Saint Eustathe d'Antioche
Patriarche d'Antioche, évêque et confesseur (+ v.
338)
Originaire d'Asie Mineure, il fut d'abord consacré
évêque de Bérée (Alep) puis transféré à Antioche la Grande. Il prit une part
active au concile œcuménique de Nicée. Les partisans de l'arianisme réussirent
à le faire déposer sous de faux témoignages, le faisant accuser d'une liaison
coupable où il aurait eu un enfant. L'empereur Constantin et sainte Hélène l'envoyèrent
en exil en Thrace où il mourut peu après. Son innocence ne fut reconnue que
quelques années plus tard lorsque cette femme confessa avoir agi sous la
pression de plusieurs évêques partisans de l'arianisme.
21 février: commémoraison de saint Eustathe, évêque d'Antioche, célèbre par sa
doctrine. Pour avoir pris la défense de la foi catholique, il fut envoyé en
exil à Trajanopolis, en Thrace, par l'empereur Constance favorable aux ariens
et il entra dans le repos du Seigneur vers 338. (martyrologe romain)
Choisi en 324 pour être patriarche d'Antioche, il rétablit la paix dans une
Église divisée par l'arianisme. Avec saint
Jacques de Nisibe, il participa à un concile dont les saints canons
rappellent quel fut son souci d'avoir un clergé instruit et zélé. Accusé à son
tour d'hérésie par des évêques jaloux, il fut exilé. Une sédition de la
population d'Antioche en sa faveur, incita l'empereur Constantin l'éloigner
plus encore et à le bannir en Thrace puis en Macédoine où il mourut. Justice
lui fut rendue et son corps revint à Antioche. Saint Jérôme dit
de lui qu'il fut l'un des tout premiers à combattre Arius et il loue ses très
grandes connaissances théologiques.
------------------------
Mgr Mirkis: "En soutenant les jeunes, nous les maintenons dans le pays. Il
y aura ainsi des médecins, des pharmaciens et architectes, des ingénieurs"
Martyrologe romain
SOURCE : https://nominis.cef.fr/contenus/saint/1330/Saint-Eustathe-d-Antioche.html
Eustathius of Antioch B
(RM)
(also known as Eustace)
Born in Side, Pamphylia; died in Thrace, Greece, c. 335, or Illyricum, c. 337.
Much of what we know about Eustace comes from Saint Athanasius. Confessor
during a persecution by Diocletian of Licinius, Eustace was a learned,
eloquent, and virtuous man. His ardent zeal for the purity of the faith caused
him to be made bishop of Beroea, Syria. When Saint Philogonius of Antioch died
c. 323, the weak and wavering bishop Paulinus succeeded him for a short time as
patriarch. Saint Eustace was called to replace Paulinus, but he opposed the
transfer to the third most important see because of his zeal for the purity of
the faith, the quality most needed at that time in Antioch. He felt that the
transfer of bishops leads to dangerous temptations of ambition and avarice. In
various ways, Eustace was forced to accept the patriarchal see of Antioch
against his will.
He attended the
Council of Nicaea and concurred with his fellow bishops to forbid all
translations of bishops from one see to another. During, before, and after the
council, Eustace was a firm opponent of Arianism both in his preaching and in
his writing.
Eustace was an
outstanding bishop. Upon returning to Antioch, he convened a synod to unite the
factions that had developed. He judiciously examined the character and faith of
those seeking ordination. Many he rejected later became leaders of Arianism. He
sent capable, virtuous men into other dioceses within his patriarchate to teach
and encourage the faithful.
In a impolitic move,
Eustace raised violent opposition against Eusebius of Caesarea, a suffragan
bishop of Antioch, who was one of the Arian leaders and close to the throne.
Together with Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, the bishop of Caesarea plotted to
remove Saint Eustace from his see. They accused him of altering the Nicene
Creed.
Eusebius of
Nicomedia went to Jerusalem and there gathered like- minded Arians, including
Theognis of Nicea, Eusebius of Caesarea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Actius of
Lydda, Theodotus of Laudicea, and other. They returned to Antioch and assembled
a synod in 331. They obtained the false testimony of a women, who said that
Eustace had fathered her child. Eustace protested his innocence and alleged
that tradition requires two or more witnesses before convicting a priest. Before
her death she did declare before many priests that she had been bribed to make
the charge and that Patriarch Eustace was innocent, the father of the child was
another Eustace, a brazier.
The Arians also
accused him of Sabellianism. Although the Catholic bishops present loudly
protested against the injustice of these proceedings, the Arians pronounced a
sentence of deposition against the saint. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis
hastened to inform Emperor Constantine of the decision. The people of Antioch raised
a great sedition on this occasion, but Constantine was open to hearing the
slanders presented by his friends. He ordered Eustace to Constantinople.
Before his departure
from Antioch, the holy pastor assembled the people and exhorted them to remain
steadfast in the true doctrine. Constantine banished Eustace, together with
several of his priests and deacons, first into Thrace, as Saint Jerome and
Saint John Chrysostom testify, then into Illyricum, as Theodoret adds
(Benedictines, Encyclopedia, Husenbeth).
St.
Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch, Confessor
From
St. Athanasius, Sozomen, Theodoret, l. 1, Hist. c. 6, St. Jerom, in Catal. c.
85. See Tillem. t. 7, p. 21. Ceillier, t. 4, and the Bollandists, Bosch in his
Life, t. 4. Jul. p. 130, and Solier in Hist. Chron. Patr. Antioch. ante, t. 4,
Jul. p. 35.
A.D.
338.
ST. EUSTATHIUS was a native of Sida, in Pamphylia, and
with heroic constancy confessed the faith of Christ before the pagan
persecutors, as St. Athanasius assures us, 1
though it does not appear whether this happened under Dioclesian or Licinius.
He was learned, eloquent, and eminently endowed with all virtue, especially an
ardent zeal for the purity of our holy faith. Being made bishop of Beræa, in
Syria, he began in that obscure see to be highly considered in the church,
insomuch that St. Alexander, of Alexandria, wrote to him in particular against
Arius and his impious writings, in 323. St. Philogonius, bishop of Antioch, a
prelate illustrious for his confession of the faith, in the persecution of
Licinius, died in 323. One Paulinus succeeded him, but seems a man not equal to
the functions of that high station; for, during the short time he governed that
church, tares began to grow up among the good seed. To root these out, when
that dignity became again vacant, in 324, the zeal and abilities of St.
Eustathius were called for, and he was accordingly translated to this see, in
dignity the next to Alexandria, and the third in the world. He vigorously
opposed the motion, but was compelled to acquiesce. Indeed, translations of
bishops, if made without cogent reasons of necessity, become, to many,
dangerous temptations of ambition and avarice, and open a door to those fatal
vices into the sanctuary. To put a bar to this evil, St. Eustathius, in the
same year, assisting at the general council of Nice, zealously concurred with
his fellow bishops to forbid for the time to come all removals of bishops from
one see to another. 2
The new patriarch distinguished himself in that venerable assembly by his zeal
against Arianism. Soon after his return to Antioch he held a council there to
unite his church, which he found divided by factions. He was very strict and
severe in examining into the characters of those whom he admitted into the
clergy, and he constantly rejected all those whose principles, faith, or
manners appeared suspected; among whom were several who became afterwards
ringleaders of Arianism. Amidst his external employs for the service of others,
he did not forget that charity must always begin at home, and he laboured in
the first place to sanctify his own soul; but after watering his own garden he
did not confine the stream there, but let it flow abroad to enrich the
neighbouring soil, and to dispense plenty and fruitfulness all around. He sent
into other diocesses that were subject to his patriarchate, men capable of
instructing and encouraging the faithful. Eusebius, archbishop of Cæsarea, in
Palestine, (which church was, in some measure, subject to Antioch,) favoured
the new heresy, in such a manner as to alarm the zeal of our saint. 3
This raised a violent storm against him.
Eusebius of Nicomedia laid a deep plot with his Arian
friends to remove St. Eustathius from Antioch, who had attacked Eusebius of
Cæsarea, and accused him of altering the Nicene Creed. Hereupon, Eusebius of
Nicomedia, pretending a great desire to see the city of Jerusalem, set out in
great state, taking with him his confidant, Theognis of Nice. At Jerusalem they
met Eusebius of Cæsarea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Aëtius of Lydda. Theodotus
of Laodicea, and several others, all of the Arian faction: who returned with
them to Antioch. There they assembled together, as in a Synod, in 331, and a
debauched woman, whom the Arians had suborned, coming in, showed a child which
she suckled at her breast, and declared that she had it by Eustathius. The
saint protested his innocence, and alleged that the apostle forbids a priest to
be condemned unless convicted by two or more witnesses. This woman, before her
death, after a long illness, called in a great number of the clergy, and
publicly declared to them the innocence of the holy bishop, and confessed that
the Arians had given her money for this action, pretending that no perjury was
implied in her oath, upon the frivolous and foolish plea that she had the child
by a brazier of the city called Eustathius. 4
The Arians accused him also of Sabellianism, as Socrates and others testify;
this being their general charge and slander against all who professed the
orthodox faith.
The Catholic bishops who were present with Eustathius,
cried out loudly against the injustice of these proceedings, but could not be
heard, and the Arians pronounced a sentence of deposition against the saint;
and Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis hastened to inform the Emperor
Constantine of these proceedings. The Arian bishops invited Eusebius of Cæsarea
to exchange his see for the patriarchal chair of Antioch; but he alleged the
prohibition of the canons; and the Emperor Constantine commended his modesty,
by a letter which Eusebius has inserted in his life of that prince. 5
We should have been more edified with his humility had this circumstance been
only recorded by others. 6
This happened, not in 340, as Baronius and Petavius imagine, but in 330 or 331,
as is manifest not only from the testimony of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and
Philostorgius, but also from several circumstances of the affair. 7
The people of Antioch raised a great sedition on this occasion, but the Emperor
Constantine, being prepossessed by the slanders of the two bishops, ordered St.
Eustathius to repair to Constantinople, and thence sent him into banishment.
The holy pastor assembled the people before his departure from Antioch, and
exhorted them to remain steadfast in the true doctrine, which exhortations were
of great weight in preserving many in the Catholic faith. St. Eustathius was
banished, with several priests and deacons, first into Thrace, as St. Jerom and
St. Chrysostom testify, and from thence into Illyricum, as Theodoret adds.
Socrates and Sozomen confound him with a priest of Constantinople of the same
name, when they tell us he was recalled by Jovian, and survived till the year
370; for St. Eustathius died thirty years before St. Meletius was advanced to
the see of Antioch in 360, as Theodoret testifies. Nor was he mentioned in the
council of Sardica, or in any of the disputes that followed; and our best
critics and historians conclude him to have been dead in 337. Philippi, in
Macedon, which, in the division of the empire into diocesses, was comprised in
that of Illyricum, was the place of his death, 8
but his body was interred at Trajanopolis, in Thrace, from which city
Calandion, one of his successors, caused it to be translated to Antioch, about
the year 482, as Theodorus Lector informs us. 9t.
Eustathius bore his exile with patience and perfect submission, and was under
its disgraces and hardships greater and more glorious than whilst his zeal and
other virtues shone with the brightest lustre on the patriarchal throne. We may
please ourselves in those actions in which we seem to be something; into which,
however, self-love, under a thousand forms, easily insinuates itself. But the
maxims of our Divine Redeemer teach us that no circumstances are so happy for
the exercise of the most heroic virtue as humiliations and distresses when sent
by Providence. These put our love to the test, apply the remedy to the very
root of our spiritual disorders, employ the most perfect virtues of meekness,
forgiveness, and patience, and call forth our resignation, humility, and
reliance on Providence; in these trials we learn most perfectly to die to our
passions, to know ourselves, to feel our own nothingness and miseries, and with
St. Paul to take pleasure in our infirmities. Here all virtue is more pure and
perfect. A Christian suffering with patience and joy, bears in spirit the
nearest resemblance to his crucified Master, and enters deepest into his most
perfect sentiments of humility, meekness, and love: for Jesus on his cross is
the model by which his disciples are bound to form themselves, which they no
where can do with greater advantage than when they are in a like state of
desolation and suffering.
Note 3. That
prelate had been educated at Cæsarea, where he studied with St. Pamphilus the
martyr, whose name he afterwards added to his own. He suffered imprisonment
with him for the faith about the year 309, but recovered his liberty without
undergoing any severer trial, and was chosen archbishop of Cæsarea in 314. When
Arius, in 320, retired from Alexandria into Palestine, having been deposed from
the priesthood by St. Alexander the year before, Eusebius of Cæsarea and some
other bishops were imposed upon by him, and received him favourably. Hereupon
Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom he calls brother to the other
Eusebius of Cæsarea. Eusebius of Nicomedia was at that time of an advanced age,
and had great interest with Constantine, who after the defeat of Licinius kept
his court some time at Nicomedia as other emperors had done before him since
Dioclesian had begun to reside in the East. This prelate was crafty and
ambitious; his removal, procured by his intrigues, from his first see of
Berytus to Nicomedia seems to have given occasion to the canon of the Nicene
council, by which such translations were forbidden. Notwithstanding which, in
defiance of so sacred a law, he afterwards procured himself to be again
translated to the see of Constantinople, in 338, in the beginning of the reign
of Constantius. The council of Sardica, in 347, confirmed the above-mentioned
Nicene canon under pain of the parties being deprived even of lay communion at
their death; but this arch-heretic died in 342. He openly defended not only the
person, but also the errors of Arius; subscribed the definitions of the Nicene
council for fear of banishment; but three months after, being the author of new
tumults, he was banished by Constantine, and after three years recalled, upon
giving a confession of faith in which he declared himself penitent, and
professed that he adhered to the Nicene faith, as Theodoret relates. By this
act of dissimulation he imposed upon the emperor, but he continued by every
base art to support his heresy, and endeavoured to subvert the truth. Eusebius
of Cæsarea held that see from 314 till his death in 339. He was always closely
linked with the ringleaders of the heresy. Nevertheless, the learned Henry
Valois, in his Prolegomena to his translation of this author’s Ecclesiastical
History, pretends to excuse him from its errors, though he often boggled at the
word Consubstantial. He certainly was so far imposed upon by Arius, as to
believe that heretic admitted the eternity of the Divine Word; and in his
writings many passages occur which prove the divinity and, as to the sense, the
consubstantiality of the Son, whatever difficulties he formed as to the word. On
which account Ceillier and many others affect to speak favourably, or at least
tenderly of Eusebius in this respect, and are willing to believe that he did
not at least constantly adhere to that capital error. Yet it appears very
difficult entirely to clear him from it, though he may seem to have attempted
to steer a course between the tradition of the church and the novelties of his
friends. See Baronius ad an. 380, Witasse Nat. Alexander, and the late Treatise
in folio, against the Arian heresy, compiled by a Maurist Benedictin monk.
Photius, in a certain work given us by Montfaucon, (in Bibl. Coisliana, p.
348,) roundly charges Eusebius with Arianism and Origenism.
Eusebius, whose conduct was so inconstant and equivocal, shines to
most advantage in his works, especially those which he composed in defence of
Christianity before the Arian contest arose. The first of these is his book
against Hierocles, who, under Dioclesian, was a persecuting judge at Nicomedia,
and afterwards rewarded for his cruelty against the Christians with the
government of Egypt. In a book he wrote he made Apollonius Tyanæus superior to
Christ. But Eusebius demonstrates the history of this magician, written by
Philostratus, when he taught rhetoric at Rome, one hundred years after the
death of that magician, to be false and contradictory in most of its points,
doubtful in others, and trifling in all. About the time he was made bishop he
conceived a design of two works, which showed as much the greatness of his
genius, as the execution did the extent of his knowledge. The first of these he
called The Preparation, the other The Demonstration of the Gospel. In the first
he, with great erudition, confutes idolatry, in fifteen books, showing that the
Greeks borrowed the sciences and many of their gods from the Egyptians, whose
true history agrees with that of Moses; but the fictions of their theology are
monstrous, impious, and condemned by their own learned men; that their oracles,
which were only a chain of impostures and frauds, or the responses of devils,
never attained to any infallible knowledge of contingencies, and were silenced
by a power which they acknowledged superior. He also shows the Unity of God,
and the truth of his revealed religion as ancient as the world. In his
Demonstration of the Gospel, in ten books, he shows that the Jewish law in
every point clearly points out Christ and the gospel. These books of
Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration furnish more proofs, testimonies, and
arguments for the truth of the Christian religion than any other work of the
ancients on that subject.
Eusebius’s two books against Marcellus of Ancyra, and three On
Ecclesiastical Theology are a confutation of Sabellianism. His topography or
alphabetical explication of the places mentioned in the Old Testament, is most
exact and useful. It was translated into Latin, and augmented by St. Jerom.
Eusebius’s useful Comments on the Psalms were published by Montfaucon.
(Collect. Nova Script. Græc. Paris, 1706.) His fourteen Discourses or Opuscula,
published by F. Sirmond, (Op. Sirmond, t. 1,) are esteemed genuine, though not
mentioned by the ancients. His discourse on the Dedication of the Church at
Tyre, rebuilt after the persecution, in 315, contains a curious description of
that ceremony and of the structure. By his letter to his Church of Cæsarea,
after the conclusion of the council of Nice, he recommended to his flock the
definitions and creed of that assembly. His panegyric of Constantine was
delivered at Constantinople in presence of that prince, who then celebrated the
thirtieth year of his reign by public games. The praises are chiefly drawn from
the destruction of idolatry; but study reigns in this composition more than
nature, and renders the discourse tedious, though the author took some pains to
polish the style. His four books of the Life of Constantine were written in
338, the year after that emperor’s death. The style is diffusive, and the more
disagreeable by being more laboured. Photius reproaches the author for
dissembling or suppressing the chief circumstances relating to Arius, and his
condemnation in the council of Nice.
The Chronicle of Eusebius was a work of immense labour, in two
parts; the first called his Chronology, contained the distinct successions of
the kings and rulers of the principal nations from the beginning of the world;
the second part, called the Chronicle or the Rule of Times, may be called a
table of the first, and unites all the particular chronologies of different
nations in one. This second part was translated into Latin, and augmented by
St. Jerom. The first part was lost when Joseph Scaliger gathered the scattered
fragments from George Syncellus, Cedrenus, and the Alexandrian Chronicle; but
Scaliger ought to have pointed out his sources; and has inserted many things
which certainly belong not to Eusebius.
Our author’s name has been rendered most famous by his ten books of
Church History, which he brings down to the defeat of Licinius, in 323, when he
first wrote it, though he revised it again in 326. He collected the Acts of the
Martyrs of Palestine, an abstract of which he added to the eighth book of his
History. Rufinus elegantly translated this work into Latin, reduced to nine
books, to which he added two others, wherein he brings down his history to the
death of Theodosius. Eusebius copied very much Julius Africanus in his
Chronicle; and in his History, St. Hegesippos (who had compiled a History from
Christ to 170) and others. This invaluable work is not exempt from some
mistakes and capital omissions; nor was the author much acquainted with the
affairs of the Western Church. (See Ceillier, t. 4, p. 258,) &c.
Christophorson, bishop of Chichester, elegantly translated this History into
Latin, but changed the manner of dividing the chapters. The translation of the
learned Henry Velesius is most accurate. Eusebius was one of the most learned
prelates of antiquity, and a man of universal reading; but he did not much
study to polish his discourses, which is the common fault of those who make
learning and knowledge their chief business. [back]
Note 7. See
Tillemont, Ceillier, Cave, Hist. Littér. p. 187, t. 1, and Solier, the
Bollandist. Hist. Patr. Ant. c. 24, p.
36. [back]
Note
8. Theodoret,
l. 1, c. 20. Theodorus Lector, l. 2, c. 1, p. 547. Theophanes, p. 114. See Tillem.
note 4, p. 653. [back]
Note 9. St. Jerom (ep.
126, p. 38,) calls St. Eustathius a loud sounding trumpet, and says he was the
first who employed his pen against the Arians. The same father admires the
extent of his knowledge, saying that it was consummate both in sacred and
profane learning, (ep. 84, p. 327.) His just praises are set forth by St.
Chrysostom in an entire panegyric; and Sozomen assures us (l. 1, c. 2,) that he
was universally admired both for the sanctity of his life, and the eloquence of
his discourses. The elegant works which he composed against the Arians were
famous in the fifth century, but have not reached us. But we have still his Treatise
on the Pythonissa or Witch of Endor, published by Leo Allatius, with a curious
Dissertation, and reprinted in the eighth tome of the Critici Sacri. In it the
author undertakes to prove against Origen that this witch neither did nor could
call up the soul of Samuel, but only a spectre or devil representing Samuel, in
order to deceive Saul. He clearly teaches that before the coming of Christ the
souls of the just rested in Abraham’s bosom; and that none could enter heaven
before Christ had opened it; but that Christians enjoy an advantage above the
patriarchs and prophets, in being united with Christ immediately after their
death if they have lived well. This treatise is well written, and justifies the
commendations which the ancients give to this great prelate and eloquent
orator. Sozomen justly calls his writings admirable, as well for the purity of
his style as for the sublimity of thought, the beauty of the expression, or the
curious choice of the matter. Nothing more enhances his virtue, than the invincible
constancy and patience with which he suffered the most reproachful accusation
with which his enemies charged him, and the unjust deposition and banishment
which were inflicted on him. [back]
Rev. Alban
Butler (1711–73). Volume VII: July. The Lives of the Saints. 1866.
Sant’ Eustazio di Antiochia Vescovo
† Traianopoli, Tracia, 338 circa
Sant’Eustazio, vescovo di Antiochia
al tempo dell’imperatore ariano Costanzo, per la sua presa di posizione in
difesa della fede cattolica fu esiliato a Traianopoli, in Tracia, dove morì nel
338 circa.
Etimologia: Eustazio = che sta
bene, dal latino Eustathius, tratto dal greco Eystàtios
Martirologio Romano: Commemorazione
di sant’Eustazio, vescovo di Antiochia, che, illustre per dottrina, sotto
l’imperatore ariano Costanzo fu mandato in esilio a Tuzla in Tracia per aver difeso
la fede cattolica e qui riposò nel Signore.
Oriundo di Sida in Panfilia, Eustazio fu un uomo eloquente, erudito e virtuoso, secondo quanto ci è stato tramandato. Designato vescovo della città siriana di Berea, meritò intorno al 324 di essere elevato alla sede di Antiochia, che allora deteneva ancora il terzo posto per importanza nella gerarchia della Chiesa universale, dopo Roma ed Alessandria. L’anno seguente fu accolto con tutti gli onori al concilio di Nicea, ove si distinse per la sua totale opposizione all’arianesimo. Quale capo della Chiesa di Antiochia, aveva anche giurisdizione sulle diocesi circostanti, nelle quali insediò vescovi degni d’istruire e guidare il proprio gregge.
La sua netta opposizione all’arianesimo lo portò ad uno scontro frontale con Eusebio, vescovo di Cesarea, celebre “padre della storia della Chiesa”, che per ripicca non lo nominò mai nella sua preziosa opera. Eustazio lo aveva infatti accusato di alterare il senso del credo niceno, scatenando così una feroce lotta tra i vescovi ortodossi e quelli che ancora parteggiavano per la dottrina ariana.
Eusebio, assiduo frequentatore della corte imperiale, riuscì nel 330 a persuadere Costantino a deporre Eustazio, ma quando l’anno seguente gli fu offerta proprio tale sede episcopale, preferì rifiutare. Il legittimo vescovo fu comunque esiliato a Traianopoli in Tracia, ma prima di lasciare la sua cattedra, parlò al suo gregge con una forza tale che parecchi decisero di dare vita ad una fazione e suo sostegno, tenacemente opposta ai vescovi ariani. Eustazio morì infine in esilio verso l’anno 338.
Scrisse parecchie opere, purtroppo andate tutte perdute. La più importante di esse era il trattato “Adversus Arianos” in otto volumi. A parte rari framment, l’unico brano pervenutoci appartiene al trattato antiorigenista “De engastrimutho”, noto come “La pitonessa di Endor contro Origene” o “Il Ventriloquo contro Origene”. Pare che la sua teologia fosse la medesima della scuola di Antiochia, con un approccio alla Scrittura decisamente più storico e critico rispetto a quello di Alessandria. Ciò lo portò anche ad essere talvolta sospettato di nestorianesimo e sabellianismo. Secondo la prima teoria in Cristo sussisterebbero due persone separate, mentre la seconda vuole Dio assolutamente uno e perciò i nomi “Padre” “Figlio” e “Spirito Santo” indicherebbero in Dio solo differenti modi ed azioni, ma non persone distinte.
Autore: Fabio Arduino
