Inquisitions in the post schism Russian Orthodox Church and before Siberian Exploration

Execution of Heretics and Inquisitions in the Russian Church 

I was told by an Orthodox priest that St Thomas Aquinas is in Hell for advocating for the government capital punishment for heresy. This will be part of a broader topic addressing Orthodox criticism against Catholic, addressing claims that the Orthodox church didn't execute heretics, didn't have inquisitions, did not have crusades. See my former article on Emperor Justinian's code on treatment of heretics. I am also preparing another article on St Joseph Volotsky and his advocacy for life imprisonment and execution for heresy.

First. an account of a monk being punished for by Metropolitian Archbishop of Kievan Rus for heresy by imprisonment who eventually repents. Rather than exile or execution, this somewhat moderate step was taken.

6512 (1004). Война печенегов. Андриан еретик. Затмение солнца и луны. Печенеги, придя, снова Белгород обступили. И послал Владимир Александра Поповича да Яна Усмовича с войском. Печенеги же, услышав о том, оставив осаду, ушли в степи. В том же году митрополит Леонтий посадил в темницу чернеца Андриана Скопца. Ибо тот весьма изучен был писания, многие книги читал и впал в ересь, укоряя церковь и все уставы, епископов и пресвитеров, иконы и посты; но через малое время исправился, пришел в покаяние и познание истины и пребывал в великом благоговении, что многим кротости и смирению его дивиться.--История Российская. Части 2:7, Василий Татищев

 6512 (1004). Pecheneg War. Andrian the Heretic. Eclipse of Sun and Moon. The Pechenegs came and once again besieged Belgorod. And Vladimir sent Alexander Popovich and Yan Usmovich with an army. The Pechenegs, hearing of this, abandoned the siege and fled to the steppes. In the same year, Metropolitan Leonty imprisoned the monk Andrian the Eunuch (skopetsa). For he was deeply learned in scriptures, had read many books, and fell into heresy, reproaching the church and all its statutes, bishops and priests, icons and fasts; but after a short time, he reformed, came to repentance and recognition of the truth, and dwelt in great piety, so that many marveled at his meekness and humility. In that same summer, there was a sign in the sun and moon.--Vasily Tatishchev’s History of Russia (Istoriya Rossiyskaya): Volume 2:7  (AI translation)

Second, a man named Dmitro (Dmitryi?) was called a great heretic, but the Prince sent him into exile, another source I found claims he was sent to the dungeon, but I cannot confirm that. The source Tatishchev used for this seems to be lost, some doubt this story complete because of that, suggesting its conflated with the 15th century controversies.

6631 (1123)...

 Дмитро еретик. Синилец гр. В том же году восстал еретик тяжкий на церковь святую, именуемый Дмитро, опровергая уставы церковные. Но князь великий повелел его митрополиту испытать и обличить. Митрополит же, взяв его, послал в заточение во град Синелец (374).--История Российская. Части 2:7, Василий Татищев

Dmitro the Heretic. City of Sinilets.  In that same year, a grievous heretic rose against the holy church, named Dmitro, rejecting church statutes. But the grand prince ordered the metropolitan to examine and convict him. The metropolitan, taking him, sent him into exile to the city of Sinilets.--Vasily Tatishchev’s History of Russia (Istoriya Rossiyskaya): Volume 2:13  (AI translation)

The following is largely considered to be ahistorical and a forgery created by Orthodox polemicists against Old Believers as part of a debate from the early 18th Century where Peter the Great wanted to end the Raskol. The account I came across in a Seventh Day Adventist article (generally do not trust anything they have to say) which quotes an Atheist, Communist historian from shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. The account reads:

В 1123 г. по приговору Киевского церковного собора заточили в тюрьму, как «злого ере- тика», какого-то Дмитрия. В 1157 г. тот же цер- ковный собор осудил другого еретика, Мартина.

Учение Мартина, направленное против господствующей церкви, привлекло на его сторону, как рассказывает об этом летопись, много простого народа и вызвало широкое обществен- ное движение против православной церкви. По приговору собора Мартин был сожжён. 

Не только русские князья признавали за церковными иерархами право уничтожать про- тивников «злою казнью». Это же право призна- валось и монгольскими завоевателями. Так, по ярлыку хана Менгу Темира митро- политу Кириллу было предоставлено право на- казывать смертью за хулу на православную цер- ковь и за нарушение церковных привилегий. --Православная инквизиция в России, Ефим Грекулов

In 1123, by the verdict of the Kyiv church council, a certain Dmitry was imprisoned as a “wicked heretic.” In 1157, the same church council condemned another heretic, Martin.

Martin’s teaching, directed against the dominant church, attracted many common people to his side, as the chronicle recounts, and sparked a broad public movement against the Orthodox Church. By the council’s verdict, Martin was burned. 

Not only did Russian princes recognize the right of church hierarchs to destroy opponents with “cruel execution.” This right was also acknowledged by the Mongol conquerors.
Thus, by the decree of Khan Mengu-Temir, Metropolitan Kirill was granted the right to punish with death those who blasphemed against the Orthodox Church and violated church privileges.--Orthodox Inquisition in Russia by Yefim Grekulov (AI translation)

Grekulov did not invent this story, but he should have known it was fake history!  The story is believed to originate in the Old Believer controversy in the early 18th century where Peter the Great ordered Orthodox scholars to try to convert Old Believers to mainline Orthodoxy. The forgery likely was someone in the camp of Pitirim (archimandrite and founder of the Assumption Monastery on Kerzh and Belbash). Strange how a story Orthodox polemicists would be used later to demonize the Russian Church!

Another controversy without explanation to punishment, merely he was "cursed" or anathematized the synod:

6821 (1313). 

В тот же год явился в Новгороде еретик Вавила, протопоп новгородский, к нему же пристали многие от причта церковного и мирян, и епископ тверской Андрей помогал им, говоря: «Вот как рай на земли погиб»; и святой ангельский монашеский чин ругали безбожные и учением бесовским именовали. И многие, от иноков выйдя, женились. Преосвященный же митрополит Петр созвал на Переславль собор великий, были тут все епископы, игумены, попы, дьяконы и чернецы, и от патриарха Афанасия клир ученый. И многие прения были, и едва преосвященный Петр, митрополит киевский и всея Руси, от божественного Писания и помощию и заступлением князя Иоанна Даниловича преодолел и проклял того еретика; а сам пошел по градам, поучая право верить, и укротил молву, а смущение диаволово прогнал.----История Российская. Части 2:46, Василий Татищев

6821 (1313).

In that same year, a heretic named Vavila appeared in Novgorod, a protopope of Novgorod, to whom many from the church clergy and laypeople adhered, and Bishop Andrew of Tver supported them, saying: “Thus paradise on earth has perished”; and they reviled the holy angelic monastic order, godlessly calling it a teaching of demons. And many, leaving the monks, married. But the Most Holy Metropolitan Peter convened a great council in Pereslavl, attended by all bishops, abbots, priests, deacons, and monks, and learned clergy from Patriarch Athanasius. There were many disputes, and only with difficulty did the Most Holy Peter, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus’, through divine Scripture and with the help and support of Prince John Danilovich, overcome and curse that heretic. He then went through the cities, teaching to believe rightly, and quelled the rumor, driving out the devil’s confusion.--(AI translation)

Now an account in Novgorod around 1375 where heretics were drowned. Little is said about the event and the role of the Novgorod church in the matter.

The account written in older Russian font:

ПСРЛ, том XI. Издание 1-е. Летописный сборник, именуемый Патриаршею или Никоновскою летописью. СПб., 1897. 262 с., разд. паг. (VII c, 254 c.).

Polnoe sobranie rus letopisey 4, page 72

Тогда стригольников побиша, дьякона Микиту, дьякона Карпу, третее человека его, и свергоша их с мосту  Источник

Тогда стригольников побиша, дьякона Микиту, дьякона Карпу, третее человека его, и свергоша их с мосту

Источник: https://statehistory.ru/books/15/Olga-Kuzmina_Respublika-Svyatoy-Sofii/6

Побиша стриголников еретиков диакона Микиту и Карпа простца, и третьего человека с ними, свергоша их с мосту, развратников святыя веры

They killed the Strigolnik heretics, Deacon Nikita and Karp, a simple man, and a third person with them, casting them from the bridge, these corrupters of the holy faith--Polnoe sobranie rus letopisey 4 (Sofia Chronicle)

The same account rewritten for modern Russian:

6883 (1375)....

....В тот же год новгородцы ввергли в воду, в Волхов, стригольников еретиков, говоря: «Писано есть в Евангелие, если кто соблазнит одного из малых сих, тому лучше было бы, если бы повесили ему мельничный жернов на шею и потопили его во глубине морской».--История Российская. Части 2:54, Василий Татищев

That same year, the Novgorodians cast the Strigolnik heretics into the water, into the Volkhov, saying: ‘It is written in the Gospel, if anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.’"--Russian History 2:54 by Vasiliy Tatischev (AI translation) 

 The last account occurred before any Latin influence and translations on treatise on handling heretics. However, the next account there is evidence it was the Russian Church using Spanish writings on their inquisition against crypto-Jews.

Catholic heresy, Isidore tries to convince Russia to accept the Council of Florence to reunite with the Papacy, he is sent off to confinement in an Orthodox monastery presumably for the rest of his life for refuse to renounce the "Latin heresy":

(1441) 6949 

Исидор осужден. Тогда все епископы русские, которые были тогда в Москве и, слышав, прежде молчали, как спящие и не ведающие писания, ни силы, и ныне возбудились, и все с ними князи, и бояре, и множество людей вспомянули и уразумели законы прежние от апостолов и святых соборов, на которых стоит церковь греческая, начали говорить от святого писания и звать Исидора еретиком. И тогда князь великий Василий Васильевич возрадовался о согласии епископов своих, и князей, и бояр, и всех православных христиан, и повелел ему пребывать в монастыре, до тех пор пока не изыщет о нем по священным правилам святых апостолов и святых семи соборов святых отцев, чтобы так истинным судом правды пред архиепископами и епископами, пред всем священным собором обличить ересь его, что да усрамится и отложит латинские соединения и согласия ересные, и повинуется, и покается, и милость получит. Исидор же, злой ереси латинской насытившись, никак же не восхотел отлучиться от латинского согласия и соединения, нисколько повиноваться не восхотел и не послушал великого князя и всего священного собора. И приставил к нему князь великий приставов своих, и повелел его стеречь, да отлучится от латинского соединения и согласия, и обратится, и покается, и милость получит; так жил в монастыре у Чуда за стражей.-- История Российская. Части 2-4:56

Isidore Condemned. Then all the Russian bishops who were in Moscow at that time, who had previously remained silent as if asleep and unaware of scripture or its power, now awoke. Together with them, the princes, boyars, and a multitude of people recalled and understood the ancient laws from the apostles and holy councils upon which the Greek Church stands. They began to speak from holy scripture and call Isidore a heretic. And then Grand Prince Vasily Vasilyevich rejoiced at the agreement of his bishops, princes, boyars, and all Orthodox Christians, and ordered him to remain in a monastery until he could be judged according to the sacred canons of the holy apostles and the seven holy councils of the holy fathers, so that by a true judgment of justice before the archbishops, bishops, and the entire holy council, his heresy might be exposed. This was so that he might be ashamed, renounce the Latin unions and heretical agreements, submit, repent, and receive mercy. But Isidore, steeped in the wicked Latin heresy, refused entirely to abandon the Latin agreement and union, showed no willingness to submit, and did not heed the grand prince or the entire holy council. The grand prince appointed guards to watch him and ordered them to keep him under surveillance, so that he might renounce the Latin union and agreement, turn back, repent, and receive mercy. Thus, he lived in the Chudov Monastery under guard.--Russian History 2-4:56 (AI translation)

In 1490/1491, there are two separate versions for this apparently, one Moscow based (Nikon Chronicle) and the other Novgorad based (Novgorod Chronicle), one account might suggest the Archbishop rejected the synod's decision to spare from executing the heretics, and forced them to wear flaming helmets which may or may not have killed them.

 Then we see:

 Here is another record of the council, a 1491 redaction recording the heretics denying the Eucharist is Christ, denying Christ as being consubstantial to the Father, deny icons, Judazing, reject the traditional weekly fast days, the punishment is exile:

В лъто 6999 повелъниемъ благовърнаго и христолюбиваго великаго князя Ивана Васильевичя всея Руси сшедшимся в православныи град Москву боголюбивым архиепископом и епископом, благовърныи же и христо- любивыи князь великыи Иванъ Васильевичь възвъщаа2 имъ о избрании митрополичи, 3 и архиепископъ Тихон Ростовскыи и Нифонтъ Суздальскыи, Семионъ Рязанскыи, Васианъ Тверскыи, Прохор Сарьскыи, Филофеи Пермъскыи. А новгородцкыи архиепископъ Генадеи присла свою грамоту къ братии своеи архиепископу4 и епископомъ, глаголя: «Благословенъ богъ, его же въсхощет, // и пречистаа мати божиа и великые чюдотворци, тако же и государь нашъ князь великыи Иван Васильевич всея Руси и вы, братиа моя православные архиепископы и епископы и весь священныи събор рускиа митрополиа, тои всъмъ нам будеть отецъ и учитель, и аз с вами, всему5 православному христианству пастырь и учитель, и аз с вами, съ6 своею братию съ архиепископом и епископы, о том великомъ божественом дъле въ единои волъ и хотънии». И по благодати божии и по избранию Святого Духа, и изволениемъ благовърнаго и христолюбиваго великаго князя Ивана Васильевича всея Руси и всъхъ православных епископъ, и всего освящен- наго събора Руские митрополиа избраша архимандрита симоновского Зо- симу, яко достоина суща управляти богомъ порученное ему стадо. И възве- денъ же на двор митрополич месяца септября 19 день, а поставленъ митрополит всея Руси того месяца 26 в неделю. Того же месяца 28 прииде к великому князю посол из Чагадаи Урусь богатырь от Усеин салтана о любви и о дружбъ. Тое же осени октября 167 по повелънию благочестиваго и христолюбиваго, истиннаго православию поборника, великаго князя Ивана Васильевича государя всея Руси самодръжца съборовали господинъ пресвященныи митрополитъ Зосима всея Руси и съ всъми архиепископы и епископы, и с ыгумены, и с старцы духовными, и с протопо//пы, и с свя- щенници, и з диаконы, и съ всъм священным събором Рускиа митрополиа на развратников въры христианьстъи, на Захариа черньца и на его това- рыщев, на новгородцкого протопопа Гаврила и на Дениса попа архаггель- скаго, и на Максима попа иваньского, на Василия попа покровского 1–и на Макара диакона нико[ль]ского, –1 и на Гридю диака борисоглъбьского, на Васюка зятя Денисьева, на Самуху диака никольского и на их единомы- слениковъ, хотящих развратити честную и непорочную въру православ- ную, еже въ Христа бога нашего, в Троици славимаго, и погубити Христово стадо православное христианство, но не възмогоша, сами сътрошася, и вся мудрость их поглощена бысть. Глаголющимъ же имъ про господа нашего Исуса Христа сына божиа: «Како может богъ на землю снити и от девы родитися, яко человекъ, но ин есть тако, яко пророкъ бъ и подобен Моисъю, и не равен богу и Отцу». И не въроваху же, еже от пречистыа девы бого- родица рожеству еа, ни въскресению его, ни на иконах написанному образу по человечеству господа нашего Исуса Христа сына божиа не поклоняхуся, ни пречистыа образу, ни святым его угодником, но хуляще и ругающеся, глаголаху: «То суть дъла рукъ человеческых, уста имуть и не глаголють», и прочее, и подобни им да будут творящеи я, и вси надъющеся на ня. Тако же и божественую службу свершающе, ядше и пивше, и тъло Христово ни въ что же вмъняюще, яко простъ хлъбъ, и кровь Христову, яко просто вино. И иные // ереси многы творяще противно правилом святых апостолъ и святых отецъ, но болшее ветхаго закона держахуся: по июдеискы Пасху праздноваху, в среду и в пяток мясо и млеко ядяху. И иные дъла не- подобныя еретииская творяху, их же не мощно и писанию предати. И мно- гых простыхъ людеи прельстиша своими скверными ересми, и на соборъ перед великым князем и перед митрополитом, и пред архиепископомъ, и пред епископы, и пред всъмъ священнымъ събором тъх своих ересеи, скверных дълъ, запръшася и быша яко въ изступлении ума. 

Благовърныи же и христолюбивыи истинныи православию поборникъ, яко же вторыи царь Костянтин, князь великыи Иванъ Васильевич государь всея Руси самодръжец съ отцемъ своим святъишимъ митрополитомъ Зосимою и съ архиепископы, и епископы, и съ всъмъ священным събором Рускиа митрополиа, обыскавъ их скверные ереси и по архиепископлевым Генадиевым подлинникомъ, и по московскимъ свидътельством, тъхъ еретиков, Захарию черньца и сь его предреченными товарыщи и единомысленикы их по правилом святых апостолъ и святыхъ отецъ от святыа съборныа церквъ отлучиша, из сану извергоша и проклятию предаша, и в заточение ихъ послаша, а чистую и непорочную православную въру христианскую яснъ утвердиша и прославиша святую Троицу, въ едином божествъ нераз- дълну и несъзданну въ трех // съставех: Отца славяще, Сына въспъвающе и Духу Святому покланяющеся, Троицъ въ единици, единицы въ Троицы, сердцемъ и усты исповъдающе в въкы. Аминь.--СОКРАЩЕННЫЙ СВОД--РЕДАКЦИИ 1491 . (ГИМ, СИН. 963". "Abbreviated Compilation" of the 1491 Redaction (State Historical Museum, Synodal Manuscript 963)

"In the year 6999, by the command of the pious and Christ-loving Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, the God-loving archbishops and bishops gathered in the orthodox city of Moscow. The pious and Christ-loving Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich announced to them the selection of a metropolitan. And [present were] Archbishop Tikhon of Rostov, Nifont of Suzdal, Simeon of Ryazan, Vassian of Tver, Prokhor of Sarai, and Philotheus of Perm. But the Novgorod Archbishop Gennady sent his letter to his brethren, the archbishops and bishops, saying: 'Blessed be God, whom He wills, // and the most pure Mother of God and the great miracle-workers, as well as our sovereign Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia and you, my orthodox brethren, archbishops and bishops, and the entire sacred council of the Russian metropolitanate—he will be a father and teacher to us all; and I, with you, a shepherd and teacher to all orthodox Christianity; and I, with you, together with my brethren the archbishops and bishops, in this great divine matter, are of one will and desire.' And by the grace of God, by the election of the Holy Spirit, and by the choice of the pious and Christ-loving Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, and all the orthodox bishops, and the entire consecrated council of the Russian metropolitanate, they chose the Simonov Archimandrite Zosima as worthy to govern the flock entrusted to him by God. And he was elevated to the metropolitan court on the 19th day of September, and installed as Metropolitan of all Russia on the 26th of that month, a Sunday. On the 28th of that same month, an envoy from Chagatai, Urus Bogatyr, came to the Grand Prince from Sultan Usein concerning love and friendship. That same autumn, on October 17, by the command of the pious and Christ-loving true champion of Orthodoxy, Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich, sovereign and autocrat of all Russia, a council was held with the lord Most Holy Metropolitan Zosima of all Russia, together with all the archbishops and bishops, and with abbots, spiritual elders, protopopes, priests, deacons, and the entire sacred council of the Russian metropolitanate, against the perverters of the Christian faith: Zechariah the monk and his companions, the Novgorod protopope Gabriel, Denis the priest of the Archangel [Cathedral], Maxim the priest of Ivanovo, Vasily the priest of Pokrovskoe, Makar the deacon of St. Nicholas, Gridya the clerk of Borisoglebsk, Vasyuk the son-in-law of Denis, Samukha the clerk of St. Nicholas, and their like-minded followers, who sought to pervert the honorable and unblemished orthodox faith in Christ our God, glorified in the Trinity, and to destroy Christ’s flock of orthodox Christianity. But they could not prevail; they shattered themselves, and all their wisdom was swallowed up. They spoke of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, saying: 'How can God descend to earth and be born of a virgin as a man? Rather, He was another, like a prophet, similar to Moses, and not equal to God and the Father.' And they did not believe in His birth from the most pure Virgin Mother of God, nor in His resurrection, nor did they venerate the image of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, painted on icons according to His humanity, nor the most pure [Virgin’s] image, nor His holy saints, but blaspheming and mocking, they said: 'These are the works of human hands; they have mouths but do not speak,' and so forth, and let those who do likewise and all who trust in them be like them. Likewise, while performing the divine service, eating and drinking, they regarded the Body of Christ as nothing, as mere bread, and the Blood of Christ as mere wine. And they committed many other heresies contrary to the rules of the holy apostles and holy fathers, but most of all they adhered to the old law: they celebrated Passover in the Jewish manner, ate meat and dairy on Wednesdays and Fridays. And they performed other unseemly heretical deeds, which cannot even be committed to writing. And they seduced many simple people with their vile heresies, and at the council before the Grand Prince, the metropolitan, the archbishops, the bishops, and the entire sacred council, they denied those heresies and vile deeds, and were as if out of their minds."

"The pious and Christ-loving true champion of Orthodoxy, like a second Tsar Constantine, Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich, sovereign and autocrat of all Russia, together with his father, the most holy Metropolitan Zosima, and with the archbishops, bishops, and the entire sacred council of the Russian metropolitanate, having investigated their vile heresies according to the authentic documents of Archbishop Gennady and the testimonies of Moscow witnesses, excommunicated those heretics—Zechariah the monk, along with his aforementioned companions and like-minded followers—from the holy conciliar church according to the rules of the holy apostles and holy fathers, stripped them of their rank, condemned them to a curse, and sent them into exile; and they clearly affirmed and glorified the pure and unblemished Orthodox Christian faith, and praised the Holy Trinity, indivisible and uncreated in one divinity, in three [persons], proclaiming: glorifying the Father, extolling the Son, and bowing to the Holy Spirit, the Trinity in unity, the unity in the Trinity, confessing with heart and lips forever. Amen."--Translation of "Abbreviated Compilation" of the 1491 Redaction (State Historical Museum, Synodal Manuscript 963)

The following represents the "Nikon Chronicles" version of the event with birchbark helmets being lit on the heads of heretics by the Archbishop:

6999 (1491)....Той же осенью октября в 17 день повелением великого князя Иоанна Васильевича всея Руси был собор в Москве на богохульников, лжеучителей и ругателей святых икон и всем таинствам церковным противников, которых прислал из Великого Новгорода архиепископ Геннадий к митрополиту Геронтию, уличенных в богоотступничестве и лжеучительстве жидовского закона, извещая, что они ругали святые иконы и все святые тайны церковные. А ранее писал он, Геннадий, к великому князю, что в Новгороде великая крамола. И князь великий их, крамольников, велел вывести по иным городам, как прежде сказано, а сих еретиков привезли, когда умер уже Геронтий митрополит. Сия ересь началась, когда был в Новгороде князь Михаил Олелкович киевский. Тогда пришел с ним жидовин, именем Схарина, тот проклятый имел язык свой, словно уд, весьма сладкоречивый, и слова его все Библиею были преисполнены, образ жития его являлся целомудренным и кротким, но внутри полон смрада и нечистоты. Тот злоковарный многих тогда в Новгороде слабых смутил и жидовствовать прельстил. И хотя тот враг в Новгороде с иными казнен был от великого князя Иоанна Васильевича всея Руси, но еще не угас огонь тот ядовитый, ибо не все те богоотступники во время гнева погибли; и останки те начали множиться, поскольку вселился во многих сатана, и начали святое Евангелие отвергать, в басню его вменять. И сим не только мирских и неучей, но многих и от священства превратили, дошло даже то зло до Москвы, что слышав симоновский архимандрит Зосим от служащего дьякона прельстился, и внял безумию сему, и начал тайно жидовствовать. После Геронтия же митрополита сообщник его дьяк Истома сольстил великого князя сего Зосима возвести на митрополию русскую; и через малое время возведен был за неведение проклятого в нем богоотступства. И князь великий особенно поторопился из-за собора на привезенных тех богоотступников, думая, что без митрополита собору быть не пристойно, и вскоре повелел собору быть. На нем же архиепископ ростовский Тихон, епископ суздальский Нифонт, рязанский Симеон, тверской Вассиан, сарайский Прохор, пермский Филофей, сергиевский игумен Афанасий и прочие архимандриты, игумены, протопопы, дьяконы и чернецы, председательствовал же князь великий Иоанн Иоаннович. И было на соборе тому рассмотрение и многие расспросы, но Зосим никак не проявился, ибо скрылся волк лицемерством своим в одежду овчую; и когда все решили, что все сожечь по достоинству будет, когда же дошла очередь сказать до Зосимы митрополита, тот сказал: «По достоинству будет меня проклятию предать и сослать в Новгород на покаяние под стражу, так как мы от Бога не поставлены на смерть осуждать, но грешных обращать к покаянию». Были же те богоотступники осуждены проклятию: Захар чернец, Гаврила протопоп, Денис поп, Максим поп, Василий поп, Макар поп, Гридя дьяк, Васюк, зять Денисов, Самоха дьяк и некоторое количество от простых; и послали их в Новгород под стражею. Владыка же Геннадий, слышав то, ужаснулся и хотя не знал Зосимы богоотступника, но сказал: «Некто был на том соборе согласник сему злу». И послав, повелел их далеко за градом остановить, и поделал им шлемы берестяные, а платье их посмолил, и посажав на клячи бездельные лицом к хвосту, велел же им с обоих сторон мешки великие наложить и на мешках написал так: «Вот воин сатаны». И провезли их чрез град, а за градом повелел шлемы зажечь на них; и так все те хульники христианские изгибли. Но еще зол сосуд и головня содомская остался тот Зосим в Москве на митрополии, который потом за такое басурманство и богоотступление, как прах, исчез, и память его погибла с шумом. Архиеп. Тихон ростовский. Еп. Авраамий коломенский. Той же зимой декабря в 18 день в четверг произведен Ростову на архиепископство Тихон....--История Российская. Татищев Василий Никитич

"6999 (1491). ....That same autumn, on October 17, by order of Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, a council was held in Moscow against blasphemers, false teachers, and mockers of holy icons and all church sacraments—opponents whom Archbishop Gennady had sent from Great Novgorod to Metropolitan Geronty, having been convicted of apostasy and false teachings of the Jewish law. Gennady reported that they mocked holy icons and all church mysteries. Earlier, Gennady had written to the Grand Prince about a great sedition in Novgorod. The Grand Prince ordered those seditionists to be dispersed to other cities, as previously mentioned, and these heretics were brought after Metropolitan Geronty’s death. This heresy began when Prince Mikhail Olelkovich of Kyiv was in Novgorod. At that time, a Jew named Skharina arrived with him—a cursed man with a tongue like a serpent, exceedingly eloquent, his words steeped in Scripture, his manner of life appearing chaste and meek, though inwardly full of stench and impurity. That treacherous one swayed many weak souls in Novgorod and enticed them to Judaize. Although that enemy was executed in Novgorod along with others by order of Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, the poisonous fire did not fully die out, for not all those apostates perished during the time of wrath; their remnants began to multiply, as Satan had taken root in many. They started rejecting the Holy Gospel, deeming it a fable. This not only corrupted laypeople and the unlearned but also turned many from the priesthood, and the evil even reached Moscow. Hearing of this, Simonov Archimandrite Zosima was swayed by a serving deacon, succumbed to this madness, and began secretly Judaizing. After Metropolitan Geronty’s death, his accomplice, the clerk Istoma, persuaded the Grand Prince to elevate this Zosima to the Russian metropolitanate; shortly thereafter, he was installed, his cursed apostasy unknown. The Grand Prince hastened this especially because of the council against those brought apostates, believing it improper for a council to convene without a metropolitan, and soon ordered the council to take place. At it were Archbishop Tikhon of Rostov, Bishop Nifont of Suzdal, Simeon of Ryazan, Vassian of Tver, Prokhor of Sarai, Philotheus of Perm, Sergius Abbot Athanasius, and other archimandrites, abbots, protopopes, deacons, and monks, presided over by Grand Prince Ivan Ivanovich. There was much examination and interrogation at the council, but Zosima did not reveal himself, for the wolf hid his hypocrisy in sheep’s clothing. When all agreed that burning them would be just, it came to Metropolitan Zosima’s turn to speak, and he said: 'It would be fitting to subject me to a curse and send me to Novgorod for repentance under guard, for we are not appointed by God to condemn to death but to turn sinners to repentance.' Those apostates were condemned to a curse: Zechariah the monk, Gabriel the protopope, Denis the priest, Maxim the priest, Vasily the priest, Makar the priest, Gridya the clerk, Vasyuk (Denis’s son-in-law), Samokha the clerk, and some common folk; they were sent to Novgorod under guard. Hearing this, Archbishop Gennady was horrified and, though unaware of Zosima’s apostasy, said: 'Someone at that council was complicit in this evil.' He ordered them stopped far outside the city, made them birchbark helmets, smeared their clothes with pitch, seated them backward on worthless nags with large sacks on both sides inscribed: 'This is Satan’s warrior.' They were paraded through the city, and beyond it, their helmets were set ablaze on them; thus, those Christian blasphemers perished. Yet that vessel of evil and Sodomite ember, Zosima, remained in Moscow on the metropolitan throne, later vanishing like dust for such Muslim-like apostasy, his memory perishing with infamy. Archbishop Tikhon of Rostov. Bishop Avraamy of Kolomna. That same winter, on December 18, a Thursday, Tikhon was appointed Archbishop of Rostov....--AI translation of Russian History in All Its Fullness by Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev

The following is an excerpt from the Nikon Chronicles recounting the execution of heretics approved of by a 1504 Moscow Synod:

Here is a snippet taken from the old Russian text taken from the Russian Chronicles:

Nikon Chronicle (Letopisets Nikonovskii) Volume 12 in the Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisey (PSRL) or Том XII. Летописный сборник, именуемый Патриаршею или Никоновскою летописью

Here is a digitized modernized version of the text taken from Russia statehistory.ru by

Vasily Tatishchev’s History of Russia (Istoriya Rossiyskaya)

7013 (1505).... 

О казни еретиков. Той же зимой князь великий Иоанн Васильевич и сын его князь великий Василий Иоаннович всея Руси с Симоном, митрополитом всея Руси, и с епископами, и со всем собором выискали еретиков и повелели лихих смертною казнью казнить. И пожгли их в клетке: дьяка Волка Курицына, да Митю Коноплева, да Ивашку Максимова, декабря 24; а Некрасу Рукавову повелели язык урезать и в Новгороде Великом сожгли его. И той же зимой архимандрита Кассиана юрьевского сожгли, и его брата, и иных многих еретиков сожгли, а иных в заточение сослали, а иных по монастырям. --Vasily Tatishchev’s History of Russia (Istoriya Rossiyskaya) https://statehistory.ru/books/Vasiliy-Tatishchev_Istoriya-Rossiyskaya--CHasti-2-4/62

On the execution of heretics. That same winter, Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich and his son, Grand Prince Vasily Ivanovich of All Russia, together with Simon, Metropolitan of All Russia, and the bishops, and the entire council, investigated the heretics and ordered the wicked ones to be executed with death. And they burned them in a cage: the clerk Volk Kuritsyn, Mitya Konoplev, and Ivashka Maximov, on December 24; and Nekras Rukavov was ordered to have his tongue cut out and was burned in Great Novgorod. And that same winter, Archimandrite Kassian of Yuryev was burned, along with his brother and many other heretics, while some were sent into exile, and others were dispatched to monasteries.--Vasily Tatishchev’s History of Russia (Istoriya Rossiyskaya). Volume XII, year 

7013  (AI translation)

To be continued. 

Justinian Code on heresy

This article is in response to Fr. Ambrose M. an online hieromonk claiming Catholics saints we defended execution for heresy are in Hell. 

Far from being spot free from harsh treatment of heretic, the Eastern Church and Eastern Emperor did support capital punishment for certain heresies and religious crimes. Here are examples from Emperor Justinian alone.

The Orthodox Saint Emperor Justinian, his code states that Manichaeans are to be executed:

We permitted the heretics to assemble and have their own name for this reason: that, ashamed by Our forbearance, they may come to their senses and turn to the better of their. own accord. 1. But an unbearable audacity has possessed them, and, disregarding the sanction of the law, they have insinuated themselves into clerical posts which, as the very words of the imperial decrees manifestly declare, they may no longer hold. 2. We call heretics others, such as the execrable Manichaeans and their ilk, who ought not to be named here nor indeed anywhere and defile whatever they touch. 3. The Manichaeans, then, as We have said, shall accordingly be driven out, nor shall anyone suffer even their name (to remain) or do nothing if someone infected with this godlessness should live in the same place as the others; but any Manichaean found anywhere in the world shall be subjected to extreme punishments. 4. As for the other heretics, whatever their error or name (for We call everyone who does not adhere to the Catholic Church and our Orthodox and Holy Faith a heretic), and also as regards the pagans (Hellenes), who attempt to introduce the worship of many gods, and the Jews and Samaritans: We strive not only to revive the statutes of existing laws and to strengthen them by this law, but also to enact more, whereby the security, honor, and prestige of the adherents of the Holy Faith may be increased. 5. All can observe, We have said, how those who do not rightly worship God shall also be deprived of their earthly goods.--The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text Based on a Translation by Justice Fred H. Blume. First Book, 5.12, page 203. (2016). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

 Public lectures which can undermine the faith are prohibited, with different punishments including execution:

Emperor Marcian Augustus to Palladius, Praetorian Prefect. pr. No clergyman or member of the imperial service, or any person of any status, shall hereafter attempt to lecture on the Christian faith before crowds assembled to listen, thereby seeking to foment disorder and treachery 1. For whoever strives to revisit and publicly discuss questions already decided and correctly settled, insults the judgment of the Most Holy Synod. For it is recognized that the decisions concerning the Christian faith, made at Our behest by the bishops who convened at Chalcedon, are in accord with the teachings of the Apostles and the decrees of the 318 and 150 holy fathers. 2. Punishment shall not be lacking for those who disregard this law, for they not only act contrary to the rightly expounded faith, but also, by such strife, profane the venerable mysteries before the eyes of Jews and Pagans. 3. If a clergyman, therefore, dares to discuss religion in public, he shall be expelled from the community of the clergy; if he holds a position in the imperial service, he shall be stripped of his rank (cingulum), All others guilty of this crime shall, if they are free men, be banished from this Most Sacred City and shall be subjected to appropriate punishments in accordance with judicial vigor; if they are slaves, however, they shall be stricken with the severest punishments (death)--The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text Based on a Translation by Justice Fred H. Blume. 

First Book, 1.4. page 19. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

A general condemnation of all heretics that they cannot pray on Roman soil with a remained Manichaeans are not to be allowed to live. 

Emperor Theoposius Augustus and VALENTINIAN Caesar to Florentius, Praetorian Prefect. pr. The Arians and Macedonians, Pneumatomachians and Apollinarians and Novatians or Sabbatians, Eunomians, Tetradites or Tessarescaedecatites, Valentinians, Papianists, Montanists or Priscillianists or Phrygians or Pepuzites, Marcianists, Borborians, Messallians, Eutychites or Enthusiasts, Donatists, Audians, Hydroparastates, Tascodrogites, Batrachites, Hermeiecians, Photinians, Paulians, Marcellians, Ophites, Encratites, Apotactites, Saccorphors, and those who have descended to the basest criminal iniquity, the Manichaeans, shall have no right to gather and pray anywhere  on Roman soil.

1. The Manichaeans shall be expelled from the cities and delivered up to capital punishment"? for there must be no place left them in which they might do insult to the very elements....property...any way whatsoever...where they meet by the permission or connivance of the owner, which shall be confiscated for the venerable Catholic Church; or concerning a procurator who does this without the knowledge of the owner, which procurator shall suffer a fine....

2. So that they neither meet in public nor build themselves pseudo-churches...they must be checked by all... means, with the aid of the curias, defenders, and governors, under threat of a fine of 20 pounds of gold.

3. The laws, too, which have been promulgated concerning the imperial service, various punishments, and sundry heretics, shall remain in full force...--The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text Based on a Translation by Justice Fred H. Blume. First book, 5.5. Page 193 United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Execution is decreed for false converts or backsliders: 

(Emperor JUSTINIAN Augustus ...). pr. Since some have been found who, possessed by the error of the unholy and vile pagans...knowing that they abandoned the worship of the true and only God and, in their insane error, offered sacrifices to idols and celebrated feasts replete with every iniquity, We subjected those who had committed these sins after being deemed worthy of holy baptism - rather mercifully - to appropriate punishment according to the crimes proved against them; but henceforth...We declare before all that those who have become Christians and deemed worthy of holy and saving baptism, for whatever length of time, if they are found still to adhere to the error of the pagans, shall be subjected to the ultimate punishments....

For if such a person should be found here or in the provinces, and he does not hasten to Our most holy churches with his wives (sic) and children, as has been said, he shall undergo the penalties indicated above; the Treasury shall claim their property and they themselves shall be sent into exile. 4. If anyone hiding in Our Empire should be caught performing sinful sacrifices or idolatry, he shall be subjected to the ultimate punishments to which the Manichaeans - which is as much as to say the Borborites — are deservedly subject; for We judge the latter to be like the former.--The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text Based on a Translation by Justice Fred H. Blume. First Book, 11.10. Page 245. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

The Justinian repeats the punishment of execution multiple times for Manichaeans!

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....