Is this true or false?

[Light of the East]

Before I go publishing something as if true, I need to verify it. Is the following article -

Internet History Sourcebooks Project (Medieval Sourcebook: Procopius of Caesarea: The Secret History)

regarding the writing of Procopius a true document, or false?

As you may remember, I have a distinct distaste for Emperor Justinian, especially in his treatment of the Pope of Rome, whom he imprisoned until the pope acceded to his wishes, but I will not lower myself to publish a writing against Justinian if it is a scurrilous piece of trash motivated by personal animus rather than truth.

Does anyone here know of this writing? I just recently discovered it.

 

[HTacianas]

Before I go publishing something as if true, I need to verify it. Is the following article -

Internet History Sourcebooks Project (Medieval Sourcebook: Procopius of Caesarea: The Secret History)

regarding the writing of Procopius a true document, or false?

As you may remember, I have a distinct distaste for Emperor Justinian, especially in his treatment of the Pope of Rome, whom he imprisoned until the pope acceded to his wishes, but I will not lower myself to publish a writing against Justinian if it is a scurrilous piece of trash motivated by personal animus rather than truth.

Does anyone here know of this writing? I just recently discovered it.

I personally am not familiar with it. But as a veteran of much study of the turmoils of the past, I heartily recommend that you accept it, reject it, take it with a grain of salt, or simply flip a coin. Odds are whichever you choose you'll make the right decision. Or maybe the wrong one.

 

[ArmyMatt]

it doesn't seem like there is any corroborating evidence, so I would read it with a grain of salt. and looking where it came from and when it was revealed also makes it look spurious to say the least.

but why publish something that tarnishes an Orthodox saint you don't like? and why ask that on here? it looks like you actually want to write against St Justinian, so you are asking on here to find good cause to do so. if you don't like St Justinian, no one would force you to get his icon or attend his Feast Day.

this seriously looks like you're trying to find David-Bentley-Hart-is-actually-correct-loopholes.

 

[Light of the East]

it doesn't seem like there is any corroborating evidence, so I would read it with a grain of salt. and looking where it came from and when it was revealed also makes it look spurious to say the least.

but why publish something that tarnishes an Orthodox saint you don't like? and why ask that on here? it looks like you actually want to write against St Justinian, so you are asking on here to find good cause to do so. if you don't like St Justinian, no one would force you to get his icon or attend his Feast Day.

this seriously looks like you're trying to find David-Bentley-Hart-is-actually-correct-loopholes.

It may look like I am just trying to stir up *** but I honestly wanted to find someone with any kind of scholastic or historic knowledge of this writing to verify or disclaim it. I am rather tired of publishing things only to find out later that they are as bogus as a three dollar bill.

As for why here - do you honestly think that any Protestant would know anything about this???

 

[ArmyMatt]

It may look like I am just trying to stir up *** but I honestly wanted to find someone with any kind of scholastic or historic knowledge of this writing to verify or disclaim it. I am rather tired of publishing things only to find out later that they are as bogus as a three dollar bill.

As for why here - do you honestly think that any Protestant would know anything about this???

no, I don't think a Protestant would know. however, you know he is a saint of the Church. so it looks like, "Hey, here's this saint I don't really like, and some guy from back in the day (whose writing came to light 1100ish years after said saint), basically says he is a demoniac and his wife (also a saint) was a pervert. there seems to be no verifiable evidence to confirm this work as true either. so what do you think, TAW?"

if you have a habit of publishing bogus things, then maybe you should stop publishing things.

 

[Phronema]

Seems false to me. We know that St. Justinian did a lot of good things for the church, the people, and the Empire as a whole. That and he IS a canonized Saint, and I'm inclined to have faith in the fact that he was canonized justly (no pun intended).

With that it seems our friend Procupius of Caesarea had a bone to pick with St. Justinian for some unknown reason? As Fr. Matt has pointed out these are some serious accusations to make with no other individuals calling him out similarly. Just my take on it.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="ArmyMatt, No, I don't think a Protestant would know. however, you know he is a saint of the Church. so it looks like, "Hey, here's this saint I don't really like,

I really had no opinion on the man per se and accepted that he is a saint in the Church until I began to read some history about him and found out about some of his more questionable actions, such as killing in cold blood 4,500 Saxon prisoners who refused baptism, even after other earlier Fathers had written that conversion by force was not to be done in the Church. That action caused a real concern in me. I would appreciate it if you would not slander me with accusations which are unfounded. Just because I find myself in disagreement with his actions does not mean that I hate him. I would say that at best you may fairly accuse me of a lack of respect - if anything.

BTW - I also hold the same lack of respect for a "saint" in the UCC - Jehosaphat of Kunsivich of There is also a historic record of him slaughtering the Orthodox in the area to which he was assigned, for which he was finally dragged into the streets and beaten to death by an angry mob incensed at his vile treatment of their priest. He got exactly what he deserved, if the accounts of his treatment of the Orthodox are correct. Yet the Roman Church insists that this thug is a "saint" also. I refuse to call him such. He is of the cut of cloth as other Roman heroes who appeared to forget the Early Fathers and their warnings about conversion at the point of the sword. The most modern of such men are the Roman Catholic Croats of WWII. And yet, I read the other day that some bishop of that age is being considered for "sainthood" Sheeeesh!!!!

An Anniversary of Mourning: Josaphat the Malevolent

and some guy from back in the day (whose writing came to light 1100 ish years after said saint), basically says he is a demoniac and his wife (also a saint) was a pervert. there seems to be no verifiable evidence to confirm this work as true either. so what do you think, TAW?"

The evidence is this piece of writing, obviously kept secret by the writer for fear of losing his head. The evidence of Justinian's "saintliness" appears to be of the same jib as the "saintliness" of Josephat - i.e. "he did our bidding and did it well, therefore he is a saint." Those of us without an axe to grind in this matter stand back and take a much more jaundiced (and perhaps honest) look at such things. And if that ruffles feathers.....well, too bad! Some of us .... me in particular .... are fed up with revisionist history, finding corruption and dishonesty under ever rock we turn over, and seeing in general that the Church - East and West - is far less the paradise on earth that most people claim it to be. Kind of like the people who go around chanting "USA USA USA" and conveniently forgetting all that the government of this country has done to grind the faces of the poor, slaughter native Americans, break treaties, start wars, and generally make the devil green with envy.

if you have a habit of publishing bogus things, then maybe you should stop publishing things.

You seem to miss the fact that accomplishing this is the very thing I am trying to do by asking the well-educated crowd at this site for verification. I was looking for perhaps some paper, some writing that someone knew of that proved this whole paper to be bogus. So far, nothing.

I will keep searching.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I really had no opinion on the man per se and accepted that he is a saint in the Church until I began to read some history about him and found out about some of his more questionable actions, such as killing in cold blood 4,500 Saxon prisoners who refused baptism, even after other earlier Fathers had written that conversion by force was not to be done in the Church. That action caused a real concern in me. I would appreciate it if you would not slander me with accusations which are unfounded. Just because I find myself in disagreement with his actions does not mean that I hate him. I would say that at best you may fairly accuse me of a lack of respect - if anything.

I never said you hated him. I said how your comment looks, not necessarily how it is. so I didn't slander you at all. plus, all of your issues are things we already know. lots of saints have committed horrible sins. that doesn't call their sanctity into question.

plus, you were the one who said he has a distinct distaste for him. I don't see how it's slander then for me to say you don't like him.

BTW - I also hold the same lack of respect for a "saint" in the UCC - Jehosaphat of Kunsivich of There is also a historic record of him slaughtering the Orthodox in the area to which he was assigned, for which he was finally dragged into the streets and beaten to death by an angry mob incensed at his vile treatment of their priest. He got exactly what he deserved, if the accounts of his treatment of the Orthodox are correct. Yet the Roman Church insists that this thug is a "saint" also. I refuse to call him such. He is of the cut of cloth as other Roman heroes who appeared to forget the Early Fathers and their warnings about conversion at the point of the sword. The most modern of such men are the Roman Catholic Croats of WWII. And yet, I read the other day that some bishop of that age is being considered for "sainthood" Sheeeesh!!!!

that's a very problematic point you just made. we don't get to pick and choose who the saints of the Church are just because we don't like some of the stuff they did.

The evidence is this piece of writing, obviously kept secret by the writer for fear of losing his head. The evidence of Justinian's "saintliness" appears to be of the same jib as the "saintliness" of Josephat - i.e. "he did our bidding and did it well, therefore he is a saint." Those of us without an axe to grind in this matter stand back and take a much more jaundiced (and perhaps honest) look at such things. And if that ruffles feathers.....well, too bad! Some of us .... me in particular .... are fed up with revisionist history, finding corruption and dishonesty under ever rock we turn over, and seeing in general that the Church - East and West - is far less the paradise on earth that most people claim it to be. Kind of like the people who go around chanting "USA USA USA" and conveniently forgetting all that the government of this country has done to grind the faces of the poor, slaughter native Americans, break treaties, start wars, and generally make the devil green with envy.

sure. and the Vatican and Holy Roman Emperor just sat on this evidence for 600 years after the Schism. and there is nothing to corroborate the account. never brought up in the dialogues afterwards, especially since St Justinian and the 5th Council are two reasons we reject Papal Supremacy.

You seem to miss the fact that accomplishing this is the very thing I am trying to do by asking the well-educated crowd at this site for verification. I was looking for perhaps some paper, some writing that someone knew of that proved this whole paper to be bogus. So far, nothing.

how about the fact that they are saints of the Church, and therefore not demoniacs and perverts? when it comes to who the Church has revealed to be holy, she doesn't err. you can't check what is sound Orthodoxy at the door when you come across something you don't like or understand.

be that as it may, if this was an actual issue about two saints of the Church, it would have been noticed by folks others. saints have stood against the Imperial powers that be, even at the cost of their own lives throughout Christian history (St John Chrysostom against the Empress, St Philip of Moscow against Ivan the Terrible, etc). so I don't see any evidence that Sts Justinian and Theodora were so terrible and horrifying that no one opposed them openly. and not only that, both were added to the calendar. that's pretty absurd.

I will keep searching.

as you should, if you like. but if you don't find anything, it could very well be that this wasn't a real problem and that Sts Justinian and Theodora, weren't actually that bad.

 

[Light of the East]

Father, I find myself confused. My thought was that one of the qualifications of sainthood was not only adherence to proper and true dogma, but a life of holiness as well.

What am I missing here?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Father, I find myself confused. My thought was that one of the qualifications of sainthood was not only adherence to proper and true dogma, but a life of holiness as well.

What am I missing here?

....repentance...

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

it doesn't seem like there is any corroborating evidence, so I would read it with a grain of salt. and looking where it came from and when it was revealed also makes it look spurious to say the least.

but why publish something that tarnishes an Orthodox saint you don't like? and why ask that on here? it looks like you actually want to write against St Justinian, so you are asking on here to find good cause to do so. if you don't like St Justinian, no one would force you to get his icon or attend his Feast Day.

this seriously looks like you're trying to find David-Bentley-Hart-is-actually-correct-loopholes.

 

[archer75]

A lot of saints (most?) have committed horrific sins. For all we know, plenty of saints committed horrific sins that are recorded nowhere, but are known to God. To say that someone is a saint is in no way to show approval for any actions they ever took that were wrong.

 

[ArmyMatt]

A lot of saints (most?) have committed horrific sins. For all we know, plenty of saints committed horrific sins that are recorded nowhere, but are known to God. To say that someone is a saint is in no way to show approval for any actions they ever took that were wrong.

exactly. their sins in no way lessens their sanctity, and their sanctity in no way justifies their sins.