Dear Friends,

As we know, the very Protestant confession of faith that was attributed to Patriarch Cyril Lucaris and some other writings likewise attributed to him, were condemned by Orthodoxy as heretical.

Were these works spuriously attributed to him, meaning that he was not actually their author? Or is it possible for him to have been an actual Protestant while Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and Constantinople, later dying a martyr's death.

There are Orthodox Christians I know who venerate his memory as that of an Orthodox Martyr.

What say you?

Alex

I think a book was written on him as the Calvinist Patriarch.

.

It's thought that the main problem was Lukaris' friendship with Georges Mayer (a protestant who was sent as chief of the "office of religious affairs" by the State). At the same time he incorporated some calvinist views to the doctrine of the church, like the doctrine of the "predestination". He said that those who were not orthodox were born to be condemned (this speech has some things in common with the Papal letter of 1999, didnt it??).

Remie,

To which Papal letter of 1999 do you refer? Could you provide the reference, please?

Thanks in advance!

Steve
JOY!

Alex,

I have heard of this man before but never read anything in detail.

One thing struck me as I was breezing over the story was that he wrote the original text in Latin. That seems kinda odd for a Greek under the Ottomans, who did he think his audience was? Did he do so to hide his thoughts from his fellow Greeks?

When I get the time I hope to look into this further...

I typed the whole thing out with my two finger typing in my last post and then lost it all while I was typing the last sentence, I will make one more attempt. Here goes -

From 'The Complete Book of Orthodoxy' -

Lucaris, Cyril - (1572-1638), Patriarch of Constantinople and theologian. He was born in Crete and educated in Italy. He was elected Patriarch of Alexandra in 1601, after a brief period in Poland. He succeeded to the thone of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1620 and was especially hostile to Roman Catholics, because of his preveious contact with them. He was openly friendly to various Protestant groups, mainly the Calvinists. His theology shows much influence from the Reformed Churches. He was deposed several times as Patriarch but was reinstated due to the good graces of the Dutch and British representatives in Turkey. Eventually he was sentenced to death in 1638 by order of the Sultan Murad. Lucaris' theology was formally condemned by the Orthodox Church at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. A book entitled "Protestant Patriarch", his only English biography, appeared in 1961.

Dear Friends,

Yes, I'm wondering, though, about the controversy involving the works ascribed to the Patriarch, which were condemned by the Orthodox Church (as they were, in fact, Protestant).

Some have suggested that the works were not the Patriarch's but that his name was tacked on to them by Protestants. The Jesuits of his day had no interest in discovering the truth of this since they wanted to get rid of the Patriarch owing to his anti-unionist stand vis a vis Rome. The Protestant appellation served to discredit him further.

I am myself of the opinion that the works ascribed to the Patriarch were forgeries, that he never assented to any Protestant doctrines, but was overcome by the political circumstances of his time at the end of which he died a martyr's death.

In short, I don't believe Lucaris was a heretic at all, but a true great-martyr.

Alex

Archbishop Chrysosotomos of Etna wrote a book on Lucaris refuting the Calvinist charge. Who knows how scholarly Chrysostomos's work really is; but maybe it's worth it. It's available on their website, try searching for "Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies."

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

You are a true scholar AND a gentleman!

thank you!

Alex

Alex,

I had a book sitting on my shelf that I was planning to read that has two chapters regarding this man. So this weekend I read it. The book is called "The Great Church in Captivity" (so named as it a history of the EP from 1453 to the 1800's) - truly a fascinating book, I recommend it.

According to the book, at the time Cyril wanted to print his "confession" the EP's printing press
was out of action because of the Turks. Cyril therefore had to send the hand written text to a printer in Geneva who then printed the "Confession". Well, the original hand written text is at a library and is in Cyril's hand. Seems like good evidence - but I guess I would have to read Etna's version before I came to that conclusion.

It is a very, very complicated history but ultimatley Cyril is killed by the Turks after the Jesuits start a bad rumor to get him.

Dear OrthodoxyorDeath,

Yes, the pages that were printed in Geneva were in the Orthodox Patriarch's hand since he did write extensively about Calvinism.

But evidence is also strong that what was printed in Geneva was a 'cut and paste' of his words to create a Protestant confession.

His other writings, (not printed in Geneva ) show a totally Orthodox Patriarch.

The Jesuits also had a stake in removing a man from the Throne of St Andrew who was against uniatism.

Lucaris is venerated as a Martyr and, in one Ukrainian Orthodox book I am aware of, is mentioned as someone "awaiting glorification."

Alex

Alex,

Perhaps the counter views Etna published would be worthwhile, I always love when history is polarized into an obscure fog, as it is most often.

As far as the Jesuits, their secret activities were of the same moral character as that of the CIA.

The Jesuits secretly negotiated the Union of Brest-Litovsk with several people before the offical meeting was ever held. And during the final meeting, the vast majority of Orthodox bishops who attended (all who were opposed to the union) were kept in a seperate building until it was all over; all except for 2 who were allowed in. Cyril was one of those who attended this meeting as was a staunch opponent.

So it is interesting to note that Cyril would also turn up face down in the water after the Jesuits whispered in the ears of the Turks.

[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Orthodoxy or Death,

Actually several times Orthodox Bishops petitioned Rome and/or the Polish King to allow them to come into union.

I am not "into" uniatism either (I am happy to be BC personally, though), but insinuations that the wiley Jesuits did this or that evil in history are.... borderline paranoid. Yes the Jesuits have made mistakes, but they are not the root cause of all evil.

You should read Josef Macha's book, "Ecclesiastical Unification" in the Oriental Christiana Analecta series. Quite a fascinating history of the back and forth motion of Catholics and Orthodox at the time of Brest-Litosk.

You could probably get it in interlibrary loan. If you don't know how to do that, ask your local librarian.

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

Actually, what OrthodoxyorDeath writes about the union is . . .true.

Only a couple of our bishops were in favour of switching allegiance to Rome, not for the best of reasons, (they did owe a lot of money - an unfortunate fact).

The other bishops did agree, but let's remember that it was the Polish king who had, by then, complete control over appointing bishops for the Orthodox Church in his dominions.

The fact that Constantinople tried to control things through lay Brotherhoods did not endear it to the bishops, who saw in union with Rome a "liberation" of such lay control in part.

There were, of course, many other factors involved.

That Rome was in favour of allowing a full Byzantine Rite in union with the pope is really a figment of imagination.

It took six months for the pope to even consider this as a real option which it grudgingly granted - and hasn't really lived up to ever since. I too am an Eastern Catholic as I say this!

The Jesuits historically were so wily that even Rome had enough of them and suppressed their order.

There are those in Rome today would like to suppress them now as well . . .

But in Eastern Europe, the Jesuits did use Machiavellian schemes to accomplish their own political ends, the ends justifying the means, as Dr. John said . . .

They were not above employing the civil power to punish their ecclesial enemies, as was the case with Patriarch Cyril Lucaris and with the Exarch Nicephorus, both of whom are locally venerated by the Orthodox.

This is not to say that there is a "white knight" on any side in this whole sorry situation.

And it is not to say that there were not holy and sincere Jesuits.

But the very term "Jesuitical" stuck and may none of us on this forum ever use it to describe another!

Alex