< Videos Thomas À Kempis Was Buried Alive?! Pay It Forward Share

“We venerate and receive as orthodox whatever was said there by common consent with the legates and vicars of the orthodox Apostolic See. Whatever they anathematized or condemned we also anathematize and condemn; and whatever things are read to have been judged, or defined, or constituted or disposed, we preserve irreversibly and unchangeably as they were [so done] by the same synods by common consent with the vicars of the Apostolic See…” (Letter from the bishops to the Pope [A.D. 553]). Though Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by this Council, reverence is still paid to the Apostolic See: “as for unity with the Apostolic See, we both keep it and it is certain that you shall keep it… Let us therefore keep unity with the apostolic see of Old Rome, carrying out everything according to the content of the letters read…” (Sessions of the Council). < Proof of the Papacy Tool The Second Council of Constantinople (The Fifth Ecumenical Council) Apostolic See “We venerate and receive as orthodox whatever was said there by common consent with the legates and vicars of the orthodox Apostolic See. Whatever they anathematized or condemned we also anathematize and condemn; and whatever things are read to have been judged, or defined, or constituted or disposed, we preserve irreversibly and unchangeably as they were [so done] by the same synods by common consent with the vicars of the Apostolic See…” (Letter from the bishops to the Pope [A.D. 553]). Though Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by this Council, reverence is still paid to the Apostolic See: “as for unity with the Apostolic See, we both keep it and it is certain that you shall keep it… Let us therefore keep unity with the apostolic see of Old Rome, carrying out everything according to the content of the letters read…” (Sessions of the Council). Proof of the Papacy Tool

An article from St. Alphonus Liguori's "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation" < Heresies Tool The Errors of Michael Baius In order to refute the false system of Michael Baius, it is necessary to transcribe his seventy-nine condemned Propositions, for it is out of them we must find out his system. Here, then, are the Propositions, condemned by Pope St. Pius V., in the year 1564, in his Bull, which commences, " Ex omnibus aiflictionibus," &c.: " 1. Nec Angeli, nec primi hominis adhuc integri merita recto vocantur gratia. 2. Sicut opus malum ex natura sua est mortis aiternse meritorium, sic bonum opus ex natura sua est vital æternæ meritorium. 3. Et bonis Angelis, et primo homini, si in statu illo permansissent usque ad ultimum vitæ, felicitas esset merces, et non gratia. 4. Vita æterna homini integro, et Angelo promissa fuit intuitu honor um operum: et bona opera ex lego natural ad illam consequendam per se sufficiunt. 5. In promissione facta Angelo, et primo homini continetur naturalis justitiao constitutio, quao pro bonis operibus sine alio respectu, vita aiterna justis promittitur. 6. Naturali lege constitutum fuit homini, ut si obedientia perseveraret, ad earn vitam pertransiret, in qua mori non posset. 7. Primi hominis integri merita fuerunt primæ creationis munera: sed juxta modum loquendi Scripturæ Sacræ, non recte vocantur gratiai; quo fit ut tantum merita, non etiam gratiæ debeant nuncupari. 8. In redemptis per gratiam Christi nullum inveniri potest bonum meritum, quod non sit gratis indigno collatum. 9. Dona concessa homini integro, et Angelo, forsitan, non improbanda ratione, possunt dici gratia: sed quia secundum usum Scripturæ nomine gratiæ tantum ea munera intelliguntur, quai per Jesum male merentibus et indignis conferuntur, ideo neque merita, nec merces quæ illis redditur, gratia dici debot. 10. Solutionem pœnæ temporalis, quæ peccato dimisso saipe manet, et corporis resurrectionem, proprie nonnisi ineritis Christi adscribendam esse. 11. Quod pie et juste in hac vita mortali usque in finem conversati vitam consequimur æternam, id non proprie gratiæ Dei, sed ordinationi naturali statim initio creationis constitute, justo Dei judicio deputandum est. 12. Nec in hac retributione honor um ad Christi meritum respicitur, sed tantum ad primam constitutionem generis humani, in qua lege naturali institutum est, ut justo Dei judicio obedientiæ mandatorum vita æterna reddatur. 13. Pelagii sententia est, opus bonum citra gratiam adoptionis factura non esse Regni Coaletis meritorium. 14. Opera bona a filiis adoptionis facta non accipiunt rationem meriti ex eo quod fiunt per spiritum adoptionis inhabitantem corda filiorum Dei, sed tantum ex eo quod sunt conformia Legi, quodque per ea præstatur obedientia Legi. 15. Opera bona justorum non accipient in die Judicii extremi ampliorem mercedem, quam justo Dei judicio merentur accipere. 16. Ratio meriti non consistit in eo quod qui bene operatur, habeat gratiam et inhabitantem Spiritum Sanctum, sed in eo solum quod obedit divinæ Legi. 17. Non est vera Legis obedientia, quæ fit sine caritate. 18. Sentiunt cum Pelagio, qui dicunt esse necesarium ad rationem meriti, ut homo per gratiam adoptionis sublimctur ad statum Deificum. 19. Opera Catechumenorum, ut Fides, et Pœnitentia, ante remissionem peccatorum facta sunt vitæ æternæ merita; quam ii non consequentur, nisi prius præcedentium delictorum impedimenta tollantur. 20. Opera justitiæ, et temperantiæ, quæ Christus fecit, ex dignitate Personæ operantis non traxerunt major em valorem. 21. Nullum est peccatum ex natura sua veniale, sed omne peccatum meretur pœnam æternam. 22. Humanæ naturæ sublimatio et exaltatio in consortium Divinæ naturæ debita fuit integritati primæ conditionis; ac proinde naturalis dicenda est, non supernaturalis. 23. Cum Pelagio sentiunt, qui textum Apostoli ad Romanos secundo: Gentes quæ legem non habent, naturaliter quæ leais sunt faciunt; intelligunt de Gentilibus fidem non habentibus. 24. Absurda est eorum sententia, qui dicunt, hominem ab initio dono quodam supernaturali, et gratuito supra conditioned naturæ fuisse exaltatum, ut fide, spe, caritate Deum supernaturaliter coleret. 25. A vanis, et otiosis hominibus secundum insipientiam Philosophorum excogitata est sententia hominem ab initio sic constitutum, ut per dona naturæ super addita fuerit largitate Conditoris sublimatus, et in Dei filium adoptatus, et ad Pelagianismum rejicienda est ilia sententia. 26. Omnia opera Infidolium sunt peccata, et Philosophorum virtutes sunt vitia. 27. Integritas prima crcationis non fuit indebita humanæ naturæ exaltatio, scd naturalis ejus conditio. 28. Liberum arbitrium sine gratiæ Dei adjutorio nonnisi ad peccandum valet. 29. Pelagianus est error dicerc, quod liberum arbitrium valet ad ullum peccatum vitandum. 30. Non solum fures ii sunt et latrones, qui Christum viam, et ostium veritatis et vitæ negant; sed ctiam quicunquc aliundc quam per Christum in viam justitiæ, hoc est, ad aliquam justitiam conscendi posse dicunt; aut tentationi ulli sine gratiæ ipsius adjutorio resistero hominem posse, sic ut in cam non inducatur, aut ab ca superetur. 31. Caritas perfecta et sincera, quæ est ex corde puro et conscientia bona, et fide non ficta, tarn in Catechumcnis, quam in Pœnitentibus potest esso sine remissione peccatorum. 32. Caritas ilia quæ est plcnitudo Lcgis, non est semper conjuncta cum remissione peccatorum. 33. Catechumenus juste, recte, et sancte vivit, et mandata Dei observat, ac Legem implet per caritatem, ante obtentam remissioncm peccatorum, quæ in Baptismi lavacre demum percipitur. 34. Distinctio ilia duplicis amoris, naturalis videlicet, quo Dcus amatur ut auctor naturæ, et gratuiti, quo Deus amatur ut beatificator, vana est et commentitia, et ad illudendum Sacris Litteris, et plurimis Veterum testimoniis excogitata. 35. Omne quod agit peccator, vel servus peccati peccatum est. 36. Amor naturalis, qui ex viribus naturæ exoritur, et sola Philosophia per elationcm præsumptionis humanæ, cum injuria Crucis Christi defcnditur a nonnullis Doctoribus. 37. Cum Pelagio sentit, qui boni aliquid naturalis, hoc est, quod ex naturæ solis viribus ortum ducit, agnoscit. 38. Omnis amor creaturæ naturalis, aut vitiosa est cupiditas, qua mundus diligitur, quæ a Joanne prohibetur: aut laudabilis ilia caritas, qua per Spiritum Sanctum in corde diffusa Deus amatur. 39. Quod voluntarie fit, etiamsi in necessitate fiat, libere tamen fit. 40. In omnibus suis actibus peccator servit dommanti cupiditati. 41. Is liber tatis modus, qui est a necessitate, sub libertatis nomine non reperitur in script uris, sed solum libertatis a peccato. 42. Justitia, qua justificatur per fidem impius, consistit formaliter in obedientia mandatorum, quæ est operum justitia, non autcm in gratia aliqua animæ infusa, qua adoptatur homo in filium Dei, et secundum intoriorem hominem rcnovatur, et Divinæ naturæ consors efficitur, ut sic per SpiritumSanctum renovatus, deinceps bene vivere, et Dei mandatis obedire possit. 43. In hominibus poenitentibus, ante Sacramentum absolutions, et in Catechumenis ante Baptisraum est vera justificatio, et separata tamen a remissione peccatorum. 44. Operibus plerisque, qua? a fidelibus fiunt, solum ut Dei mandatis pareant, cujusmodi sunt obedire parentibus, depositum reddere, ab hornicidio, a furto, a fornicatione abstinere, justificantur quidem homines, quia sunt legis obedientia, et vera legis justitia; non tamen iis obtinent incrementa virtutum. 45. Sacrificium Missæ non alia ratione est Sacrificium, quam generali ilia, qua omne opus quod fit, ut sancta socictate Deo homo inhæreat. 46. Ad rationem, et definitionem peccati non pertinet voluntarium nec definitions quæstio est, sed eaussæ, et originis, utrum omne peccatum debeat esse voluntarium. 47. Unde peccatum originis vere habet rationem peccati, sine ulla relatione, ac respectu ad voluntatem, a qua originem habuit. 48. Peccatum originis est habituali parvuli voluntate voluntarium, et habitualiter dominatur parvulos, eo quod non gerit contrarium voluntatis arbitrium. 49. Et ex habituali voluntate dominante fit ut parvulus decedens sine regenerationis Sacramento, quando usuin rationis consequens erit, actualiter Dcum odio habeat, Deum blasphemet, et Legi Dei repugnet. 50. Prava desideria, quibus ratio non consentit, et quæ homo invitus patitur, sunt proliibita præcepto: Non concupisces. 51. Concupiscentia, sive lex membrorum, et prava ejus desideria, quæ inviti sentiunt homines, sunt vera legis inobedientia. 52. Omne scelus est ejus conditionis, ut suum auctorem, et omnes posteros eo modo inficere possit, quo infecit prima transgressio. 53. Quantum est ex vi transgressionis, tantum meritorum malorum a generante contrahunt, qui cum minoribus nascuntur vitiis, quam qui cum majoribus. 54. Definitiva hæc sententia, Deum homini nihil impossibile præcepisse, falso tribuitur Augustineo, cum Pelagii sit. 55. Deus non potuisset ab initio talem creare hominem, qualis nunc nascitur. 56. In peccato duo sunt, actus, et renatus: transeunte autem actu nihil manet, nisi rcatus, sive obligatio ad Pœnam. 57. Unde in Sacramento Baptismi, aut Sacerdotis absolutione proprie reatus peccati dumtaxat tollitur; et ministerium Sacerdotum solum liberat a reatu. 58. Peccator pœnitens non vivificatur ministerio Sacerdotis absolvcntis, scd a solo Deo, qui pœnitentiam suggerens, et inspirans vivificat cum, ot resuscitat; ministerio autem Sacerdotis solum reatus tollitur. 59. Quando per eleemosynas aliaque pœnitentiæ opera Deo satisfacimus pro pconis temporalibus, non dignura pretium Deo pro peccatis nostris offerimus, sicut quidem errantes autumant (nam alioqui essemus saltern aliqua ex parte redemptores), sed aliquid facimus, cujus intuitu Christi satisfactio nobis applicatur, et communicatur. GO. Per passiones Sanctorum in indulgentiis communicatas non proprie redimuntur nostra delicta, sed per communionem caritatis nobis eorum passiones impartiuntur, ot ut digni simus, qui pretio Sanguinis Christi a pœnis pro peccatis debitis liberemur. 60. Celebris ilia Doctorum distinctio, divinao legis mandata bifariani impleri, altero modo quantum ad præceptorum operum substantiam tantum, altero quantum ad certum quendam modum, videlicet, secundum quem valeant operantem perducero ad regnum (hoc est ad modum meritorum) commentitia est, et explodenda. 61. Ilia quoque opus dicitur bifariam bonum, vel quia ex objecto, et omnibus circumstantiis rectum est, et bonum (quod moraliter bonum appellare consueverunt), vel quia est meritorium Regni æterni, eo quod sit a vivo Christi membro per spiritum caritatis, rejicienda est. 62. Sed et ilia distinctio duplicis justitiæ alterius, quæ fit per spiritum caritatis inhabitantem, altcrius, quao fit ex inspiratione quidem Spiritus Sancti cor ad penitiam excitantis, sed nondum cor habitantis, et in eo caritatem diffundentis, qua Divinao legis justificatio impleatur, similiter rejicicitur. 63. Item et ilia distinctio duplicis vificationis, alterius, qua vivificatur peccator, duni ei pœnitentiao, et vitæ novæ propositum, et inchoatio per Dei gratiam inspiratur; alterius, qua vivificatur, qui vere justificatur, et palmes vivus in vite Christo efficitur; pariter commentitia est, et Scripturis minimo congruens. 64. Nonnisi Pelagiano errore admitti potest usus aliquis liberi arbitrii bonus, sive non malus, et gratiæ Christi injuriam facit, qui ita sentit, et docet. 65. Sola violentia repugnat libertati hominis naturali. 66. Homo peccat, etiam damnabiliter; in eo quod necessario facit. 67. Infidelitas pure negativa in his, in quibus Christus non est praBdicatus, peccatum est. 68. Justificatio impii fit formaliter per obedientiam Legis, non autem per occultam communicationem, et inspirationem gratiæ, quas per eam justificatos faciat implere legem. 69. Homo existens in peccato mortali, sive in reatu æternædamnationis, potest habere verara caritatem; et caritas, etiam perfecta, potest consistere cum reatu æternæ damnationis. 70. Per contritionem, etiam cum caritate perfecta, et cum voto suscipendi Sacramentum conjunctam, non remittitur crimen, extra causani necessitatis, aut Martyrii, sine actuali susceptione Sacramenti. 71. Omnes omnino justorum afflictiones sunt ultiones peccatorum ipsorum; unde et Job, et Martyres, quæ passi sunt, propter peccata sua passi sunt. 72. Nemo, præter Christum est absque peccato originali, hinc Virgo mortua est propter peccatum ex Adam contractum, omnesque ejus afflictiones in hoc vita, sicut et aliorum justorum, fuerunt ultiones peccati actualis, vel originalis. 73. Concupiscentia in renatis relapsis in peccatum mortale, in quibus jam dominatur, peccatum est, sicut et alii habitus pravi. 74. Motus pravi concupiscentiaa sunt pro statu hominis vitiati prohibiti præcepto, Non concupisces; Unde homo eos sentiens, et non consentiens, transgreditur praoceptum, Non concupisces; quamvis transgressio in peccatum non deputetur. 75. Quandiu aliquid concupiscentias carnalis in diligente est, non facit præceptum, Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo. 76. Satisfactiones laboriosœ justificatorum non valent expiare de condigno pœnam temporalem restantem post culpain conditionatam. 77. Immortalitas primi Hominis non erat gratiæ beneficium, sed naturalis conditio. 78. Falsa est Doctorum sententia, primum Hominem potuisse a Deo creari, et instituti sine Justitia naturali " 1. I should remark here that several of these Propositions are taken word for word from the writings of Baius others only according to their meaning and others again belong to his companion, Esselius, or other supporters of his; but as they were almost all taught by him, they are all generally attributed to him, and from them his system can be clearly deduced. He distinguishes three states of human nature Innocent, Fallen, and Restored or Redeemed. 2. Regarding Nature in a state of innocence, he says: First That God, as a matter of justice, and by that right which the creature has, ought to create both angels and men for eternal beatitude. This opinion is deduced from eight articles, condemned in the Bull the twenty-first, twenty-third, twenty- fourth, twentysixth, twenty-seventh, fifty-fifth, seventy-second, and seventy -ninth. Secondly That Sanctifying Grace was due as a matter of right to Nature, in a state of innocence. This proposition follows, as a necessary consequence, from the former one. Thirdly That the gifts granted to the Angels and to Adam were not gratuitous and supernatural, but were natural, and due to them by right, as the twenty -first and twentyseventh articles assert. Fourthly That the Grace granted to Adam and to the Angels did not produce supernatural and Divine merits, but merely natural and human ones, according to the first, seventh, and ninth articles. And, in fact, if merits follow from Grace, and the benefits of Grace were due by right, and naturally belonged to Nature, in a state of innocence, the same should be said of merits, which are the fruit of this Grace. Fifthly That Beatitude would be not a Grace, but a mere natural reward, if we had persevered in a state of innocence, as the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth articles say; and tliis is also a consequence of the antecedent propositions, for if it were true that merits, in a state of innocence, were merely human and natural, then Beatitude would be no longer a Grace, but a reward due to us. 3. Secondly, Baius taught, regarding fallen nature, that when Adam sinned he lost all gifts of Grace, so that he was incapable of doing anything good, even in a natural sense, and could only do evil. Hence, he deduces, first, that in those who are not baptized, or have fallen into sin after Baptism, concupiscence, or the fames of sensitive pleasure, which is contrary to reason, though without any consent of the will, is truly and properly a sin which is imputed to them by reason of the will of mankind included in the will of Adam, as is explained in the seventy- fourth proposition. Nay, more, he says, in the seventy-fifth proposition, that the evil movements of our senses, though not consented to, are transgressions even in the just, though God does not impute it to them. Secondly, he deduces, that all that the sinner does is intrinsically a sin (sec the thirty-fifth proposition). He deduces, thirdly, that for merit or demerit violence alone is repugnant to the liberty of man; so that when he does any voluntary bad action, though he does it of necessity, he sins, as the thirty-ninth and sixty-seventh propositions teach. In the third place, with regard to Redeemed Nature, Baius supposes that every good work, by its very nature, and of itself, merits eternal life, independently, altogether, of the Divine arrangement, the merits of Jesus Christ, and the knowledge of the person who performs it. The second, eleventh, and fifteenth propositions show this. From this false supposition he draws four false consequences: First That man’s justification does not consist in the infusion of Grace, but in obedience to the Commandments (see propositions forty-two and sixty-nine). Second That perfect charity is not always conjoined with the remission of sins. Third That in the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance the penalty of the punishment alone is remitted, and not the fault, for God alone can take away that (see the fifty-seventh and fifty- eighth propositions). Fourth That every sin deserves eternal punishment, and that there are no venial sins (proposition twenty-one). We see, then, that Baius taught, by his system, the errors of Pelagius, when he treats of Innocent Nature man’s nature before the fall; for, with that heresiarch, he teaches that Grace is not gratuitous, or supernatural, but is natural, and belongs to nature, of right. With regard to Fallen Nature, he teaches the errors of Luther and Calvin, for he asserts that man is, of necessity, obliged to do good or evil according to the movements of the two delectations which he may receive, heavenly or worldly. With regard to the state of Redeemed Nature, the errors which he teaches concerning justification, the efficacy of the Sacraments, and merit, are so clearly condemned by the Council of Trent, that if we did not read them in his works, we never could believe that he published them, after having personally attended that Council. 4. He says, in the forty-second and sixty-ninth propositions, that the justification of the sinner does not consist in the infusion of Grace, but in obedience to the Commandments; but the Council teaches (Sess. vi, cap. 7), that no one can become just, unless the merits of Jesus Christ are communicated to him; for it is by these the Grace which justifies is infused into him: " Nemo potest esse Justus, nisi cui merita passionis D. N. Jesu Christi communicantur." And this is what St. Paul says: " Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. iii, 24). He says that perfect Charity is not conjoined with the remission of sins (propositions thirty-one and thirty-two); but the Council, speaking specially of the Sacrament of Penance, declares (Sess. xiv, c. 4), that Contrition, united with perfect Charity, justifies the sinner before he receives the Sacrament. He says that by the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance the penalty of punishment, but not of the fault, is remitted (propositions fifty-seven and fifty-eight). But the Council, speaking of Baptism (Sess. v, Can. 5), teaches that by Baptism the penalty of original sin, and every thing else which has the rationale of sin, is remitted: " Per Jesu Christi gratiam, quæ in Baptismate confertur, reatum originalis peccati remitti, et tolli totum id quod veram, et propriam peccati rationein habet, illudque non tantum radi, aut non imputari." Speaking of the Sacrament of Penance, the Council diffusely explains (Sess. xiv, c. 1), that it is a truth of Faith, that our Lord has left to Priests the power to remit sins in this Sacrament, and condemns anew the error of the Novatians, who denied it. Baius says that concupiscence, or every evil motion of concupiscence, in those who are not baptized, or who, after Baptism, have fallen, is a real sin, because they then transgress the Commandment, " Thou shalt not covet," &c. (propositions seventy-four and seventy- five); but the Council teaches that concupiscence is not a sin, and that it does no harm to those who do not give consent to it: " Concupiscentia, cum ad agonem relicta sit, nocere non consentientibus non valet Hanc concupiscentiam Ecclesiam nunquam intellexisse peccatum appellari, quod verc poccatum sit, sed quia ex peccato est, et ad peccatum inclinas (Sess. v, cap. 5). 5. In fine, all that Baius taught regarding the three states of nature is a necessary consequence of one sole principle of his, that is, that there are but two authors, either Theological Charity, by which we love God above all things, as the last end; or concupiscence, by which we love the creature as the last end, and that between these two loves there is no medium. he says, then, God being just, could not, in opposition to the right which an intelligent creature has, create man subject to concupiscence alone; and, therefore, as leaving concupiscence out of the question, there is no other proper love but supernatural love alone, when he created Adam he must have given him, in the first instance of his creation, this supernatural love, the essential end of which is the beatific vision of God. Charity, therefore, was not a supernatural and gratuitous gift, but a natural one, which was the right of human nature, and, therefore, the merits of this charity were natural, and beatitude was our due, and not a grace. From this, then, he drew another consequence, which was, that free will being, after the fall, deprived of Grace, which was, as it were, a supplement of nature, was of no use, only to cause us to sin. We answer, however, that this principle is evidently false, and, therefore, every consequence deduced from it is false, likewise. There is evidence to prove, in opposition to the principle of Baius, that the intelligent creature has no positive right to existence, and, consequently, has no innate right to exist in one way more than another. Besides, several learned Theologians, whose opinions I follow, teach, with very good reason, that God could, if it pleased him, create man in a state of pure nature, so that he would be born without any supernatural gift, and without sin, but with all the perfections and imperfections which belong to this state of nature; so that the object of pure nature might be natural, and all the miseries of human life, as concupiscence, ignorance, death, and all other calamities, might belong of right to mere human nature itself, just as now in the state of fallen nature they are the effects and punishments of sin; and, therefore, in our present state, concupiscence inclines us much more to sin than it would do in a state of pure nature, since by sin the understanding of man is more obscured, and his will wounded. 6. It was undoubtedly one of the errors of Pelagius, that God had in fact created man in a state of pure nature. On the other hand, it was one of Luther’s errors to assert that the state of pure nature is repugnant to the right which man has to Grace; but this error was already taken up by Baius, because surely it was not necessary by right of nature that man should be created in a state of original justice; but God might create him without sin, and without original justice, taking into account the right of human nature. This is proved, first, from the Bulls already quoted, of St. Pius V., Gregory XIIL, and Urban VIII. , which confirm the Bull of St. Pius, in which the assertion, that the consortium of the Divine Nature was due to, and even natural to, the nature of man, as Baius said " Humanæ naturæ sublimatio, et exaltatio in consortium Divinæ naturao debita fuit integritati primæ conditionis, et proinde naturalis dicenda est, et non supernaturalis" was condemned (proposition twenty-two). He says the same in the fifty-fifth proposition: " Deus non potuisset ab initio talem creare homincm, qualis nunc nascitur;" that is, exclusive of sin we understand. In the seventy-ninth proposition, again he says: " Falsa est Doctorum sententia, primum hominem et potuisse a Deo creari, et institui sine justitia naturali." Jansenius, though a strong partisan of the doctrine of Baius, confesses that those Decrees of the Pope made him very uneasy: " Hæreo, fateor" (1). 7. The disciples of Baius and Jansenius, however, say they have a doubt whether the Bull of Urban VIII., " In eminenti," should be obeyed; but Tournelly (2) answers them, and shows that the Bull being a dogmatic law of the Apostolic See, whose authority Jansenius himself says, all Catholics, as children of obedience, should venerate, and being accepted in the places where the controversy was agitated, and by the most celebrated Churches in the world, and tacitly admitted by all others, should bo held as an infallible judgment of the Church, which all should hold by; and even Quesnel himself admits that. 8. Our adversaries also speak of the way the Bull of St. Pius should be understood, and say, first, that we cannot believe that the Apostolic See ever intended to condemn in Baius the doctrine of St. Augustine, who, as they suppose, taught that the state of pure nature was an impossibility. This supposition of theirs, however, is totally unfounded, for the majority of Theologians assert, that the Holy Doctor in many places teaches the contrary, especially in his writings against the Manicheans (3), and distinguishes four modes in which God might create the souls of men blameless, and, among them, the second mode would be, if, previously to any sin being committed, these created souls were infused into their bodies subject to ignorance, concupiscence, and all the miseries of this life; by this mode, the possibility of pure nature is certainly established. Consult Tournelly (4) on this point, where he answers all objections, and you will see also how Jansenius treats it. (1) Jansen. l. 3, d. Statu. nat. pur. c. ult. (2) Comp. Thool. t. 5, p. 1, Disp. 5, art. 3, s. 2. (3) St. August. l. 3, de lib. arb. c. 20. (4) Tourn. t. 5, p. 2, c. 7, p. 67. 9. They say, likewise, that the propositions of Baius were not condemned in the Bull of St. Pius in the sense the author understood them. The words of the Bull are: " Quas quidem sententias stricto coram nobis examine ponderatas, quanquam nonnullæ aliquo pacto sustineri possent, in rigore, et proprio verborum sensu ab assertoribus intento hæreticas, erroneas, temerarias, &c., respective damnamus," &c. They then say that between the word, possent, and the following ones, in rigore, et proprio verborum sensu, there was no comma, but that it was placed after the words ab assertoribus intento; so that the sentence being read thus: " quanquam nonnullæ aliquo pacto sustineri possent in rigore et proprio verborum sensu ab assertoribus intento," the proposition could be sustained in this proper and intended sense, as the Bull declares. According to this interpretation, however, the Bull would contradict itself, condemning opinions which, in their proper sense, and that intended by the author, could be sustained. If they could be sustained in the proper sense, why were they condemned, and why was Baius expressly called on to retract them? It would be a grievous injustice to condemn these propositions, and oblige the author to retract them, if in the proper and plain sense they could be defended. Besides, though in the Bull of St. Pius, the comma may be wanted after the word possent, still no one has ever denied or doubted but that it was inserted in the subsequent Bulls of Gregory XIII. and Urban VIII. There cannot be the least doubt that the opinions of Baius were condemned by these Pontifical Bulls. 10. They say, thirdly, that the propositions were condemned, having regard to the Divine Omnipotence, according to which the state of pure nature was possible, but not in regard to the wisdom and goodness of God. The Theologians already quoted answer, that in that case the Apostolic See has condemned not a real, but only an apparent, error, since, in reality, the doctrine of Baius, in regard to the wisdom and goodness of God, is not condemnable. It is false, however, to suppose that the state of pure nature is only possible according to the Omnipotence of God, and not according to his other attributes. That which is repugnant or not agreeable to any of the attributes of God is, in fact, impossible, for " He cannot deny himself" (II. Tim. ii, 13). St. Anselm says (5): " In Deo quantumlibet parvum inconveniens sequitur impossibilitas." Besides, if that principle of our adversaries themselves were true, that there is no middle love between vicious cupidity and laudable charity, then the state of pure nature, even in regard to the Divine Omnipotence, as they suppose, would be an impossibility, since it would, in fact, be repugnant to God to produce a creature contrary to himself, with the necessity of sinning, as, according to their supposition of possibility, this creature would be. 11. In fact, I think no truth can be more evident, than that the state of pure nature is not an impossibility, a state in which man would be created without Grace and without sin, and subject to all the miseries of this life. I say this with all reverence for the Augustinian school, which holds the contrary opinion. There are two very evident reasons for this doctrine: First Man could very well have been created without any supernatural gift, but merely with those qualities which are adapted to human nature. Therefore, that Grace which was supernatural, and was given to Adam, was not his due, for then, as St. Paul says (Rom. xi, 6): "Grace is no more grace." Now, as man might be created without Grace, God might also create him without sin in fact, he could not create him with sin, for then he would be the author of sin. Then he might likewise create him subject to concupiscence, to disease, and to death, for these defects, as St. Augustine explains, belong to man’s very nature, and are a part of his constitution. Concupiscence proceeds from the union of the soul with the body, and, therefore, the soul is desirous of that sensitive pleasure which the body likes. Diseases, and all the other miseries of human life, proceed from the influence of natural causes, which, in a state of pure nature, would be just as powerful as at present, and death naturally follows from the continual disagreement of the elements of which the body is composed. (5) St. Anselm, L 1, Cum Deus homo, c. 1. 12. The second reason is, that it is not repugnant to any of the Divine attributes to create man without Grace and without sin. Jansenius himself admits that it is not opposed to his Omnipotence; neither is it to any other attribute, for in that state, as St. Augustine (6) teaches, all that is due by right to man’s natural condition, as reason, liberty, and the other faculties necessary for his preservation, and the accomplishment of the object for which he was created, would be given to him by God. Besides, all Theologians, as Jansenius himself confesses in those works in which he speaks of pure nature, are agreed in admitting the possibility of this state, that is considering the right of the creature alone, and this is precisely the doctrine of the Prince of Schoolmen, St. Thomas. He teaches (7), that man might be created without consideration to the Beatific Vision. He says: " Carentia Divino visionis competeret ei qui in solis naturalibus esset etiam absque peccato." He likewise, in another passage (8), teaches that man might be created with that concupiscence which rebels against reason: " Ilia subjectio inferiorum virium ad rationem non erat naturalis." Several Theologians, therefore, admit the possibility of the state of pure nature, as Estius, Ferrarensis, the Salmanticenses, Vega, and several others. Bellarmin (9), especially, says he does not know how any one can doubt of this opinion. 13. We have now to answer the objections of our adversaries. The first objection is on the score of " Beatitude." St. Augustine, according to Jansenius, teaches in several places that God could not, without injustice, deny eternal glory to man in a state of innocence: " Qua justitia quæso a Regno Dei alienatur imago Dei in nullo transgressu legem Dei." These are St. Augustine’s words (10). We answer that the Holy Father in this passage was opposing the Pelagians, according to man’s present state, that is, supposing the gratuitous ordination of man to a supernatural end: according to that supposition, he said that it would be unjust to deprive man of the kingdom of God if he had not sinned. Neither is it of any consequence that St. Thomas (11) says that man’s desires can find no rest except in the vision of God: " Non quiescit naturale desiderium in ipsis, nisi etiam ipsius Dei substantiam videant;" and as this appetite is naturally implanted in man, he could not have been created unless in order to this end. (6) St. August. l. 3, de lib. arb. c. 20, 22, 23. (7) St. Thom, qu. 4, de Malo. a. 1. (8) Idem in Summa. 1, p. q. 95, art. 1. (9) Bellarm. l. de Grat. primi hom. cap. 5. (10) St. August. l. 3, contra Julian, cap. 12. (11) St. Thorn. 1. 4, contra Gentes, c. 50. We answer, that St. Thomas (12), in several places, and especially in his book of Disputed Questions, teaches that by nature we are not inclined in particular to the vision of God, but only to beatitude in general: " Homini inditus est appetitus ultimi sui finis in communi, ut scilicit appetat se esse completum in bonitate; sed in quo ista completio consistat non est determi natum a natura." Therefore, according to the Holy Doctor, there is not in man an innate tendency to the beatific vision, but only to beatitude in general. He confirms this in another place (13): " Quamvis ex naturali inclinatione voluntas habeat, ut in beatitudinem feratur, tamcn quod fcratur in beatitudinem talem, vel talem, hoc non est ex inclinatione naturæ." But they will still say that it is only in the vision of God that man can have perfect happiness, as David says (Psalm xvi, 15): "I shall be satisfied when thy glory shall appear." To this we reply, that this refers to man in his present state, since he has been created in order to eternal life, but never would be the case in another state, that of pure nature, for example. 14. The second objection is on the score of " Concupiscence." God, they say, could never be the author of concupiscence, since we read in St. John (I. Epis. ii, 16), that "it is not of the Father, but is of the world;" and St. Paul says: " Now, then, it is no more I that do it, but sin (that is concupiscence), that dwelleth in me" (Rom. vii, 17). "We answer the text of St. John, by saying that the concupiscence of the flesh is not from the Father, in our present state of existence, for in that it springs from sin, and inclines to sin, as the Council of Trent (Sess. v, can. 5) declares: " Quia est a peccato, et ad peccatum inclinat." In our present state even, it influences us more powerfully than it would in a state of pure nature; but even in this state it would not proceed formally from the Father, considered as an imperfection, but would come from him as one of the conditions of human nature. We answer the text of St. Paul in like manner, that concupiscence is called sin, because, in our present state, it springs from sin, since man was created in grace; but in a state of pure nature it would not come from sin, but from the very condition itself, in which human nature would have been created. (12) St. Thom, q. 22, de Verit. (13) Idem 4, Sent. Dist. 49. q. 1, art. 3. 15. They say, secondly, that God could not create a rational being with anything which would incline him to sin, as concupiscence would. We answer, that God could not create man with anything which, in itself, in se, would incline him to sin, as with a vicious habit, for example, which of itself inclines and induces one to sin; but he might create man with that which accidentally, per accidens, inclines him to sin, for in this is the condition of his nature only accomplished, for otherwise God should create man impeccable, for it is a defect to be peccable. Concupiscence, of itself, does not incline man to sin, but solely to that happiness adapted to human nature, and for the preservation of nature itself, which is composed of soul and body; so that it is not of itself, but only accidentally, and through the deficiency of the condition of human nature itself, that it sometimes inclines us to sin. God, surely, was not obliged, when he produced his creatures, to give them greater perfections than those adapted to their natures. Because he has not given sensation to plants, or reason to brutes, we cannot say that the defect is his; it belongs to the nature itself of these creatures, and so if, in the state of pure nature, God did not exempt man from concupiscence, which might accidentally incline him to evil, it would not be a defect of God himself, but of the condition itself of human nature. 16. The third objection is on the score of the " Miseries" of human nature. St. Augustine, they say, when opposing the Pelagians, frequently deduced the existence of original sin from the miseries of this life. We briefly answer, that the Holy Doctor speaks of the misery of man in his present state, remembering the original holiness in which he was created, and knowing, from the Scriptures, that Adam was created free from death and from all the penalties of this life. On this principle, God could not, with justice, deprive him of the gifts granted to him, without some positive fault on his side; and, hence, the Saint inferred that Adam sinned, from the calamities which we endure in this life. He would say quite the contrary, however, if he were speaking of the state of pure nature, in which the miseries of life would spring from the condition itself of human nature, and especially as in the state of lapsed nature our miseries are, by many degrees, greater than they would be in a state of pure nature. From the grievous miseries, then, of our present state, original sin can be proved; but it could not be so from the lesser miseries which man would suffer in a state of pure nature.

“At Rome now two Princes of the Apostles [Sts. Peter and Paul] reign: One the herald of the Gentiles, the other possessing the First Chair, he opens the gates of eternity to him entrusted.” (hymn on St. Lawrence, by a famous Latin poet from Hispania Tarraconensis [c. A.D. 348-413]). < Proof of the Papacy Tool Aurelius Prudentius Clemens Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter “At Rome now two Princes of the Apostles [Sts. Peter and Paul] reign: One the herald of the Gentiles, the other possessing the First Chair, he opens the gates of eternity to him entrusted.” (hymn on St. Lawrence, by a famous Latin poet from Hispania Tarraconensis [c. A.D. 348-413]). Proof of the Papacy Tool

An article from St. Alphonus Liguori's "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation" < Heresies Tool Refutation of the Heresy of Pelagius 1. It is not my intention here to refute all the errors of Pelagius concerning Original Sin and Free Will, but only those concerning Grace. In the historical part of the work (Chap, v, art. ii, n. 5), I have said that the principal heresy of Pelagius was, that he denied the necessity of Grace to avoid evil, or to do good, and I there mentioned the various subterfuges he had recourse to, to avoid the brand of heresy, at one time saying that Grace and Free Will itself was given us by God; again, that it is the law teaching us how to live; now, that it is the good example of Jesus Christ; now, that it is the pardon of sins; again, that it is an internal illustration, but on the part of the intellect alone, in knowing good and evil, though Julian, his disciple, admitted Grace of the Will also; but neither Pelagius nor his followers ever admitted the necessity of Grace, and have even scarcely allowed that Grace was necessary to do what is right more easily, and they always denied that this Grace was gratuitous, but said it was given us according to our natural merits. We have, therefore, two points to establish: first, the necessity, and next, the gratuity of Grace. OF THE NECESSITY OF GRACE. 2. It is first proved from that saying of Jesus Christ: "No man can come to me, except the Father who hath sent me draw him" (John, vi, 44). From these words alone it is clear that no one can perform any good action in order to eternal life without internal Grace. That is confirmed by another text: " I am the vine, you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit; for without me you can do nothing" (John, xv, 5). Therefore, Jesus Christ teaches that of ourselves we can do nothing available to salvation, and, therefore, Grace is absolutely necessary for every good work, for otherwise, as St. Augustine says, we can acquire no merit for eternal life: " Ne quisquam putaret parvum aliquem fructum posse a semetipso palmitem ferre, cum dixisset hic, fert fructum multum, non ait, sine me parum, potestis facere; sed, nihil potestis facere: sive ergo parum, sive multum, sive illo fieri non potest, sine quo nihil fieri potest." It is proved, secondly, from St. Paul (called by the Fathers the Preacher of Grace), who says, writing to the Philippians: " With fear and trembling work out your salvation, for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish according to his good-will" (Phil, ii, 12, 13). In the previous part of the same chapter he exhorts them to humility: "In humility let each esteem others better than themselves," as Christ, who, he says, " humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death;" and then he tells them that it is God who works all good in them. He confirms in that what St. Peter says: " God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace" (I. Peter, v, 5). In fine, St. Paul wishes to show us the necessity of Grace to desire or to put in practice every good action, and shows that for that we should be humble, otherwise we render ourselves unworthy of it. And lest the Pelagians may reply, that here the Apostle does not speak of the absolute necessity of Grace, but of the necessity of having it to do good more easily, which is all the necessity they would admit, see what he says in another text: " No man can say, the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost" (I. Cor. xii, 3). If, therefore, we cannot even mention the name of Jesus with profit to our souls, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, much less can we hope to work out our salvation without Grace. 3. Secondly St. Paul teaches us that the grace alone of the law given to us is not, as Pelagius said, sufficient, for actual Grace is absolutely necessary to observe the law effectually: " For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain" (Gal. ii, 21). By justice is understood the observance of the Commandments, as St. John tells us: " He that doth justice is just" (I. John, iii, 7). The meaning of the Apostle, therefore, is this: If man, by the aid of the law alone, could observe the law, then Jesus Christ died in vain; but such is not the case. We stand in need of Grace, which Christ procured for us by his death. Nay, so far is the law alone sufficient for the observance of the Commandments, that, as the Apostle says, the very law itself is the cause of our transgressing the law, because it is by sin that concupiscence enters into us: " But sin taking occasion by the Commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. And I lived some time without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived" (Rom. vii, 8, 9). St. Augustine, explaining how it is that the knowledge of the law sooner renders us guilty than innocent, says that this happens (1), because such is the condition of our corrupt will, that, loving liberty, it is carried on with more vehemence to what is prohibited than to what is permitted. Grace is, therefore, that which causes us to love and to do what we know we ought to do, as the Second Council of Carthage declares: " Ut quod faciendum cognovimus, per Gratiam præstatur, etiam facere dirigamus, atque valeamus." Who, without Grace, could fulfil the first and most important of all precepts, to love God? (1) St. Augus. l. de Spir. S. et litt. " Charity is from God" (I. John, iv, 7). " The charity of God is poured forth into our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us" (Rom. v, 5). Holy charity is a pure gift of God, and we cannot obtain it by our own strength. " Amor Dei, quo pervenitur ad Deum, non est nisi a Deo," as St. Augustine says (2). Without Grace how could we conquer temptations, especially grievous ones? Hear what David says: " Being pushed, I was overturned, that I might fall, but the Lord supported me" (Psalms, cxvii, 13). And Solomon says: " No one can be continent (that is, resist temptations to concupiscence), except God gave it" (Wisdom, viii, 21). Hence, the Apostle, speaking of the temptations which assault us, says: " But in all these things we overcome, because of him that hath loved us" (Rom. viii, 37). And again, " Thanks be to God, who always maketh us to triumph in Christ" (II. Cor. ii, 14). St. Paul, therefore, thanks God for the victory over temptations, acknowledging that he conquers them by the power of Grace. St. Augustine (3) says, that this gratitude would be in vain if the victory was not a gift of God: " Irrisoria est enim ilia actio gratiarum, si ob hoc gratiæ aguntur Deo, quod non donavit ipse, nec fecit." All this proves how necessary Grace is to us, either to do good or avoid evil. 4. Let us consider the theological reason for the necessity of Grace. The means should always be proportioned to the end. Now, our eternal salvation consists in enjoying God face to face, which is, without doubt, a supernatural end; therefore, the means which conduce to this end should be of a supernatural order, likewise. Now, every thing which conduces to salvation is a means of salvation; and, consequently, our natural strength is not sufficient to make us do anything, in order to eternal salvation, unless it is elevated by Grace, for nature cannot do what is beyond its strength, and an action of a supernatural order is so. Besides our weak natural powers, which are not able to accomplish supernatural acts, we have the corruption of our nature, occasioned by sin, which even is a stronger proof to us of the necessity of Grace. (2) St. Augus. l. 4, con. Julian, c. 3. (3) St. Augus. loc. cit. ad Corinth. II. OF THE GRATUITY OF GRACE. 5. The Apostle shows in several places that the Divine Grace is, in every thing, gratuitous, and comes from the mercy of God alone, independent of our natural merits. In one place he says: " For unto you it is given for Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil, i, 29). Therefore, as St. Augustine reflects (1), it is a gift of God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, not alone to suffer for love of him, but even to believe in him, and, if it is a gift of God, it cannot be given us through our merits. " Utrumque ostendit Dei donum, quia utrumque dixit esse donatum; nec ait, ut plenius, et perfectius credatis, sed ut credatis in eum." The Apostle writes similarly to the Corinthians, that " he had obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful" (I. Cor. vii, 25). It is not through any merit of ours, therefore, that we are faithful to the Mercy of God. " Non ait," says St. Augustine, in the same place already quoted, " quia fidelis eram; fideli ergo datur quidem, sed datum est etiam, ut esset fidelis." 6. St. Paul next shows most clearly, that, whenever we receive light from God, or strength to act, it is not by our own merits, but a gratuitous gift from God. " For who distinguisheth thee," says the Apostle, " or what hast thou, that thou hast not received; and if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it" (I. Cor. iv, 7). If Grace was given according to our natural merits, derived solely from the strength of our free will, then there would be something to distinguish a man who works out his salvation from one who does not do so. (1) St. Aug. l. 2, dc Præd. S.S.. c. 2. St. Augustine even says, that if God would give us only free will that is, a will, free and indifferent either to good or evil, according as we use it in case the good will would come from ourselves, and not from God, then what came from ourselves would be better than what comes from God: “Nam si nobis libera quædam voluntas ex Deo, quæ adhuc potest esse vel bona, vel mala; bono vero voluntas ex nobis est, melius est id quod a nobis, quam quod ab illo est" (2). But it is not so; for the Apostle tells us, that whatever we have from God is all gratuitously given to us, and, therefore, we should not pride ourselves on it. 7. Finally, the gratuity of Grace is strongly confirmed by St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans (xi, 5, 6): " Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. (The Apostle means, by " the remnant," those few Jews who were faithful among the multitude of unbelievers.) And if by Grace, it is not now by works: otherwise Grace is no more Grace." Now, the Apostle could not express in stronger terms the Catholic truth, that Grace is a gratuitous gift of God, and depends not on the merits of our free will, but on the mere liberality of the Lord. III. - THE NECESSITY AND THE GRATUITY OF GRACE IS PROVED BY TRADITION; CONFIRMED BY THE DECREES OF COUNCILS AND POPES. 8. St. Cyprian (1) lays it down as a fundamental maxim in this matter, that we should not glorify ourselves, as we have nothing of ourselves: " In nullo gloriandum, quando nostrum nihil est." St. Ambrose says (2) just the same thing: " Ubique Domini virtus studiis cooperatur humanis, ut nemo possit ædificaro sine Domino, nemo custodire sine Domino, nemo quicquam incipere sino Domino." And St. John Chrysostom expresses the same sentiments in several parts of his works, and in one passage, in particular, says (3): " Gratia Dei semper in beneficiis priores sibi partes vindicat." And again (4): " Quia in nostra voluntate totum post Gratiam Dei relictum est, ideo et peccantibus supplicia proposita sunt, et bene operantibus retributiones." (2) St. Aug. I. 2, de Pec. mer. c. 18. (1) St. Cypri. I. 3, acl Quir. c. 4. (2) St. Amb. I. 7, in Luc. c. 3. (3) St. Chrysos. Hom. 13, in Jean. (4) Idem, Hom. 22, in Gen. He is even clearer in another passage (5), saying, that all we have is not from ourselves, but merely a gift gratuitously given us: "Igitur quod accepisti, habes, ncque hoc tantum, aut illud, sed quidquid habes; non enim merita tua hæc sunt, sod Dei Gratia; quamvis fidem adducas, quamvis dona, quamvis doctrinæ sermonem, quamvis virtutem, omnia tibi inde provenerunt. Quid igitur habes quæso, quod acceptum non habeas? Num ipse perte recte operatus es? Non sane, sed accepisti …..Propterea cohibearis oportet, non enim tuum ad munus est, sed largieutis." St. Jerome (6) says, that God assists and sustains us in all our works, and that, without the assistance of God, we can do nothing: " Dominum gratia sua nos in singulis operibus juvare, atque substentare." And again (7): " Velle, et nolle nostrum est; ipsumque quod nostrum est, sine Dei miseratione nostrum non est." And in another place (8): " Velle, et currere meum est, sed ipsum meum, sine Dei semper auxilio non erit meum. “ I omit innumerable other quotations from the Fathers, which prove the same thing, and pass on to the Synodical Decrees. 9. I will not here quote all the Decrees of particular Synods against Pelagius, but only those of some particular Councils, approved of by the Apostolic See, and received by the whole Church. Among these is the Synod of Carthage, of all Africa, approved of by St. Prosper (9), which says, that the Grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is not only necessary to know what is right, and to practise it, but that, without it, we can neither think, say, or do anything conducive to salvation: " Cum 214. Sacerdotibus, quorum constitutionem contra inimicos gratiæ Dei totus Mundus amplexus est, veraci professionc, quemadmodum ipsorum habet sermo, dicainus Gratiam Dei per Jesum Christum Dominum, non solum ad cognoscendam, verum ad faciendam justitiam, nos per actus singulos adjuvari; ita sine ilia nihil verse sanctæque pietatis habere, cogitare, dicere, agere valeamus." 10. The Second Synod of Orange (cap. vii) teaches, that it is heretical to say that, by the power of nature, we can do anything for eternal life: " Si quis per naturæ vigorem bonum aliquod, quod ad salutem pertinet vitæ æternæ, cogitare, aut eligere posse confirmet, absque illuminatione, et inspiratione Spiritus Sancti hæretico falliter spiritu." And again it defines: " Si quis sicut augmentum, ita etiam initium Fidei, ipsumque credulitatis affectum, quo in eum credimus, qui judicat impium, et ad generationem sacri Baptismatis pervenimus, non per gratiæ donum, idest per inspirationem Spiritus Sancti corrigentem voluntatem nostram ab infidelitate ad Fidem, ab impietate ad pietatem, sed naturaliter nobis inesse dicit, Apostolicis documentis adversarius approbatur." (5) St. Chrysos. Hom, in cap. 4, 1, ad Cor (6) St. Hieron, I 3, con. Pelag.. (7) Idem, Ep. ad Demetri. (8) Idem, Ep. ad Ctesiphon. (9) St. Prosp. Resp. ad c. 8, Gallor 11. Besides the Councils we have the authority of the Popes who approved of several particular Synods celebrated to oppose the Pelagian errors. Innocent I., in his Epistle to the Council of Milevis, approving the Faith they professed, in opposition to Pelagius and Celestius, says that the whole Scriptures prove the necessity of Grace: " Cum in omnibus Divinis paginis voluntati liberæ, non nisi adjutorium Dei legimus esse nectendum, eamque nihil posse Cælestibus præsidiis destitutam, quonam modo huic soli possibilitatem hanc, pertinaciter defendentes, sibimet, imo plurimis Pelagius Celcstiusque persuadent." Besides, Pope Zosimus, in his Encyclical Letter to all the Bishops of the world, quoted by Celestine I., in his Epistle to the Bishops of Gaul, says much the same: " In omnibus causis, cogitationibus, motibus adjutor et protector orandus est. Supcrbum est enim ut quisquam sibi hum ana natura præsumat." In the end of the Epistle we have quoted of Celestine I., there are several chapters, taken from the definitions of other Popes, and from the Councils of Africa, concerning Grace, all proving the same thing. The fifth chapter says: " Quod omnia studia, et omnia opera; ac merita sanctorum ad Dei gloriam, landemque referenda sunt; quia non aliunde ei placet, nisi ex eo quod Ipse donaverit." And in the sixth chapter it says: " Quod ita Deus in cordibus hominum, atque in ipso libero operatur, arbitrio ut sancta cogitatio, pium consilium, omnis que motus bona voluntatio ex Deo sit, quia per ilium aliquid boni possumus, sine quo nihil possumus." 12. The Pelagians were formally condemned in the General Council of Ephesus, as Cardinal Orsi tells us (10). Nestorius received the Pelagian Bishops, who came to Constantinople, most graciously, for he agreed with Pelagius in this, that Grace is given to us by God, not gratuitously, but according to our merits. This erroneous doctrine was agreeable to Nestorius, as it favoured his system, that the Word had chosen the Person of Christ as the temple of his habitation, on account of his virtues, and therefore the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, knowing the obstinacy of those Pelagian Bishops, condemned them as heretics. (10) C. Orsi; Ir. Ecc t. 13, l. 29, n. 52, cum St. Prosp I, con. Collat. c. 21 , Finally, The Council of Trent (Sess. vi, de Justif.) defines the same doctrine in two Canons. The second Canon says: " Si quis dixerit Divinam gratiam ad hoc solum dari, ut facilius homo juste vivere, ac ad vitam æternam promoveri possit, quasi per liberum arbitrium sine gratia utrumque, sed ægre tamen et difficulter possit; anathema sit." And in the third Canon the Council says: " Si quis dixerit, sine prævenienta Spiritus Sanctus inspiratione, atque ejus adjutoris hominem credere, sperare, diligero, aut pœnitere posse sicut oportet, ut ei justifications gratia confiratur; anathema sit." IV-OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 13. The Pelagians object, firstly, if you admit that Grace is absolutely necessary to perform any act conducive to salvation, you must confess that man has no liberty, and free will is destroyed altogether. We answer, with St. Augustine, that man, after the fall, is undoubtedly no longer free without Grace, either to begin or bring to perfection any act conducive to eternal life, but by the Grace of God he recovers this liberty, for the strength which he is in need of to do what is good is subministered to him by Grace, through the merits of Jesus Christ; this Grace restores his liberty to him, and gives him strength to work out his eternal salvation, without, however, compelling him to do so: " Peccato Adæ arbitrium liberum de hominum natura perisse, non dicimus, sed ad peccandum valere in homine subdito diabolo. Ad bene autem, pieque vivendum non valere, nisi ipsa voluntas hominis Dei gratia fuerit liberata, et ad omne bonum actionis, sermonis, cogitationis adjuta." Such are St. Augustine’s sentiments (1). 14. They object, secondly, that God said to Cyrus: " Who say to Cyrus, thou art my shepherd, and thou shalt perform all my pleasure" (Isaias, xliv, 28); and, in chap, xlvi, v. 11, he calls him, " a man of his will." Now, say the Pelagians, Cyrus was an idolater, and, therefore, deprived of the Grace which is given by Jesus Christ, and still, according to the text of the Prophet, he observed all the natural precepts; therefore without Grace a man may observe all the precepts of the law of nature. We answer, that in order to understand this, we should distinguish, with theologians, between the will of Beneplacitum and the will called of Signum. The Beneplacitum is that established by God by an absolute decree, and which God wills should be infallibly followed by us. This is always fulfilled by the wicked. But the other will (voluntas signi), is that which regards the Divine commandments signified to us, but for the fulfilment of this Divine will our co-operation is required, and this we cannot apply of ourselves, but require the assistance of the Divine Grace to do so; this will the wicked do not always fulfil. Now the Lord in Isaias does not speak of this will (Signum}, in respect of Cyrus, but of the other will (Beneplacitum), that is, that Cyrus should free the Jews from captivity, and permit them to rebuild the city and temple; that was all that was required then from him, but, on the other hand, he was an idolater, and a sanguinary invader of the neighbouring kingdoms, and, therefore, he did not fulfil the precepts of the natural law. 15. They object, thirdly, that fact related by St. Mark, of the man who was exhorted by our Redeemer to observe the commandments, and he answered: " Master, all these things I have observed from my youth," and the Evangelist proves that he spoke the truth, for "Jesus, looking on him, loved him" (Mark, x, 20, 21). See here, say the Pelagians, is a man who, without Grace, and who had not even as yet believed in Christ, observed all the natural precepts. We answer, first, this man was a Jew, and, as such, believed in God, and also implicitly in Christ, and there was, therefore, nothing to prevent him from having Grace to observe the commandments of the Decalogue. Secondly We answer, that when he said, " All these things I have observed from my youth," we are not to understand that he observed all the Commandments, but only those which Christ mentioned to him: " Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, & c. (1) St. Augus. l. 2, con. 2, Epis. Pelag, c. 5. Even the Gospel itself proves that he was not ardent in the observance of the precept to love God above all things, for when Christ told him to leave his wealth and follow him, he refused to obey, and, therefore, our Lord tacitly reproved him, when he said: " How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the kingdom of God" (ver. 23). 16. They object, fourthly, that St. Paul, while still under the law, and not having yet received Grace, observed all the law, as he himself attests: " According to the justice that is in the law, conversing without blame" (Phil, iii, 6). We answer, that the Apostle, at that time, observed the law externally, but not internally, by loving God above all things, as he himself says: "For we ourselves, also, were some time unwise, incredulous, erring, slaves to divers desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hating one another" (Tit. iii, 3). 17. They object, fifthly, all the precepts of the Decalogue are either possible or impossible; if they are possible, we can observe them by the strength of our free will alone, but if they are impossible, no one is bound to observe them, for no one is obliged to do impossibilities. We answer, that all these precepts are impossible to us without Grace, but are quite possible with the assistance of Grace. This is the answer of St. Thomas (2): " Illud quod possumus cum auxili Divino, non est nobis omnino impossibile ……..Unde Hieronymus confitetur, sic nostrum esse liberum arbitrium, ut dicamus nos semper indigere Dei auxilio." Therefore, as the observance of the Commandments is quite possible to us with the assistance of the Divine Grace, we are bound to observe them. We will answer the other objections of the Pelagians in the next chapter, the Refutation of the Semi-Pelagian heresy. (2) St. Thom. 1, 2, 9, 109, a. 4, ad. 2.

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