Potential Light Being Shed on Isaiah 9:4 from Pope John VIII's Letter to the Council of Constantinople (879-880)

During the Third Act of the Council of Constantinople (879-880), the Epistle of Pope John VIII to the Council (sent 879) was read out:

 

[7] For that patriarch among the saints, Tarasius of Constantinople, sent, in accordance with the custom, conciliar letters. When we received these letters and learned the correctness of his faith regarding the other dogmas as well as regarding the sacred and venerable icons, finding it to be in accord with the holy six Ecumenical Councils, we both accepted them gladly and agreed therewith, even though we were neither ungrieved nor untroubled by the fact that he ascended to the great throne directly from a worldly rank and imperial service, from soldiers’ boots, and was not installed as patriarch according to our canons. (The Acts of the Eighth Ecumenical Council [trans. Gregory Heers; Uncut Mountain Press, 2025], 255)

 

 

“From soldiers’ boots” (Gr. απο καλιγων, L. a caligis): a Latin expression meaning “from military service.” The Latins called caligae what the ancient Greeks called αρβυλαι, (Aeschylus, Agamemnon 944), meaning military shoes. Hence καλιγωνω, “to put metallic shoes on horses, asses, and mules.” Shoeing is an invention of the Romans. The Macedonians marched on their expeditions with unshod horses. Thus, the expression “from soldiers’ boots” meant that someone originated from a very low station. Pope John’s insinuation essentially applies to Photius, since when Tarasius (about whom he purportedly said that he came “from soldiers’ boots”) was elected patriarch, he was asecretis, a political office. Only Photius was in the military, and “from soldiers’ boots” is an indirect reference to him. That is, because Photius was in the military and not the clergy when he was elected patriarch, John spitefully calls him. A “reservist”, so to speak, and that he went from “reservist” straight to patriarch. (Ibid., 255 n. 275)

 

While reading the above, I was reminded of Isa 9:4 (Heb. v. 5). In the KJV, we read:

 

For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise . . .

 

However, modern translations render סְאוֹן as “boot” or “footgear” (e.g., NRSV; NJB). Perhaps something like the above is going on in the Isaiah text as it is with respect to the phrase, “form soldiers’ boots” in Pope John’s letter from 879.

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Pope John VIII's Reference to Luke 22:32 in His Letter to the Council of Constantinople (879-880)

During the Third Act of the Council of Constantinople (879-880), the Epistle of Pope John VIII to the Council (sent 879) was read out. The Pope in the following references Luke 22:32:

 

[6] Therefore truly your thoughtful eagerness unto good requested that the love of the blessed and chief of the Apostles Peter proved, that we might gladly receive and jointly accept Photius the most holy patriarch, restored in the regions of the jurisdiction of the church of the Constantinopolitans. For holding fast with a zealous and most radiant soul that which was spoken in the Gospel to the first shepherd, to whom the Lord says, “I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen they brethren,” this we have fulfilled, arising at these divine words, having confirmed authority (which authority has sounded forth into every corner of the world)—insofar as we can remain blameless and accused—to bring help and co-operation to all Christians, and especially following the example set by God’s hierarchs who came before us, I mean Pope Adrian of blessed memory, as he did, co-operating with Tarasius the patriarch among the saints, at a time when some brought turbulence and took a stand against him. (The Acts of the Eighth Ecumenical Council [trans. Gregory Heers; Uncut Mountain Press, 2025], 254-55)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Constantine Siamakis on the Myth of "Pope Joan"

  

After the return of papal delegation to Rome, Pope John sent the cardinal deacon Marinus, a highly regarded figure, to request Bulgaria from Basil once again. Basil, angered at the pope and at his envoy, refused to receive him. Marinus, while in Constantinople, spoke disrespectfully about Basil, which led to his imprisonment for a month. This incarceration seemingly tempered Marinus’ behavior, at least until he left the imperial Roman territory. He vented his animosity toward the Easterners even on Pope John himself, as it appears.

 

John VIII had succeeded Hadrian II in 872, having previously been his cardinal archdeacon. Already elderly at his appointment, much like his predecessor, he remained pope until 882, when he was assassinated. He was found in his chamber, poisoned and brutally hacked to death with an axe. Official reports claimed that he was greedy and hoarded a personal treasure, and that some criminal close relatives of his poisoned him in order to seize this wealth, but when he did not die quickly enough, they feared less they be caught and thus resorted to using an axe to kill him. Marinus then became Pope of Rome (882-4), possessing the capabilities of Nicholas I and harboring intense hostility against Photius, Basil, and the East. Preparing to condemn Photius once again, he died suddenly and relatively young, two years after his appointment. His successors, Hadrian III (884-5) and Steven V (885-891) shared his sentiments but lacked his competence; therefore, they criticized Photius and asserted their papal primacy in words only but in vain.

 

Only about twenty years after the death of John VIII, in the West there emerged the myth that there was once in Rome a Popess Joan. By the mid-thirteenth century, there were tens of fictional tales written about her; their number had risen to the hundreds by the time of the Greek E. Roidis, who wrote a novel on the topic himself. Even our own Dositheus of Jerusalem accepted the existence of “Pope Joan,” called “Gilberte,” in the world, claiming that this “Lady Gilberte,” “an Englishwoman” in nationality, “served as pope for two years, five months, and four days” after Leo IV, that is, from 855 to 857; that she “was impregnated by a certain servant of hers,” gave birth during a profession, and died on the spot; and that the serious ancient historians do not mention her because, as a pope, she was entirely illegitimate.” (Dositheus of Jerusalem, Dodecabiblus [History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem], 7,12,1-7) Serious modern papal researchers hold four different views:

 

1.     That she indeed existed after Leo IV and is identified as John VIII, in which case the John contemporary with Photius is counted as John IX, not John VIII.

2.     That she was actually John VIII himself, Photius’ contemporary, who was a woman hiding her true identity.

3.     That Pope Joan never existed and the tale is entirely fictional legend.

4.     That Pope Joan never existed and the myth originated from insults hurled at John VIII by his associates and successors, who called him “woman” because he allegedly submitted to Photius like a woman.

 

I believe the fourth view to be correct. Initially, “woman” was a mere insult most likely hurled at John VIII first by the harsh and intransigent cardinal deacon Marinus, who later succeeded him, and then by all the falcons of intransigence in the Vatican court. I later became a jest, similar to the story of the tyrant of Ambracia, Periander, mentioned by Aristotle, (Republic 5,10 [1311b]) and through this, John was slandered as effeminate. Finally, it evolved into a myth and a legend, in which he was imagined to be a woman by nature. Now, I think that two additional elements also contributed to the formation of this myth. First, the fact that the mistress of the formally and significant behind-the-scences influence on the administration of the Western Church, which inevitably became exaggerated among the people. Second, that some popes of the West at that time were homosexual. A mixture, falsification, and exaggeration of these three elements produced the myth. The myth, however, also expresses a truth: how much Photius and the Eight Ecumenical Council were hated in the West from the beginning. (Constantine Siamakis, “Introduction: The Eight Ecumenical Council and the Related Correspondence of Photius,” in The Acts of the Eighth Ecumenical Council [Uncut Mountain Press, 2025], 56-58)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Translation of Pope John VIII’s Letter to Photius Condemning the Filioque (Letter 350)

  

THE FULL TEXT OF LETTER 350:

 

John, bishop and servant of the servants of God, to Photius, most reverend and Catholic brother, Patriarch of Constantinople: Grace from above granting works of salvation!

 

We are not unaware that some among you, who are little concerned with peace, speak ill of our Church and of us personally disregarding the truth. And matters have progressed to the point that your fraternity is close to thinking poorly of us and of those subject to us. Indeed, they have taken advantage of what I would affirm to be a fitting opportunity for their purpose, but the truth itself remains unadulterated and unstained, as shall become evident in the discourse that follows, and God Himself will confirm this to us by His testimony from above. Like those who adulterate wine by mixing it with water, they introduce certain falsehoods of their own invention and fabrication. For it is necessary that the devil, who from the beginning was the creator of evil and set enmity between us and God, and later separated our first parent from the love of God and made him hostile to his Creator, should even now have some ministers of his own, and drive these individuals to stir up some scandal between the Churches.

 

But I, directing my gaze rather to God, the author and bestower of peace, who put to death the enmity, even on HIs cross, strive with all my might to silence the mouths of those who delight in evil. And for this reason, even before your fraternity indicates anything to me, I have decided to make these matters clear to you, so that, being well-informed about our situation, you may lend less of an ear to those who seek to provoke conflict and offend; instead, you should reject and disown them, and ensure that others do not believe their words.

 

Your fraternity also knows that when the one sent by you recently came to us and consulted us on the holy symbol, he found that we have preserved it unshaken, just as it was handed down to us from the beginning, without adding or removing anything, as we know well that a grave condemnation awaits those who dare to do such things. Therefore, we inform your reverence once again that regarding this addition in the symbol (from the Son [ex Filio], specially), not only do we not proclaim it, but we also condemn those who, in their madness, first dared to proclaim it as transgressors of the divine word, as those who subvert the theology of our Lord Christ, and as enemies of the holy Fathers who, meeting in council, delivered the holy symbol to us. We place these transgressors alongside Judas, not because they delivered the Lord’s body to death, but because, by schism, they separated and divided among themselves the faithful of God, who are His members, casting them, and themselves even more so, headlong into eternal fire, as did that aforementioned Judas, the unworthy disciple of Christ, who hung himself.

 

We believe that your reverence, endowed as you are with wisdom and learning, rightly knows that while we strive with all our strength to ensure that the rest of our bishops share this understanding with us, this task causes us considerable distress. Truly, no one could easily or quickly change so grave a matter, even if it had arisen recently and had not been established many years! For this reason, we have judged it fitting and reasonable that no one should be compelled by force from you to abandon that addition, which he himself has added to the symbol, but rather that such people should be admonished with gentleness and gradually recalled form blasphemy. As the chief of the apostles, Peter, says, “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint but willingly. . . . neither as lording it over the clergy but being made a pattern of [an example for] the flock” (1 Peter 5:2-3). Therefore, those who accuse us, as though we hold such matters in error, do not accuse us justly.

 

Your fraternity should not suffer any offense against us, nor be separated from the rest of the body of the Church, but rather endure with us the trials of faith with prudence and patience, and recall those who have turned from the truth so that they may embrace it, so that you may receive the same reward with us. Farewell in the Lord, most reverend and Catholic brother. (“Appendix II: Pope John VIII’s Letter to Photius Condemning the Filioque (Letter 350),” in The Acts of the Eighth Ecumenical Council [trans. Gregory Heers; Uncut Mountain Press, 2025], 406-7; translation is taken from PL 126:944-46. See pp. 398-405 for a discussion of the background of this letter and a defense of its authenticity)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Excerpt from Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem’s Commentary on the Council of Constantinople (879-880)

  

Leo the Wise threw out the most sacred Nicholas and promoted Euthymius—yet Euthymius was a lawful patriarch and is called a saint. While Saint Eustathius was still alive. Meletius became patriarch of Antioch—yet Meletius, too, is saint. Constantius exiled Pope Liberius and promoted Felix to pope of Rome, whom the Latins hold to have been a lawful pope, even though he was Arianizing. When the great Justinian had ejected and exiled the most sacred Pope Silverius by fore at the advice of Vigilius, he promoted this same parricide Vigilius to pope; nevertheless both the Latins and the Church entire hold Vigilius to have been a lawful pope. (The Acts of the Eighth Ecumenical Council [trans. Gregory Heers; Uncut Mountain Press, 2025], 355-56)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Theophylact of Ohrid (1050-1107) on Luke 23:43

  

Some will ask, “How can the Lord say to the thief, Today thou shalt be with Me in paradise, when Paul said that none of the saints had received the promise?” (see Heb. 11:39) Some say that the Apostle was not referring to all the saints when he said that none of them had received the promise, but was speaking only of those whom he there enumerated. Though he listed many, the good thief was not among them. Listen to the words that Paul uses, And these all . . . By this he refers expressly, they say, to those whom he had just enumerated, and the thief was not one of those. Others have said that the thief has not yet attained the life in paradise, yet the Lord could still say, Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise, because His promise is immovable and irrevocable. For the Lord, they explain, often employs this kind of speech when He speaks of things that will be as if they had already occurred. For example, the Lord says, He that believeth not is condemned already; Jn 3:18) and again, He that heareth My word, and believeth . . . shall not come into condemnation, but hath passed from death unto life. (Jn 5:24) Others have done violence to the context of these words, pausing after today, so that it might read, Verily I say unto thee today, Thou shalt be with Me in paradise.  Others, who appear to have hit the mark, explain it this way: the good things which are promised to us are not a life in paradise, or a return to paradise, but instead the kingdom of heaven. This is why we pray, Thy kingdom come, and not, “May we live in paradise.” Let no one say to me that paradise and the kingdom are one and the same. For eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have ascended into the heart of man, the good things of the kingdom. (See I Cor. 2:9) But the eyes of Adam saw paradise, and his ear heard the words, Of every tree which is in paradise thou mayest eat for good. (Gen. 2:16) Even if you say, “Yes, but one tree was denied to him,” still he could see it, and he did hear about it, and delight in it rose up in his heart. And Adam had every reason to be delighted; for was not this tree both his work and his pleasure, as a husbandman of paradise? Therefore, the Lord does not contradict what Paul says. The repentant thief did obtain paradise, but he has not yet obtained the kingdom. But he will obtain the kingdom, along with all those Paul enumerated. In the meantime he has paradise, which is a place of spiritual rest. Many have spoken about these things. We may add that even if the kingdom of heaven and paradise are one and the same, this does not prevent the Lord’s words and Paul from being in agreement. For the good thief is in paradise, that is, in the kingdom, and not only he, but all those mentioned by Paul. But he does not yet enjoy the full inheritance of all things. It is not the condemned who live in kingly palaces, for these are locked in prisons where they await their appointed punishments. It is, rather, men of honor and nobility who enter palaces and pass their time within them. Thus, when the time is at hand for the distribution of royal gifts, they are found worth of them. So too with the saints: although they do not yet enjoy their reward in full, nevertheless in the meanwhile they pass their time in places of light, of fragrance, of royalty, in short, in the tabernacles of the righteous, although they are not yet entitled to the full measure of the gifts of the kingdom. Therefore the thief was in paradise, and yet did not enjoy completion, so that he without us should not be made complete. (Heb. 11:40) This, I think, is the truest understanding of all. If it were the cause that the gifts of the saints in paradise were as complete as the gifts they will enjoy in heaven, then [what will those who confuse paradise with heaven say when] I remind them that the saints likewise received gifts during their life on earth as they worked miracles? [Will they say that life on earth is the same as life in paradise?] In truth all those who were found worthy of spiritual gifts received those gifts already in this life as an earnest and pledge of the Holy Spirit. They are in paradise, although they have not yet been brought to completion and perfection and have not yet received the kingdom. As Paul says in the same Letter to the Hebrews, that these all . . . have not yet received the promise. (Heb. 11:39) When he says the promise he means “the whole promise.” These saints, therefore, have not yet received the full promise, although they are in the kingdom and in paradise. Marvel at this, O reader, that just as a victorious king returns in triumph from his conquest, bringing with him the best of his spoils, so too the Lord, having despoiled the devil of the best of the devil’s own plunder, brings it with Him as He returns into man’s ancient homeland, I mean, paradise. For [after His death as a man], the Lord was present in paradise not only as God, but also by reason of His human soul endowed with logos and mind. He was in paradise with His mind, and [simultaneously] He descended into hades with HIs soul. By saving the thief, HE also bound the devil, the vessel of evil, as the Lord foretold when He said that one must first bind the strong man and only then can he plunder the strong man’s goods. (See Mt. 12:29) (Theophylact, The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to Luke [Blessed Theophylact’s Explanation of the New Testament 3; Platina, Calif.: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2020], 310-12)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Theophylact of Ohrid (1050-1107) on Luke 22:28-34 and Jesus's Pray for Peter

  

The Lord said this according to His human nature, for what need had He as God to ask for anything in prayer? “I have prayed for thee,” He says, “that thy faith fail not. Though you will be taken for a short time, you have stored up within you the seeds of faith. Though the wind of the tempter may tear off the leaves, the root still lives and your faith shall not fail.” And when thou hast turned back, strengthen thy brethren. Understand this to mean, “Because I have made you chief of the disciples, strengthen the others, after you have denied Me and wept and returned in repentance. This befits who you are: after Me, the rock and firm support of the Church.” Strengthen thy brethren may also be understood to refer not only to the apostles of that time, who were indeed strengthened by Peter, but also to all the faithful until the end of the world.” . . . Here we learn the lesson that the willingness of man is not a denial without the help of God. For Peter was abandoned for a short time, he was tripped up by the enemy. By the same token, the help of God is not enough without the willingness of man. For Judas received no benefit, although the Lord did everything to gain him, because Judas lacked a good will and disposition. Therefore let us tremble when we understand that the plots of the devil prevail over those who are slack. Here let us behold how Peter, though held by God, was abandoned for a short time in accordance with God’s economy, and fell away into denial. If he had not been preserved by God, and if the good seeds of faith had not been stored up within him, what calamity would he not have suffered? It was the purpose of the devil to cast even zealous Peter into betrayal; for, as the prophet says, the foods of the devil are chosen from the finest. Thanks be to God, Who does not abandon those who are holy, righteous, and have good in their hearts. Such a man was Peter, full of love, and a stranger to any wicked thought concerning his Teacher. (Theophylact, The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to Luke [Blessed Theophylact’s Explanation of the New Testament 3; Platina, Calif.: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2020], 288-90)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com