St. Gregory the Illuminator of Armenia and his sons and grandsons

In the Armenian Church, the Illuminator is recognized on a different Feast Day, but in the Byzantine Church, the Illuminator is recognized with his sons and grandsons on September 30. Saint Gregory was a prince of the ruling Arsacid dynasty of Armenia. His father was Anak and his mother was Okohe. His father Anak had assassinated the King Khosrov I and the family of the murdered king responded by trying to murder Anak and his family. All of them were killed except for Gregory and one of his brothers. His brother was taken to Persia and he was cared for by his nurse, who was a Christian, in Caesarea. The saint would return to Armenia to preach the Gospel to the Pagan King Tiridates III whose father had been killed by Gregory's father. Tiridates hated both Christianity and the Holy Apostle to the Armenians. He was thrown into a pit filled with poisonous reptiles for thirteen years but was eventually able to convert the Pagan king to Christianity so thoroughly that Tiridates declared Christianity to be the official legal religion of Armenia. St. Gregory would return to Caesarea to be ordained a priest and then consecrated a bishop. He would continue his work in Armenia until he entered into eternity in 325 A.D.

Aristakes was the younger son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator. He was born in 270 A.D. and although initially devoting himself to ascetical disciplines, he was convinced by both his father and King Tiridates III to assist in converting Armenia to Christianity. He would be ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop in order to complete this task. Saint Aristakes also accompanied the king and his father on a visit to the Holy Emperor Constantine and also represented his country at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. He succeeded his father as Catholicos of Armenia and was martyred by a government official whose immoral lifestyle he had strongly denounced.

Saint Vertanes was the elder son of St. Gregory the Illuminator, born in 262 A.D. He was a soldier early in life but would later become a priest and then consecrated a bishop. He was a missionary among his people and miraculously escaped a murder plot instigated by the Queen whose immoral lifestyle he had denounced. He succeeded his brother as Catholicos in 333 A.D. and reposed peacefully in 342 A.D.

Saint Housig was the son of Vertanes and grandson of the Illuminator. He was born in 304 A.D. succeeded his father as Catholicos in 342 A.D. He openly criticized King Tiran's scandalous life, forbidding the King to set foot in the church. For this, the King had the saint cruelly beaten to death.

Saint Grigoris was a son of Saint Vertanes and grandson of Saint Greogry the Illuminator. Grigoris was sent by his grandfather to Caucasian Albania (located just East of Armenia on the Caspian Sea, not to be confused with the modern state located in southeastern Europe). He was a tireless missionary who later became Catholicos of Armenia. But the rulers were not happy with the Christianization of Armenia and the saint received the crown of martyrdom in 338 A.D. Decades later, Vachagan the Pious, Christian King of Caucasian Albania, recovered the relics of the saint and had them entombed in Amaras monastery.

It is unknown whether Saint Nerses (spelled also Narses or Nersess) was a grandson of Saint Housig and thus a great-great-grandson of Saint Gregory, or if he was the son of Saint Vertanes. Accounts differ as to the genealogy of this saint. But he was a tremendous organizer of the Church of Armenia. Ascetically minded, he initially refused the role of Catholicos but later accepted at the insistence of the people. He insisted on the strict adherence to the Holy Canons, strove to remove residual traces of Paganism, and established schools for uplifting of the people and made Christian charity priority, opening hospitals, homes for the aged, shelters for the poor, and orphanages. However, he made enmity with the King when he insisted a man unjustly condemned to death be pardoned. When the King refused, Nerses excommunicated him and the saint was ejected from his Episcopal See. After the King's death, Nerses would be restored. But the new King who restored the Catholicos to his throne fell into evil ways too and Nerses excommunicated him. The King had the saint poisoned and Nerses entered into eternity in 373 A.D.

Saint Sahak was the son of Saint Nerses. He was deeply involved in clerical matters with Saint Mesrop the Translator. Educated in Constantinople, he would be elevated as Catholicos of Armenia. He would assist Saint Mesrop in the invention of the Armenian alphabet and the translation of the Holy Scriptures and Church service books into the Armenian tongue. He wrote many liturgical hymns, including those sung during Holy Week and Palm Sunday. He reposed in the year 439 A.D.

All of these saints are commemorated in the Byzantine calendar on September 30.

See also:

James Thornton, Pious Kings and Right-Believing Queens

Prologue of Ochrid, September 30

St. Wenceslaus

Wenceslaus, known commonly as "The Good King Wenceslaus" for that wonderful Christmas carol about his compassion toward a poor man and beggar, showing that one ought to share their wealth with those needful of it, was the grandson of the Holy Martyr Ludmilla. Ludmilla and her husband Borivoi were converted to the faith by St. Methodius, the Apostle to the Slavs. The Bohemians resisted the Christian faith and would exile the King and Queen but later called for Borivoi and Ludmilla back. After Borivoi's death, Ludmilla's oldest son, Spitihnew would hold the throne. But his reign was short and after his death, his brother Wratislaus would hold the throne for Spitihnew had no heir. Wratislaus had two sons by his wife Drahomira, Wenceslaus and Boleslaus. Wratislaus had left in his will Ludmilla as the regent, not Drahomira. So when he died, leaving Wenceslaus a king at the very young age of eight, it was left to the regency to serve as guardian until Wenceslaus was no longer a minor. Ludmilla took over the charge of the education of the young Wenceslaus.

The Bohemians as a whole were still resistant to Christianity and Drahomira was sympathetic to the cause of the Pagans. It may have been that she was a Christian but preferred the survival of Paganism nonetheless. She despised Ludmilla's instruction of her own son and sought to regain control over the young king. There was definitely envy over the fact that Ludmilla was effectively serving as regent for the boy which Drahomira believed to be in her rightful possession. Though there was definitely a religious nature to the political struggle, one cannot ignore that it was a political struggle. Drahomira ordered Ludmilla to be assassinated. Ludmilla, sensing the danger to her life, made one last confession and communion, and on that night, she was strangled to death by the assassins who used her own veil to strangle her.

Wenceslaus though, was still deeply influenced by his grandmother's Christianity and when he became of age, he would further advance the cause of Christianity in Bohemia. One of the means he took to ensure this was his purchasing of Pagan children who were sold as slaves and he baptizing them as Christians. He translated the Gospel of John and translated the relics of St. Vitus and St. Ludmilla to Prague.

Wenceslaus was a practitioner both of strict Christian asceticism and Christian charity. During the day, he would devote himself to the duties of the State, and at night he would pray. He would bake prosphora for himself, especially when he desired Holy Communion. As the Christmas carol testifies, he would always give generously to strangers for any of them could be an angel in disguise. Because of his faithful commitment to the poor and needy, many churches were built in which daily services to God were rendered. He was also a lover of peace. When Radislav threatened the Good King to take away the entire Czech territories, Wenceslaus asked him why he was waging war. Radislav replied that it was to seize the throne of Bohemia and take the land of the Czechs. Both men met each other with an army of their own, but the Good King, seeing the bloodshed that was about to occur due to a dispute between him and Radislav, offered instead to duel the potential usurper. Radislav agreed and upon defeat, fell to his knees and begged forgiveness for which the Good King granted (Prologue of Ochrid, September 17).

Wenceslaus, as testified by both St. Alphonsus de Liguori and St. Nikolai of Ochrid, faithfully attended the liturgy. Here is where the two divert. St. Nikolai, an Orthodox hagiographer, makes the martyrdom about the Latin Mass over the Vernacular Byzantine Liturgy. St. Alphonsus does not make mention of this. Boleslav was doing the bidding of his mother. His mother was sympathetic to Paganism. The martyrdom of Wenceslaus should not be used for reasons of ecclesiastical triumphalism. Faithfully on his way to Liturgy one day, his brother Boleslav had the Good King assassinated. Wenceslaus suffered in the year 935 and his relics repose in Prague. After the assassination, Boleslav turned to Christianity. He brought in German priests who celebrated the Latin liturgy to complete the missionary work started by Wenceslaus. As to when the Czechs in Bohemia adopted as a whole the Latin liturgy over the Byzantine liturgy is difficult to determine. Although the assassination of Wenceslaus should not be used for triumphalist purposes, the bringing in of Latin bishops is important to note for the historic development of the Latin Mass in the Slavic world. Wenceslaus and his grandmother Ludmilla are both ranked among the patron saints of Bohemia.

The Organic Development of the Liturgy, by Alcuin Reid

I just completed this book and thought it was a well-thought-out historical assessment of the issues concerning liturgical development in the Latin Mass. Alcuin Reid begins his historical assessment with the Middle Ages and progresses through the Liturgical Movement to the moments leading up to the liturgical revolution of Vatican II. He finishes his book there not wanting to make too controversial an assessment on the subject of the issues regarding the fall-out of the still controversial Council. As a Byzantine Catholic, I was intrigued by what he writes about and also a little baffled about how the Latin Mass develops compared to how the Byzantine liturgy develops. Reid also discusses what constitutes a legitimate development and legitimate change in liturgical practice in contrast to what constitutes an invalid change in liturgical development. That the liturgy has changed over the years can be seen throughout the history of the Divine liturgy, both in the East and in the West. I approach this book as a Greek Catholic.

There was call for reforms of the liturgy during the Protestant Reformation and that was when Cardinal Quignonez suggested certain changes in the liturgy. A significant portion of the first part of the book deals with Quignonez's efforts to change the liturgy with a discussion as to their legitimacy. The key in Reid's assessments is to investigate whether a change can be deemed organic or artificial. For instance, a practice could develop among the people which is deemed beneficial to the Divine liturgy and that would constitute a valid liturgical development that is organic, not imposed, contributes to the growth of the liturgy. It could also arise from a pastoral necessity. Quignonez's liturgical changes did not succeed in this. They were artificial, provided no benefit overall to the development of the liturgy or enhancement to the Mass, and were detrimental to the growth of the liturgy.

Throughout this work, Reid emphasizes the character of the liturgy as one like unto that of a garden. A garden, as it grows, will need pruning, and it will need direction in its growth. It will need water and sunlight, and the plants that are beneficial to the growth of the garden. The growth is tended by humans, this is the pastoral care that is involved. Pastoral necessities is another key point in determining the legitimacy of the organic nature of the liturgical development. If something is deemed to be pastorally detrimental to the Church, then the pastoral care needs to be taken to weed the garden and make certain the practice does not change. This prevents the arising of liturgical abuses to spread throughout the liturgical garden.

One of the things condemned by Alcuin Reid in the liturgical development is the desire for liturgical antiquarianism. It is the idea of trying to seek out what the most ancient usage of the liturgy was and insisting that the most ancient practice of the liturgy is the best. This is problematic because as the liturgy develops overtime, certain abuses cannot be allowed to stand. Further, certain liturgical practices that have been abolished were usually deemed harmful to the faith and substance of the liturgy. One practice I've read about is the usage of the deacons' hands to form an altar for the priest. Nobody would insist that it would be beneficial to go back to such a practice. Or the house churches that the early Christians gathered in is another issue that comes to mind. No one would insist that we ought to continue the practice of gathering in our own homes as opposed to a church that can gather more of us together on a given Sunday. Such desire for liturgical antiquarianism often times leads to the clinging onto of harmful traditions, though it may seem sound at first. Ironically, it is also very Protestant as it was the Protestant doctrine to dig through and try to find the most ancient form and practice of the faith, wasn't it?

Alcuin Reid seems to be a strong Traditionalist, favoring the Traditional Latin Mass. He speaks negatively of the vernacularisation of the liturgy. One thing that I have always found convincing in the arguments of the Latins for the Traditional Latin Mass is the argument against the vernacularisation of the liturgy. Many Easterners assume that the vernacular liturgy is an inherent part of Eastern spirituality, but the language of Church Slavonic became bound to us through a natural process to unite the Slavic peoples together. The vernacular ends up dividing us. It is no wonder when the Orthodox abandoned the usage of Church Slavonic in the Divine liturgy that they started to divide themselves along the lines of ethnophyletism. I have never been convinced of the insistence upon the vernacular among the East. That said, there is one major issue I point out.

Despite all of this, I find that Alcuin Reid's assessment of the organic development of the liturgy is wanting in one key area. There seems to be so much allowance of pruning in the Traditional Latin Mass that there is a danger for Traditionalists to fall into a trap of favoring the ideas of the bare minimum over and above all else. It is one divergence between East and West. In the Byzantine rite, when we find a hymn we like, we typically tend to throw it into our liturgy and build upon it. The Byzantine liturgy is an organic growth that flourishes on its own without a gardener. Whereas the Traditional Latin Mass prunes out what it determines bad growth or excess growth and contains the plant artificially. Both are capable of being beautiful in their own rights. For instance, a sycamore tree isn't going to gain much from the excess pruning. There comes a time when the tree simply must be left to be and contribute to the domain of the forest. It is an entirely natural growth. But if you are tending a garden, you need to prune back the plants so they don't cover so much area as to present themselves ugly and unattractive. Catholics should be grateful that both liturgies are accepted in our Holy Tradition.

St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite - On Touch

This sense is generally regarded to be based in the hands but it actually applies to the entirety of the body. St. Nicodemos warns Christians that we must not bring our hands or feet too close to other bodies, especially the young, and also we must be especially careful not accustom ourselves to touching our own bodies. This is something that is taught by St. Isaac the Syrian and other holy fathers. St. John Climacus writes that "It so happens that we are polluted bodily through the sense of touch." (Handbook of Spiritual Counsel, ch. VII) According to St. Isaac, we must be mindful of our guardian angel and a "Virgin is not one who has merely preserved one's body from sexual intercourse, but one who is modest unto oneself even when alone". This leads me to wonder whether this is describing the whole and entirety of the body or just certain parts of the body. This, especially as he further describes a man who breaks his marriage vows as saying, "Who sees me? Darkness surrounds me, and the walls hide me, and no one sees me."

Related to touch is the reception of gifts. By such reception of gifts, are hands are accustomed to the sense perception of various material, rich and elaborate, and we tend to desire more of the rich and elaborate. But also, it applies to bribes. "Moreover, it also means not to seek shameful profits, not to carry out shameful beatings, and not to ordain unworthy candidates to the priesthood." It is interesting the ordination of unworthy men to the priesthood is discussed here in this chapter of the Handbook. It is in dealing with the striking of both the faithful and the unbelievers that St. Nicodemos ties this to. For in such strikings, the clergy become accustomed to harming others which is unbefitting for the priests and the bishops. One must be cautious not to ordain such unworthy men who would go to such violent extremes to rebuke their flocks, especially when they ought to show utmost patience. "The bishops who have ordained unworthy candidates must render an account to God for all the sins that have been committed and may be committed by those whom they have so ordained." As St. John Chrysostom says, "Do not tell me that the presbyter has sinned, or that the deacon has sinned. The responsibility of all these is placed upon the heads of those who have ordained such unworthy candidates."

"The use of soft and fine clothing is another matter that wen can relate to in the sense of touch." Covering ourselves with clothing is a perpetual reminder of our exile from Paradise and it is necessary to be done as part of our punishment which was received after our disobedience. "We who were previously in Paradise, covered by divine grace and having no need of clothing, find ourselves now in need of covering and clothing for our bodies." Expensive and luxurious clothing destroys the purpose of clothing to serve as a reminder of our exile by showing such flashiness and exuberance as to negate the shamefulness of our fallen state. Clothing is to protect ourselves from cold in winter and heat in summer, no ore. Such clothes of soft silks and other expensive materials is deemed a vanity by the Hagiorite. Bishops of all people should not don such expensive clothings.

St. Nicodemos calls his readers away from such expensive and luxurious livings on the principles that this life is a journey to an eternal end. "Where are your predecessors and those before them? Having the same vain imaginations, have they not played out the short scene of life and the empty sentiments? Are they not now also deceived by the shortness of life and are already earth and dust in a forgotten place, according to David?" Gold and silver are nothing more than products of the earth and they will return to the ground much as every mortal body will soon return to the ground. Quoting St. Greogry, "Do not moreover try to grasp at something that simply escapes when held." This life is nothing more "but a strait of troubled waters", fine clothes are not meant to have anything to do with it. Fine clothes, silk materials, lace materials, may be soothing and expensive, but they are like the earth and they fade to dust. This is strong ascetical advice coming from the monastic.

But this is not the only problem with luxurious clothing. "It also nourishes vainglory; it is the mother of pride; it is the way to prostitution and it is the panderer of virtually all the passions." How frequently do we fall into sin based on the very types of clothing we wear! We wear certain clothes to appease the eyes of another or we even wear a certain clothing to cause arousal for our own selves. Citing the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, St. Nicodemos warns the clergy not to wear such clothings because they are strictly forbidden from it. They are to wear the most modest and moderate apparel. "Everything that has no practical use but is merely cosmetic only adds to our condemnation, as St. Basil noted." Clement of Alexandria references both the Prophet Elijah who wore nothing more than sheepskins, the Prophet Isaiah who went about virtually naked, and the Prophet Jeremiah who only wore a linen garment. For this reason, men and women should follow the suit of the clergy, not desiring to dress themselves in fine garments.

In addition to this, soft beds must be avoided. Sleep is among the many idles that lead to spiritual sloth. A monastic is to be disciplined and guard himself against such sleep. A monastic is supposed to keep vigil. Soft beds lead to oversleeping. "Such comforts weaken the body; they submerge it into constant sleep; they warm it beyond measure, and therefore kindle the heat of passion." St. Nicodemos cites an example from the life of St. John the Merciful who accepted a precious bed covering from a ruler. Sleeping with it through the night, he struggled with his thoughts that he was in most comfortable position when so many poor men were out in the cold. He regretted having accepted such a gift and the next morning, sold it at a marketplace and distributed the money to the poor.

Most surprising of all from the ascetical disciplines of St. Nicodemos is perhaps that clergy should not take baths. They should not play games of chance for people who do so become drunkards. They end up gambling away fortunes. St. John Chrysostom said, "The vice of dice brings blasphemy, anger, harm, abuse, and a myriad more evils greater than these." Aristotle said, "A dice player, a thief and a robber are among those who are not free, for they acquire their gain shamefully." But clergy must also avoid baths as bathing opens up the vices caused by the sense of touch. According to St. Diadochos, "It is a manly and prudent thing to avoid baths. This way our bodies are not effeminated by the pleasurable flow of water over them, nor do we come to a remembrance of that shameful nakedness of Adam, so that we too seek to cover the shame with a fig leaves of a second excuse." Though it is acceptable to bathe occasionally for the sake of health and requirements of illness, bathing should never become more than what is necessary.

Trinity in the Scriptures

The Trinity's existence is challenged today by heretics who seek to blasphemy the One Holy God, some of them even call it a teaching of three gods because they are so filled with hatred for the Trinity. They assert it is a philosophical position derived at only from philosophical speculations. That is not true. Trinitarians have used language that is not directly taken from the Scriptures to explain the doctrine to the bewildered and as tools to help explain the doctrine, but the core principle of the doctrine is there all the same. The Modalist, ironically, tells us that his doctrine is without philosophical speculation, but this will be shown to be entirely fallacious. His doctrine requires more philosophical speculation than Trinitarian theology. The core of Trinitarian teaching is that there is one God. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. They are wholly, infinitely God, in a way that our human minds cannot fully comprehend. Any attack made on the Trinity that is "three god" worship is subsequently anti-Christian behavior for it bears false witness. Any anti-Trinitarian claiming to be a Christian who makes this claim has already exposed himself as a non-Christian for a Christian would never make a lying claim about someone, regardless as to how mistaken he thinks they are.

The Trinity is progressively revealed in the context of Scripture. We see first intimation that there exists a Divine plurality in the Oneness and Infiniteness of God in Genesis 1 when God speaks, "let Us make man in Our image". The heretics usually try and explain that God is either using the royal "we" which would be the first and only time in Scriptures that such a royal we is used, or that He is consulting with His myriad of angels. If He is consulting with His myriad of angels though, then angels have become involved in the creation narrative. There may be other times in the book of Genesis where such an interpretation may withhold in the context, but in the creation narrative of Genesis, it does not. God's plurality is intimated.

In Genesis 18-19, we see three men, in the appearance of angels, come to visit Abraham. These three men are traditionally held up to be the Trinity itself. Abraham addresses them as "My Lord! (Adonai)" In Scriptures, Adonai, was instructed to be read out in replacement of the Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton, which is typically spelled out "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" or even "YHWH". It is confirmed that at least one of these angels was YHWH when the narrative speaks of the LORD raining fire from LORD in Heaven. It is difficult for an anti-Trinitarian to flippantly dismiss this evidence.

We see that the Son and the Father are distinct in the Messianic texts of Psalm 2 where it is spoken of the enemies of God coming against the LORD and His anointed. King David is speaking prophetically of the Messiah, not of Himself. Then in Psalm 110, King David speaks of the LORD who said to his Lord, sit down on my right hand. This is conversation between two beings, regardless as to whether one takes the term "right hand" metaphorically" as the Modalists do. Not to mention Psalm 45, speaks of God having a conversation with God. Anti-Trinitarians force this text to apply to Solomon, ignoring that the core of the text is subsequently again applied to the Messiah in Hebrews 1. Daniel 7, a Messianic text, also shows a man coming on the clouds, ascending to the Ancient of Days. This is a reference to the Messianic judgment. We see two, not one.

The evidence that the Father and the Son are not each other is so overwhelming, it is remarkable that the Modalists would be so pigheaded to continue in their insistence that they are the same being when clearly, the Scriptures have revealed they are no. In Matthew 3, the Holy Spirit descends from Heaven and a voice speaks saying "This is my Son." Either Jesus is a ventriloquist or Jesus is lying, or the Father is not the Son. Whether or not this text contains the full revelation of the Trinity is once again irrelevant. It shows clearly the Father is not the Son. Likewise does the Transfiguration narrative in Matthew 17 and Luke 9. You would have to believe in an egregiously duplicitous God to assert that Modalism is what God intended to communicate in either of these texts. Not to mention in John 8, Jesus asserts that the Father is one witness and Himself is another witness because the testimony of two witnesses is true. In Revelation 3, Jesus references that He has a God, which is problematic for Modalists, but not for Trinitarians who understand that the Person of God the Father is Jesus's God, which is possible because they are not each other. Revelation 4-5 also shows clearly that the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are not each other. The final greetings in 2 Corinthians 13 show also that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct.

John 1 proves definitively that Jesus is God. The Word was God and the Word was with God and the Word became flesh. Socinians are dubious in that they insist Jesus was the Word Who became flesh but not the Word Who was God. Are there two Words that are being talked about in the Johannine prologue? No. John 8:58 shows that Jesus claims to be God. The Arian response is that Jesus was only asserting that He existed before Abraham which is not in continuity with the Greek grammar. The Greek grammar does not use the past-tense. Jesus is essentially saying, "Before Abraham was, I exist". That is a claim not to be taken lightly. In Philippians 2, Jesus enters into God's glory, a glory which God does not share with another. It is not problematic for a Trinitarian, because when the three are together, They can speak as a single "I" or as a "We" as in Genesis 1. Revelation 3 also shows Jesus claiming to be the arche of God's creation. Though Arians insist that this holds Jesus as the first of God's creations, this interpretation is mistaken for the Greek word arche initially used by Aristotle to refer to his prime mover, indicates not so much as the first but a beginning in the sense of an origination. Jesus is the beginning of God's creation in the sense that He is the origination. If we understand beginning as the Greek word arche is intended to use, then Jesus is calling Himself not the first creation but the prime mover of God's creation. Jesus also references Himself as Alpha and Omega, which is what God references Himself as.

The Holy Spirit is God as the Great Commission indicates in Matthew 28. Why would Jesus include the Holy Spirit under the baptismal formula if it was not an equal authority with the Father and the Son? Acts 5 also details the account of Ananias and Saphira who lied to the Holy Spirit and by doing so, lied to God. A blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin. How can it be unforgivable to blaspheme something that is not God but is an active force?

Objections to the Trinity are numerous but cannot withstand scrutiny. Further, the objections do not provide a same level of solution to Christian monotheism as the Trinity does. The attackers of the Trinity are so numerous and diverse, we cannot really address them all other than to say that the facts that the heretics and the enemies of God cannot agree on which alternative Trinity to uphold shows that there is nothing that can be held as an alternative to God. Let God arise and let His enemies be scattered! Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and unto the ages of ages, Amen!

The Theology of the Emperor Justinian I

Justinian the Great gives us an interesting and perplexing example of the Church's theological-political structure in that the Emperor, as an amateur theologian, would become exceedingly involved the theological disputes of his time. The ongoing theological crisis was one over the legitimacy of the Council of Chalcedon which was convened by the Emperor Marcian and the Empress Pulcheria in 451 A.D. The Council of Ephesus had strongly condemned the heresies of the Patriarch Nestorius, establishing that Christ was fully God, and that the Virgin Mary was to be held as the Theotokos (birth-giver) of God. But the Council of Chalcedon maintained that Christ was fully God and fully man. For some heretics, this seemed like a contradiction. And for many Easterners, this seemed like Chalcedon was splitting the natures of Christ. There is a lesson here regarding the acceptance of Councils which our current hierarchy should duly take note of before they insist on unswerving adherence to the "Faith of Vatican II".

Justinian may have been greatly influenced by his wife Theodora on the question of the composite natures of Christ as well, for she showed a willingness to unite the Monophysites to the Church, but no evidence indicates she held those opinions herself (Thornton, Pious Kings and Right-Believing Queens, 388). Justinian the Great though was no Monophysite and there was no compulsion from his Empress to convert him to that faith either, which argues strongly against this. However, he appointed the Patriarch Menas who was a staunch opponent of the Monophysite heresy. And he sought advice from Menas on many occasions. He appointed Eutychius as Menas's successor. And it was not until later in his life that a strong, demonic tempest came against the Patriarch which subdued the Emperor as well. The Emperor began to teach that the Lord Jesus Christ, before His Resurrection, had a Divine and Incorruptible Body, which was crucified. The Patriarch rebuked Justinian over this false teaching. But before Justinian the Great succumbed fully to this heresy, he repented and then died of a stroke (Nikolai Velimorovic, Prologue of Ochrid, April 6 and Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Bk. 4, ch. XLI).

In his fifth book of The Two Cities, Otto of Freising narrates the account of Anthemius who was accused of Monophysitism and removed from his patriarchal throne by Pope Agapetus. Seeing that Pope Silverius refused to reinstall the Patriarch, Belisarius had the saintly Pope unjustly exiled and removed from the Papal See. This was also based on lying witness and at the command of Augusta Theodora (Book 5.4). The exact details are not discussed though and could very well be erroneous, at any rate, Justinian did see the Emperor as having quite a sustained role in the life of the Church that wouldn't be reinvigorated until the reign of Charlemagne. Though the Byzantine Emperor has always locked horns in some way with the Church.

The successor of Silverius, Pope Vigilius, would also have a negative fall-out with the Emperor. During the controversy of the Three Chapters which included the works of Ibas of Edessa, Theodoret, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. (Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), 275-277). Justinian's dispute with the Pope on this should not be seen as one who is entangled in heresy, but one who holds a great zeal for orthodoxy. Which the Emperor did hold. In the writings of these men, he saw Nestorianism. There was possibly some confusion between the Greeks and Latins over this issue which clouded judgment on both sides, but the Council of Constantinople, convened in 553, upheld the Emperor's condemnation of the Three Chapters as well as his condemnation of the Origenists.

With great zeal for the divinity of Our Lord, Justinian the Great also contributed the hymn, "Only Begotten" (Pious Kings and Right-Believing Queens, 253). It reads:

"Only begotten Son and Word of God, You are immortal, and You willed for our salvation to be made flesh of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, and without change You became man. You were crucified, O Christ our God, and trampled death by death. You are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us." (The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship, used in the Ukrainian Catholic Church in America and Canada)

This hymn is still sung in the Byzantine Churches today. The Emperor who is orthodox can also be a gifted theologian!

St. John the Baptist

I am writing this entry for a dear friend of mine. May God give to her beautiful wings! Like the wings of St. John the Baptist, even!

St. John the Baptist's birth was prophesied to the High Priest St. Zacharias. Knowing that his wife was barren and had been for years and was even exceeding into her old age, Zacharias rebuked the Archangel Gabriel who had prophesied the birth. The Archangel Gabriel knew better. He informed the High Priest that he would name the child born unto St. Elizabeth, "John" and that his tongue wouldn't be able to speak until the child was born. Elizabeth remained in seclusion for five months. It was during the time the Theotokos was with the Child Jesus that she was visited by Our Lady. When Elizabeth met her, this child who was in her womb, who was gifted with the Spirit of the Prophet Elias, leapt for joy upon encountering Our Lord.  One cannot be a Catholic and in favor of abortion after reading such a text that shows the innocence of the human being in the womb. One cannot be a Christian and in favor of abortion after reading such a text. It is said to be here that St. John was filled with such grace, he was cleansed from the defilement of original sin. God is timeless though so let us not put a mark on when the filling with such grace occurred but let us accept that the filling did occur in God's timeless act. Only Our Lady has the same distinction as St. John the Baptist, their only imperfections being that they both needed the grace of God for their sinlessness. This is why the East retains the Nativity of Our Lady on September 8 and her conception on December 9. And for St. John, his conception is on September 23 and his nativity is on June 24.

Upon John's birth, it was asked of Elizabeth what the child's name would be called. St. Elizabeth insisted on the name of John. But none of her relatives held this name so the people protested until the High Priest Zacharias wrote down on a tablet, "his name is John". It was then that the speech of Zacharias was restored to him for it now had been confirmed that he accepted the message of the Archangel Gabriel. He prophesied of St. John that he would be a great prophet, making way for the Lord, and that he would be the Messiah's forerunner. All this would soon be fulfilled in due course of time.

After Our Lord's birth, during the Herodian massacre of the infants, St. John, who was one of the targeted infants, was hid away by his mother Elizabeth. We do not have any reliable sources as to his early infancy but this is commonly accepted that it was during the massacre of the infants by Herod that John was hid in the wilderness. According to our earliest source, The Protoevangelium of James, St. Elizabeth took her son with her and hid him in a cave while the High Priest Zacharias stayed in Jerusalem. It was while his wife was safe and hidden with her son that the soldiers of Herod confronted the High Priest inquiring him of his son. Not giving away St. John's location, Zacharias was sacrilegiously murdered in the Temple by the men of Herod. St. Elizabeth would repose in the wilderness either around the same time or a little bit afterward. There, St. John the Baptist would feed on locusts or locust beans, the translation is not entirely certain, and honey for the remainder of his life.

St. John would start an apocalyptic movement where he would baptize any one who genuinely confessed and repented of their sins. It was this ministry of St. John the Baptist where he would meet Our Lord for the second time. St. John always knew who he was and who the Messiah was for he had known from the womb that the Son of Mary would come to redeem the world from its sin. It was under the inspiration of this leap for joy that he prophesied to the people repentance in the spirit of the Prophet Elias. Among those baptized by St. John is Thaddeus of the Seventy, Equal to the Apostles. To those who receive the message that John has to deliver, John is Elias. But to those who refuse the message, John is John. John always has on mind that there is one greater than he is. This man is Jesus. When Jesus approaches St. John, he asks for baptism. St. John is confused by this for he deems himself unworthy to baptize the one he is only the forerunner of. He insists that Jesus should baptize him. But Jesus insists on the baptism. This baptism was necessary to bestow the waters of the Earth with the sanctifying gift of the Holy Spirit so that when we are baptized, we become sons of God. The Holy Spirit descends upon Christ foreshadowing our own anointing with chrism. A voice from the Heavens declares that Jesus is His Son. This reveals to us the Triune nature of God for it shows that the Son is not the Father, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is not the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit the Son. For the Sabellians of the modern era to think otherwise would turn the incarnation into an illusion.

It is after this that the baptismal ministry of St. John ends and the baptismal ministry of Christ begins. For St. John only could baptize with water but now Christ baptizes with both fire and the Spirit. Jesus begins this ministry after his discussion with Nicodemus. St. John accepts that his ministry is over for Christ must increase and St. John must decrease. It is in the close of his ministry that St. John finds himself in the prison cell of Herod Antipas, the son of the Herod who slew the infants. Herod had put away his lawful wife, the daughter of Aretas, and married his brother Phillip's wife, Herodias, in an unlawful manner for his brother was still alive. John the Baptist would not stand for this defilation of marriage and publicly chastised Herod for it earning him a seat in prison. Herod would not put St. John to death voluntarily for he feared the people but during a banquet in his court of Sebastia in Galilee, Salome, the daughter of Herodias and Phillip, performed a dance which pleased Herod. Herod in his drunkenness promised to give anything to Salome which she would ask of him and Herodias inspired Salome to ask for the head of St. John the Baptist on a silver platter. St. John was beheaded in prison and his disciples buried the body honorably while Herodias pierced the tongue several times and buried it in an unclean place.

But God would have his vengeance on these evildoers. Prince Aretas, whose daughter was unlawfully put away by Herod, waged war on Herod with his army and the defeated Herod was sent away to exile by the Emperor Caligula. Herod and Herodias lived in poverty. Salome died on the Sikaris River after having set out across it one day when it was frozen. The ice broke and she fell into the water up to her neck with the shards jamming around. She began to struggle but the shards ripped apart at her flesh. Dancing about in the water as she once danced about in Herod's court until a shard of ice finally severed her head. Her head was brought to Herodias on a platter (The Prologue of Ochrid, August 29). St. John's head would be found by Joanna, the maidservant of Herodias and wife of Chuza, who was a pious follower of St. John. She had discovered where Herodias had buried the head of St. John and moved the head to an honorable place of burial in Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives. Much later, an eminent landowner who had become a monk named Innocent took up an abode on the Mount of Olives where he built an abode for himself. In digging, he had discovered a head which was revealed to him to be the very head of St. John. He reverenced and reburied it on the same spot. At the time of Patriarch Ignatius during the reign of the Empress Theodora, wife of Theophilus, and her son Michael, the head was translated to Constantinople where it performs many miracles. During his life, St. John performed no miracles, but his relics have been attributed many miracles (The Prologue of Ochrid, February 24).

St. John the Baptist has several feast days. The discovery of his head is held on February 24. His nativity is held on June 24. His beheading is celebrated on August 29. His conception is celebrated on September 23. And his synaxis is held on January 7. The Theophany, one of the Feast Days of Our Lord, also puts him in a very special place as the Forerunner. This Feast Day is on January 6. Because of his mission as a messenger, people began to think of St. John as an angelic emissary. Thus, in iconography, he is frequently depicted with wings. As I stated in the opening, this was written primarily for a dear friend of mine. May St. John the Baptist give her beautiful wings!

The Holy Martyr Ludmilla

St. Ludmilla, considered both a Queen and a Duchess of Bohemia, is the pious grandmother of St. Wenceslaus, the Good King of Bohemia. She was the daughter of Slavibor, a powerful prince of Bohemia. Bohemia, at this point in time, was almost entirely pagan. She and her husband Borivoi, Duke of Bohemia, were both practicing heathens, worshiping many idols and filling their temples with icons of demons. Her husband Borivoi, in about the year 870, would make a venture to Swatopluck in Bulgaria where he encountered St. Methodius of Bulgaria. Methodius lamented the fact that the Bohemians were still heathens and did not know of Christ. Borivoi was deeply moved by the preaching of St. Methodius and in 871, he and his wife were both baptized by St. Methodius.

Here, the people of Bohemia began to hate their proper rulers. For Paganism does not die slowly but it is allowed relaxation. Christianity always undergoes sufferings so that God may reveal the strength in the Truth. Ludmilla and Borivoi were driven out by their own people and were forced to vacate their seat of power. Paganism leads many a peoples to behave in deeply unruly matters and engages these people into rebellion. For the worship of demons inspires men away from God and into the spirit of rebellion, a spirit truly much worse than even that of witchcraft. But holding fast, the people who rebelled against the moral restraints of Christianity and worshiped the old gods, would call back their King and Queen to their thrones.

Ludmilla had two sons, Spitihnew and Wratislaus. Borivoi and Ludmilla would retire to Tetin leading their son Spitihnew in charge of the kingdom of Bohemia. But Spitihnew would repose and once again, the King and Queen would be recalled to Bohemia once again. Under the rulership of the new Christians, many Pagan temples would be destroyed and many Christian Churches would be built including one that would be dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This church was rebuilt in the 12th century and contains the oratory of St. Ludmilla. Borivoi and Ludmilla would continue to seek the counsel of the pious St. Methodius. Borivoi is estimated to have reposed sometime around 894 or before 894. His death would leave Wratislaus in charge of the throne of Bohemia.

Wratislaus would marry Drahomira. Drahomira may have been a Christian but certainly not a practicing Christian. She was fiercely sympathetic to Paganism and the old gods. This led to her hatred of her mother-in-law, the Good Queen Ludmilla. Wratislaus and Drahomira had twin sons, Wenceslaus and Boleslaus. Wenceslaus the Good King and Boleslaus the Cruel. Ludmilla was allowed to adopt Wenceslaus and would have a profound impact on the young King's faith as he looked to his grandmother's guidance and was raised mostly under her tutelage. Her son Wratislaus reposed in the year 916 which left the young Wenceslaus as King of Bohemia at the young age of 8. Wratislaus is buried in the church of St. George which would become a nunnery under his granddaughter Mlada.

Drahomira's hatred and jealousy of her mother-in-law grew as Wratislaus had left Ludmilla as Queen Regent. Being the regent, this meant that Ludmilla acted on behalf of the King. And being an enthusiastic Christian while her daughter-in-law was "Catholic-in-name-only", this created a heavy religious strife between the two. The Queen Mother developed a rage toward her mother-in-law who was closest in influencing the Good King Wenceslaus and Drahomira plotted how to enact her vengeance on the Queen Regent. She hired assassins to overthrow the Holy Ludmilla. Ludmilla, having heard that her life was in danger, sought the Blessed Sacrament one last time. The assassins would come in the night and Ludmilla would be strangled by the very veil she was wearing. Ludmilla was crowned with the glory of martyrdom in the year 927 in the city of Tetin. Her Feast Day is kept on September 16.

St. Ludmilla, Queen and Martyr, Patroness of Bohemia, pray for us!

See also:

Dictionary of Saintly Women, Agnes B.C. Dunbar

The Exaltation of the Holy Cross

Under the imperial rule of Constantine, his mother Helena, on a visit to the Holy Land, discovered the Holy Cross on Golgotha after a Jewish man named Judah revealed it to her. It had been hidden under a Temple of Venus built by the Emperor Hadrian and the Empress ordered the Temple to be razed. Below it, were three crosses. As a funeral processed, the Patriarch Macarius told the Empress to have each of the three crosses placed upon the dead man. The first two did nothing. The third resurrected the dead man and by this, it was revealed which one was the true Cross of Christ. The Cross was set in a silver case the Empress made for it. Later, it was captured by the Emperor Chozroes who took the city of Jerusalem. The Persian Emperor held the Cross for 14 years before the Greek Emperor Heraclius defeated Chozroes and returned it to Jerusalem. He carried it back to Jerusalem but was suddenly unable. Patriarch Zacharias saw an angel blocking him. Patriarch Zacharias revealed this vision to the Emperor and told the Emperor that he could not bring the cross back to Jerusalem unless he walked the path barefoot and humiliated. Hearing this, Heraclius took of his raiment and in ragged attire, he carried the Cross the rest of the way to Jerusalem, placing it in the Church of the Resurrection.

The Cross is a fundamental part of every day Christian life. Many of us have had a cross with us since our baptism. These are given as gifts by parents, godparents, or friends. Some of us still wear the cross we are given from our baptism around our necks or around our wrists. Mine is too small for that. I have it held on a rosary holder. I was also given another cross before I was baptized which I carry with me in my pocket. Christians generally always keep crosses with them. Jesus told his followers that unless one take up their cross and follow Him, they cannot be His disciple. The cross was an execution device in the ancient world used by the Roman government to punish those who were not citizens. No citizens could be executed on a cross. It was reserved for slaves and traitors. The cross was an execution device utilized for the lowliest of criminals. Yet the Lord of glory was crucified and accepted death upon the cross.

St. Paul speaks of the Cross as being foolish to the Gentiles and a stumbling block to the Jews. The Gentiles cannot understand how one could devote themselves to a King who had received the death of a slave. To the Gentiles, such a man is no King. Maybe a martyr at best, but no King. To the Jews, they cannot accept the reality of the Messiah as the Son of God who came to accept the lowliest of deaths. They believe any one who is hanged on a tree is accursed. St. Paul talks about this in Galatians. It is through the Cross that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law. St. Gregory Palamas distinguishes between heretics and Christians based solely on their attitude toward the Holy Cross.

"The heretics say that because Christ died nailed to the Cross, they cannot bear to see the form of the wood on which He was put to death. But where was the handwriting nailed which was drawn up against us because of our disobedience, when our forefathers stretched out his hand to a tree? How was it taken out of the way and obliterated, enabling us to return to God's blessing? ... Surely we should honor and use this divine trophy of the freedom of the whole human race. Its appearance alone puts the serpent, the originator of evil, to flight, triumphs over him and disgraces him, proclaiming him defeated and crushed. It glorifies and magnifies Christ, and displays His victory to the world. If it were really necessary to disregard the Cross because Christ suffered death on it, then His death too would be neither honorable or salutary. So how can we have been baptized into His death, as the apostle tells us (Rom. 6:3)? And how can we share in His resurrection, if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death (Rom. 6:5)?" (Homily On the Precious and Life-Giving Cross)

During the iconodulist controversies of the early medieval Church, one notable position remained consistent between those who championed the orthodox faith and those who opposed the orthodox faith of the veneration of icons. Both parties could unanimously concur that the Cross was to be venerated and was indeed a most acceptable icon to venerate. The orthodox rightfully concluded that the Cross was essential to the incarnation which had redeemed all and made every icon venerable through humanity of Christ, which could properly be represented in iconography.

"[W]e decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways, these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men." (Second Council of Nicaea)

Recently, I had a conversation with someone and asked them about why God would lay such a heavy burden upon someone even though He insists that His yoke is easy and His burden is light. They responded to me that it maybe was because He wanted to carry the burden with them. Which turned me toward reflecting upon this Feast Day. Consider Christ's walk to Golgotha. How He fell under the weight of the Cross and Simon the Cyrene was called upon by the Roman soldiers to lift the Cross and carry the Cross that Christ would be crucified under. Jesus did not have to carry His Cross alone. This was at a time when all of His apostles had fled and hidden in embarrassment and as He cried out on the Cross, "My God, my God, why has Thou forsaken me?" The only apostle remaining with Him was John. His Mother remained with Him as well as His other women disciples. And strangers were left with Him. Isolation is certainly a heavy burden, but it was a burden that He shared. He tells us to pick up our Cross and follow Him. But He didn't carry His Cross alone. His yoke is easy and His burden is light not in terms of the actual weight, but in terms of the relative weight. Because when we let Him carry our Cross, we will make it to Golgotha with Him. And when we make it to Golgotha, we will then be with Him in Paradise.

Holy Empress Pulcheria

The Empress Pulcheria was the sister of the Emperor Theodosius II and the daughter of the Emperor Arcadius. Her brother succeeded to the imperial throne at the young age of seven. Although he was taught by the imperial guard at first, Pulcheria would begin to act as his guardian at the age of 16. She was highly invested from a very young age with the imperial administrations. A devotee of the Blessed Virgin, she would take a vow of virginity at very young age with a few of her close friends. She presided over the courts of law with justice and sympathy to the abused victims. One of these was Athenais, whose brothers had taken the whole of their father's inheritance and left her without any support. In amending the situation, she also saw what beauty and remarkable intelligence this woman had and recommended her to the Emperor for marriage. Theodosius II would take Athenais on as his wife and she would change her name to Eudocia.

It is very possible to perceive that the accomplishments of the Empress Pulcheria may not have been possible without the influence of Christianity in the Roman Empire. The historian and theologian H.J.A. Sire writes of how Christianity was responsible for much of the empowerment of women in the imperial governance:

"[A]s Christianity became the imperial religion...we see also a new prominence of women close to the throne. The example was set by St. Helena, the mother of Constantine. Under Theodosius II, his sister Pulcheria and his wife Eudocia were powers in the imperial court. On the death of Theodosius in 450, Pulcheria, who is honoured as a saint, became the first woman in Roman history to succeed as Empress in her own right, although convention obliged her to raise a husband to her side in a purely formal marriage; her consort, Marcian, was the first emperor to rule through the matrimonial choice of a woman." (Phoenix From the Ashes, 312-313)

This prominence of women in the imperial government of the Romans prior to Christianity was relatively absent. We also see this transition being made in the lives of the Empresses Irene and Theodora.

Pulcheria was also involved in restoring the succession of Valentinian III as Emperor of the West. Her aunt Placidia was the daughter of Theodosius I and his wife Galla. Placidia had been captured by the Goths and married to their king Ataulf. He died in 415. Placidia would marry the Emperor Constantius III of the Western Roman Empire and he died in 421. She came to Constantinople after a dispute between her and his brother-in-law Honorius. She and her children were received by the Empress Pulcheria and her brother Theodosius II and they conferred the title of Emperor on her son Valentinian III restoring him to the succession of his late father.

The Empress and her brother also participated in the translation of the relics of the Patriarch John Chrysostom into Constantinople. John Chrysostom and had been banished by their parents at a corrupt council ordered by the Empress Eudocia, wife of Arcadius. He went through bitter cold, was savaged by hordes of barbarians in Armenia, and eventually died from starvation. He was never reconciled to the Church in his life as the excommunication was not lifted before he reposed, but the excommunication was glaringly considered unjust by the Church and he was glorified as one of the greatest spiritual teachers, homilists, and saints of all time. His liturgy is celebrated to this day in churches that follow the Byzantine rite, Catholic and Orthodox.

The Eastern Empire flourished in art, intellect, and civilization. The barbarians were suppressed in the East under Pulcheria's governance. Christianity flourished throughout the East too. But heresies also flourished. Guided by her devotion to the Blessed Virgin, Pulcheria very quickly sniffed out the Nestorian heresy. The Patriarch of Constantinople preached that the Virgin could only be called "Christokos" because she gave birth only the human nature of Christ. While acknowledging the dual nature, Nestorius split the natures, leaving the Divine in Heaven and the Human operated independently. But if this heresy was true, then God couldn't have provided a deifying sacrifice for humanity. The natures had to be together when the incarnation occurred. God had to have assumed a human nature or the body of Christ on Earth might as well have been an illusion. She counselled her brother to convene the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which denounced the heresy of Nestorius and established that Our Lady was to be rendered the title "Theotokos", birth-giver of God, for she gave birth to his humanity that was inseparable from His divinity.

Otto of Freising mentions during the thirtieth year of the Emperor Theodosius II's reign, there was an earthquake in Constantinople but the people, with their bishop Proclus sang "Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, have mercy on us!" the earthquake ceased. "Therefore it was commanded by the emperor and his sister Pulcheria that this chant should be sung all over the world." (The Two Cities, Bk. 4.25) This chant is still sung in churches today and is referred to as the Trisagion. Pulcheria was not about to cease in her contributions to the Church either. She had been known to make many donations to churches, and had combatted the Nestorian heresy. Pope Leo the Great wrote of her,

"How much protection the Lord has extended to His Church through your clemency, we have often tested by many signs. And whatever stand the strenuousness of the priesthood has made in our times against the assailers of the Catholic Truth, has redounded chiefly to your glory: seeing that, as you have learned from the teaching of the Holy Spirit, you submit your authority in all things to Him, by whose favour and under whose protection you reign." (Letter 31)

There was one more heresy for her to combat. After her brother reposed, she took on the Roman commander Marcian as her husband and by this marriage elevated him to the imperial throne in Constantinople. The marriage was chaste and they lived as brother and sister as she never broke her early vow of virginity. Another heresy had been emerging since the Nestorian heresy. This heresy was the monophysite heresy. The monophysite heresy asserted that Christ had one nature which was a mixture of divine and human. Various different forms of the monophysite heresy have broken out over the years. What this would entail is that Christ's nature would have to either be absent of humanity or of a different essence altogether from the Father and the Holy Spirit. This could either lead to denying that Christ was man, in which case the deifying sacrifice could not be made for in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian, "that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" (Letters, Division 1). The monophysite doctrine would have denied the very central tenant of the incarnation that human flesh was assumed.

Thus, the Empress, following the urging of Pope Leo the Great, called upon Marcian to convene the Council of Chalcedon which reiterated the position of the hypostatic union established at the Council of Ephesus and condemned the monophysite position of the single nature of Christ. But there was still confusion over what this meant afterward. Many people believed that this Council had adopted a position that led to too "Nestorian" a position and the confusion spread throughout the Eastern Empire, often times triggered by the deficiencies of the language to describe the hypostatic union. One of the victims of this confusion was her sister-in-law Eudocia. Pulcheria would continue to urge Eudocia back into union with the Catholic and Apostolic Faith of Chalcedon and Eudocia would heed the urgings of Pulcheria. Because of Pulcheria's urgings to her sister-in-law, calling her back to the faith, we are also able to venerate Eudocia as a saint. Pulcheria went to blessed eternity in the year 453. Pulcheria's Feast Day falls on September 10. She also shares a Feast Day with her husband Marcian on February 17 and with the Empress Irene on August 7. St. Pulcheria, pray for us!

See also:

Dictionary of Saintly Women, Agnes B.C. Dunbar

Pious Kings and Right-Believing Queens, Protopresbyter James Thornton