The Syrian (Syriac) Orthodox Church was the original denomination of the Ghassanids until the 7th Century. With the fall of the first Ghassanid State in Syria and Jordan, many Ghassanids fled to today’s Lebanon and also to the Byzantine empire (today’s Turkey). The Royal family ended up adhering to the mainstream Orthodox denomination living in the Byzantine Empire. In the 9th century, the second Ghassanid ruling happened with emperor Nikephoros I in 802 CE. In Mount Lebanon, the family kept the Syriac Orthodox roots. However, the monks of Mar Maroun (Saint Maroun) monastery decided in the 7th century to create a new Patriarchate and that was how the Ghassanids became Maronite. Because of the obedience of the Maronites to the Pope in Rome and the absence of a Maronite church in Curitiba (Brazil) where Prince Gharios’ family was settled in exile, he ended up becoming Roman Catholic.
As part of a very successful trip to Istanbul, HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor and his delegation have visited the Syriac Orthodox Metropolitan and Patriarchal Vicar for Istanbul and Ankara His Excellency Mor Filiksinos Yusuf Çetin. In the end of the audience, Prince Gharios was Blessed by the Metropolitan in his mission protecting the Christians in the Middle East.
As part of a very successful trip to Turkey, HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII had an audience with Prof.Dr. Rahmi Yaran the Grand Mufti of Istanbul . The Mufti has under him 3,100 mosques in Istanbul, one of the most populous cities in Europe with over 14 million people. The highest Muslim authority in the country being only under the Ministry of Religious Affairs.
The Prince Gharios’ delegation had the scholar and protestant bishop from Germany Prof. Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher, PhD, Mr. Martin Warnecke also from Germany and Pastor Dr. Behnan Konutgan from Turkey. The Mufti joined Prince Gharios’ alliance for peace condemning the terror and any kind of violence against other religions. He also received the rank of Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Michael Archangel.
HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII was invited to participate in the 21st International Gathering under the patronage of the German Parliament in Berlin, Germany. The event happened from 9th until the 11th of June 2016. In addition to the President, Vice-President of the Parliament and several members, the event had dignitaries from 49 countries, including the Presidents of the Republic of Togo and the Equatorial Guinea.
Unfortunately, the historical cover up is seen in many forms written by the historians that consciously or unconsciously emanate prejudice on ink.
Using the Ghassanids as an example, instead of portraying them as the very evolved, tolerant and educated society that they were, bearing a royal tradition from biblical times, brought to Ghassan (present Syria) from Sheba, in Yemen; authors rather use the term “tribe” in a pejorative fashion. According to serious dictionaries, “tribe” means a group of people that has the same language, beliefs, customs and interests. However, those historians use the term “tribe” in a sense of indigenous, primitive and insignificant.
“Despite their physical isolation, the southern Arabs were as technically and socially advanced as any other people in the Ancient World.”
– Sitwell, p82.
They use the term “client” or “vassal” state, again to denote a lack of sovereignty that didn’t exist according to the original historical accounts, even the most bias against Ghassan like historian Procopius.
The Ghassanids respected the emperor and performed a service, for which they were paid with the called “salaria” or salary, to protect the northern Arabian Peninsula, including the Holy land, from the attack of the barbarians and nomads.
Instead of calling the Ghassanid kings as such, even though there are hard evidence corroborating with such assertion – they were known as “Malik” or “King” in Arab since their first appearance in today’s Syria in the 3rd century AD. The kings’ sons and daughters were called “Amir” (prince) and “Amira” (princess) and the local leaders were called “sheiks”. The prejudiced historians, preferred to call the kings as “Phylarchs”, a Byzantine sovereign title, which was additional and not a substitute to the kings of Ghassan. And even after 529 AD when the Byzantine emperor Justinian I bestowed upon the already Ghassanid King Al-Harith (Arethas) the Imperial title (Basileia) of “King of All Arabs” and also what’s known as the “Archyphylarchia” or the supreme sovereignty over all the princes and sheiks of the peninsula, the historians prefer to treat the mighty Kings – which according to several authors used to meet with the Byzantine emperors on equal grounds, as “comrades in arms”- as mere chieftains, tribal primitive rulers. So, the Byzantine emperor Justin II named his only daughter as “Arabia” just to please the “mere” primitive illiterate chieftain? It’s not likely. The most powerful man on earth at the time wouldn’t have to please a simple tribesman.
Many historians “burble in anxiety” to determine the end of Ghassan after the Islamic conquest, ignoring the well-known fact that many rulers – even Islamic – like the Rasulid sultans and the Burj Mameluks – in a counterproductive statement to a Muslim – claimed to be Ghassanid royal heirs 800 years after the fall of the first kingdom.
So, the history told by those pseudo-historians makes no sense and the light of the truth has to inundate the dry mind of ignorance of those irresponsible authors. Either by intention or negligence, someone has to silence their deceitful voice.
Pope Francis has met the grand imam of Al-Azhar at the Vatican in a historic encounter that was sealed with a hugely symbolic hug and exchange of kisses.
The first Vatican meeting on Monday between the leader of the world’s Catholics and the highest authority in Sunni Islam marks the culmination of a significant improvement in relations between the two faiths since Francis took office in 2013.
We strongly believe that the only way to achieve peace in the world, save the Christians in the Middle East and stop radicalism is with an alliance between the Muslims and Christians. Learn more about our initiative: http://www.alliance4peace.org/
The 1948’s book “Al-Sheikh Al-Chemor Al-Hakam Al-Akoura (1211-1633) Al-Hakam Zawie (1641-1747)” in English “The Sheikhs Chemor rulers of Akoura (1211-1633 CE) and rulers of Zawie (1641-1747 CE)” Beirut, Lebanon, 1948, by the famous Lebanese historian Ignatious Tannos Khoury
Please, click HERE for a partial English translation of the book
Please, click HERE for Sworn Legal Statement from the world’s leading Expert in Middle Eastern Royal Succession recognizing the Royal Rights of the El Chemor/Gharios Family
VERY IMPORTANT NOTES:
The Ghassanid titles are “Malik”, the Arabic equivalent of “King”, “Amir” the Arabic equivalent of “Prince” and “Sheikh”. In the specific case of the El Chemor family – the lawful heir of the Ghassanid Royal titles – the title “Sheikh” it’s related to a sovereign ruler (Al-Akoura and Zghartha-Zawyie from the 13th until the 18th century) hence, it’s also the equivalent of “Prince”. See the examples of Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, etc. where all the princes belonging to the ruling family are “sheikhs”. There are other kind of lesser “sheikhs” even in Lebanon. Those were either elevated by ruling princes or were mere tax collectors of the Ottoman empire. The aforementioned don’t apply to the El Chemor princes since it’s documented that they were ruling independently since 1211, almost 80 years before the Ottoman empire was even founded and over 300 years before the first emirate was created with prince Fakhr al-Din I (1516–1544) .
The titles of the El Chemor family were recognized by the Ottoman empire until its end (1924 CE) and also by the Lebanese republic until the present date. The family’s history was kept and validated for centuries by the Maronite Church under the Holy See (Vatican) and the authority of the Pope.
Please CLICK HERE for an official 2014’s article (in Arabic) from the Lebanese Government New’s Agency (Lebanese Republic – Ministry of Information) recognizing the titles and validating the book written in 1947 about the family’s history.
The Ghassanid Imperial address is object of interest of the historians, jurists and also people curious about the etymology of dynastic titles
Although not very commented and notorious, the historical information and evidence are very abundant confirming that initially the Ghassanid rulers, even though already Kings by their own right, have received the title of “Basileus” which back in the 6th century CE was the official title of the emperor himself.
About the “Basileus” title:
“Basileus and Megas Basileus were exclusively used by Alexander the Great and his Hellenistic successors in Ptolemaic Egypt, Asia (e.g. the Seleucid Empire, the Kingdom of Pergamon and by non-Greek, but Greek-influenced states like the Kingdom of Pontus) and Macedon. The feminine counterpart is basilissa (queen), meaning both a queen regnant (such as Cleopatra VII of Egypt) and a queen consort. It is precisely at this time that the term basileus acquired a fully royal connotation, in stark contrast with the much less sophisticated earlier perceptions of kingship within Greece.”Chrysos, Evangelos K. (1978), “The Title ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ in Early Byzantine International Relations”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers (Dumbarton Oaks) 32: 66–67, JSTOR 1291418
“By the 4th century however, basileus was applied in official usage exclusively to the two rulers considered equals to the Roman Emperor: the Sassanid Persian Shahan shah (“king of kings”), and to a far lesser degree the King of Axum, whose importance was rather peripheral in the Byzantine worldview.”Chrysos, Evangelos K. (1978), “The Title ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ in Early Byzantine International Relations”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers (Dumbarton Oaks) 32: 35, 42, JSTOR 1291418
“… the title acquired the connotation of “emperor“, and when barbarian kingdoms emerged on the ruins of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, their rulers were referred to in Greek not as basileus but as rēx or rēgas, the hellenized forms of the Latin title rex, king.”Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. (1991), Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, p. 264, ISBN 978-0-19-504652-6
“Until the 9th century, the Byzantines reserved the term Basileus among Christian rulers exclusively for their own emperor in Constantinople.”Chrysos, Evangelos K. (1978), “The Title ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ in Early Byzantine International Relations”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers (Dumbarton Oaks) 32: 52–57, JSTOR 1291418
Unfortunately, there’s some confusion regarding the early Ghassanid titles. Many authors, for lack of information and interest in study the Ghassanid history in depth, have confused and mixed the numerous Ghassanid titles altogether: “Al-Malik Al-Ghassassinah” (from the Arab “King of the Ghassanids”), “Basileus Araves” (from the Greek “Emperor of all Arabs”), Phylarch, Archphylarch, etc.
Some authors even try to use the term “Chieftain” in the pejorative way. The most common mistake is to call the Ghassanid Kings merely as “Phylarchs”.
“A phylarch (Greek: φύλαρχος, Latin: phylarchus) is a Greek title meaning “ruler of a tribe”, from phyle, “tribe” + archein “to rule”. In Classical Athens, a phylarch was the elected commander of the cavalry provided by each of the city’s ten tribes. In the later Roman Empire of the 4th to 7th centuries, the title was given to the leading princes of the Empire’s Arab allies in the East (essentially the equivalent to “sheikh”), both those settled within the Empire and outside. From ca. 530 to ca. 585, the individual phylarchs were subordinated to a supreme phylarch from the Ghassanid dynasty.”Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. (1991). Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Oxford University Press. p. 1672. ISBN 978-0-19-504652-6
Here is also important to make a reference regarding the title “Sheikh”.
Sheikh also transliterated Sheik, Shaik, Shayk, Shaykh, Shaikh, Cheikh, and Shekh— is a noble and honorific title in the Arabic culture. Commonly designates a hereditary ruler of a tribe or people. The title is given to a royal male at birth, whereas the related title “Sheikha” is given to a royal female at birth. The title “Sheikh” also has a religious connotation being given to prominent Islamic leaders or clerics, which is not our focus here. The word literally means “a man of great power and nobility”, and it is used strictly for the royal families of the middle east. The title means: leader, elder, or noble. However, there are many degrees of “Sheikh”. It goes from a non-sovereign, non-dynastic Ottoman tax collector or a leader of small Bedouin tribe to the prince of a nation, like the UAE, Bahrain, etc. Hence, a Sheikh from a sovereign or semi-sovereign ruling family is the equivalent of a prince.
Here’s also important to mention the principle of sovereign equivalency. Although there are differences in Royal rank (with merely honorific meaning), the Prince of Monaco is as sovereign as the Emperor of Japan or the Queen of the United Kingdom.
But “Sheikh” was not the title given to the Ghassanid Kings. According to Professor Irfan Shahid:
“The title awarded to the Ghassanid Ruler or Chief by his own people was neither Patricius nor Phylarch but king (Malik). The title, established beyond doubt by Procopius is confirmed by the contemporary poetry of Hassan and of later poets who continued this authentic tradition.”Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century, Volume 2 part 2 pg.164
“The dignity of king in Procopius had been sharply differentiated from the “Supreme Phylarchate” (archyphilarchia), with which Arethas was endowed …” Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, vol. 1, 1995, p. 103
“The dignity of king was not new to the Ghassanids; they had brought it with them from the Arabian Peninsula where its assumption by a Ghassanid ruler is attested in a Sabaic inscription. When the Ghassanids appeared on the stage of Byzantine history, their chiefs, such as Tha’laba and Harith had already been kings to their subjects.”Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century, Volume 1, p.104
In 528 CE, emperor Justinian I bestowed upon King Al-Harith VI (Arethas in Greek sources) the aforementioned title of “Basileus” which, as cited, signified at that period the same as emperor.
“The old Basileia (kingship) was confirmed by the byzantine emperor; the new one was bestowed by him…”Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century, Volume 1, p.104
“In the case of the Ghassanids it was a confirmation and an extension of the royal tradition that the Ghassanids had had and which they had brought with them from south Arabia.”(Ibid p.111)
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an empire is:
“a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially: one having an emperor as chief of state”
The “Basileus Araves” or “the Emperor of the Arabs”ruled over many tribes in addition to the Ghassanid people.
“These were included in the phrase in Procopius that spoke of the elevation of Arethas to the Archyphilarchia and the Basileia: ‘as many tribes as possible placed under his command’.”Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, vol. 2, part 1, 1995, p. 51
Traditionally, each tribe was sovereign or semi-sovereign, having its own autonomous ruler. By simple logic that would make the bestowed “Basileia” an imperial title to all of the Arabs allied to the Byzantine empire.
“And though the Ghassanid King was the head of what we would today call a client state, he and the [byzantine] emperor met on equal footing – as comrades in arms – discussing matters of earthshaking and less-than-earthshaking importance.”Gene Gurney, “Kingdoms of Asia, the Middle east and Africa”, 1986, p.70
Here, the Ghassanid vassalage also has to be explained.
“Feudal Vassalage. So, also, tributary states, and those subject to a kind of feudal dependence or vassalage, are still considered as sovereign, unless their sovereignty is destroyed by their relation to other states. Tribute… does not necessarily affect sovereignty …, nor does the acknowledgement of a nominal vassalage or feudal dependency.”Henry Wager Halleck, Elements of international law and laws of war p.44
” . . . the mere fact of dependence or feudal vassalage and payment of tribute, or of occasional obedience, or of habitual influence, does not destroy, although it may greatly impair, the sovereignty of the state so situated.”(Ibid. p. 188)
According to one of the Forefathers of International Law, Emmerich de Vattel in his book, “Law of Nations”:
BOOK I – CHAP. I.
OF NATIONS OR SOVEREIGN STATES
5. States bound by unequal alliance. We ought, therefore, to account as sovereign states those which have united themselves to another more powerful, by an unequal alliance, in which, as Aristotle says, to the more powerful is given more honour, and to the weaker, more assistance. The conditions of those unequal alliances may be infinitely varied, but whatever they are, provided the inferior ally reserve to itself the sovereignty, or the right of governing its own body, it ought to be considered as an independent state, that keeps up an intercourse with others under the authority of the law of nations.
6. Or by treaties of protection. Consequently, a weak state, which, in order to provide for its safety, places itself under the protection of a more powerful one, and engages, in return, to perform several offices equivalent to that protection, without however divesting itself of the right of government and sovereignty, – that state, i say, does not, on this account, cease to rank among the sovereigns who acknowledge no other law than that of nations.
. . .
8. Of feudatory states. The Germanic nations introduced another custom – that of requiring homage from a state either vanquished, or too weak to make resistance. Sometimes even, a prince has given sovereignties in fee, and sovereigns have voluntarily rendered themselves feudatories to others. When the homage leaves independency and sovereign authority in the administration of the state, and only means certain duties to the lord of the fee, or even a mere honorary acknowledgment, it does not prevent the state or the feudatory prince being strictly sovereign. the king of Naples pays homage for his kingdom to the pope, and is nevertheless reckoned among the principal sovereigns of Europe…”
The Ghassanid vassalage was limited to honorific homage and military alliance. Not even financial tribute or taxes were paid to Constantinople, on the contrary, a “salaria” or salary was paid to the Ghassanid kings so they could pay the Arab armies. Therefore, no harm to the Ghassanid sovereignty.
Such imperial bestowal to the Ghassanid King was so colossal and magnanimous that was criticized by Greek historian Procopius, a harsh critic of Arabs and especially the Ghassanid kings:
” . . . the Basileia (kingship) conferred by Justinian on Arethas takes a new meaning, one which Procopius’ comment that is something that ‘among the Romans (both western and eastern – byzantine) had never been done before‘…”(Ibid)
The imperial bestowal was very well documented being corroborated by hard evidence as the Usays inscription.
“The (Usays) inscription is considered to be the most important Arabic inscription of the sixth century, the second most important of all the pre-Islamic Arab inscriptions as a historical document.”Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, vol. 1, 1995, p. 117
“But the strongest evidence [of the imperial bestowal] is supplied by contemporary epigraphy — the Usays Inscription carved by one of [King] Arethas commanders, Ibn Al-Mughira, who refers to him around A.D. 530 as Al-Malik, the King. There is also no doubt that the Ghassanid Arethas was dressed as a King on important occasions in Ghassanland, since the poet laureate of later times underscores his own eminent position among his Ghassanid patrons by nothing that he used to sit not far from their crowned head.”Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century, Volume 2 part 2 pg.164
“Contemporary documents reflect the contrast between the two Basileiai (kingships). In Simeon, Jabala is termed as ‘King of The Ghassanids’, in Usays inscription Arethas is called simply ‘The King’, possibly indicating the extension of the Basileia (kingship) over non-Ghassanids including the person who sets up the inscription.”(Ibid)
Also important to mention that the title of “Emperor of the Arabs” – wrongly called “king of the Arabs” by some authors – was subsequently confirmed by at least two other byzantine emperors. King Al-Mundhir ibn Al-Harith in 580 CE by Emperor Tiberius II Constantine (Justinian Dynasty /ruled 578-582 CE); and King Jabla ibn Al-Ayham by Emperor Heraclius (Heraclian Dynasty / ruled 610-641 CE). (See John A. Shoup, Culture and Customs of Jordan, pg. xvii)
It’s known by academia that the Ghassanid Dynasty ruled many realms in direct male line after the fall of the first State until 1747 CE. (See Ignatious Tannos Khoury, The Sheikhs Chemor rulers of Akoura (1211-1633 CE) and rulers of Zawie (1641-1747 CE)” Beirut, Lebanon, 1948)
“After the disappearance of the Ghassanid state, isolated Ghassanian Princes continued to reign in some oases and castles, along with Salihids and some other phylae.”Bowesock/Brown/Grabar “Late Antiquity” –, Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 469
Certainly, the most noteworthy of those reigns was the Byzatine Empire in the 9th Century CE.
“Although little is known of Jabala’s activities after his emigration to Anatolia, his place in the history of the Ghassanids in the Middle Byzantine period is important, since it was he who established a strong Ghassanid presence in Byzantine Anatolia, one which lasted for many centuries. The climax of this presence was the elevation of one of his descendants to the purple and his establishment of a short-lived dynasty which might be described as the House of Nicephorus.” “Ghassan post Ghassan” by Prof. Irfan Shahid, Festschrift “The Islamic World – From classical to modern times”, for Bernard Lewis, Darwin Press l989, pg. 325
“Nicephorus (A.D. 802-11) was a descendant of the Ghassanid [King] Jabala.” (Ibid.)
This assertion was even stronger not merely citing the King Jabala as ancestor, but the eponym of the Royal Ghassanid Dynasty using the name of King Jafna, the founder of the Ghassanid Kingdom. Therefore, we can conclude that Emperor Nicephorus (or Nikephoros) was not only citing his ascendancy but by using the term “Jafna” he was claiming to be the head of the Ghassanid Dynasty.
“…This valuable information comes from Tabari; see Tarik (Cairo, 1966), VIII, 307, when he speaks of [King] Jafna, the eponym of the Ghassanids, rather than [King] Jabala.” (Ibid. pg.334)
For all of the aforementioned, the Ghassanid Dynasty has the imperial dignity not only once, but three times. First, in 528 CE receiving it from the highest emperor of those times, the Byzantine; second by being elevated to that very throne in 802 CE and third by being recognized as “Ceasars” (emperors) and Masters of Rhodes in 1203 CE.
Important to mention that the legal existence of those titles today is not due to an ancient link to a monarchy that ended fourteen centuries ago but through the a Princely Family (El-Chemor) that reigned until the 18th century in Zgharta-Zawie (currently Lebanon) and was recognized as the lawful heir of those Ghassanid titles by the Ottoman empire until its end in 1924 and is also recognized by the Lebanese republic until today. Please, click on the link to an official 2014’s article (in Arabic) from the Lebanese Government News’ Agency (Lebanese Republic – Ministry of Information) mentioning the titles and validating the book written in 1947 about the family’s history. http://nna-leb.gov.lb/ar/show-report/371/
While the world discusses about the intentions and anti-Isis projects, on small numbers of military forces to be sent to halt the advance of terrorists, on barriers to be placed as a thin brake for the peaceful entry of real or imagined migrant in Western Europe, a sad reality recurs and looms over the Middle East: Christians continue to be persecuted and murdered on a daily basis.
And so often, by fellow or friends of those want to uphold human rights in Gaza and impose sharia. I have nothing against the Palestinians, nothing against the Kurds, Iranians and Muslims. In fact, my long studies of history and anthropology have always led me to study and a great deal considering the civilizations of the Middle East or African populations whose history has put them in friction conditions if not continuous hostilities with other realities very next to their development centers. But these are problems concern the history and political science, with all the prospects a scholar can help to investigate and explore. I know too well the Christian religion is a Few since its inception has been persecuted. Jesus himself warned his disciples: “Rejoice when you are persecuted because of Me” by drawing several times what would be the essential lines in the history of Christianity.
It was not a persecutor of the St. Paul himself then struck on the road to Damascus? and how indifferent, how many jailers,since the days of the Roman Empire up to the Vietnamese prisons of the twentieth century, have been converted by the light emanated from love, patience and hope of those the blind would have looked like polosers condemned to rot for years?
However, I must remember the basis of persecution, as the basis for all the massacres perpetrated in the world at all latitudes, there is a rejection of life, a hatred for the individual man and mankind in a broader perspective. It’s no use trying to fool us. The hatred of which we speak is often generated and fed without cause, not only for economic or racial reasons of which we speak; but also for pleasure, for the satisfaction of hurting the man who is not like us or do not think like us. For the sick joy of inflicting the next mortal pangs in their own eyes, as did Calvin in Geneva, the Protestant capital of his time, when he wanted to personally attend to the numerous executions which were carried by its courts.
How surprising about this?
Jesus himself called the Devil “the murderer” and “the enemy of mankind.” The envy of the man who was one of the most beautiful of the angels was born since the beginning of time, ever since his heavenly and disembodied intelligence had the knowledge the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, has a body glorious and so human. Like being second to a man-God?
While for men the proof of his loyalty to God would have been constituted by the refusal to obey and not to eat the forbidden fruit, so for the angels proof was established by the acceptance of this supernatural reality. From knowing God had a mother, and that would be born men as priests who would have brought down the second Person on earth every day in the future earthly world. Michael and his fellows, devotees to their Creator proclaim their “amen” and went up to Heaven. Lucifer shouted his “non serviam” (I will not serve), and was instantly plunged into the deep abyss of which St. Paul speaks. Snatch man to God is the devil’s goal. Rip the soul but also to eradicate them from the earthly life; for the Lord is a lover of life, and therefore does not rejoice at the death of the living. Wars and persecutions, disasters and misunderstandings are the visible events of a struggle has physically started in heaven and continues on earth, having as object of conquest men and States.
About horrible massacres carried out by the pagan emperors, of which he himself was a witness, Eusebius of Cesarea says, “when the whole human race was plunged into a dark night and a dense darkness for the deception of demons and nefarious action of enemy spirits of God, with Jesus’ coming disbanded once and for all the chain of our wickedness.
But on one such grace and such a benefit the envy of the devil who hates the good and love evil is almost exploded and has moved against us its deadly forces (…) and excited secretly against us all kinds the beast in human form “(cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, X, 4, 13-14).
It’s a fact brings us back through the millennia to the great massacres of history and chronicle. Protestant persecution physically liquidated all those refused to accept the creed of Luther, and caused the depopulation of entire Nations such as Norway and Iceland. The years of the English and French revolution who starved Europe and led to the martyrdom and war million victims in the name of civilization, of enlightenment. The invasion of the Americas with the massacres of American Indians and Redskins. And before that, human sacrifices with which the Aztecs and Maya pre-Columbian bloodied their temples, sacrificing thousands of innocent people every year in honor of their gods fatal. L ‘ “useless slaughter” represented by the First World War “.
The colonialism that was imposed in Africa and Asia, a new economic and political orders distorting the traditions of those populations. The Russian revolution which stretched its tentacles on the world to impose a new order in which there would be no place for God. The nazi and fascist regimes with their remodeling of human dignity, and the death camps, authentic temples of the devil and his unclean priests, clothed in the vestments of the uniforms of the SS squads, and to celebrate their satanic death rites. The Pol Pot fields where huge masses of people had begun to die and make room for a company that had no memory of the past. And ‘terrible to think how many massacres have been committed in the name of God, in the name of the alleged intellectual superiority, in the name of the greatness of a race or the triumph of a religion. Forgetting, especially on the part of too many Christians, Jesus’ warning that recalls how the smaller will be the first in the Kingdom of Heaven.
The persecution and an increasing number of Christians are part of this plot that insistently wants blood. While Jesus dies on the cross, shedding their blood and shouting his thirst for souls, the devil nailed on endless crosses so many human beings because of their blood thirsty. And the blood of these Hosts killed out of hatred for God and for life, is especially welcome if they are innocent baptized Christians who are blood relatives of Jesus for having received Communion or Jews in whose veins flows the same blood of Christ .
Think of as still in the Middle Ages knew well the families who were descended from King David, made up of people who had the same ancestor as the founder of Jesus. Kin of Our Lady, St. Joseph, St. Anne and S. Gioacchino, St. John Baptist, the Apostles. The fierce tyrants have sought them in the ghettos and in the houses, they wrote their sentencing boards, posters racist and racist laws to have the taste to become like King Herod who wants to identify, among the infants children of Israel, divine child.
It’s time to think of our Martyrs, from Nigeria to Egypt to Iraq, and that the false gods generalist leave space to our Christian brothers who are killed out of hatred for Christ.
The opinions expressed by the Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of the Royal Herald or any employee thereof. The Royal Herald is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the Blog’s collaborators.