Libri Carolini - All A Misunderstanding

All A Misunderstanding

The work was refuting a bad copy of a very incompetent translation of the Byzantine decrees. In particular it seems clear that at least one negative was omitted, reversing the sense of the Greek, and that the Greek word proskynesis was mistranslated as "adoration", for which the Greek word is latria, which the Council had stated, in the invariable position shared by Catholics and Orthodox, was due only to the persons of the Trinity.

(1728 Cyclopedia) It seems that the authors of these books had never read the acts nor decrees of the Second Council of Nicaea, or only in a very poor translation. Further, they seemed ignorant of what took place at the Second Council of Constantinople in 754. As an example, in Book IV., Chapter xiv., and also in Chapter xx., (Migne's ed., col. 1213 and col. 1226), the charge is made that the Second Council of Nicaea, specifically Gregory, the bishop of Neocaesarea, unduly flattered the Empress. However, these remarks were made at the Conciliabulum of 754, and not at the Second Council of Nicaea; also, they were not made by Gregory of Neocaesarea at all, and the reason they are attributed to him is because he read them in the proceedings of that pseudo-council to the true council of 787.

The most famous example of incongruity in these books occurs in Book III., Chapter xvii., in which it is attributed to Constantius, the bishop of Cyprus, the statement that the sacred images were to be given supreme adoration due to the Holy Trinity. Sir William Palmer, and most modern scholars, attribute all of these mistakes to the books' authors using a mistranslated version of the acts and decrees of the Second Council of Nicaea. Of this translation, Anastasius Bibliothetius says, "The translator both misunderstood the genius of the Greek language as well as that of the Latin, and has merely translated word for word; and in such a fashion that it is scarcely ever possible to know (aut vix aut nunquam) what it means; moreover nobody ever reads this translation and no copies of it are made."

Following are select false statements made in the text:

• In the Preface, it states that the Conciliabulum was "held in Bithynia;" however, they were held in Constantinople.

• In Book I, chapter i. are quoted certain words said to occur in the letters of the Empress and her son. On this Hefele remarks: "One cannot find the words in either of the two letters of these sovereigns, which are preserved in the acts of the Council of Nicaea."

• In the Second Book, chapter xxvii., the council is charged with saying, "Just as the Lord's body and blood pass over from fruits of the earth to a notable mystery, so also the images, made by the skill of the artificers, pass over to the veneration of those persons whose images they bear." Now this was never said nor taught by the Nicene Synod, but something like it was taught by the Constantinopolitan conciliabulum of 754. These exact words cited occur neither in the one set of acts nor in the other. The underlying thought, however, was clearly exposed by the iconoclastic synod of 754 and as clearly refuted by the orthodox synod of 787.

• In Book III, chapter v., it states that, "Tarasius said in his confession of faith that the Holy Spirit was the companion (contribulum in the Libri Carolini) of the Father and of the Son." It was not Tarasius who said this, but Theodore of Jerusalem.

• Chapter XVII. begins thus: "How rashly and (so to speak) like a fool, Constantine, bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, spoke when he said, with the approval of the rest of the bishops, that he would receive and honourably embrace the images; and babbled that the service of adoration which is due to the consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, should be given images, we need not here discuss, since to all who either read or hear this it will be clear that he was swamped in no small error, to wit to confess that he exhibited to creatures the service due to the Creator alone, and through his desire to favour the pictures overturned all the Holy Scriptures. For what sane man ever either said or thought of saying such an absurdity, as that different pictures should be held in the same honour as the holy, victorious Trinity. the creator of all things, etc." But according to the acts, this is exactly the opposite of what Constantine did say.