.--COMMEMORATION OF THE HOLY FATHERS OF THE FIRST SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS At Matins, Ode III

Also,

Irmos:I have heard, O Lord, the mystery of Thy dispensation; I have understood Thy works, and have glorified Thy divinity. 

With the torrent of thy tongue thou didst hurl the betrayer of Christ, like Judas, into a place of fœtor, O blessed Alexander.

Like a fruitful olive-tree standing in the house of God, O John, thou therein didst bring forth those who believe on Him, like ripe fruit.--Menaion, August, THE 30TH DAY OF THE MONTH OF AUGUST, Matins, Ode IV: Canon of the Holy Hierarchs

 In the same matins:

Irmos: The Lord Who was glorified on the holy mountain, and by the fire in the bush revealed to Moses the mystery of the Ever-virgin, hymn ye and exalt Him supremely for all ages! 

Slaying the wicked Arius by thine earnest supplications, O divinely wise Alexander, thou didst dispatch him to a vile place, like another Judas, since he had apostatized in like manner. 

The mindless Arius, the enemy of God, who as a traitor rent asunder the robe of Christ, fell headlong, and now, like another Judas, lieth in torment in hell, O thrice-blessed Alexander. 

Through abstinence and unsurpassed vigils thou wast shown to be as one of the incorporeal beings, and in thy constant teachings thou becamest a rich wellspring of paradise for all ages, O John.--Menaion, August, THE 30TH DAY OF THE MONTH OF AUGUST, Matins, Ode VIII: Canon of the Holy Hierarchs

 The Tridentine Latin Mass alludes to Judas' damnation:

O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession: grant unto us the full fruit of Thy clemency; that even as in His Passion, our Lord Jesus Christ gave to each a retribution according to his merits, so having taken away our old sins, He may bestow upon us the grace of His Resurrection.

Deus, a quo et Iudas reátus sui pœnam, et confessiónis suæ latro prǽmium sumpsit, concéde novis tuæ propitiatiónis efféctum: ut sicut in passióne sua Iesus Christus Dóminus noster divérsa utrísque íntulit stipéndia meritórum; ita nobis, abláto vetustátis erróre, resurrectiónis suæ grátiam largiátur:--Collect for Holy Thursday

Likewise, the Catechism of Trent in passing says Judas is damned:

Some are attracted to the priesthood by ambition and love of honours; while there are others who desire to be ordained simply in order that they may abound in riches, as is proved by the fact that unless some wealthy benefice were conferred on them, they would not dream of receiving Holy Orders. It is such as these that our Saviour describes as hirelings, who, in the words of Ezechiel, feed themselves and not the sheep, and whose baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the ecclesiastical state, so much so that hardly anything is now more vile and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful, but also end in this, that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction. --Catechism of Trent (aka Roman Catechism):THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS: Right Intention 

The Matins of the Divine Office for the now extinct Feast of the Garden of Gethsemane.

Then He saith: “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.” (Matth. xxvi. 31.) He was sorrowful because He was leaving us orphans. But how resolutely He was giving Himself up to die is sufficiently clear by what followed, when He went to meet those that sought Him, when He calmed the agitated, when He nerved the timid, when He received the traitor himself with the condescension of a kiss. Neither is it other than the truth to say that He was sorrowful for their sakes who were hunting Him down, since He knew what a punishment they were to undergo for that unutterable crime. And because of all these things He said: "Let this cup pass from Me!” It was not that the Divine Son Of the Divine Being was afraid to die, but He would not that even wicked men should perish on His account.--Office in Memory of the Prayer of Our Lord JESUS Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, Matins, Ninth Lesson. page 239

 Around Constantinople I, Pope Damasus plainly spoke of the damnation of Apollinaris

If any one speaks of Christ as having had less of manhood or of Godhead, he is full of devils’ spirits, and proclaims himself a child of hell.

“Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church.--Letter of Damasus bishop of Rome found in: The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, Book V, Chapter X

The Menaion says the iconoclast emperor Leo the Armenian is damned:

The wretched and most mindless Leo, infected with the heresy of Mamon, dashed himself against thee as against a hard stone, O God-pleasing Nicephorus, and hath quickly broken asunder in hell.--Menaion, June: June 2: St. Nicephorus the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople: Matin, Ode I 

Pope Sylvester in Byzantine Menaion

Sometimes Orthodox apologists claim Rome was largely, if not completely, irrelevant in the first ecumenical council of Nicea (Nicaea).

However, the Menaion that the Orthodox Church prays says otherwise:

O God-bearing father Sylvester, thou wast shown to be a pillar of fire leading the sacred council in sanctity, an overshadowing cloud leading the faithful away from the deception of Egypt and ever guiding them on toward the divine land by thy constant teachings. Wherefore, we honor thy right glorious and most sacred memory.--Menaion, 2nd Day of the Month of January, At Vespers (Tone VIII) (translated by Isaac Lambertsen) 

Thou didst show thyself to be the leader of the sacred council, O initiate of the sacred mysteries, and didst adorn the cathedra of the preëminent of the disciples, crying: Bless the Lord, all ye works of the Lord!--Menaion, 2nd Day of the Month of January, At Matins, Ode VIII, Canon of the Hierarch (translated by Isaac Lambertsen)

Another translation of the Vespers above is found on a Ukrainian Greek Catholic website:

O holy Father Sylvester, bearer of God,* you revealed yourself to be a pillar of fire.* You convoked a sacred council and were the cloud which gives shade.* You led the faithful away from the Egyptian heresy* and always brought them to the divine land by your true teaching.* Therefore, we venerate your blessed and all-holy memory. --Menaion, 2nd Day of the Month of January, At Vespers (Tone VIII) (translation by RoyalDoors) also found on Archeparchy of Pittsburgh

Tsar Nicholas II family/court and the Occult

Sources, many primary and secondary claiming "St." Nicholas II, Emperor of Russia dabbled in the occult.

The last Emperor of Russia was canonized along with his family and servants by the Russian Orthodox church as passion bearers, though many simply regard them proper martyrs. (Initially, even the Lutheran and Catholic servants were canonized by the ROCOR as saints until it was revealed they were not Orthodox!) The typical explanation for the canonization is that he was a pious Christian ruler and a good father. His quality of rule is very dubious, but this is not the subject of this article. The quality of his fatherhood seems an odd reason for canonization considering Christ alludes to even heathens being good parents. Rather, him and his wife's obsession with mystics and the occult suggest they were not very pious in a theological sense. A number of those close the Imperial family bemoaned the Emperor's gullibility and lack of will, especially when it came to supposed mystics that his wife fell under the spell of: Concerning the influence of the Empress Alexandra, the Count Sergei Witte wrote:

She might have been a good enough consort for a petty German prince, and she might have been harmless even as the Empress of Russia, were it not for the lamentable fact that His Majesty has no will power at all. The extent of Alexandra’s Influence upon her husband can hardly be exaggerated. In many cases she actually directs his actions as the head of the Empire. On one occasion, I recall, Nicholas referred to Her Majesty as “a person in whom I have absolute faith.” The fate of many millions of human beings is actually in the hands of that woman. Surely the poor Emperor, and ah’ of us who are his devoted servants, and, above all, Russia, would have been much happier had Princess Alix married a German Duke or Count.--Yarmolinsky, A., Witte, S. I. (2018). The Memoirs of Count Witte. p 198. United States: Creative Media Partners, LLC. 

Before I continue, who is Sergei Witte that he should be believed? He was the first Prime Minister of Russia (albeit for less than a year) and was given the title count by the Emperor for his skillful negotiations with Japan to end the war. In addition, Emperor Alexander III on his deathbed advised Nicholas II to listen to Witte.

Empress Alexandra was the favorite granddaughter of Queen of England, Victoria. Queen Victoria was herself a believer in the occult, it seems fitting that Alexandra would like fall victim to occult 'masters'. The occult was widespread in Europe and other western countries among the aristocracy. Abraham Lincoln is even believed to have attended a seance, Arthur Conan Doyle was a devout Spiritualist, and many blurred the lines between medicine and magic/superstition (which exists today in some fields of psychology).

One such prominent occultist was Philippe (Philippe Nizier-Anthelme Vachod), a French medical school dropout who was fined for practicing medicine without a license until he found another to operate his quack practice under.

Another occultist master who some dealings with the Imperial court was Gérard Anaclet Vincent Encausse aka Papus.

In 1910 the head of both the Martinists and the Ordre de la Rose-Croix was Gerard Encausse (1865-1916). better known by his "occult" name, "Papus". Papus was the author of dozens of the best-known occult texts of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, an expert on everything from alchemy to Kabbala to the tarot. He also held high-ranking Masonic and Rosicrucian posts.... 

Papus reestablished and updated the Martinist order, which soon achieved great popularity in Russia and Italy.  Between 1900 and 1905, on one of several visits to Russia, Papus reputedly established a Martinist lodge at the court in St. Petersburg, together with another, Dr Philippe (Philippe Nizier-Anthelme Vachod, also Maitre Philippe de Lyon, 1849-1905), the monk Grigory Rasputin's predecessor as "friend" to the court of Nicholas II. Rumors persist that Tsar Nicholas II belonged to the Lodge of the Cross and Star; his uncles Nikolai Nikolaevich and Petr Nikolaevich, as well as the grand duke Georgy Mikhailovich, were members. It is true that Martinism had become very popular in Russia by 1905; it waned after 1916.--The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture. p 149. (1997). United Kingdom: Cornell University Press.

Emperor Nicholas spoke fondly of the occultist Philippe:

"During that time 'our friend' Philippe was sitting with Alix and talking with her. We showed him our daughters and prayed together with him in the bedroom!--Emperor Nicholas, Diary 11 July 1901 at Tsarskoe Selo. Found in A Lifelong Passion, p 206

Felix Yusupov has nothing nice to say about the Emperor's mystics, speaking of two occultist sisters in the Imperial Court from Montenegro:  

"They were much interested in occultism and lived surrounded by soothsayers and questionable prophets. It was through them that a French charlatan named Philippe, and later Rasputin had access to the Imperial Court. Their palace, Znamenka, was the central point of the powers of evil.    

One day as my father was walking by the seaside in the Crimea, he met the Grand Duchess Militsa driving with a stranger. My father bowed, but she did not respond. Meeting her by change a few days later, he asked her why she had cut him. 'You couldn't have seen me,' said the Grand Dutchess, 'for I was with Doctor Philippe and when he wears a hat he is invisible and so are those who are with him.'    

One of the Grand Dutchess's sisters told me that as a child she had once hidden behind a curtain and seen Philippe enter the room; to her astonishment, all those present knelt and kissed his hand."--Felix Yusupov, Memoirs. Found in A Lifelong Passion, p 206-207

A member of the Court named Ania spoke of the con-man Philippe:

Before I came to Court there was a Frenchman, Dr Philippe in whim they reposed the greatest confidence, believing him to be one in whom the gift of prophecy existed. I never knew Dr Philippe hence I can speak of him only as a sort of forerunner of Rasputin, because, as the Empress told me, his coming was foretold by Dr Philippe. Very shortly before his death the French mystic told them they would have another friend authorised to speak to them from God, and when Rasputin appeared he was accepted as that friend...--Ania Vyrubova, Memoirs. From A Lifelong Passion, p 425

Lev Tikhomirov, former revolutionary that became a conservative monarchist:

"That Philippe is the most shameful occurrence for the Imperial Family. He is some sort of foreign charlatan, hypnotist, magnetizer, and magician presenting himself as the possessor of occult powers."--Lev Tikhomirov, November 1902, quoted in Smith, D. (2016). Rasputin: Faith, Power, and the Twilight of the Romanovs. page 44. United States: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

The follow is by an ex-hieromonk, Sergei Michailovich Trufanov, who left Orthodoxy for Protestantism after the Revolution and came to the USA from Russia:

Melancholy and ghost-ridden as he was, in constant fear for his life, pursued by invisible hands, it was natural for him to suppose that God spoke to him through idiots, and that in consequence these idiots should often have influenced the relations of Russia with foreign powers. Fetichism and spiritualism dominated the czar's whole existence. On his person he carried all sorts of charms and talismans, the most precious of which in later years was a lock of Rasputin's hair. He wore this in a ring, and gazed upon it fixedly before making any momentous decision.--The Mad Monk of Russia, Iliodor, page 177

Note the attendance of the Emperor to seances is mostly second (or third) hand accounts.

According to Count Sergei Witte, the Tsar and his wife attended seances conducted by Philippe:

And it was through the good offices of these Montenegrins that Philippe gained access to the Grand Dukes, and later to their Majesties. Empress Alexandra was on intimate terms with none of the female members of the Imperial family except those Montenegrin women, who were to her a cross between bosom-friends and chambermaids. For months Philippe secretly lived in St. Petersburg and in the Summer residences of his high patrons. Consultations and mystic seances were continuously going on there with the participation of their Majesties, the Grand Dukes, and their Montenegrin wives.--Yarmolinsky, A., Witte, S. I. (2018). The Memoirs of Count Witte. p 203. United States: Creative Media Partners, LLC. 

James L. Houghteling Jr, a man working in the US embassy at the time, relayed similar rumors that the Emperor attended a seance to bring up the recently assassinated Rasputin:

Monday February 19 [1917]: I heard yesterday the story of the spiritualist seance engineered by Protopopoff for the Tsar. It was at Tsarskoe  Selo. The Tsar, Tsarina, their two eldest daughters, the minister and his right-hand man gathered around the table. Suddenly Protopopoff grew rigid, with set eyes and tense arms outstretched; then after some minutes he pulled himself together and said, “There has just appeared to me the spirit of St. Gregory Rasputin ; and he bids us continue to strengthen the Holy Autocracy.” The Tsar sat staring and believed every word of it. I hear this story is current, with some variations, and is regarded  as gospel truth, in many “well-informed circles.”--A Diary of the Russian Revolution. page  35-36. (1918). JAMES L. HOUGHTELING. JR United States: Dodd, Mead and Company.

The most detailed account  of the Emperor at a seance is found in Maurice Paleologue's memoir:

In 1900 the magician Papus (his real name was Dr. Encausse) who revived alchemy in France, came to St. Petersburg and soon made an enthusiastic clientle for himself. In the years following he was seen there on several occasions during the residence of his great friend, the magician Philippe of Lyons ; ' the Emperor and Empress honoured him with their whole confidence. His last visit was in February, 1906..... 

Madame R , who is both a professing spiritualist and a disciple of Rasputin, has been explaining this consternation to me by reference to a strange prophecy which is worth recording: the death of Papus presages nothing less than the downfall of tsarism in the near future. This is how it comes about: 

...October, 1905, Papus was sent to St. Petersburg by some of his highly-placed followers who badly needed his guidance in the...crisis through which Russia was then passing. The disasters in Manchuria had produced revolutionary agitation in every part of the Empire, bloody strikes, outbreaks of looting, massacre and arson. The Emperor was living in a state of torturing anxiety... 

The very day on which Papus arrived in St. Petersburg, a riot spread terro... The magician was immediately summoned to Tsarskoie- Selo. After a summary talk with the Emperor and Empress, a... seance was arranged... Apart from the sovereigns there was only one spectator...Captain Mandryka....By... concentration of will and a prodigious expenditure of fluid dynamism, the “Spiritual Master” succeeded in calling up the spirit of ...Alexander III..... 

Nicholas II bluntly asked...whether he should...resist the current of liberalism... The spirit replied: 

At any cost you must crush the revolution now beginning; but it will spring up again one day and its violence will be proportionate to the severity with which it is put down to-day. But what does it matter! Be brave, my son! Do not give up the struggle!”

While the horrified sovereigns were reflecting on this appalling prophecy, Papus told them that his magic powers enabled him to avert the threatened catastrophe, but that the efiicacy of his spells would cease the moment he himself ceased to be “on the physical plane.” Then he solemnly performed the necessary rites.--Paléologue, Maurice (1925). An Ambassador's Memoirs: Volume III. pages 97-98.  United Kingdom: George Doran.

The Count Witte notes the influence Philippe exercised over the Empress Alexandra:

Empress Alexandra fell completely under the influence of the impostor. Among other things she actually believed that “Dr.” Philippe had an enchanted life and could not be harmed by physical means. Nothing will better illustrate the extent and nature of his ascendancy over the Empress than the following incredible, yet well authenticated, incident. At the time when she was under the sway of the charlatan she was very anxious to have a son, because the four children who had previously been born to their Majesties were all girls. Dr. Philippe made Her Majesty believe that she was going to give birth to a boy, and she convinced herself that she was pregnant.--Yarmolinsky, A., Witte, S. I. (2018). The Memoirs of Count Witte. p 204. United States: Creative Media Partners, LLC.

Towards the end of the Romanov, Philippe was still referenced by the Empress Alexandra:

At a time, such as we are now living through, one needs to hear your voice uplifted in protest and reprimand when they continue not obeying your orders, when they dawdle in carrying them out.     They must learn to tremble before you - you remember M. Philippe and Grigory say the same thing too.--Letter from Alix to Nicky, 1 June 1916 - Tsarskoe Selo from A Lifelong Passion, p. 425-426

"Remember even M. Philippe said one dare not give constitution, as it would be your and Russia's ruin, and all true Russians say the same."--A Lifelong Passion, p 490. Diary of Alexandra Romanov 14 December 1916 

St Serafim of Serov was canonized through Philippe's convincing:

"In 1903 the Orthodox church canonized Serafim Sarovsky. This was done, it was said, at the insistence of Nicholas, and on the advice of Philippe. Rumours spread that bathing at the source near the monastery, where Serafim had lived and died, cured people of ailments and brought the fulfillment of wish...."-- A Lifelong passion, Historical Afterword, p 643

Count Witte suspected there was a secret plot to get Seraphim canonized which included another Russian Orthodox saint, John Kronstadt:

At the Summer residence of Grand Duke Peter, Philippe met a number of ecclesiastics, among them the notorious Father John of Kronstadt. It was apparently there that the project was hatched of canonizing the staretz (saintly man) Seraphim of Sarov.--Yarmolinsky, A., Witte, S. I. (2018). The Memoirs of Count Witte. p 204. United States: Creative Media Partners, LLC. 

The Count then states he spoke with Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, a layman that functioned as the Emperor's supervisor over the Russian church synod (an expression of the caesaropapism inherited from the Byzantines), about the canonization of Seraphim of Sarov.  He states the following:

This incident was related to me by K. P. Pobiedonostzev himself. One fine morning he was invited...to take luncheon with their Majesties. The invitation came unexpectedly, because at that time relations between their Majesties and Pobiedonostzev were rather strained, although he had been instructor both to the Emperor and his most august father. After breakfast, at which Pobiedonostzev was alone with his Imperial hosts, the Emperor, in the presence of the Empress, asked his guests to submit to him a decree canonizing Father Seraphim, on the day when the memory of that saintly man is celebrated, which was. a few weeks off. Pobiedonostzev replied... that canonization lay within the province of the Holy Synod and must be preceded by a thorough investigation of the candidate’s life and of the people’s views on the subject... To this the Empress replied by remarking that “everything is within the Emperor’s province.” This opinion I have heard from Her Majesty on various occasions. Nevertheless, the Emperor gave heed to his guest’s arguments, and Pobiedonostzev, on the evening of the same day, received from the Emperor an amiable note, expressing agreement with the opinion about the impossibility of immediately canonizing Seraphim, and ordering Pobiedonostzev to carry out the canonization the following year. 

Pobiedonostzev obeyed. Their Majesties were present at the ceremony of consecrating the relics. In the course of that celebration there were several cases of miraculous recovery. At night the Empress bathed in a healing fountain. The conviction prevailed, it was said, that the Sarov saint would give Russia an Heir Apparent, after four grand duchesses...--Yarmolinsky, A., Witte, S. I. (2018). The Memoirs of Count Witte. p 204-205. United States: Creative Media Partners, LLC. 

The Count also comments on the occultist sisters in the Emperor's court meddling in the affairs of the church:

During the revolutionary days which followed the act of October 17th, Prince A. D. Obolensky, then Procurator of the Holy Synod, repeatedly complained to me about the interference of the Montenegrin Princesses in the affairs of the Holy Synod.--Yarmolinsky, A., Witte, S. I. (2018). The Memoirs of Count Witte. p 205. United States: Creative Media Partners, LLC. 

Yusupov mentions the sisters were also among those that introduced the Court to Rasputin:

The Siberian prophet soon gathered around him a clique of worldly idlers, given over to occultism and necromancy. The two Montenegrin Grand Duchesses were among the first and most fervent admirers of the ‘man of God’. It was they who, in 1900, had introduced the occultist Philippe to the Court of Russia; now again, it was they who presented Rasputin to the Tsar and Tsarina, backed by the Archimandrite Théophane...--Yusupov, F. F. (2016). Lost Splendor: The Amazing Memoirs of the Man who Killed Rasputin. Page 191. 

Yusupov mentions Rasputin succeeding in deceiving many in the Russian church including St John Kronstadt, nuns and the Archimandrite Theophane.

The Emperor's drug dealer/Alexander II's godson:

"The Empress would not rest until he had consulted the quack Badmaiev, an ingenious disciple of the Mongol sorcerers. The charlatan soon discovered in his pharmacopoeia the remedy appropriate to the case of his august patient: it is an elixir compounded of 'Tibetan herbs' according to a magic formula and has to be prescribed very strictly...Judging by its effects, the elixir must be a mixture of henbane and hashish...--Maurice Paleologue, Memoirs, 6 November 1916. From A lifelong passion. p. 480

Paleologue claimed (somewhat comically) that Badmaiev eventually formed an alliance with Rasputin by seeing a fellow huckster in him when treating the Tsar's son who suffered from hemophilia (a disease that almost certainly stemmed from the fact the Emperor and his wife were 2nd cousins):

On several occasions the Emperor and Empress have called him in to the Tsarevitch when ordinary doctors seemed powerless to stop the child’s haemorrhage. It was thus that he met Rasputin. Their respective charlatanisms at once recognized each other and coalesced.--Paléologue, M. (1925). An Ambassador's Memoirs. p. 144. United Kingdom: George H. Doran.

Paleologue also records a story of rivalry and hatred among charlatans---Papus and Rasputin:

“ It is twelve years or so,” said Madame T——, “since Papus was in Russia; but he has kept up a correspondence with Their Majesties. Several times he tried to convince them that Rasputin’s influence on them was evil, because he got it from the Devil. The result was that Father Grigori loathed Papus and when Their Majesties mentioned his name, he would burst out : “Why do you listen to that charlatan? What’s he poking his nose into now ? If he wasn’t a low schemer, he’d have his hands full enough with all the evildoers and pharisees he has around him. There are more sins over there in the West than anywhere else in the world; nowhere else is the crucified Jesus so continuously affronted... How often have I told you that everything that comes out of the Europes is wicked and harmful! ”----Paléologue, Maurice (1925). An Ambassador's Memoirs: Volume III. page 174.  United Kingdom: George Doran.

Madame T is probably Anna Alexandrovna Vyrubova (née Taneyeva), a 'lady in waiting'.

Another figure of stature in Russia was Prince Felix Felixovich Yusupov, one of Rasputin's assassins, he was the son of a Count of the same name. Prince Felix became a prince by marrying the niece of Tsar Nicholas II. Prince Felix openly wrote of how dabbling with the supernatural and the occult:

My brother and I took a great interest in spiritualism. We witnessed some rather surprising things at the séances which we held with a few friends. But when a marble statue broke and fell off its pedestal at our feet, we resolved to give them up. I none the less continued to take a deep interest in everything connected with the mystery of life after death. 

It was at this time that Nicolas and I promised each other that the first of us to die would appear to the survivor. The Almighty God, the after-life and self-perfection were constantly on my mind. A priest with whom I talked freely on these matters told me: ‘Don’t try and find an answer to all these questions. Don’t philosophize too much. Just believe in God.’ But this wise advice did not satisfy my craving for knowledge. I immersed myself in the study of occult sciences and theosophy. I had difficulty in believing that it was possible, during the course of our brief sojourn on earth, to earn the right to eternal life, as the Christian doctrine teaches us. The theory of re-incarnation seemed, to my mind, a much better solution of the problems which preoccupied me. I learned that certain exercises of bodily and spiritual discipline could little by little develop in one a superhuman power which enabled one to master one’s own weaknesses and dominate other people. With the conviction that I was inspired by a divine truth, I devoted myself to the practice of Yoga exercises. Every day I took a special course of gymnastics and did an incalculable number of breathing exercises; at the same time, I tried to concentrate and develop my will-power. I soon noticed a change in myself: my mind became clearer, my memory improved, and my strength of will increased. Several people told me that even my expression had changed. I myself noticed that some people could not look me in the eye, and I concluded that I had acquired a sort of hypnotic power. To test my capacity for bearing pain, I held my hand over a lighted candle. I suffered the most excruciating pain, but it was not till the smell of roast flesh filled the room that I withdrew my hand....--Yusupov, F. F. (2003). Lost Splendor: The Amazing Memoirs of the Man who Killed Rasputin. Page 117. United States: Helen Marx Books. Also see here.

Note the Nicolas mentioned is his brother Nicolas Yusupov.

Yusupov mentions several forms of the occult mysticism: spiritualism, theosophy, yoga, reincarnation, seances. Interesting for someone who mocked Philippe as a charlatan! Perhaps realizing his own fraud in life (including letting his parents believe he had prophetic powers) let him see it in others.

Rasputin's rise some attribute in part to the desire to have an ethnic Russian to influence the Emperor, rather than foreigners, other men were attempted to influence him. 

It is noteworthy, though the occultist necromancer Philippe laid the foundation for Rasputin, Rasputin did discourage certain occultism in the Court like séances and automatic writing:

Rasputin made Munya promise to stop attending spiritualist séances and practicing automatic writing under the influence of spirits. He told her these things they called spirits were in fact demons, tricking us into thinking we were in contact with the souls of our departed loved ones. Only those rare persons with pure souls free of the sins of the world could make contact with these true spirits, Rasputin told Munya and her mother, and for others to even try was to engage in sin....From that day Munya and Lyubov remained devote to Rasputin for the rest of their lives.--Rasputin, Faith, Power, and the Twilight of the Romanovs, p.349

The reasoning at the end may just be a means to eliminate any spiritual competition. 

A partial list of other "mystics", "prophets", "holy fools" etc. that the Tsar entertained:

Matronushka the Barefoot

Pasha Sarovskaya 

Vasily Tkachenko 

Miron 

Darya Ossipova 

Antony 

Mitya aka Mitka Kolyaba

In addition, a weatherman that Emperor seemed to misunderstand his abilities.

For more information about the Emperor and his wife's obsession with mystics and the occult, including the list above see the article on jstor by Robert D/ Warth called Before Rasputin: Piety and the Occult at the Court of Nicholas II 

The obsession with the occult was nothing new to the Russian Emperors. Emperor Boris Godunov sought the help of English sorcerer John Dee. Emperor Alexander II, Emperor Nicholas's forebearer in the 1860s likewise.

In the 1860s the Romanov palaces were all in the thrall of spiritualist seances. Communing with spirits was appropriate in the palaces, where the ghosts of murdered emperors wandered...But for the new emperor, it was not merely a nod to fashion. Having decided to embark on great reforms, he thought it would not be amiss to chat with his late father. A famous "table-turner" was brough from Paris. At the very first seance, the late emperor made an appearance....Present were the emperor and empress; the dowager empress; Kostya; his wife, of course; Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna's brother...Anna Tyutcheva....Once Anna Tyutcheva returned to her room, she wrote down everything.--Radzinsky, E. (2006). Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar. p. 120. United States: Free Press. 

to be continued....