An article from St. Alphonus Liguori's "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation" < Heresies Tool The Heresy of Arius, Who Denied the Divinity of the Word; A Proof of that Divinity in Scripture 1. The Dogma of the Catholic Church is, that the Divine Word, that is, the Person of the Son of God, is, by his nature, God, as the Father is God, and in all things is equal to the Father, is perfect and eternal, like the Father, and is consubstantial with the Father. Arius, on the contrary, blasphemously asserted that the "Word was neither God, not eternal, nor consubstantial, nor like unto the Father; but a mere creature, created in time, but of higher excellence than all other creatures; so that even by him, as by an instrument, God created all other things. Several of the followers of Arius softened down his doctrine; some said that the Word was like the Father, others that he was created from eternity, but none of them would ever admit that he was consubstantial with the Father. When we prove the Catholic doctrine, however, expressed in the proposition at the beginning of this chapter, we shall have refuted, not alone the Arians, Anomeans, Eunomians, and Aerians, who followed in every thing the doctrine of Arius, but also the Basilians, who were Semi- Arians. Those in the Council of Antioch, in 341, and in the Council of Ancyra in 358, admitted that the Word was Omoiousion Patri, that is, like unto the Father, in substance, but would not agree to the term, Omousion, or of the same substance as the Father. The Acacians, who held a middle place between the Arians and Semi- Arians, and admitted that the Son was Omoion Patri, like to the Father, but not of the same substance, will all be refuted. All these will be proved to be in error, when we show that the Word is in all things, not only like unto the Father, but consubstantial to the Father, that is of the very same substance as the Father, as likewise the Simonians, Corinthians, Ebionites, Paulinists, and Photinians, who laid the foundations of this heresy, by teaching that Christ was only a mere man, born like all others, from Joseph and Mary, and having no existence before his birth. By proving the Catholic truth that the Word is true God, like the Father, all these heretics will be put down, for as the Word in Christ assumed human nature in one Person, as St. John says: " The Word was made flesh;" if we prove that the Word is true God, it is manifest that Christ is not a mere man, but man and God. 2. There are many texts of Scripture to prove this, which may be divided into three classes. In the first class are included all those texts in which the Word is called God, not by grace or predestination, as the Socinians say, but true God in Nature and substance. In the Gospel of St. John we read: " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was made nothing that was made" (John i.) St. Hilary looked on this passage as proving so clearly the Divinity of the Word, that he says (1) " When I hear the Word was God, I hear it not only said but proved that the Word is God. Here the thing signified is a substance where it is said was God. For to be, to exist, is not accidental, but substantial." The holy doctor had previously met the objection of those who said that even Moses was called God by Pharoe (Exod. viii), and that judges were called Gods in the 81st Psalm, by saying: It is one thing to be, as it were, appointed a God, another to be God himself; in Pharoe’s case a God was appointed as it were (that is Moses), but neither in name or Nature was he a God, as the Just are also called God: " I said you are gods." Now the expression " I said," refers more to the person speaking than to the name of the thing itself; it is, then, the person who speaks who imposes the name, but it is not naturally the name of the thing itself. But here he says the Word is God, the thing itself exists in the Word, the substance of the Word is announced in the very name: " Verbi enim appellatio in Dei Filio de Sacramento nativitatis est." Thus, says the Saint, the name of God given to Pharoe and the Judges mentioned by David in the 81st Psalm was only given them by the Lord as a mark of their authority, but was not their proper name; but when St. John speaks of the Word, he does not say that he was called God, but that he was in reality God: " The Word was God." (1) Hilar. l. 7, de Trint. n. 10. 3. The Socinians next object that the text of St. John should not be read with the same punctuation as we read it, but thus: " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was. God the same was in the beginning," &c., but this travesty of the text is totally opposed to all the copies of the Scriptures we know, to the sense of all the Councils, and to all antiquity. We never find the text cut up in this way; it always was written " The Word was God." Besides, if we allowed this Socinian reading of the text, the whole sense would be lost, it would be, in fact, ridiculous, as if St. John wanted to assert that God existed, after saying already that the Word was with God. There are, however, many other texts in which the Word is called God, and the learned Socinians themselves are so convinced of the weakness of this argument, as calculated only to make their cause ridiculous, that they tried other means of invalidating it, but, as we shall presently see, without succeeding. 4. It is astonishing to see how numerous are the cavils of the Arians. The Word, they say, is called God, not the God the fountain of all nature, whose name is always written in Greek with the article (o Theos), such, however, is not the case in the text; but we may remark that in this very chapter, St. John, speaking of the supreme God, " there was a man sent from God, whose name was John," does not use the article, neither is it used in the 12th, 13th, or 18th verses. In many other parts of the Scriptures, where the name of God is mentioned, the article is omitted, as in St. Matthew xiv, 33, and xxvii, 43; in St. Paul’s I. Epistle to the Corinthians, viii, 4, 6; to the Romans, i, 7; to the Ephesians, iv, 6; and on the other hand we see that in the Acts of the Apostles, vii, 43; in the II. Epistle to the Corinthians, iv, 4, and in that to the Galatians, iv, 8, they speak of an Idol as God, and use the article, and it is most certain that neither St. Luke nor St. Paul ever intended to speak of an Idol as the supreme God. Besides, as St. John Chrysostom teaches (2), from whom this whole answer, we may say, is taken, the Word is called God, sometimes even with the addition of that article, on whose omission in St. John they lay such stress, as is the case in the original of that text of St. Paul, Romans ix, 5: " Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever." (2) St. Jo. Chry. in Jo. St. Thomas remarks, that in the first cited passage the article is omitted in the name of God, as the name there stands in the position not of a subject, but a predicate: " Ratio autem quare Evangelista non apposuit articulum hinc nomini Deus est quod Deus ponitur hie in prcedicato et tenetur formaliter, consuetum erat autem quod nominibus in prædicato positis non ponitur articulus cum discretionem importet" (3). 5. They object, fourthly, that in the text of St. John the Word is called God, not because he is so by Nature and Substance, but only by Dignity and Authority, just as they say the name of God is given in the Scriptures to the angels and to judges. We have already answered this objection by St. Hilary (N. 2), that it is one thing to give to an object the name of God, another to say that he is God. But there is, besides, another answer. It is not true that the name of God is an appellative name, so that it can be positively and absolutely applied to one who is not God by Nature; for although some creatures are called Gods, it never happened that any one of them was called " God," absolutely, or was called true God, or the highest God, or singularly God, as Jesus Christ is called by St. John: " And we know that the Son of God is come, and he hath given us understanding, that we may know the true God,smd may be in his true Son" (John I. Epis. v, 20). And St. Paul says " Looking for the blessed hope and the coming of the glory of the great God, and our Saviour, Jesus Christ" (Epis. to Titus, ii, 13), and to the Romans, ix, 5: " Of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things God, blessed for ever." We likewise read in St. Luke, that Zachary, prophesying regarding his Son, says " And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest, for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways" (Luke i, 76), and again, ver. 78: " Through the bowels of the mercy of our God, in which the Orient from on high has visited us." (3) St. Thom, in cap. 1, Joan. loc. 2. 6. Another most convincing proof of the Divinity of the Word is deduced from the 1st chapter of St. John, already quoted. In it these words occur: " All things were made by him, and without him was made nothing that was made." Now any one denying the Divinity of the Word must admit from these words that either the Word was eternal, or that the Word was made by himself. It is evidently repugnant to reason to say the Word made himself, nemo dat quod non habet. Therefore we must admit that the Word was not made, otherwise St. John would be stating a falsehood when he says, " Without him was made nothing that was made." This is the argument of St. Augustine (4), and from these words he clearly proves that the Word is of the same substance as the Father: “Neque enim dicit omnia, nisi quaa facta sunt, idest omnem creaturam; unde liquido apparet, si facta substantia est, ipsum factum non esse, per quem facta sunt omnia. Et si factum non est, creatura non est; si autem creatura non est, ejusdem cum Patre substantiæ cujus Pater, ergo facta substantia, quæ Deus non est, creatura est; et quæ creatura non est, Deus est. Et si non est Filius ejusdem substantiæ cujus Pater, ergo facta substantiæ est: non omnia per ipsum facta sunt; et omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Ut unius igitur ejusdemque cum Patre substantiæ est, et ideo non tantum Deus, sed et verus Deus." Such are the words of the Holy Father; the passage is rather long, but most convincing. 7. We shall now investigate the passages of the second class, in which the Divine Nature and the very substance of the Father is attributed to the Word. First, the Incarnate Word, himself, says: " I and the Father are one" (John x, 30). The Arians say that Christ here does not speak of the unity of Nature but of Will, and Calvin, though he professes not to be an Arian, explains it in the same manner. "The ancients," he says, "abused this passage, in order to prove that Christ is, omousion, consubstantial with the Father, for here Christ does not dispute of the unity of substance, but of the consent he had with the Father." The Holy Fathers, however, more deserving of credit than Calvin and the Arians, always understood it of the unity of substance. Here are the words of St. Athanasius (5): " If the two are one they must be so according to the Divinity, inasmuch as the Son is consubstantial to the Father they are, therefore, two, as Father and Son, but only one as God is one." (4) St. Aug. l. ii. cle Trinit. cap. 6. (5) St. Athan. Orat. con. Arian. n.9. Hear also, St. Cyprian (6): " The Lord says, I and the Father are one, and again it is written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." St. Ambrose takes it in the same sense, as do St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, as we shall see presently; why the very Jews took it in this sense, for they took up stones to stone him, as St. John relates, (x, 32): "Many good works I have shown you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me? The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God." " See," says St. Augustine (7) " how the Jews understood what the Arians will not understand, for they are vexed to find that these words I and the Father are one, cannot be understood, unless the equality of the Son with the Father be admitted." St. John Chrysostom here remarks that if the Jews erred in believing that our Saviour wished to announce himself as equal in power to the Father, he could immediately have explained the mistake, but he did not do so (8), but, quite the contrary, he confirms what he before said the more* he is pressed; he does not excuse himself, but reprehends them; he again says he is equal to the Father: " If I do not the works of my Father" he says, " believe me not; but if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John x, 37, 38). We have seen that Christ expressly declared in the Council of Caiphas, that he was the true Son of God: " Again the High Priest asked him and said to him: Art thou the Christ, the Son of the blessed God? and Jesus said to him, I am" (Mark xiv, 61, 62). Who shall then dare to say that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, when he himself has said so? 8. Again, say the Arians, when our Saviour prayed to his Father for all his disciples, he said: " And the glory thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one, as we also are one" (John, xvii, 22). Now in this passage, say they, Christ certainly speaks of the unity of will, and not of the unity of substance. But we reply: It is one thing to say that " I and the Father are one," quite another thing, " that they may be one, as we are also one," just as it is one thing to say, " your heavenly Father is perfect," and another to say, "Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew v, 48). (6) St. Cyprian, de Unit. Eccles. (7) St. Aug. Tract 48 in Joan (8) St. Joan. Chrysos. Hom. 6 in Jo. For the particle as (sicut) denotes, as St. Athanasius (9) says, likeness or imitation, but not equality of conjunction. So as our Lord here exhorts us to imitate the Divine perfection as far as we can, he prays that his disciples may be united with God as far as they can, which surely cannot be understood except as a union of the will. When he says, however: " I and the Father are one," there is no allusion to imitation; he there speaks of a union of substance; he there positively and absolutely asserts that he is one and the same with the Father: " We are one." 9. There are, besides, many other texts which most clearly corroborate this. Our Lord says, in St. John, xvi, 15, and xvii, 10; " All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine." " And all my things are thine, and thine are mine." Now, as these expressions are used by him without any limitation, they evidently prove his consubstantiality with the Father, for when he asserts that he has every thing the Father has, who will dare to say that the Father has something more than the Son? And if we denied to the Son the same substance as the Father, we would deny him every thing, for then he would be infinitely less than the Father; but Jesus says that he has all the Father has, without exception, consequently he is in every thing equal to the Father: " He has nothing less than the Father," says St. Augustine, " when he says that All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine, he is, therefore, his equal" (10). 10. St. Paul proves the same when he says, " Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil, ii, 6). Now here the Apostle says Christ humbled himself, "emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," and that can only be understood of the two Natures, in which Christ was, for he humbled himself to take the nature of a servant, being already in the Divine Nature, as is proved from the antecedent expressions, " who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God." If Christ usurped nothing by declaring himself equal to God, it cannot be denied that he is of the same substance with God, for otherwise it would be a " robbery" to say that he was equal to God. (9) St. Athan. Orat. 4 ad Arian. (10) St. Angus, lib. I, con. Maxim, cap. 24. St. Augustine, also, explaining that passage of St. John, xiv, 28, " The Father is greater than I," says that he is less than the Father, according to the form of a servant, which he took by becoming man, but that, according to the form of God, which he had by Nature, and which he did not lose by becoming man, he was not less than the Father, but his co-equal. " To be equal to God in the form of God," says the Saint, " was , not a robbery, but Nature. He, therefore," says the Father, " is greater, because he humbled himself, taking the form of a servant, but not losing the form of God" (11). 11. Another proof is what our Saviour himself says: " For what things soever he (the Father) doth, these the Son also doth in like manner" (John, v. 19). Hence, St. Hilary concludes that the Son of God is true God, like the Father " Filius est, quia abs se nihil potest; Deus est, quia quæcunque Pater facit, et ipse eadem facit; unum sunt, quia eadem facit, non alia" (12). He could not have the same individual operation with the Father, unless he was consubstantial with the Father, for in God there is no distinction between operation and substance. 12. The third class of texts are those in which attributes are attributed to the Word, which cannot apply unless to God by Nature, of the same substance as the Father. First The Word is eternal according to the 1st verse of the Gospel of St. John: " In the beginning was the Word." The verb was denotes that the Word has always been, and even, as St. Ambrose remarks (13), the Evangelist mentions the word " was" four times " Ecce quater erat ubi impius invenit quod non erat." Besides the word " was," the other words, " in the beginning," confirm the truth of the eternity of the Word: "In the beginning was the Word," that is to say, the Word existed before all other things. It is on this very text that the First Council of Nice founded the condemnation of that proposition of the Arians, " There was a time once when the Word had no existence." (11) St. Augus. Ep. 66. (12) St. Hilar. l. 7, de Trin, n. 21. (13) St. Amb. l. 1, de Fide ad Gratian, c. 5. 13. The Arians, however, say that St. Augustine (14) interpreted the expression " in the beginning," by saying it meant the Father himself, and according to this interpretation, they say that the Word might exist in God previous to all created things, but not be eternal at the same time. To this we reply, that although we might admit this interpretation, and that " in the beginning" meant in the Father; still, if we admit that the Word was before all created things, it follows that the Word was eternal, and never made, because as " by him all things were made," if the Word was not eternal, but created, he should have created himself, an impossibility, based on the general maxim admitted by all, and quoted before: " Nemo dat quod non habet" No one can give what he has not. 14. They assert, secondly, that the words " in the beginning" must be understood in the same way as in the passage in the 1st chapter of Genesis; "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth;" and as these were created in the beginning, so also the Word was created. The answer to this is, that Moses says: " In the beginning God created;" but St. John does not say in the beginning the Word was created, but the Word was, and that by him all things were made. 15. They object, in the third place, that by the expression, " the Word," is not understood a person distinct from the Father, but the internal wisdom of the Father distinct from him, and by which all things were made. This explanation, however, cannot stand, for St. John, speaking of the Word, says: " By him all things were made," and towards the end of the chapter: " The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us;" now we cannot understand these expressions as referring to the internal wisdom of the Father, but indubitably to the Word, by whom all things were made, and who, being the Son of God, became flesh, as is declared in the same place: " And we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only-begotten of the Father." This is confirmed by the Apostle, when he says, that by the Son (called by St. John the Word) the world was created. " In these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also, he made the world" (Heb. i, 2). Besides, the eternity of the Word is proved by the text of the Apocalypse (i, 8): "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, who is, and who was, and who is to come;" and by the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii, 8): "Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to-day, and the same for ever." (14) St. Aug. l. 6, de Trinit. c. 5. 16. Arius always denied that the Word was eternal, but some of his latter followers, convinced by the Scriptures, admitted that he was eternal, but an eternal creature, and not a Divine Person. The answer given by many Theologians to this newly invented error is, that the very existence of an eternal creature is an impossibility. That a creature, they say, should be said to be created, it is necessary that it should be produced out of nothing, so that from a state of non-existence, it passes to a state of existence, so that we must suppose a time in which this creature did not exist. But this reply is not sufficient to prove the fallacy of the argument, for St. Thomas (15) teaches, and the doctrine is most probable, that in order to assert that a thing is created, it is not necessary to suppose a time in which it was not, so that its nonexistence preceded its existence; but it is quite enough to suppose a creature, as nothing by its own nature, or by itself, but as having its existence altogether from God. " It is enough," says the Saint, " to say that a thing has come from nothing, that its non-existence should precede its existence, not in duration, but nature, inasmuch, as if left to itself, it never would have been anything, and it altogether derives its existence from another." Supposing then, that it is unnecessary to look for a time in which the thing did not exist, to call it a creature, God, who is eternal, might give to a creature existence from all eternity, which by its own nature it never could have had. It appears to me then, that the fit and proper reply to this argument is, that the Word being (as has been already proved) eternal, never could be called a creature, for it is an article of Faith, as all the Holy Fathers teach (16), that there never existed, in fact, an eternal creature, since all creatures were created in time, in the beginning, when, as Moses says, God created the world: " In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The creation of heaven and earth, according to the doctrine of all Fathers and Theologians, comprises the creation of all beings, both material and spiritual. (15) St. Thomas, gates. Disp. de Poteutia, art. 14, ad 7. (16) St. Thomas, 1. part, ques. 46, art. 2, 3. The Word, on the contrary, had existence before there was any creature, as we see in the book of Proverbs, where Wisdom, that is the Word, thus speaks: " The Lord possessed me in the beginning, of his ways, before he made anything, from the beginning " (Prov. viii, 22). The Word, therefore, is not a created being, since he existed before God had made anything. 17. The materialists of modern times, however, cannot infer from this, that matter is eternal of itself, for although we admit that matter might exist from eternity, inasmuch as God could, from all eternity, give to it existence, which it had not of itself, (though he did not do so in fact); still, as we have proved in our book on the " Truth of the Faith," it could not exist from itself, it should have existence from God, for, according to the axiom so frequently repeated Nemo dat quod non habet, it could not give to itself that (existence) which it had not to give. From St. John’s expression regarding the Word, " by him all things were made," not alone his eternity is proved, but the power of creating likewise, which can belong to none but God; for, in order to create, an infinite power is necessary, which, as all theologians say, God could not communicate to a creature. Returning, however, to the subject of the eternity of the Word, we say, that if the Father should, by the necessity of the Divine Nature (necessitate naturæ), generate the Son, the Father being eternal, the Son should also be eternal, keeping always in mind, the Father the Generator, the Son as the Generated. Thus, the error of the modern materialists, the basis of whose system is, that matter is eternal, falls to the ground. 18. Now, it being admitted, that by the Word all things were made, it is a necessary consequence, that the Word was not made by Himself, for otherwise, there would exist a being made, but not made by the Word, and this is opposed to the text of St. John, who says, that " by him all things were made." This is the great argument of St. Augustine, against the Arians, when they assert that the Word was made: " How," says the Saint (17), " can it be possible, that the Word is made, when God by the Word made all things? If the Word of God himself was made, by what other Word was he made? If you say it was by the Word of the Word, that, I say, is the only Son of God; but, if you say it is not by the Word of the Word, then, you must admit, that that Word, by whom all things were made, was not made himself, for he could not, who made all things, be made by himself." (17) St. Augus. Trac. in Joan, 19. The Arians, too much pressed by this argument to answer it, endeavour to do so by a quibble St. John, say they, does not tell us that all things were made by Him (ab ipso), but rather through Him (per ipsum), and hence, they infer that the Word was not the principal cause of the creation of the World, but only an instrument the Father made use of in creating it, and therefore, they agree that the Word is not God. But we answer that the creation of the World, as described by David and St. Paul, is attributed to the Son of God. " In the beginning, O Lord," says David, " thou foundedst the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands" (Psalm ci, 26); and St. Paul, writing to the Hebrews, dictates almost a whole chapter to prove the same thing; see these passages: " But to the Son, thy throne, God, is for ever and ever" (i, 8), and again, verse 13, " But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, till I make thy enemies thy footstool." Here St. Paul declares, that that Son of God called by St. John " the Word" has created the heavens and the earth, and is really God, and, as God, was not a simple instrument, but the Creator-in-Chief of the world. Neither will the quibble of the Arians on the words per ipsum and ab ipso, avail, for in many places of the Scriptures we find the word per conjoined with the principal cause: Possedi hominem per Deum (Gen. iv); Per me Reges regnant (Prov. viii); Paulus vocatus Apostolus Jem Christi per voluntatem Dei (I. Cor. i). 20. There is another proof of the Divinity of the Word in the 5th chapter of St. John, where the Father wills that all honour should be given to the Son, the same as to himself: " But he hath given all judgment to the Son, that all may honour the Son, as they honour the Father" (John v, 22, 23). The Divinity of the Word and of the Holy Ghost is also proved by the precept given to the Apostles: "Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt, xxviii, 19). The Holy Fathers, St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Fulgentius, and several others, made use of this text to convince the Arians; for, Baptism being ordained in the name of the three Divine Persons, it is clear that they have equal power and authority, and are God; for if the Son and the Holy Ghost were creatures we would be baptized in the name of the Father, who is God, and of two creatures; but St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, states that this is opposed to our Faith, " Lest any should say that you are baptized in my name" (I. Cor. i, 15). 21. Finally, there are two powerful arguments, to prove the Divinity of the Word. The first is taken from the power manifested by the Word in the fact related in the fifth chapter of St. Luke, where Christ, in healing the man sick of the palsy, pardoned him his sins, saying: " Man, thy sins are forgiven thee" (Luke v, 20). Now, God alone has the power of forgiving sins, and the very Pharisees knew this, for they said: " Who is this who speaketh blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Luke, v, 21). 22. The second proof is taken from the very words of Christ himself, in which he declares himself to be the Son of God. He several times spoke in this manner, but most especially when he asked his disciples what they thought of him: " Jesus saith to them, Whom do you think I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt, xvi, 15, 17.) He also declared it as we have seen above, when Caiphas asked him, " Art thou Christ, the Son of the Blessed God? And Jesus said to him, I am" (Mark xiv, 61).. See now the argument. The Arians say that Christ is not the true Son of God, but they never said he was a liar; on the contrary, they praise him, as the most excellent of all men, and enriched, above all others, with virtues and divine gifts. Now, if this man (according to them), called himself the Son of God, when he was but a mere creature, or if he even permitted that others should consider him the Son of God, and that so many should be scandalized in hearing him called the Son of God, when he was not so in reality, he ought at least declare the truth, otherwise he was the most impious of men. But no; he never said a word, though the Jews were under the impression that he was guilty of blasphemy, and allowed himself to be condemned and crucified on that charge, for this was the great crime he was accused of before Pilate, " according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (John, xix, 7). In fine, we reply to all opponents, after Jesus Christ expressly declared himself the Son of God, as we remarked in St. Mark’s Gospel, chap, xiv, 62, " I am” though this declaration was what cost him his life, who will dare to deny, after it, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

An article from St. Alphonus Liguori's "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation" < Heresies Tool The Heresy of the Greeks, Who Assert That The Holy Ghost Proceeds From the Father Alone 1. It is necessary to remark here, in order not to confuse the matter, that the heresy of the schismatical Greeks consists in denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son; they contend that he proceeds from the Father alone, and this is the difference between the Greek and Latin Churches. The learned have not yet agreed on the author of this heresy. Some say it was Theodoret, in his refutation of the ninth anathematism of St. Cyril, against Nestorius, but others again defend him (as well as several others quoted by the schismatics), and explain that passage of his works which gave rise to this opinion, by saying that he only meant to prove that the Holy Ghost was not a creature, as the Arians and Macedonians asserted. There can be no doubt but that passages from the works both of Theodoret and the other Fathers, which the writers intended as refutations of the errors of the Arians and Macedonians, taken in a wrong sense by the schismatics, have confirmed them in holding on to this error. This heresy, up to the time of Photius, was only held by a few persons, but on his intrusion into the See of Constantinople, in 858, and especially in 863, when he was condemned by Pope Nicholas I., he constituted himself, not alone the chief of the schism, which for so many years has separated the Greek and Latin Churches, but induced the whole Greek Church to embrace this heresy that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone, and not from the Son. Fourteen times, Osius writes (1), up to the time of the Council of Florence, held in 1439, the Greeks renounced this error, and united themselves to the Latin Church, but always relapsed again. In the Council of Florence, they themselves agreed in defining that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, and it was thought that the union would be everlasting, but such was not the case, for after they left the Council, they again (ch. ix, n. 31) returned to their vomit, at the instigation of Mark of Ephesus. I now speak of these Greeks who were under the obedience of the Eastern Patriarchs, for the others who were not subject to them, remained united in Faith to the Roman Church. (1) Osius, l. de Sac. Conjug, I - IT IS PROVED THAT THE HOLY GHOST PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON. 2. It is proved by the words of St. John: " When the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceedeth from the Father" (John, xv, 16). This text not only proves the dogma decided by the Council of Constantinople against the Arians and Macedonians, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father (" And in the Holy Ghost the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father"); but also that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, as is shown by the words: " Whom 1 will send you;" and the same expression is repeated in St. John in other places: " For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you" (John, xvi, 7). "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name" (John, xiv, 26). In the Divinity, a Person is not spoken of as sent, unless by another Person from whom he proceeds. The Father, as he is the origin of the Divinity, is never spoken of in the Scriptures as being sent. The Son, as he proceeds from the Father alone, is said to be sent, but it is never thus said of the Holy Ghost: " As the Father living, sent me, &c., God sent his Son, made from a woman, &c." When, therefore, the Holy Ghost, is said to be sent from the Father and the Son, he proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father; especially as this mission of one Divine Person from another, cannot be understood cither in the way of command or instruction, or any other way, for in the Divine Persons both authority and wisdom are equal. We, therefore, understand one Person as sent by another, according to the origin, and according to the procession of one Person from the other, this procession implying neither inequality nor dependence. If, therefore, the Holy Ghost is said to be sent by the Son, he proceeds from the Son. "He is sent by him," says St. Augustine (1), " from whence he emanates," and he adds, " the Father is not said to be sent, for he has not from whom to be, or from whom to proceed. 3. The Greeks say that the Son does not send the Person of the Holy Ghost, but only his gifts of grace, which are attributed to the Holy Spirit. But we answer that this interpretation is wrong, for in the passage of St. John, just quoted, it is said that this Spirit of Truth, sent by the Son, proceeds from the Father; therefore, the Son does not send the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but the Spirit of Truth himself, who proceeds from the Father. 4. This dogma is proved from all those texts, in which the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of the Son " God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts" (Gal. iv, 6) -just as, in another place, the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of the Father: " For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you" (Mat. x, 20). If, therefore, the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of the Father, merely because he proceeds from the Father, he also proceeds from the Son, when he is called the Spirit of the Son. This is what St. Augustine says (2): " Why should we not believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit of the Son?" And the reason is evident, since he could not be called the Holy Ghost of the Son, because the Person of the Holy Ghost is consubstantial to the Son, as the Greeks said; for otherwise the Son might be called the Spirit of the Holy Ghost, as he is also consubstantial to the Holy Ghost. Neither can he be called the Spirit of the Son, because he is the instrument of the Son, or because he is the extrinsic holiness of the Son, for we cannot speak thus of the Divine Persons; therefore, he is called the Spirit of the Son, because he proceeds from him. Jesus Christ explained this himself, when, after his Resurrection, he appeared to his disciples, and "breathed on them, and said to them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost," &c. (John, xx, 22). Remark the words, " he breathed on them, and said," to show that, as the breath proceeds from the mouth, so the Holy Ghost proceeds from him. (1) St. Augus. l. 4, de Trinit. c. 20. (2) St. Augus. Trac. 99, in Joan. Hear how beautifully St. Augustine (3) explains this passage: " We cannot say that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son also, for it is not without a reason that he is called the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. I cannot see what other meaning he had when he breathed in the face of his disciples, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost. For that corporeal breathing was not, indeed the substance of the Holy Ghost, but a demonstration, by a congruous signification, that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Father alone, but from the Son, likewise." 5. It is proved, thirdly, from all those passages of the Holy Scripture, in which it is said that the Son has all that the Father has, and that the Holy Ghost receives from the Son. Hear what St. John says: "But when he, the Spirit of Truth is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak, and the things that are to come he shall show you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall show it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine. Therefore, I said, that he shall receive of mine, and show it to you" (John, xvi, 13, &c.) It is expressly laid down in this passage, that the Holy Ghost receives of the Son, " shall receive of mine;" and when we speak of the Divine Persons, we can never say that one receives from the other in any other sense but this, that the Person proceeds from the Person he receives from. To receive and to proceed is just the same thing, for it would be repugnant to sense, to say that the Holy Ghost, who is God equal to the Son, and of the same Nature as the Son, receives from him either knowledge or doctrine. It is said, therefore, that he receives from the Son, because he proceeds from him, and from him receives, by communication, the Nature and all the attributes of the Son. (3) St. Augus. l. 4, de Trin. c. 20. 6. The Greeks make a feeble reply to this. Christ, in this passage, they say, does not say that the Holy Ghost receives from me, but " of mine," that is, of my Father. This reply carries no weight with it, for Christ himself explains the text in the next passage: " All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine; therefore, I said, that he shall receive of mine." Now, these words prove that the Holy Ghost receives from the Father and the Son, because he proceeds from the Father and the Son. The reason is plain; for if the Son has all that the Father hath (except Paternity relatively opposed to Filiation), and the Father is the principium esse of the Holy Ghost, the Son must be so likewise, for otherwise he would not have all that the Father has. This is exactly what Eugenius IV. says, in his Epistle of the Union: " Since all things, which belong to the Father, he gave to his only-begotten Son, in begetting him, with the exception that he did not make him the Father for this the Son, from all eternity, is in possession of that the Holy Ghost proceeds from him, from whom he was eternally begotten." Before Eugenius’s time, St. Augustine said just the same thing (4): " Therefore, he is the Son of the Father, from whom he is begotten, and the Spirit is the Spirit of both, since he proceeds from both. But when the Son speaks of him, he says, therefore, he proceeds from the Father, since the Father is the author of his procession, who begot such a Son, and, begetting him, gave unto him that the Spirit should also proceed from him." The holy Father, in this passage, forestalls the objection of Mark of Ephesus, who said that the Scriptures teach that the Holy Ghost " proceeds from the Father," but do not mention the Son, " for," says St. Augustine, " although in the Scripture it said only that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, still the Father, by generating the Son, communicated to him also to be the principium of the Holy Ghost, " gignendo ei dedit, ut etiam de ipso procederet Spiritus Sanctus," 7. St. Anselm(5) confirms this by that principle embraced by all theologians, that all things are one in the Divinity: " In Divinis omnia sunt unum, et omnia unum, et idem, ubi non obviat relationis oppositio." Thus in God these things alone are really distinguished, among which there is a relative opposition of the producing and the produced. The first producing cannot produce himself, for otherwise he would be at the same time existent and non-existent existent, because he produces himself non existent, because he had no existence till after he was produced. This is a manifest absurdity. That axiom, that no one can give what he has not " Nemo dat, quod non habet," proves the same thing; for if the producer gave existence to himself before he was produced, he would give that which he had not. (4) St. August. l. 2 (alias 3), cent. Maxim, c. 14. (5) St. Ansel.l de Proc. Spi. S. c. 7. But is not God self-existing? Most certainly; but that does not mean that he gave existence to himself. God exists of necessity; he is a necessary Being that always did and always will exist; he gives existence to all other creatures; if he ceased to exist, all other things, likewise, would cease to exist. Let us return to the point. The Father is the principle (principiumj of the Divinity, and is distinguished from the Son by the opposition that exists between the producer and produced. On the other hand, those things in God, which have no relative opposition among themselves, are in nowise distinguished, but are one and the same thing. The Father, therefore, is the same with the Son, in all that in which he is not opposed relatively to the Son. And as the Father is not relatively opposed to the Son, nor the Son to the Father, by both one and the other being the principle in the spiration of the Holy Ghost, therefore, the Holy Ghost is spirated, and proceeds from the Father and the Son; and it is an Article of Faith, defined both by the Second General Council of Lyons, and by that of Florence, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from one principle and from one spiration, and not from two principles nor from two spirations. " We condemn and reprobate all," say the Fathers of Lyons, " who rashly dare to assert that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from two principles, and that he does not proceed from them as from one principle." The Fathers of the Council of Florence " define that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son eternally, as from one principle, and by one spiration." The reason is this (6): Because the power of spirating the Holy Ghost is found in the Son as well as in the Father, without any relative opposition. Hence, as the world was created by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, still, because the power of creating appertains equally to the three Persons, we say, God the Creator; so, because the power of spirating the Holy Ghost is equally in the Father and in the Son, therefore, we say that the principle is one, and that the spiration of the Holy Ghost is one. We now pass on to other proofs of the principal point, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. (6) St. Greg. Nyss. l. ad Ablav. 8. The procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son is proved, fourthly, by the following argument used by the Latins against the Greeks in the Council of Florence. If the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son also, there would be no distinction; the reason is, because, as we have already said, there is no real distinction in God between those things between which there is not a relative opposition of the producer and the produced. If the Holy Ghost did not proceed also from the Son, there would be no relative opposition between him and the Son, and, consequently, there would be no real distinction; one person would not be distinct from the other. To this convincing argument the Greeks replied that even in this case there would be a distinction, because the Son would proceed from the Father by the intellect, and the Holy Ghost by the will. But the Latins answered, justly, that this would not be enough to form a real distinction between the Son and the Holy Ghost, because, at the most, it would be only a virtual distinction such as that which exists in God between the understanding and the will, but the Catholic Faith teaches us that the three Divine Persons, though they are of the same Nature and Substance, are still really distinct among themselves. It is true that some of the Fathers, as St. Augustine and St. Anselm, have said that the Son and the Holy Ghost are also distinct, because they have a different mode of procession, one from the will and the other from the understanding; but when they speak thus they only mean the remote cause of this distinction, for they themselves have most clearly expressed, on the other hand, that the proximate and formal cause of the real distinction of the Son and the Holy Ghost is the relative opposition in the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. Hear what St. Gregory of JNyssa (7) says: " The Spirit is distinguished from the Son, because it is by him he is." And St. Augustine himself, whom the Greeks consider as favouring their party (8), says: " Hoc solo numerum insinuant, quod ad invicem sunt." And St. John of Damascus (9) also says, that it is merely in the properties of Paternity, Filiation, and Procession, that we see the difference, according to the cause and the effect: "In solis autem proprietatibus, nimirum Paternitatis, Filiationis, et Processionis secundum causam, et causatum discrimen advertimus." The Eleventh Council of Toledo (Cap. I.) says: "In relatione Per sonar urn numerus cernitur; hoc solo numerum insinuat, quod ad invicem sunt." 9. Finally, it is proved by the tradition of all ages, as is manifest from the text of those Greek Fathers whom the Greeks themselves consider an authority, and of some Latin Fathers who wrote before the Greek schism. St. Epiphanius, in the Anchoratum, thus speaks: " Christ is believed from the Father, God of God, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both;" and in the Heresia he says: " But the Holy Ghost is from both, a Spirit from a Spirit." St. Cyril (10) writes: " The Son, according to Nature, is indeed from God (for he is begotten of God and of the Father), but the Spirit is properly his, and in him, and from him;" and again (11): " The Spirit is of the essence of the Father and the Son, who proceeds from the Father and the Son." St. Athanasius explains (12) the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son in equivalent expressions. " The Spirit," he says, " does not unite the Word with the Father, but the Spirit receives from the Word ...... whatsoever the Spirit has he has from the Word." St. Basil (13), replying to a heretic, who asks him why the Holy Ghost is not called the Son of the Son, says, he is not called so, " not because he is not from God through the Son, but lest it might be imagined that the Trinity consists of an infinite multitude of Persons, if Sons would follow from Sons, as in mankind." Among the Latin Fathers, Tertullian (14) writes: " The Son is deduced from the Father, the Spirit from the Father by the Son." St. Hilary (15) says: " There is no necessity to speak of Him who is to be confessed as coming from the Father and the Son." St. Ambrose says (16), that " the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son," and in another place (17), " the Holy Ghost, truly a Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, not the Son himself." (7) St. Greg. Nyss. l. ad Ablavium. (8) St. Angus, trac 39 in Jo. (9) Jo. Damasc. l.I, de Fide, c. 11. (10) St. Cyril in Joelem, c. 2. (11) Idem, l. 14, Thesaur. (12) St. Athan. Oat. 3, cont. Arian. n . 24 (13) St. Basil, l. 5, cont. Eunom. (14) Tertul. l. cont. Praxeam, c. 4. (15) St. Hilar. l. 2, de Trin. (16) St. Ambrose, l. 1, ile S. S. c. 11, (17) Idem, de Symb. ap. r. 30. art. 10. 10. I omit the authorities of the other Fathers, both Greek and Latin, collected by the Theologian John, in his disputation with Mark of Ephesus, in the Council of Florence, where he clearly refuted all the cavils of that prelate. It is of more importance to cite the decisions of the General Councils, which have finally decided on this dogma, as the Council of Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon, the Second and Third Councils of Constantinople, by approving the Synodical Epistle of St. Cyril of Alexandria, in which this doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son is expressed in these terms: " The Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is the Truth, so that he proceeds from him as he does from the Father." In the Fourth Council of Lateran, celebrated in the year 1215, under Innocent III., both Greeks and Latins united in defining (cap. 153), " that the Father was from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and without end." In the Second Council of Lyons, held in 1274, under Gregory X., when the Greeks again became united with the Latins, it was again agreed on by both that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son: " With a faithful and devout confession we declare that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle not by two spirations, but by one spiration. 11. Finally, in the Council of Florence, held under Eugenius IV., in the year 1438, in which both Greeks and Latins were again united, it was decided unanimously, " that this truth of Faith should be believed and held by all Christians, and that all should then profess that the Holy Ghost eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from one principle, and by one spiration; we also define, explaining the word " filioque" (and from the Son), that it has been lawfully and rationally introduced into the Creed, for the sake of declaring the truth, and because there was a necessity for doing so at the time." Now, all those Councils in which the Greeks joined with the Latins in defining the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, supply an invincible argument to prove that the schismatics uphold a heresy, for otherwise we should admit that the whole united Church, both Latin and Greek, has defined an error in three General Councils. 12. As to theological reasons, we have already given the two principal ones: the first is, that the Son has all that the Father has, with the exception of the Paternity alone, which is impossible, on account of the Filiation. " All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine" (John, xvi, 15); therefore, if the Father has the power of spirating the Holy Ghost, the same power belongs also to the Son, since there is no relative opposition between the Filiation and the active spiration. The second reason is, that if the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, he would not be really distinct from the Son, for then there would be no relative opposition or real distinction between them, and, consequently, the mystery of the Trinity would be destroyed. The other arguments adduced by theologians can either be reduced to these, or are arguments a congruentia, and, therefore, we omit them. II. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 13. They object, first, that the Scripture speaks of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father alone, and not from the Son, but we have already answered this (N. 6), and we remind the reader that though the Scripture does not express it in formal, it does in equivalent terms, as has been already proved. But, besides, remember that the Greeks recognized, equally with the Latins, the authority of tradition, and that teaches that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. 14. They object, secondly, that in the First Council of Constantinople, in which the Divinity of the Holy Ghost was defined, it was not defined that he proceeded from the Father and the Son, but from the Father alone; but to this we reply, that this Council did not declare it, because this was not the point that the Macedonians controverted. The Council, therefore, defined the procession from the Father alone, because the Macedonians and Eunomians denied the procession from the Father, and, consequently, the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. The Church does not draw up definitions of Faith until errors spring up, and, on that account we see, that in several General Councils afterwards, the Church defined the procession of the Holy Ghost as well from the Son as from the Father. 15. They object, thirdly, that when, in the Council of Ephesus, the Priest Carisius publicly read a Symbol, composed by Nestorius, in which it was asserted that the Holy Ghost was not from the Son, nor that he had not his substance through the Son, that the Fathers did not reject the doctrine. We reply, First that this can be easily explained, by supposing that Nestorius properly denied, in a Catholic sense, that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, in opposition to the Macedonians, who said that he was a creature of the Son, and had received existence from the Son, just like any other creature. Secondly We should not forget that in the Council of Ephesus it was not of the procession of the Holy Ghost that they were treating at all, and, therefore, they left it undecided, as it is always the practice of Councils, as we have stated already, not to turn aside to decide on incidental questions, but merely to apply themselves to the condemnation of those errors alone on which they are then deciding. 16. They object, fourthly, some passages of the Holy Fathers which appear to deny the procession from the Son. St. Dionisius(l) says, that the Father alone is the consubstantial fountain of the Divinity: " Solum Patrem esse Divinitatis fontem consubstantialem." St. Athanasius (2) says, that he is the cause of both Persons: " Solum Patrem esse causam duorum." St. Maximus says (3), that the Fathers never allowed the Son to be the cause, that is, the principle of the Holy Ghost: " Patres non concedere Filiura esse causam, id est principium Spiritus Sancti." (1) St. Dionys.l. 1, de Divin. nom. c. 2. (2) St. Athan. Quæs. de Nat Dei. (3) St. Maxim. Ep. ad Marin. St. John of Damascus says (4), we believe the Holy Ghost to be from the Father, and we call him the Spirit of the Father: " Spiritum Sanctum et ex Patre esse statuimus, et Patris Spiritum appellamus." They also quote certain passages of Theodoret, and, finally, they adduce that fact which we read of in the life of Pope Leo III., who commanded that the word " filioque" (and from the Son), added by the Latins to the Symbol of Constantinople should be expunged, and that the Symbol, with that word omitted, should be engraved on a table of silver, for perpetual remembrance of the fact. We answer that the preceding authorities quoted from the Holy Fathers prove nothing for the Greeks. St. Dionisius calls the Father alone the fountain of the Divinity, because the Father alone is the first fountain, or the first principle, without a beginning, or without derivation from any other Person of the Trinity. To St. Dionisius we can add St. Gregory of Nazianzen (5), who says, " Quidquid habet Pater, idem Filii est, excepta causa." But all that the Saint means to say is, that the Father is the first principle, and for this special reason he is called the cause of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and this reason of the first principle cannot be applied to the Son in this way, for he has his origin from the Father; but by this the Son is not excluded from being, together with the Father, the principle of the Holy Ghost, as St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, and several others, with St. Athanasius (quoted in N. 9), attest. The same answer will apply to the quotation of St. Maximus, especially as the learned Petavius remarks (6), as the word principle, or " principium," among the Greeks means the first fountain, or first origin, which applies to the Father alone. 17. We can reply to the argument adduced from the quotation from St. John of Damascus, by remarking that the Saint here speaks guardedly, to oppose the Macedonians, who taught that the Holy Ghost was a creature of the Son, as he uses the same caution in not allowing that the Blessed Virgin should be called the Mother of Christ Christiparam Virginem Sanctum non dicimas to avoid the error of Nestorius, who called her the Mother of Christ, to argue that there were two persons in Christ. (4) St. Damas. I. 1, de Fide Orth. c. 11. (5) St. Greg. Nazian. Orat. 24, ad Episcop. (6) Petavius. l. 7, de Trin. c. 17, n. 12n Cardinal Bessarion, however, in the Council of Florence (7), answered this objection most clearly. The Saint, he says, used the preposition Ex to denote the principle without a beginning, as is the Father alone. St. John of Damascus himself, however, teaches the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, both in the place quoted, where he calls him the Spirit of the Son, as also in the subsequent part of the same chapter, in which he compares the Father to the sun, the Son to the rays, and the Holy Ghost to the light, thus showing that as the light or splendour proceeds from the sun and the rays, so the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son: " Quemadmodum videli cet ex sole est radius, et splendor; ipse enim (Pater), et radii, et splendoris fons est; per radium autem splendor nobis communicatur, atque ipse est, qui nos collustrat. et a nobis percipitur." 18. To the objection from Theodoret we answer, that the authority of Theodoret on this point is of no weight, because here he is opposed to St. Cyril, or we may suppose also that he was opposing the Macedonians, who taught that the Holy Ghost was a creature of the Son. Finally, as to the fact related of Leo III., we answer, that the Holy Father did not disapprove of the Catholic dogma of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, since he agreed on this point with the Legates of the Gallican Church, and of Charlemagne, as we see by the acts of the Legation ( Vol. II.); but he disapproved of the addition of the word Filioque to the Symbol, without absolute necessity, and without the authority of the whole Church, and this addition was afterwards made by subsequent General Councils, when it was found necessary to do so, on account of the Greeks, who so frequently relapsed, and it was thus confirmed by the authority of the universal Church. 19. The last objection made by the Greeks is founded on these reasons: If the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son, he would proceed not from one, but from two principles, for he would be produced by two Persons. We have already answered this in proving the dogma (N. 6), but we will explain it more clearly. Although the Father and the Son are two Persons, really distinct, still they neither are, nor can be, called two principles of the Holy Ghost, but only one principle, for the power by which the Holy Ghost is produced is but one alone, and is the same in the Father as in the Son. Neither is the Father the principle of the Holy Ghost by Paternity, nor the Son by Filiation, so that they might be two principles; but the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Ghost by active spiration, which, as it is one alone, and is common to both, and undivided in the Father and the Son, therefore the Father and the Son cannot be called two principles, or two spirators, because they are but one spirator of the Holy Ghost, and although both Persons spirate, still the spiration is but one. All this has been expressly laid down in the Definition of the Council of Florence. (7) Bessar. Orat. pro Unit,

Engaging and informative articles, series, and resources, to spread the wonders of the Gospel from a team of today's upcoming Catholic Christian writers. Discover a treasury of articles crafted by many Catholic writers. Dive into the wonders of the Gospel through diverse perspectives, illuminating the richness of our faith. Explore, learn, and share in the journey of faith. Articles Experience Next-Generation Christian Content SEE NEW ARTICLES > Courses Proof of the Papacy Tool VIEW HISTORY OF HERESIES TOOL > Our Newest Course VIEW Blogs Theology Culture Early Church History Saints Catego ries Our New Book Our Community Platform Series Proof of the Papacy The Nicene Creed Our Servile State

Michael Snellen interviews some of the most interesting voices in the Catholic world today, from people making a difference in the Church, to facinating storytellers, Catholic Nexus is a podcast for everyone. Discover the richness of Catholicism by listening to a wide variety of hosts and guests. Expect in-depth episodes, as well as relaxed discussions, with guests such as Scott Hahn, Jason Evert, Mike Aquilina, William Albrecht, and more... Christian Nexus Podcast

“For those who believed they could disregard the admonition of the Apostolic See have deservedly suffered what is bound to befall those who forsake their duty [to be in communion with the Apostolic See].” (Letter written to the Illyricum episcopate concerning the Eastern churches in the Acacian schism [c. A.D. 511-515]). < Proof of the Papacy Tool St. Pope Symmachus Apostolic See “For those who believed they could disregard the admonition of the Apostolic See have deservedly suffered what is bound to befall those who forsake their duty [to be in communion with the Apostolic See].” (Letter written to the Illyricum episcopate concerning the Eastern churches in the Acacian schism [c. A.D. 511-515]). Proof of the Papacy Tool

The First Council of Lyon (Lyon I) was the thirteenth ecumenical council, as numbered by the Catholic Church, taking place in 1245. The First General Council of Lyon was presided over by Pope Innocent IV. Innocent IV, threatened by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, arrived at Lyon on 2 December 1244, and early the following year he summoned the Church's bishops to the council later that same year. Some two hundred and fifty prelates responded including the Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Aquileia (Venice) and 140 bishops. The Latin emperor Baldwin II of Constantinople, Raymond VII, Count of Toulouse, and Raymond Bérenger IV, Count of Provence were among those who participated. With Rome under siege by Emperor Frederick II, the pope used the council to excommunicate and depose the emperor with Ad Apostolicae Dignitatis Apicem, as well as the Portuguese King Sancho II. The council also directed a new crusade (the Seventh Crusade), under the command of Louis IX of France, to reconquer the Holy Land. 13. The First Council of Lyons, 1245 A.D. The First Council of Lyon (Lyon I) was the thirteenth ecumenical council, as numbered by the Catholic Church, taking place in 1245. The First General Council of Lyon was presided over by Pope Innocent IV. Innocent IV, threatened by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, arrived at Lyon on 2 December 1244, and early the following year he summoned the Church's bishops to the council later that same year. Some two hundred and fifty prelates responded including the Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Aquileia (Venice) and 140 bishops. The Latin emperor Baldwin II of Constantinople, Raymond VII, Count of Toulouse, and Raymond Bérenger IV, Count of Provence were among those who participated. With Rome under siege by Emperor Frederick II, the pope used the council to excommunicate and depose the emperor with Ad Apostolicae Dignitatis Apicem, as well as the Portuguese King Sancho II. The council also directed a new crusade (the Seventh Crusade), under the command of Louis IX of France, to reconquer the Holy Land. Read the Documents of the Council Source: Wikipedia, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Lyon#:~:text=The%20First%20Council%20of%20Lyon,Church%2C%20taking%20place%20in%201245.&text=The%20First%20General%20Council%20of,over%20by%20Pope%20Innocent%20IV.

“For all we Irish, inhabitants of the world’s edge, are disciples of Saints Peter and Paul and of all the disciples who wrote the sacred canon by the Holy Ghost, and we accept nothing outside the evangelical and apostolic teaching; none has been a heretic, none a Judaizer, none a schismatic; but the Catholic Faith, as it was delivered by you first, who are the successors of the holy apostles, is maintained unbroken.” (Epistle 5, to Pope Boniface IV). < Proof of the Papacy Tool St. Columbanus St. Peter “For all we Irish, inhabitants of the world’s edge, are disciples of Saints Peter and Paul and of all the disciples who wrote the sacred canon by the Holy Ghost, and we accept nothing outside the evangelical and apostolic teaching; none has been a heretic, none a Judaizer, none a schismatic; but the Catholic Faith, as it was delivered by you first, who are the successors of the holy apostles, is maintained unbroken.” (Epistle 5, to Pope Boniface IV). Proof of the Papacy Tool

“For, at that time, our divine religion had obtained a wide prevalence in the city. Peter was there executing the office of bishop, and Paul, too, after he had been brought to Rome, on appealing to Caesar from the unjust judgment of the governor.” (Sacred History, ch 28). < Proof of the Papacy Tool Sulpitius Severus St. Peter “For, at that time, our divine religion had obtained a wide prevalence in the city. Peter was there executing the office of bishop, and Paul, too, after he had been brought to Rome, on appealing to Caesar from the unjust judgment of the governor.” (Sacred History, ch 28). Proof of the Papacy Tool

< Back to Collection Periti Autem Category Romantic Composer Felix Mendelssohn About

“...correct things which are wanting, and appoint Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in every city of those which are subject to the See both of Jerusalem and of Antioch; we charging you to do this in every way, in virtue of the Apostolic authority (auctoritate) which was given us by the Lord in the person of most blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles; on account of the necessities of our time, and the pressure of the nations” (Letter to Bishop John of Philadelphia. The Pope is exercising the power of higher jurisdiction over local affairs in Antioch and Jerusalem by acting through this Eastern bishop. The cause was the ordination of heretics in the East. Mansi X. 806). < Proof of the Papacy Tool Pope St. Martin I Papal Authority, Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter “...correct things which are wanting, and appoint Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in every city of those which are subject to the See both of Jerusalem and of Antioch; we charging you to do this in every way, in virtue of the Apostolic authority (auctoritate) which was given us by the Lord in the person of most blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles; on account of the necessities of our time, and the pressure of the nations” (Letter to Bishop John of Philadelphia. The Pope is exercising the power of higher jurisdiction over local affairs in Antioch and Jerusalem by acting through this Eastern bishop. The cause was the ordination of heretics in the East. Mansi X. 806). Proof of the Papacy Tool

“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit. (Canon 34 [35], late fourth century). < Proof of the Papacy Tool The Apostolic Canons Historical Evidence “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit. (Canon 34 [35], late fourth century). Proof of the Papacy Tool

< Back to Collection Choral Du Retour Du Christ Category Christmas Composer About

The Council of Constance was an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church that was held from 1414 to 1418 in the Bishopric of Constance (Konstanz) in present-day Germany. The council ended the Western Schism by deposing or accepting the resignation of the remaining papal claimants and by electing Pope Martin V. It was the last papal election to take place outside of Italy. The council also condemned Jan Hus as a heretic and facilitated his execution by the civil authority, and ruled on issues of national sovereignty, the rights of pagans and just war, in response to a conflict between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Kingdom of Poland and the Order of the Teutonic Knights. The council is also important for its role in the debates over ecclesial conciliarism and papal supremacy. 16. The Council of Constance, 1414-18 A.D. The Council of Constance was an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church that was held from 1414 to 1418 in the Bishopric of Constance (Konstanz) in present-day Germany. The council ended the Western Schism by deposing or accepting the resignation of the remaining papal claimants and by electing Pope Martin V. It was the last papal election to take place outside of Italy. The council also condemned Jan Hus as a heretic and facilitated his execution by the civil authority, and ruled on issues of national sovereignty, the rights of pagans and just war, in response to a conflict between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Kingdom of Poland and the Order of the Teutonic Knights. The council is also important for its role in the debates over ecclesial conciliarism and papal supremacy. Read the Documents of the Council Source: Wikipedia, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Constance#:~:text=That%20council%20was%20called%20by,and%20183%20bishops%20and%20archbishops.

Rome is called “the Apostolic throne.” (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35, [362 A.D.]). “The Chief, Peter.” (Athanasius, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne [362]). “As soon as Athanasius heard, he, knowing the fury of the heretics, sailed to Rome, that the synod might be held as arranged.” (Athanasius, Historia Arianorum). “The Egyptians wrote to everyone and to Julius, bishop of Rome. The Eusebians also wrote to Julius and, thinking to frighten me, requested him to call a council, and to be himself the judge, if he so pleased.” (Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos [A.D. 351]). “A charge had been laid by some people against the bishop of Alexandria before the bishop of Rome, as he had said that the Son was made, and not one in substance with the Father. This had given great pain to the Roman council; and the bishop of Rome expressed their united sentiments in a letter to his namesake. This led to his writing an explanation which he called The Book of Refutation and Defence.” (De Synodis, On Pope St. Dionysius of Rome [A.D. 359]). “But to convince him, the bishop said : "How can this be done against Athanasius? How can we condemn a man who has been fairly acquitted first by one council, then by another assembled from all parts of the world, and whom the church of Rome dismissed in peace? Who will approve of us if we reject in his absence one whose presence we welcomed and admitted to communion? There is no such ecclesiastical canon; nos have we ever received such a tradition from the fathers, which tradition they might have received from the blessed and great apostle Peter." “. . . The emperor therefore writes to Rome, and again palace officials, notaries, and counts are sent with letters to the prefect, that they may either lead Liberius away from Rome by craft, and send him to himself at the camp, or else persecute him by violence. “After the emperor had frequently written to Rome, had threatened, sent legates, and schemed, the persecution spread to Alexandria. Liberius was dragged before him, but boldly speaking out, he said to him : " Stop persecuting the Christians ; do not try to bring profanity into the Church through me. We are ready to endure anything, rather than to be called Ariomaniacs. We are Christians; do not force us to become Christ's enemies. We also advise you not to fight against him who gave you this rule, nor to show impiety to him instead of thankfulness. Do not persecute those who believe in him.". Thus they tried at first to corrupt the church of the Romans, wishing to introduce impiety into it. But Liberius, after he had been exiled for two years, gave way, and from fear of threatened death he subscribed. But this also shows their violence, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, whilst he had a free choice. For what is done under torture against a man's first judgement is not the willing deed of those who fear, but that of the tormentors. These latter attempted everything to support the heresy, while the people in every church, holding the faith they had learnt, waited for the return of their teachers. “And they all rejected the anti-Christian heresy, and avoided it like a serpent. But although the ungodly had done all this, yet they thought they had accomplished nothing, so long as the great Hosius escaped their knavish tricks. And now they set out to extend their fury to that venerable old man. They felt no shame that he is the father of the bishops, nor did they care that he had been a confessor, nor respect the length of his episcopate, in which he had continued more than sixty years, but they set aside everything and only looked at the heresy, truly men who neither "fear God nor regard man." So they went to Constantius and again argued as follows : "We have done everything ; we have banished the bishop of the Romans, and before him many other bishops, and we have filled every place with alarm. But these strong measures of yours are nothing to us, nor have we succeeded at all, so long as Hosius remains. While he is in his own place, they all also are in their churches, for he is competent in reason and in faith to persuade all against us. He is the president of councils, and his letters are heard everywhere, and he put forth the faith in Nicaea, and proclaimed everywhere that the Arians were heretics. If therefore he remains, the banishment of the rest is superfluous, for our heresy will be put out. Begin, then, to persecute him also, and spare him not, old as he is. Our heresy does not recognize the honourable grey hairs of the aged." (Historia Arianorum [A.D. 358]). < Proof of the Papacy Tool St. Athanasius Chief of the Apostles, St. Peter Rome is called “the Apostolic throne.” (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35, [362 A.D.]). “The Chief, Peter.” (Athanasius, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne [362]). “As soon as Athanasius heard, he, knowing the fury of the heretics, sailed to Rome, that the synod might be held as arranged.” (Athanasius, Historia Arianorum). “The Egyptians wrote to everyone and to Julius, bishop of Rome. The Eusebians also wrote to Julius and, thinking to frighten me, requested him to call a council, and to be himself the judge, if he so pleased.” (Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos [A.D. 351]). “A charge had been laid by some people against the bishop of Alexandria before the bishop of Rome, as he had said that the Son was made, and not one in substance with the Father. This had given great pain to the Roman council; and the bishop of Rome expressed their united sentiments in a letter to his namesake. This led to his writing an explanation which he called The Book of Refutation and Defence.” (De Synodis, On Pope St. Dionysius of Rome [A.D. 359]). “But to convince him, the bishop said : "How can this be done against Athanasius? How can we condemn a man who has been fairly acquitted first by one council, then by another assembled from all parts of the world, and whom the church of Rome dismissed in peace? Who will approve of us if we reject in his absence one whose presence we welcomed and admitted to communion? There is no such ecclesiastical canon; nos have we ever received such a tradition from the fathers, which tradition they might have received from the blessed and great apostle Peter." “. . . The emperor therefore writes to Rome, and again palace officials, notaries, and counts are sent with letters to the prefect, that they may either lead Liberius away from Rome by craft, and send him to himself at the camp, or else persecute him by violence. “After the emperor had frequently written to Rome, had threatened, sent legates, and schemed, the persecution spread to Alexandria. Liberius was dragged before him, but boldly speaking out, he said to him : " Stop persecuting the Christians ; do not try to bring profanity into the Church through me. We are ready to endure anything, rather than to be called Ariomaniacs. We are Christians; do not force us to become Christ's enemies. We also advise you not to fight against him who gave you this rule, nor to show impiety to him instead of thankfulness. Do not persecute those who believe in him.". Thus they tried at first to corrupt the church of the Romans, wishing to introduce impiety into it. But Liberius, after he had been exiled for two years, gave way, and from fear of threatened death he subscribed. But this also shows their violence, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, whilst he had a free choice. For what is done under torture against a man's first judgement is not the willing deed of those who fear, but that of the tormentors. These latter attempted everything to support the heresy, while the people in every church, holding the faith they had learnt, waited for the return of their teachers. “And they all rejected the anti-Christian heresy, and avoided it like a serpent. But although the ungodly had done all this, yet they thought they had accomplished nothing, so long as the great Hosius escaped their knavish tricks. And now they set out to extend their fury to that venerable old man. They felt no shame that he is the father of the bishops, nor did they care that he had been a confessor, nor respect the length of his episcopate, in which he had continued more than sixty years, but they set aside everything and only looked at the heresy, truly men who neither "fear God nor regard man." So they went to Constantius and again argued as follows : "We have done everything ; we have banished the bishop of the Romans, and before him many other bishops, and we have filled every place with alarm. But these strong measures of yours are nothing to us, nor have we succeeded at all, so long as Hosius remains. While he is in his own place, they all also are in their churches, for he is competent in reason and in faith to persuade all against us. He is the president of councils, and his letters are heard everywhere, and he put forth the faith in Nicaea, and proclaimed everywhere that the Arians were heretics. If therefore he remains, the banishment of the rest is superfluous, for our heresy will be put out. Begin, then, to persecute him also, and spare him not, old as he is. Our heresy does not recognize the honourable grey hairs of the aged." (Historia Arianorum [A.D. 358]). Proof of the Papacy Tool

An article from St. Alphonus Liguori's "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation" < Heresies Tool Mary Is the Real and True Mother of God 19. The truth of this dogma is a necessary consequence of what we have already said on the subject of the two Natures; for if Christ as man is true God, and if Mary be truly the Mother of Christ as man, it necessarily follows that she must be also truly the Mother of God. We will explain it even more clearly by Scripture and tradition. In the first place the Scripture assures us that a Virgin (that is the Virgin Mary) has conceived and brought forth God, as we see in Isaias (vii, 14): " Behold a Virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a Son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which is interpreted (says St. Matthew), God with us." St. Luke, relating what the angel said to Mary, proves the same truth: " Behold thou shalt conceive in the womb, and shalt bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High, and the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke, i, 31 35.) Mark the words: " shall be called the Son of the Most High," " shall be called the Son of God," that is, shall be celebrated and recognized by the whole world as the Son of God. (2) Vide Tournelly, Comp. Theol. t. 4, p. 2, Incarn. c. 3, ar. 1, p. 800, signanter, p. 817, vers. ter. 20. St. Paul proves the same truth when he says: " Which he had promised before by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures. Concerning the Son who was made to him in the seed of David, according to the flesh" (Rom. i, 2, 3); and, writing to the Galatians, he says: " When the fulness of time was come God sent his Son made of a woman made under the law" (Gal. iv, 4). This Son, promised by God through the Prophets, and sent in the fulness of time, is God equal to the Father, as has been already proved, and this same God, sprang from the seed of David, according to the flesh, was born of Mary; she is, therefore, the true Mother of this God. 21. Besides, St. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Ghost, called Mary the Mother of her Lord: " And whence is this to me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke, i, 43). Who was the Lord of St. Elizabeth, unless God? Jesus Christ himself, also, as often as he called Mary his Mother, called himself the Son of Man, and still the Scriptures attest that without the operation of man he was born of a Virgin. He once asked his disciples: " Whence do men say that the Son of Man is?" (Matt, xvi, 13), and St. Peter answered: " Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God;" and our Saviour answered: " Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." Therefore, the Son of Man is the true Son of God, and, consequently, Mary is the Mother of God. 22. In the second place this truth is proved from tradition. The Symbols or Creeds already quoted against Nestorius, proving that Jesus Christ is true God, also prove that Mary is the true Mother of God, since they teach, " That he was conceived of the Holy Ghost from the Virgin Mary, and was made man." The decree of the Second Council of Nice (Act. VII.) even declares, if possible, more clearly, that Mary is the true Mother of God: " Confitemur autem et Dominam nostram sanctam Mariam proprio et veraciter (properly and truly) Dei Genitricem, quoniam peperit carne unum ex S. Trinitate Christum Deum nostrum; secundum quod et Ephesinum prius dogmatizavit Concilium, quod impium Nestorium cum Collegis suis tanquam personalem dualitatem introducentes ab Ecclesia pepulit." 23. Mary has been called the Mother of God by all the Fathers. I will merely quote from a few who wrote in the early ages previous to Nestorius. St. Ignatius the Martyr (1) says: " Deus noster Jesus Christus ex Maria genitus est." St. Justin (2): " Verbum formatum est, et homo factus est ex Virgine;" and again: " Ex Virginali utero Primogenitum omnium rerum conditarum carne factum vere puerum nasci, id præoecupans per Spiritum Sanctum." St. Iræneus (3) says: " Verbum existens ex Maria, quæ adhuc erat virgo, recte accipiebat generationem Adæ recapitulationis." St. Dionisius of Alexandria writes (4): " Quomodo ais tu, hominem esse eximium Christum, et non revera Deum, et ab omni creatura cum Patre, et Spiritu Sancto adorandum, incarnatum ex Virgine Deipara Maria?" And he adds: " Una sola Virgo filia vitæ genuit Verbum vivens, et per se subsistens increatum, et Creatorem." St. Athanasius (5) says: " Hunc scopum, et characterem sanctæ Scripturæ esse, nempe ut duo de Salvatore demonstret: ilium scilicet Deum semper fuisse, et Filium esse ipsumque postea propter nos, carne ex Virgine Deipara Maria assumpta, hominem factum esse." St. Gregory of Nazianzen (6) says: " Si quis sanctam Mariam Deiparam non credit, extra Divinitatem est." St. John Chrysostom says (7): " Admodum stupendum est audire Deum ineffabilem, inenarrabilem, incomprehensibilem, Patri æqualem per Virgineam venisse vulvam, et ex muliere nasci dignatum esse." Among the Latin Fathers we will quote a few. Tertullian says (8): " Ante omnia commendanda erit ratio quæ præfuit, ut Dei Filius de Virgine nasceretur." St. Ambrose says(9): "Filium coæternum Patri suscepisse carnem, natum de Spiritu Sancto ex Virgine Maria." (1) St. Ignat. Ep. ad Ephe. a. 14. (2) St. Justin, Apol. & Dialog, cum Triphon. n. 44. (3) Iræn. l. 3, c. 21, al. 31, n. 10. (4) St. Dionis. Ep. ad Paul, Samos. (5) St. Athan. Orat, 3, a. 4, con. Arian. (6) St. Greg. Nazian. Orat 51. (7) St. Chrysos. Horn. 2, in Matth. n. 2. (8) Tertul. l. de Cor. Chris, c. 17. (9) St. Ambr. Ep. 63. St. Jerome says (10): " Natum Deum ex Virgine credimus, quia legimus." St. Augustine (11) says: " Invenisse apud Deum gratiam dicitur (Mariæ ut Domini sui, imo omnium Domini Mater esset." 24. I omit other authorities, and will confine myself to only one, that of John, Bishop of Antioch, who wrote to Nestorius in the name of Theodoret, and several other friends of his, on the name of the Mother of God: " Nomen quod a multis sæpe Patribus usurpatum, ac pronunciatum est, adjungere ne graveris; neque vocabulum, quod piam rectamque notionem animi exprimit, refutare pergas; etenim nomen hoc Theotocos nullus unquam Ecclesiasticorum Doctorum repudiavit. Qui enim illo usi sunt, et multi reperiuntur, et apprime celebres; qui vero illud non usurparunt, nunquam erroris alicujus eos insimularunt, qui illo usi sunt Etenim si id quod nominis significatione offertur, non recipimus, restat ut in gravissimum errorem prolabamur, iino vero ut inexplicabilem illam unigeniti Filii Dei œconomiam abnegemus. Quandoquidem nomine hoc sublato vel hujus potius nominis notione repudiata, sequitur mox ilium non esse Deum, qui admirabilem illam dispensationem nostræ salutis causa suscepit, turn Dei Verbum neque sese exinanivisse," &c. We may as well mention that St. Cyril wrote to Pope St. Celestine, informing him, that so deeply implanted was this belief in the hearts of the people of Constantinople, that when they heard Dorotheus, by order of Nestorius, pronounce an anathema against those who asserted that she was the Mother of God, they all rose up as one man, refused to hold any more communication with Nestorius, and from that out would not go to the church, a clear proof of what the universal belief of the Church was in those days. 25. The Fathers adduced several reasons to convince Nestorius. I will only state two: First It cannot be denied that she is the Mother of God, who conceived and brought forth a Son, who, at the time of his conception, was God. But both Scripture and Tradition prove that our Blessed Lady brought forth this Son of God; she is, therefore, truly the Mother of God. " Si Deus est," says St. Cyril, " Dominus noster Jesus Christus, quomodo Dei Genetrix non est, quaa ilium genuit, Sancta Virgo" (12)? (10) St. Hier. l. con.,Elvid. (11) St. Aug. in Enchir. cap. 36. (12) St. Cyril, Ep. 1 ad Success. Here is the second reason: If Mary be not the Mother of God, then the son whom she brought forth is not God, and, consequently, the Son of God and the son of Mary are not the same. Now Jesus Christ, as we have already seen, has proclaimed himself the Son of God, and he is the son of Mary; therefore, the Nestorians must admit, either that Jesus Christ is not the son of Mary, or that Mary, being the Mother of Jesus Christ, is truly the Mother of God. THE OBJECTIONS OF THE NESTORIANS ANSWERED. 26. First, they object that the word Deipara, or Mother of God, is not used either in the Scriptures or in the Symbols of the Councils; but we answer, that neither in Scripture or Symbols do we find the word Christotocos, Mother of Christ; therefore, according to that argument, she should not be called the Mother of Christ, as Nestorius himself calls her. But we will give even a more direct answer. It is just the same thing to say that Mary is the Mother of God, as to say that she conceived and brought forth God; but both Scripture and Councils say that she brought forth a God, they, therefore, proclaim her, in equivalent terms, the Mother of God. Besides, the Fathers of the first centuries, as we have quoted, constantly called her the Mother of God, and the Scripture itself calls her Mother of our Lord, as Elizabeth, when filled with the Holy Ghost, said: " Whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?" 27. They object, secondly, that Mary did not generate the Divinity, and, consequently, she cannot be called the Mother of God. We answer, that she should be called the Mother of God, because she was the mother of a man, who was at the same time true God and true man, just as we say that a woman is the mother of a man composed both of soul and body, though she only produces the body, and not the soul, which is created by God alone. Therefore, as Mary, though she has not generated the Divinity, still, as she brought forth a man, according to the flesh, who was, at the same time, God and man, she should be called the Mother of God. 28. They object, thirdly, that the Mother ought to be consubstantial to the Son; but the Virgin is not consubstantial to God, therefore, she ought not to be called the Mother of God. We answer, that Mary is not consubstantial to Christ as to the Divinity, but merely in humanity alone, and because her son is both man and God, she is called the Mother of God. They say, besides, that if we persist in calling her the Mother of God, we may induce the simple to believe that she is a Goddess herself; but we answer, that the simple are taught by us that she is only a mere creature, but that she brought forth Christ, God and man. Besides, if Nestorius was so scrupulous about calling her the Mother of God, lest the simple might be led to believe that she was a Goddess, he ought to have a greater scruple in denying her that title, lest the simple might be led to believe, that as she was not the Mother of God, consequently Christ was not God.

“If, however it is stated in opposition to this, that he has neither metropolitan nor patriarch, it must also be said that the case must then be heard and settled by the Apostolic See, which is the head of all the churches.” (Book 13, Epistle 50 [A.D. 590–604]). “[Speaking of a Byzacene primate] as to his saying that he is subject to the Apostolic See, if any fault is found in bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it.” (Book 9, Letter 59, to John of Syracuse,). “For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge?” (Epistle 12). “Hence Peter, when he saw some affrighted by consideration of their evil deeds, admonished them, saying, Repent, and be baptized every one of you (Acts ii. 38). For, being about to speak of baptism, he spoke first of the lamentations of penitence; that they should first bathe themselves in the water of their own affliction, and afterwards wash themselves in the sacrament of baptism. With what conscience, then, can those who neglect to weep for their past misdeeds live secure of pardon, when the chief pastor of the Church himself believed that penitence must be added even to this Sacrament which chiefly extinguishes sins?” (Pope Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care, Book 3, ch 50). “Hence the first Pastor of the Church well admonishes all other pastors saying, Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you (1 Pet. iii. 15):” (Pope Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care, Book 2, ch 7). “But, if they say that a short season of penitence may suffice against sin, so that one may be allowed to return again to sin, rightly does the sentence of the first pastor hit them, when he says, It is happended unto them according to the true proverb; The dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the saw that was washed to her wallowing in the mire (2 Pet. ii. 22).” (Pope Gregory the Great, Letters, Book 11, ch 45). “Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John,-what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head.” (Pope Gregory the Great, Letters, Book 5, ch 18). “For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep (John xxi. 17). To him it is said, Behold Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for thee, Peter, that they faith fail not. And thou, when thou art converted,strengthen thy brethren (Luke xxii. 31). To him it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I willgive unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven (Matth. xvi. 18).” (Pope Gregory the Great, Letters, Book 5, ch 20). “Moreover you tell us that you wish to keep the anniversary of Peter, Prince of the apostles, in the city of Rome. And we pray Almighty God to protect you with His mercy, and grant you a fulfilment of your desires.” (Pope Gregory the Great, Letters, Book 9, ch 9). “Who does not know that the whole Church was strengthened in the firmness of the Prince of the Apostles, to whom it was said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church … and thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren?’ [Mt 16:18; Lk 22:32]” “Furthermore, it has come to our knowledge that your Fraternity has been convened to Constantinople. And although our most pious Emperor allows nothing unlawful to be done there, yet, lest perverse men, taking occasion of your assembly, should seek opportunity of cajoling you in favouring this name of superstition, or should think of holding a synod about some other matter, with the view of introducing it therein by cunning contrivances — though without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force.” (Registrum Epistolarum, Book IX, Letter 68). “Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to principality itself, the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority.” “To all who know the Gospel [presumably, the account of Sts. John & Matthew] it is obvious that by the voice of the Lord [divine institution] the care of the universal church was committed to the holy apostle and prince of all the apostles, Peter…Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire Church was committed to him, and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim, O tempora! O mores!“” (Book 5, Epistle 37). "Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. “And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep. “Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.” (Epistle 40, Letter to Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria). “To all who know the Gospel it is clear that by the words of our Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles…. Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire church was committed to him…. Yet he was not the universal Apostle. But … John would be called universal Bishop…. [Popes had never assumed this ‘universal’ title, though it had been ascribed to them by other bishops], lest all the Bishops be deprived of their due meed of honor whilst some special honor be conceded to one.” (Epistle 5, to Emperor Maurice). "Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called Universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren." (Condemning Bishop John the Faster, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588). [In the condemned sense the title "universal bishop" is taken to mean that in the Church there is only one true bishop, with all others who claim the title merely acting as the true bishop’s delegates or deputies. In its approved sense, the title “universal bishop” suggests that the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction and authority extend to the whole Church, something with which Gregory was in hearty agreement.] “You certainly sin if, having heard the decree of the apostolic see, and of the universal Church, and that the same is confirmed by Holy Writ, you refuse to follow them; for, though your fathers were holy, do you think that their small number, in a corner of the remotest island, is to be preferred before the universal Church of Christ throughout the world ? And though that Columba of yours (and, I may say, ours also, if he was Christ's servant) was a holy man and powerful in miracles, yet should he be preferred before the most blessed prince of the apostles, to whom our Lord said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give up to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven'?" (The Synod of Whitby: Celtic and Roman: The Controveresy over the Date of Easter, Readings in European History, (Boston: Ginn, 1905), pp. 97-105) < Proof of the Papacy Tool St. Pope Gregory the Great Apostolic See, Keys, Rock of the Church, Papal Authority, Chief of the Apostles, Prince of the Apostles, Universal Jurisdiction, St. Peter “If, however it is stated in opposition to this, that he has neither metropolitan nor patriarch, it must also be said that the case must then be heard and settled by the Apostolic See, which is the head of all the churches.” (Book 13, Epistle 50 [A.D. 590–604]). “[Speaking of a Byzacene primate] as to his saying that he is subject to the Apostolic See, if any fault is found in bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it.” (Book 9, Letter 59, to John of Syracuse,). “For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge?” (Epistle 12). “Hence Peter, when he saw some affrighted by consideration of their evil deeds, admonished them, saying, Repent, and be baptized every one of you (Acts ii. 38). For, being about to speak of baptism, he spoke first of the lamentations of penitence; that they should first bathe themselves in the water of their own affliction, and afterwards wash themselves in the sacrament of baptism. With what conscience, then, can those who neglect to weep for their past misdeeds live secure of pardon, when the chief pastor of the Church himself believed that penitence must be added even to this Sacrament which chiefly extinguishes sins?” (Pope Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care, Book 3, ch 50). “Hence the first Pastor of the Church well admonishes all other pastors saying, Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you (1 Pet. iii. 15):” (Pope Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care, Book 2, ch 7). “But, if they say that a short season of penitence may suffice against sin, so that one may be allowed to return again to sin, rightly does the sentence of the first pastor hit them, when he says, It is happended unto them according to the true proverb; The dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the saw that was washed to her wallowing in the mire (2 Pet. ii. 22).” (Pope Gregory the Great, Letters, Book 11, ch 45). “Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John,-what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head.” (Pope Gregory the Great, Letters, Book 5, ch 18). “For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep (John xxi. 17). To him it is said, Behold Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for thee, Peter, that they faith fail not. And thou, when thou art converted,strengthen thy brethren (Luke xxii. 31). To him it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I willgive unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven (Matth. xvi. 18).” (Pope Gregory the Great, Letters, Book 5, ch 20). “Moreover you tell us that you wish to keep the anniversary of Peter, Prince of the apostles, in the city of Rome. And we pray Almighty God to protect you with His mercy, and grant you a fulfilment of your desires.” (Pope Gregory the Great, Letters, Book 9, ch 9). “Who does not know that the whole Church was strengthened in the firmness of the Prince of the Apostles, to whom it was said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church … and thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren?’ [Mt 16:18; Lk 22:32]” “Furthermore, it has come to our knowledge that your Fraternity has been convened to Constantinople. And although our most pious Emperor allows nothing unlawful to be done there, yet, lest perverse men, taking occasion of your assembly, should seek opportunity of cajoling you in favouring this name of superstition, or should think of holding a synod about some other matter, with the view of introducing it therein by cunning contrivances — though without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force.” (Registrum Epistolarum, Book IX, Letter 68). “Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to principality itself, the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority.” “To all who know the Gospel [presumably, the account of Sts. John & Matthew] it is obvious that by the voice of the Lord [divine institution] the care of the universal church was committed to the holy apostle and prince of all the apostles, Peter…Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire Church was committed to him, and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim, O tempora! O mores!“” (Book 5, Epistle 37). "Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. “And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep. “Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.” (Epistle 40, Letter to Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria). “To all who know the Gospel it is clear that by the words of our Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles…. Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire church was committed to him…. Yet he was not the universal Apostle. But … John would be called universal Bishop…. [Popes had never assumed this ‘universal’ title, though it had been ascribed to them by other bishops], lest all the Bishops be deprived of their due meed of honor whilst some special honor be conceded to one.” (Epistle 5, to Emperor Maurice). "Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called Universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren." (Condemning Bishop John the Faster, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588). [In the condemned sense the title "universal bishop" is taken to mean that in the Church there is only one true bishop, with all others who claim the title merely acting as the true bishop’s delegates or deputies. In its approved sense, the title “universal bishop” suggests that the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction and authority extend to the whole Church, something with which Gregory was in hearty agreement.] “You certainly sin if, having heard the decree of the apostolic see, and of the universal Church, and that the same is confirmed by Holy Writ, you refuse to follow them; for, though your fathers were holy, do you think that their small number, in a corner of the remotest island, is to be preferred before the universal Church of Christ throughout the world ? And though that Columba of yours (and, I may say, ours also, if he was Christ's servant) was a holy man and powerful in miracles, yet should he be preferred before the most blessed prince of the apostles, to whom our Lord said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give up to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven'?" (The Synod of Whitby: Celtic and Roman: The Controveresy over the Date of Easter, Readings in European History, (Boston: Ginn, 1905), pp. 97-105) Proof of the Papacy Tool

< Back to Collection Au plus haut de mon âme Category Choral Composer About

“These are the teachings of the voices of the Gospels and Apostles, these the doctrines of the holy Synods, and of the elect and Patristic tongues; these have been preserved untainted by Peter, the rock of the faith, the head of the Apostles; in this faith we live and reign… “ (Emperor Constantine IV writing to the Council, giving his acceptance of the decrees [Mansi 11.698]). “The letter of Pope Agatho, who is with the Saints, to our Majesty having been presented by his envoys…we ordered it to be read in the hearing of all, and we beheld in it as a mirror the image of sound and unsullied faith. We compared with the voice of the Gospels and Apostles, and set beside it the decisions of the holy ecumenical Synods, and compared the quotations it contained with the precepts of the Fathers, and finding nothing out of harmony, we perceived in it all the words of the true confession unaltered. And with the eyes of our understanding we saw it as it were the very ruler of the Apostolic choir, the chief Peter himself, declaring the mystery of the whole dispensation, and addressing Christ by this letter: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God…. We received it willingly and sincerely, and embraced it, as though it were Peter himself, with the arms of our soul. Macarius alone, who was prelate of Antioch, with those whom he dragged after him, divided from us, and drew back from the yoke of Christ, and leapt out of the sacerdotal circle [i.e. unity]; for he refused altogether to agree to the all -holy writings of Agatho, as though he were even raging against the Head Peter himself… “And since he so hardened his heart and made his neck a cord of iron, and his forehead of brass, and his ears heavy that they should not hear, and set his heart unfaithful that is should not obey the law, for the law goeth forth from Zion , the teaching of the Apostolic height, for this cause the holy ecumenical Synod stripped him, Macarius, and his fellow heretics, of the sacerdotal office. In a written petition all of one accord begged our serenity to send them [i.e. the heretics] to your blessedness [for judgement]. This we have done…committing to your fatherly judgment all that concerns them….Glory be to God, who does wondrous things, who has kept safe the faith among you unharmed. For how should He not do so in that rock on which He founded His church, and prophesied that the gates of hell , all the ambushes of heretics, should not prevail against it? From it, as from the vault of heaven, the word of the true confession flashed forth, and enlightened the souls of the lovers of Christ, and brought warmth to frozen orthodoxy. This we have completed happily by God’s help, and have brought all the sheep of Christ into one fold, no longer deceived by false shepherds and the prey of wolves, but pastured by One good Shepherd, with whom you have been appointed to join in pasturing them, and to lay your life down for the sheep…” (Emperor Constantine IV to Pope St. Leo II, Mansi 11.713) “You yourself were present with your ecumenical chief Pastor [Agatho], speaking with him in spirit and in writing. For we received, besides the letter from his blessedness [Agatho], also one from your sanctity. It was produced, it was read, and it detailed for us the word of truth and painted the likeness of orthodoxy…..We did not neglect to compare them with care. And therefore, in harmony of mind and tongue we believed with the one and confessed with the other, and we admired the writing of Agatho as the voice of divine Peter, for nobody disagreed, save one [Macarius]” (Emperor Constantine IV, letter to a Roman synod). < Proof of the Papacy Tool Emperor Constantine IV Rock of the Church, Chief of the Apostles, St. Peter, Shepherd “These are the teachings of the voices of the Gospels and Apostles, these the doctrines of the holy Synods, and of the elect and Patristic tongues; these have been preserved untainted by Peter, the rock of the faith, the head of the Apostles; in this faith we live and reign… “ (Emperor Constantine IV writing to the Council, giving his acceptance of the decrees [Mansi 11.698]). “The letter of Pope Agatho, who is with the Saints, to our Majesty having been presented by his envoys…we ordered it to be read in the hearing of all, and we beheld in it as a mirror the image of sound and unsullied faith. We compared with the voice of the Gospels and Apostles, and set beside it the decisions of the holy ecumenical Synods, and compared the quotations it contained with the precepts of the Fathers, and finding nothing out of harmony, we perceived in it all the words of the true confession unaltered. And with the eyes of our understanding we saw it as it were the very ruler of the Apostolic choir, the chief Peter himself, declaring the mystery of the whole dispensation, and addressing Christ by this letter: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God…. We received it willingly and sincerely, and embraced it, as though it were Peter himself, with the arms of our soul. Macarius alone, who was prelate of Antioch, with those whom he dragged after him, divided from us, and drew back from the yoke of Christ, and leapt out of the sacerdotal circle [i.e. unity]; for he refused altogether to agree to the all -holy writings of Agatho, as though he were even raging against the Head Peter himself… “And since he so hardened his heart and made his neck a cord of iron, and his forehead of brass, and his ears heavy that they should not hear, and set his heart unfaithful that is should not obey the law, for the law goeth forth from Zion , the teaching of the Apostolic height, for this cause the holy ecumenical Synod stripped him, Macarius, and his fellow heretics, of the sacerdotal office. In a written petition all of one accord begged our serenity to send them [i.e. the heretics] to your blessedness [for judgement]. This we have done…committing to your fatherly judgment all that concerns them….Glory be to God, who does wondrous things, who has kept safe the faith among you unharmed. For how should He not do so in that rock on which He founded His church, and prophesied that the gates of hell , all the ambushes of heretics, should not prevail against it? From it, as from the vault of heaven, the word of the true confession flashed forth, and enlightened the souls of the lovers of Christ, and brought warmth to frozen orthodoxy. This we have completed happily by God’s help, and have brought all the sheep of Christ into one fold, no longer deceived by false shepherds and the prey of wolves, but pastured by One good Shepherd, with whom you have been appointed to join in pasturing them, and to lay your life down for the sheep…” (Emperor Constantine IV to Pope St. Leo II, Mansi 11.713) “You yourself were present with your ecumenical chief Pastor [Agatho], speaking with him in spirit and in writing. For we received, besides the letter from his blessedness [Agatho], also one from your sanctity. It was produced, it was read, and it detailed for us the word of truth and painted the likeness of orthodoxy…..We did not neglect to compare them with care. And therefore, in harmony of mind and tongue we believed with the one and confessed with the other, and we admired the writing of Agatho as the voice of divine Peter, for nobody disagreed, save one [Macarius]” (Emperor Constantine IV, letter to a Roman synod). Proof of the Papacy Tool

An article from St. Alphonus Liguori's "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation" < Heresies Tool The Truth of Transubstantiation, That is, the Conversion of the Substance of the Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 22. Luther at first left it as a matter of choice to each person, either to believe in Transubstantiation or not, but he changed his opinion afterwards, and in 1522, in the book which he wrote against Henry VIII. , he says: " I now wish to transubstantiate my own opinion. I thought it better before to say nothing about the belief in Transubstantiation, but now I declare, that if any one holds this doctrine, he is an impious blasphemer" (1), and he concludes by saying, that in the Eucharist, along with the body and blood of Christ, remains the substance of the bread and wine: " that the body of Christ is in the bread, with the bread, and under the bread, just as fire is in a red-hot iron." He, therefore, called the Real Presence " Impanation," or " Consubstantiation," that is, the association of the substance of bread and wine with the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. 23. The Council of Trent, however, teaches, that the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ. It issued a Decree to that effect (Cap. 4, Sess. xiii), and says, that the Church most aptly calls this change Transubstantiation. (I) Luther, lib. con. Reg. Angliac. Here are the words of the Second Can.: " Si quis dixerit in sacrosancto Eucaristiæ Sacramento remanere substantiam panis et vini una cum corpore et sanguine D. N. J. C., negaveritque mirabilem illam, et singularem conversionem totius substantiæ panis in corpus, et totius substantiao vini in sanguinem, manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini, quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem appellat, anathema sit." Remark the words, mirabi lem ilium, et singularem conversionem totius substantiæ, the won derful and singular conversion of the whole substance. It is called wonderful, for it is a mystery hidden from us, and which we never can comprehend. It is singular, because in all nature there is not another case of a similar change; and it is called a conversion, because it is not a simple union with the body of Christ, such as was the hypostatic union by which the Divine and human Natures were united in the sole person of Christ. Such is not the case, then, in the Eucharist, for the substance of the bread and wine is not united with, but is totally changed and converted into, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. We say a conversion of the whole substance, to distinguish it from other conversions or changes, such as the change of food into the body of the person who partakes of it, or the change of water into wine by our Redeemer at Cana, and the change of the rod of Moses into a serpent, for in all these changes the substance remained, and it was the form alone that was changed; but in the Eucharist the matter and form of the bread and wine is changed, and the species alone remain, that is, the appearance alone, as the council explains it, " remanentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini." 24. The general opinion is, that this conversion is not performed by the creation of the body of Christ, for creation is the production of a thing out of nothing; but this is the conversion of the substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ. It does not take place either by the annihilation of the matter of the bread and wine, because annihilation means the total destruction of a thing, and the body of Christ, then, would be changed, we may say, from nothing; but in the Eucharist the substance of the bread passes into the substance of Christ, so that it is not from nothing. Neither does it take place by the transmutation of the form alone (as a certain author endeavours to prove), the same matter still remaining, as happened when the water was changed into wine, and the rod into a serpent. Scotus says that Transubstantiation is an act adducing the body of Christ into the Eucharist (actio adductiva); but this opinion is not followed by others, for adduction does not mean conversion by the passage of one substance into the other. It cannot be called, either, a unitivc action, for that supposes two extremes in the point of union. Hence, we say, with St. Thomas, that the consecration operates in such a manner, that if the body of Christ was not in heaven, it would commence to exist in the Eucharist. The consecration really, and in instanti, as the same Doctor says (2), reproduces the body of Christ under the present species of bread, for as this is a sacramental action, it is requisite that there should be an external sign, in which the rationale of a Sacrament consists. 25. The Council of Trent has declared (Sess. xiii, cap. 3), that vi verborum the body of Christ alone is under the appearance of bread, and the blood alone under the appearance of wine; that by natural and proximate concomitance the soul of our Saviour is under both species, with his body and his blood; by supernatural and remote concomitance the Divinity of the Word is present, by the hypostatic union of the Word with the body and soul of Christ; and that the Father and the Holy Ghost are present, by the identity of the essence of the Father and the Holy Ghost with the Word. Here are the words of the Council: " Semper hæc fides in Ecclesia Dei fuit, statim post consecrationom verum Domini nostri corpus, vetumque ejus sanguinem sub panis, et vini specie, una cum ipsius anima, et Divinitate existere; sed corpus quidem sub specie panis, et sanguinem sub vini specie ex vi verborum; ipsum autem corpus sub specie vini, et sanguinem sub specie panis, animamque sub utraque vi naturalis illius connexionis, et concemitantiæ, qua partes Christi Domini, qui jam ex mortuis resurrexit, non araplius moriturus, inter se copulantur: Divinitatem porro propter admirabilem illam ejus cum corpore, et anima hypostaticam unionem." (2) St. Thom, p. 3, qn. 75, iirt. 1. 26. Transubstantiation is proved by the very words of Christ himself: " This is my body." The word this, according to the Lutherans themselves, proves that Christ’s body was really present. If the body of Christ was there, therefore the substance of the bread was not there; for if the bread was there, and if by the word this our Lord meant the bread, the proposition would be false, taking it in this sense, This is my body, that is, this bread is my body, for it is not true that the bread was the body of Christ. But perhaps they will then say, before our Lord expressed the word body, what did the word this refer to? We answer, as we have done already, that it does not refer either o the bread or to the body, but has its own natural meaning, which is this: This which is contained under the appearance of bread is not bread, but is my body. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says (3): " Aquam aliquando ( Christus) mutavit in vinum in Cana Galilææ sola voluntate, et non erit dignus cui credamus, quod vinum in sanguinem transmutasset." St. Gregory of Nyssa (4) says: " Panis statim per verbum transmutatur, sicut dictum est a Verbo: Hoc est corpus meum." St. Ambrose writes thus (5): "Quantis utimur exemplis, ut probemus non hoc esse quod natura formavit, sed quod benedictio consecravit; majoremque vim esse benedictionis, quam naturæ, quia benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur." St. John of Damascus (6): " Panis, ac vinum et aqua per Sancti Spiritus invocationem, et adventum mirabili modo in Christi corpus et sanguinem vertuntur." Tertullian, St. Chrysostom, and St. Hilary use the same language (7). 27. Transubstantiation is also proved by the authority of Councils, and especially, first, by the Roman Council, under Gregory VII., in which Berengarius made his profession of Faith, and said: " Panem et vinum, quæ ponuntur in Altari, in veram et propriam ac vivificatricem carnem et sanguinem Jesu Christi substantialiter convert! per verba consecratoria." (3) St. Cyril, Hieros. Cath. Mystagog. -(4) St. Greg. Nyssa. Orat. Cath. c. 37. (5) St. Ambrose de Initland. c. 9 (6) St. Jo. Damas. l. 4, Orthod. Fidei. c. 14. (7) Tertul. contra Marcion. l. 4, c. 4; Chrysos. Hom. 4, in una cor. St. Hil. l. 8, de Trinit. . Secondly By the Fourth Council of Lateran (cap. 1), which says: " Idem ipse Sacerdos et Sacrificium Jesus Christus, cumcorpus et sanguis in Sacramento Altar is sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continetur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus, et vino in sanguinem potestate Divina," &c. Thirdly By the Council of Trent (Sess. xiii, can. 2), which condemns all who deny this doctrine: "Mirabilem illam conversionem totius substantive panis in corpus, et vini in sanguinem quam conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantionem appellat." OBJECTIONS AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION ANSWERED. 28. The Lutherans say, first, that the body of Christ is locally in the bread as in a vessel, and, as we say, showing a bottle in which wine is contained, " This is the wine," so, say they, Christ, showing the bread, said: " This is my body;" and hence, both the body of Christ and the bread are, at the same time, present in the Eucharist. We answer, that, according to the common mode of speech, a bottle is a fit and proper thing to show that wine is there, because wine is usually kept in bottles, but it is not the case with bread, which is not a fit and proper thing to designate or point out a human body, for it is only by a miracle that a human body could be contained in bread. 29. Just to confound one heresy by another, we will quote the argument of the Zuinglians (1) against the Impanation or Consubstantiation of the bread and the body of Christ, invented by the Lutherans. If, say they, the words " This is my body" are to be taken in a literal sense, as Luther says they are, then the Transubstantiation of the Catholics is true. And this is certainly the case. Christ did not say, this bread is my body, or here is my body, but this thing is my body. Hence, say they, when Luther rejects the figurative meaning, that it is only the signification of the body of Christ, as they hold, and wishes to explain the words " this is my body" after his own fashion, that is, this bread is really my body, and not the frame of my body, this doctrine falls to the ground of itself, for if our Saviour intended to teach us that the bread was his body, and that the bread was there still, it would be a contradiction in itself. (1) Bossuet. Variat. t. 1, l. 2, i. 31; Ospinian. ann. 1527, p. 49. The true sense of the words " This is my body," however, is that the word this is to be thus understood: this, which I hold in my hands is my body. Hence the Zuinglians concluded that the conversion of the substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ should be taken either totally figuratively or totally in substance, and this was Beza’s opinion in the Conference of Monbeliard, held with the Lutherans. Here, then, is, according to the true dogma, the conclusion we should come to in opposition to Luther. When our Lord says, " This is my body," he intended that of that bread should be formed either the substance, or the figure of his body; if the substance of the bread, therefore, be not the mere simple figure of Christ’s body, as Luther says, then it must become the whole substance of the body of Jesus Christ. 30. They object, secondly, that in the Scripture the Eucharist is called bread, even after the consecration: " One body... .who all partake of one bread" (I. Cor. x, 17); " Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the Chalice of the Lord unworthily" c. (1. Cor. xi, 27); the bread, therefore, remains. Such, however, is not the case; it is called bread, not because it retains the substance of bread, but because the body of Christ is made from the bread. In the Scriptures we find that those things which are miraculously changed into other things are still called by the name of the thing from which they were changed, as the water which was changed into wine, by St. John, at the marriage of Cana in Galilee was still called water, even after the change: " When the Chief Steward had tasted the water made wine" (John, ii, y); and in Exodus also we read that the rod of Moses changed into a serpent was still called a rod: "Aaron’s rod devoured their rods" (Exod. vii, 12). In like manner, then, the Eucharist is called bread after the consecration, because it was bread before, and still retains the appearance of bread. Besides, as the Eucharist is the food of the soul, it may be justly called bread, as the Manna made by the angels is called bread, that is, spiritual bread: " Man eat the bread of angels" (Psalms, Ixxvii, 25). The sectarians, however, say, the body of Christ cannot be broken, it is the bread alone that is broken, and still St. Paul says: " And the bread which we break is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" (I. Cor. x, 16). We answer, that the breaking is understood to refer to the species of the bread which remain, but not to the body of the Lord, which, being present in a sacramental manner, cannot be either broken or injured. 31. They object, thirdly, that Christ says, in St. John: " I am the bread of life" (John, vi, 48); still he was not changed into bread. The very text, however, answers the objection itself. Our Lord says: " I am the bread of life:" now the word " life" shows that the expression must be taken not in a natural but a metaphorical sense. The words " This is my body" must, however, be taken in quite another way; in order that this proposition should be true, it was necessary that the bread should be changed into the body of Christ, and this is Transubstantiation, which is an article of our Faith, and which consists in the conversion of the substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ, so that in the very instant in which the words of consecration are concluded, the bread has no longer the substance of bread, but under its species exists the body of the Lord. The conversion, then, has two terms, in one of which it ceases to be, and in the other commences to be, for otherwise, if the bread was first annihilated, and the body then produced, it would not be a true conversion or Transubstantiation. It is of no consequence to say that the word Transubstantiation is new, and not found in the Scriptures, when the thing signified, that is, the Eucharist, really exists. The Church has always adopted new expressions, to explain more clearly the truths of the Faith when attacked by heretics, as she adopted the word Consubstantial to combat the heresy of Arius

< Back to Collection O Adonai / Sacred Lord of Ancient Israel Category Christmas Composer About