< Back to Collection Out of the Deep Category Renaissance Composer Orlando Gibbons About

The Second Council of Constantinople is the fifth of the first seven ecumenical councils recognized by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. It is also recognized by the Old Catholics and others. Constantinople II was convoked by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I under the presidency of Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople. It was held from 5 May to 2 June 553. Participants were overwhelmingly Eastern bishops—only sixteen Western bishops were present, including nine from Illyricum and seven from Africa, but none from Italy—out of the 152 total. The main work of the council was to confirm the condemnation issued by edict in 551 by the Emperor Justinian against the Three Chapters. These were the Christological writings and ultimately the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428), certain writings against Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas accepted at the Council of Ephesus, written by Theodoret of Cyrrhus (died c. 466), and a letter written against Cyrillianism and the Ephesian Council by Ibas of Edessa (died 457). The purpose of the condemnation was to make plain that the Great Church, which followed a Chalcedonian creed, was firmly opposed to Nestorianism as supported by the Antiochene school which had either assisted Nestorius, the eponymous heresiarch, or had inspired the teaching for which he was anathematized and exiled. The council also condemned the teaching that Mary could not be rightly called the Mother of God (Greek: Theotokos) but only the mother of the man (anthropotokos) or the mother of Christ (Christotokos). The Second Council of Constantinople is also considered as one of the many attempts by Byzantine Emperors to bring peace in the empire between the Chalcedonian and Monophysite fractions of the church which had been in continuous conflict since the times of the Council of Ephesus in AD 431. 05. The Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. The Second Council of Constantinople is the fifth of the first seven ecumenical councils recognized by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. It is also recognized by the Old Catholics and others. Constantinople II was convoked by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I under the presidency of Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople. It was held from 5 May to 2 June 553. Participants were overwhelmingly Eastern bishops—only sixteen Western bishops were present, including nine from Illyricum and seven from Africa, but none from Italy—out of the 152 total. The main work of the council was to confirm the condemnation issued by edict in 551 by the Emperor Justinian against the Three Chapters. These were the Christological writings and ultimately the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428), certain writings against Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas accepted at the Council of Ephesus, written by Theodoret of Cyrrhus (died c. 466), and a letter written against Cyrillianism and the Ephesian Council by Ibas of Edessa (died 457). The purpose of the condemnation was to make plain that the Great Church, which followed a Chalcedonian creed, was firmly opposed to Nestorianism as supported by the Antiochene school which had either assisted Nestorius, the eponymous heresiarch, or had inspired the teaching for which he was anathematized and exiled. The council also condemned the teaching that Mary could not be rightly called the Mother of God (Greek: Theotokos) but only the mother of the man (anthropotokos) or the mother of Christ (Christotokos). The Second Council of Constantinople is also considered as one of the many attempts by Byzantine Emperors to bring peace in the empire between the Chalcedonian and Monophysite fractions of the church which had been in continuous conflict since the times of the Council of Ephesus in AD 431. Read the Documents of the Council Source: Wikipedia, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Constantinople

< Back to Collection O Magnum Mysterium Category Renaissance Composer Tomás Luis de Victoria About

< Back to Collection Domine Non Secundum Category Classical Composer César Franck About

< Back to Collection Christ ist erstanden Category Medieval Composer Heinrich Finck About

“This also, most merciful sovereigns is a clear example of your glory and piety that, when we gathered in considerable numbers from the different parts of Italy, to the sublime sanctuary of the apostolic see, and were considering what request we should make to you on behalf of the churches, we could find nothing better than that which you, in your spontaneous forethought, have bestowed. We now realize that there ought to be no shame in asking, or need to obtain by petition, favours which you have already granted. For as regards the fairness of our petition, long ago we gained what we now request; but, as regards the need of renewing our prayer, since we have not received the effect of your favours, we wish to obtain them again. . . . “We request your clemency to make an order, that if anyone shall have been condemned by the judgement of Damasus or of ourselves, who are catholics, and shall unjustly wish to retain a church, or when called by a priestly judgement is absent through insolence, that he be summoned to Rome either by the illustrious men the praetorian prefects of your Italy or by the vicar. (To the Emperors, Et hoc gloriae). < Proof of the Papacy Tool Council of Rome, 378 Apostolic See “This also, most merciful sovereigns is a clear example of your glory and piety that, when we gathered in considerable numbers from the different parts of Italy, to the sublime sanctuary of the apostolic see, and were considering what request we should make to you on behalf of the churches, we could find nothing better than that which you, in your spontaneous forethought, have bestowed. We now realize that there ought to be no shame in asking, or need to obtain by petition, favours which you have already granted. For as regards the fairness of our petition, long ago we gained what we now request; but, as regards the need of renewing our prayer, since we have not received the effect of your favours, we wish to obtain them again. . . . “We request your clemency to make an order, that if anyone shall have been condemned by the judgement of Damasus or of ourselves, who are catholics, and shall unjustly wish to retain a church, or when called by a priestly judgement is absent through insolence, that he be summoned to Rome either by the illustrious men the praetorian prefects of your Italy or by the vicar. (To the Emperors, Et hoc gloriae). Proof of the Papacy Tool

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of Pontiff. Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself.” (Symeon the New Theologian, Dialogue Against Heresies 23, PG 155:120 AC; cited in Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter [A.D. 949–1022]). < Proof of the Papacy Tool St. Symeon the New Theologian Peter's Faith, St. Peter “One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of Pontiff. Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself.” (Symeon the New Theologian, Dialogue Against Heresies 23, PG 155:120 AC; cited in Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter [A.D. 949–1022]). Proof of the Papacy Tool

“But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]). “[Pope] Stephen … boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen [the 23rd pope] … announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]). “Such a departure Stephen has now dared to make by breaking the peace against you which his predecessors always kept with you in mutual love and honour. In this way he defames the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, declaring that they had handed down this custom, who in fact execrated heretics in their letters, and warned us to avoid them. From this it is apparent that this tradition [of Stephen] is human, for it supports the heretics and asserts that they have the baptism which belongs to the Church alone. “. . . For as a heretic may not lawfully ordain or lay on hands, neither may he baptize or perform any holy or spiritual act, since he is alien to spiritual and godly holiness. Some time ago we confirmed that all this should be held fast and maintained against the heretics. We were assembled with those from Galatia, Cilicia, and other nearby regions at a place in Phrygia called Iconium, because some people were doubtful about these things. “ In view of this, I am rightly indignant at the folly of Stephen so open and conspicuous. He who so boasts about the place of his bishopric and insists that he holds his succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, is introducing many other rocks and is building many new churches, as long as he supports their baptism with his authority. . . . Stephen, who declares that he has the chair of Peter by succession, is roused by no zeal against the heretics. “Of no one more than of thee [Stephen] do the divine scriptures say "An angry man stirreth up strife, and a wrathful man heapeth up sins". For what great strifes and dissensions hast thou stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world ! And how great a sin hast thou heaped up, when thou cuttest thyself off from so many flocks ! For thou didst cut thyself off; be not deceived; for he who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the united Church is truly the schismatic. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all.” (Ibid). < Proof of the Papacy Tool Firmilian Rock of the Church, Papal Authority, Foundation of the Church, St. Peter “But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]). “[Pope] Stephen … boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen [the 23rd pope] … announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]). “Such a departure Stephen has now dared to make by breaking the peace against you which his predecessors always kept with you in mutual love and honour. In this way he defames the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, declaring that they had handed down this custom, who in fact execrated heretics in their letters, and warned us to avoid them. From this it is apparent that this tradition [of Stephen] is human, for it supports the heretics and asserts that they have the baptism which belongs to the Church alone. “. . . For as a heretic may not lawfully ordain or lay on hands, neither may he baptize or perform any holy or spiritual act, since he is alien to spiritual and godly holiness. Some time ago we confirmed that all this should be held fast and maintained against the heretics. We were assembled with those from Galatia, Cilicia, and other nearby regions at a place in Phrygia called Iconium, because some people were doubtful about these things. “ In view of this, I am rightly indignant at the folly of Stephen so open and conspicuous. He who so boasts about the place of his bishopric and insists that he holds his succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, is introducing many other rocks and is building many new churches, as long as he supports their baptism with his authority. . . . Stephen, who declares that he has the chair of Peter by succession, is roused by no zeal against the heretics. “Of no one more than of thee [Stephen] do the divine scriptures say "An angry man stirreth up strife, and a wrathful man heapeth up sins". For what great strifes and dissensions hast thou stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world ! And how great a sin hast thou heaped up, when thou cuttest thyself off from so many flocks ! For thou didst cut thyself off; be not deceived; for he who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the united Church is truly the schismatic. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all.” (Ibid). Proof of the Papacy Tool

“…there is to be no review of our judgment. In fact, it has never been licit to deliberate again on that which has once been decided by the Apostolic See.” [Pope Saint Boniface I, Letter to the Bishop of Thessalonica, Rufus, Denzinger [A.D. 422]] “No one has ever boldly raised his hands against the Apostolic Eminence, from whose judgment it is not permissible to dissent; no one has rebelled against this, who did not wish judgment to be passed upon him.” (Pope Boniface I, Letter “Manet Beatum” to Rufus and the Other Bishops in Macedonia; Denzinger n. 235 [A.D. March 11, 422]). "...It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship." (Epistle 14). “As you yourself have indicated in your letters, the blessed apostle Peter looks upon you with his eyes, considering how you carry out the office of the supreme ruler. Nor can he be very far from you, who has been established as the perpetual pastor of the sheep of the Lord, or fail to care for a church no matter where it be located, he in whom we read that the foundation of the Universal Church has been place… “The blessed apostle Peter, to whom the citadel of the priesthood was entrusted by the voice of the Lord, is lifted with immense satisfaction whenever he sees that the honor granted him by the Lord is guarded by men of unblemished peace. What greater joy could he have, than to see that the rights pertaining to the authority he has received are preserved in their integrity? For any consultation sent by various parties, on whatever matter, that seeks the arcanum of that See which has evidently been established on a spiritual rock, truly requires an immovable foundation.” (Pope Boniface writing to Rufus of Thessalonica). “The institution of the universal Church at its birth took its beginning from the office of Blessed Peter, in whose person its government and summit consists. For from his fountain the stream of ecclesiastical discipline flowed forth into all the Churches, as the culture of religion progressively advanced. The precepts of the Council of Nicea bear witness to nothing else: so that it did not dare to appoint anything over him, seeing that nothing could possibly be conferred above his office: moreover, it knew that everything had been granted to him by the word of the Lord. Certain, therefore, is it that this [Roman] Church is to the Churches spread throughout the world, as it were, the head of its own members, from which whoever cuts himself off is expelled from the Christian religion, inasmuch as he has ceased to be within the one structure.” (Epistle 14, to the bishops of Thessaly [Greece]). “The care of the universal Church, laid upon him, attends to the blessed Apostle Peter, by the Lord’s decree; which indeed, by the witness of the gospel, he knows to be founded on himself; nor can his honor ever be free from anxieties, since it is certain that the supreme authority (summam rerum) depends on his deliberation. Which things carry my mind even to the regions of the East, which by the force of our solicitude we in a manner behold…As the occasion needs it, we must prove by instances that the greatest Eastern churches, in important matters, which required greater discussion, have always consulted the Roman see, and, as often as need arose, asked its help.” “The watchful care over the universal Church confided to Peter abides with him by reason of the Lords statement; for he knows on the testimony of the Gospel [<att. 16:18] that the Church was founded on him. His office can never be free from cares, since it is certain that all things depend on his deliberation. These considerations turn your mind to the regions of the Orient, which we behold in a way with genuine solicitude. Far be it from the priests of the Lord, that anyone of them fall into the offense of making the decrease of our elders foreign to him, by attempting something in the way of a novel and unlawful usurpation, realizing that he thus makes him a rival, in whom our Christ has placed the highest power of the priesthood, and whoever rises to reproach him cannot be an inhabitant of the heavenly regions. “To you,” He said, “I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven” [Matt. 16:19] into which no one shall enter without the favor of the door-keeper. He said: “Thou art PEter, and upon this rock I shall build my church” [Matt. 11:29]. Whoever, therefore, desires before God to be judged worthy of the dignity of the priesthood, since one reaches God with the support of Peter, on whom, as we have said above, it is certain that the Church was founded, [should] be “meek and humble of heart” [Matt. 11:29], lest as a contumacious disciple of him, whose pride he has imitated, he undergo the punishment of the teachers.” “Since the circumstances demand, examine if you please, the decrees of the canons; you will find what church ranks second after the church at Rome, or what is third. In these [decrees) there appears a distinct order, so that the pontiffs of the other churches recognize that they nevertheless are under one church and share the same priesthood, and to whom they, preserving charity, should be subject because of ecclesiatical discipline. Indeed this teaching of the canons have persisted from antiquity, and continues even at the present time, through the grace of Christ. No one has ever boldly raised his hands in opposition to the apostolic supremacy, from whose judgment there may be no withdrawal; no one in this has been rebellious, except him who wished judgment to be passed on himself. The above mentioned great churches preserve their authority through the canons: the churches of Alexandria and of Antioch [cf. n. 163, 436], having the knowledge of ecclesiastical law. They preserve, I say, the statues of our elders in all things rendering and receiving an interchange of that grace which they know that they owe to us in the Lord who is our peace. But since the situation demands it, it must be shown by documents that the greatest churches of the Orient in important affairs, in which there was need of greater inquiry, have always consulted the See of Rome, and, as often as experience demanded, asked for its help. Athanasius of holy memory and Peter, priests of the church of Alexandria, sought the aid of this See. When the Curch of Antioch was afflicted during a very long period, with the result that conferences because of this were often held, it is clear that the Apostolic See was consulted, first under Meletius and later under Flavianus. According to its authority, after the many things which were accomplished by our church, no one doubts that Flavianus received the grace of communion, which he would have lacked forever if his writing had not gone forth hence upon this basis. The emperor Theodosius of most holy kindly memory, thinking that the ordination of Nectarius did not possess stability, since it did not take place in our way, sending from his presence members of his court together with bishops, demanded that it be performed in this case by the Roman See, and that they direct it in the regular way, so as to strengthen the priesthood. A short time ago, that is under my predecessor of happy memory, Innocent, the Pontiffs of the Oriental, grieving that they were separated from the communion of blessed Peter, through envoys asked for peace, as your charity remembered. And at this time the Apostolic See without difficulty granted all, obeying the Master who says: “And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. That we be not overreached by Satan. For we are not ignorant of his devices [II Cor. 2:10]”, that is who rejoices at dissension. Since then, most beloved Brethern, I think that the examples which we have given suffice to prove the truth, although more are retained in your own minds without harm to our brotherhood we wish to meet your assembly, as you see by this letter which has been directed by Us through Severus, a notary of the Apostolic See, most acceptable to Our heart, chosen from Our Circle. Thus in agreement, as befits brothers, let not anyone wishing to endure in our communion bring up again for discussion the name of our brother and fellow priest, Bishop Perigenas [of Corinth], who sacerdotal office the Apostle Peter has already confirmed at the suggestion of the Holy Spirit, leaving no question about this for future, and let there be no objection to this, since he was appointed by us during the space of that time in which the office was vacant…” (St. Pope Boniface I, from the letter, Manet beatum, to Rufus and the other Bishops through out Macedonia [March 11, 422]). “We in particular are under obligation to be responsible for all, to whom Christ assigned the duty of universal stewardship in the holy Apostle Peter, when He gave him the keys of opening and closing, and discriminated among His apostles, not so one should be inferior to another but that He should be the first. Law should govern us, not we the law; if we are to uphold canonical principles, let us be obedient to the canons ourselves” (Epistle 3, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 29). “the Roman Church is with certainty for all the Churches of the whole world as the head of its members …[by] the title of honor of the blessed Peter, in which consists his government and coronation." (To the Bishops of Thessaly). “To the synod which is said to be due to meet illegally at Corinth about the case of our brother and fellow bishop, Apiarius and Antony Perigenes, whose state, we wrote, can in no way whatever be disturbed, we have dispatched such a writing, that the brethren one and all may understand, first that they ought not to have met in council without your knowledge ; secondly that there is to be no revision of our decision. For it has neuer been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see. In this document, as was fitting, we upheld the deference due to your holiness, as your grace will learn on reading it.” (Epistle 13, Retro majoribu, to Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica). “The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both its directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicaea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity : in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himselffrom it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship.” (Epistle 14, Institutio uniuersalis, to the Bishops of Thessaly). “Since the occasion demands it, if you will please examine Canon Law,' you will find what is the second see after the Roman church and what is the third. This group [of sees] has been canonically set apart, so that the bishops of other churches, though sharing one and the same episcopal status, may realize that there are those to whom they ought to be obedient in a bond of love for the sake of ecclesiastical discipline. . . . None has ever been so rash as to oppose the apostolic primacy, thejudgement of which may not be revised; none rebels against it, unless he would be judged in his turn.” (Epistle 15, Manet beatum, to Rufus and the other Bishops of Macedonia). < Proof of the Papacy Tool Pope St. Boniface I Papal Supremacy, Keys, Apostolic See, Rock of the Church, Papal Authority, Foundation of the Church, The Roman See, St. Peter “…there is to be no review of our judgment. In fact, it has never been licit to deliberate again on that which has once been decided by the Apostolic See.” [Pope Saint Boniface I, Letter to the Bishop of Thessalonica, Rufus, Denzinger [A.D. 422]] “No one has ever boldly raised his hands against the Apostolic Eminence, from whose judgment it is not permissible to dissent; no one has rebelled against this, who did not wish judgment to be passed upon him.” (Pope Boniface I, Letter “Manet Beatum” to Rufus and the Other Bishops in Macedonia; Denzinger n. 235 [A.D. March 11, 422]). "...It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship." (Epistle 14). “As you yourself have indicated in your letters, the blessed apostle Peter looks upon you with his eyes, considering how you carry out the office of the supreme ruler. Nor can he be very far from you, who has been established as the perpetual pastor of the sheep of the Lord, or fail to care for a church no matter where it be located, he in whom we read that the foundation of the Universal Church has been place… “The blessed apostle Peter, to whom the citadel of the priesthood was entrusted by the voice of the Lord, is lifted with immense satisfaction whenever he sees that the honor granted him by the Lord is guarded by men of unblemished peace. What greater joy could he have, than to see that the rights pertaining to the authority he has received are preserved in their integrity? For any consultation sent by various parties, on whatever matter, that seeks the arcanum of that See which has evidently been established on a spiritual rock, truly requires an immovable foundation.” (Pope Boniface writing to Rufus of Thessalonica). “The institution of the universal Church at its birth took its beginning from the office of Blessed Peter, in whose person its government and summit consists. For from his fountain the stream of ecclesiastical discipline flowed forth into all the Churches, as the culture of religion progressively advanced. The precepts of the Council of Nicea bear witness to nothing else: so that it did not dare to appoint anything over him, seeing that nothing could possibly be conferred above his office: moreover, it knew that everything had been granted to him by the word of the Lord. Certain, therefore, is it that this [Roman] Church is to the Churches spread throughout the world, as it were, the head of its own members, from which whoever cuts himself off is expelled from the Christian religion, inasmuch as he has ceased to be within the one structure.” (Epistle 14, to the bishops of Thessaly [Greece]). “The care of the universal Church, laid upon him, attends to the blessed Apostle Peter, by the Lord’s decree; which indeed, by the witness of the gospel, he knows to be founded on himself; nor can his honor ever be free from anxieties, since it is certain that the supreme authority (summam rerum) depends on his deliberation. Which things carry my mind even to the regions of the East, which by the force of our solicitude we in a manner behold…As the occasion needs it, we must prove by instances that the greatest Eastern churches, in important matters, which required greater discussion, have always consulted the Roman see, and, as often as need arose, asked its help.” “The watchful care over the universal Church confided to Peter abides with him by reason of the Lords statement; for he knows on the testimony of the Gospel [<att. 16:18] that the Church was founded on him. His office can never be free from cares, since it is certain that all things depend on his deliberation. These considerations turn your mind to the regions of the Orient, which we behold in a way with genuine solicitude. Far be it from the priests of the Lord, that anyone of them fall into the offense of making the decrease of our elders foreign to him, by attempting something in the way of a novel and unlawful usurpation, realizing that he thus makes him a rival, in whom our Christ has placed the highest power of the priesthood, and whoever rises to reproach him cannot be an inhabitant of the heavenly regions. “To you,” He said, “I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven” [Matt. 16:19] into which no one shall enter without the favor of the door-keeper. He said: “Thou art PEter, and upon this rock I shall build my church” [Matt. 11:29]. Whoever, therefore, desires before God to be judged worthy of the dignity of the priesthood, since one reaches God with the support of Peter, on whom, as we have said above, it is certain that the Church was founded, [should] be “meek and humble of heart” [Matt. 11:29], lest as a contumacious disciple of him, whose pride he has imitated, he undergo the punishment of the teachers.” “Since the circumstances demand, examine if you please, the decrees of the canons; you will find what church ranks second after the church at Rome, or what is third. In these [decrees) there appears a distinct order, so that the pontiffs of the other churches recognize that they nevertheless are under one church and share the same priesthood, and to whom they, preserving charity, should be subject because of ecclesiatical discipline. Indeed this teaching of the canons have persisted from antiquity, and continues even at the present time, through the grace of Christ. No one has ever boldly raised his hands in opposition to the apostolic supremacy, from whose judgment there may be no withdrawal; no one in this has been rebellious, except him who wished judgment to be passed on himself. The above mentioned great churches preserve their authority through the canons: the churches of Alexandria and of Antioch [cf. n. 163, 436], having the knowledge of ecclesiastical law. They preserve, I say, the statues of our elders in all things rendering and receiving an interchange of that grace which they know that they owe to us in the Lord who is our peace. But since the situation demands it, it must be shown by documents that the greatest churches of the Orient in important affairs, in which there was need of greater inquiry, have always consulted the See of Rome, and, as often as experience demanded, asked for its help. Athanasius of holy memory and Peter, priests of the church of Alexandria, sought the aid of this See. When the Curch of Antioch was afflicted during a very long period, with the result that conferences because of this were often held, it is clear that the Apostolic See was consulted, first under Meletius and later under Flavianus. According to its authority, after the many things which were accomplished by our church, no one doubts that Flavianus received the grace of communion, which he would have lacked forever if his writing had not gone forth hence upon this basis. The emperor Theodosius of most holy kindly memory, thinking that the ordination of Nectarius did not possess stability, since it did not take place in our way, sending from his presence members of his court together with bishops, demanded that it be performed in this case by the Roman See, and that they direct it in the regular way, so as to strengthen the priesthood. A short time ago, that is under my predecessor of happy memory, Innocent, the Pontiffs of the Oriental, grieving that they were separated from the communion of blessed Peter, through envoys asked for peace, as your charity remembered. And at this time the Apostolic See without difficulty granted all, obeying the Master who says: “And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. That we be not overreached by Satan. For we are not ignorant of his devices [II Cor. 2:10]”, that is who rejoices at dissension. Since then, most beloved Brethern, I think that the examples which we have given suffice to prove the truth, although more are retained in your own minds without harm to our brotherhood we wish to meet your assembly, as you see by this letter which has been directed by Us through Severus, a notary of the Apostolic See, most acceptable to Our heart, chosen from Our Circle. Thus in agreement, as befits brothers, let not anyone wishing to endure in our communion bring up again for discussion the name of our brother and fellow priest, Bishop Perigenas [of Corinth], who sacerdotal office the Apostle Peter has already confirmed at the suggestion of the Holy Spirit, leaving no question about this for future, and let there be no objection to this, since he was appointed by us during the space of that time in which the office was vacant…” (St. Pope Boniface I, from the letter, Manet beatum, to Rufus and the other Bishops through out Macedonia [March 11, 422]). “We in particular are under obligation to be responsible for all, to whom Christ assigned the duty of universal stewardship in the holy Apostle Peter, when He gave him the keys of opening and closing, and discriminated among His apostles, not so one should be inferior to another but that He should be the first. Law should govern us, not we the law; if we are to uphold canonical principles, let us be obedient to the canons ourselves” (Epistle 3, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 29). “the Roman Church is with certainty for all the Churches of the whole world as the head of its members …[by] the title of honor of the blessed Peter, in which consists his government and coronation." (To the Bishops of Thessaly). “To the synod which is said to be due to meet illegally at Corinth about the case of our brother and fellow bishop, Apiarius and Antony Perigenes, whose state, we wrote, can in no way whatever be disturbed, we have dispatched such a writing, that the brethren one and all may understand, first that they ought not to have met in council without your knowledge ; secondly that there is to be no revision of our decision. For it has neuer been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see. In this document, as was fitting, we upheld the deference due to your holiness, as your grace will learn on reading it.” (Epistle 13, Retro majoribu, to Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica). “The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both its directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicaea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity : in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himselffrom it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship.” (Epistle 14, Institutio uniuersalis, to the Bishops of Thessaly). “Since the occasion demands it, if you will please examine Canon Law,' you will find what is the second see after the Roman church and what is the third. This group [of sees] has been canonically set apart, so that the bishops of other churches, though sharing one and the same episcopal status, may realize that there are those to whom they ought to be obedient in a bond of love for the sake of ecclesiastical discipline. . . . None has ever been so rash as to oppose the apostolic primacy, thejudgement of which may not be revised; none rebels against it, unless he would be judged in his turn.” (Epistle 15, Manet beatum, to Rufus and the other Bishops of Macedonia). Proof of the Papacy Tool

“And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312]) “And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1–2). < Proof of the Papacy Tool The Martyrs of Lyons “And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312]) “And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1–2). Proof of the Papacy Tool

“I, the freeman of an elect city, made this when living, that I might have in due time a place here for my body. My name is Abercius and I am the disciple of the holy shepherd, who feeds flocks of sheep upon the hills and plains, who has great eyes looking everywhere, for this man taught me faithful scriptures. He sent me to royal Rome to consider and to behold the queen with garment and sandals of gold ; there I beheld a people having a shining seal.” (Epitaph [A.D. 180]). < Proof of the Papacy Tool Abercius of Hierapolis Shepherd “I, the freeman of an elect city, made this when living, that I might have in due time a place here for my body. My name is Abercius and I am the disciple of the holy shepherd, who feeds flocks of sheep upon the hills and plains, who has great eyes looking everywhere, for this man taught me faithful scriptures. He sent me to royal Rome to consider and to behold the queen with garment and sandals of gold ; there I beheld a people having a shining seal.” (Epitaph [A.D. 180]). Proof of the Papacy Tool

< Back to Collection The Music of St. Alphonsus Liguori Category Classical Composer St. Alphonsus Liguori About

“Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope’s) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church.” (Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Mansi, xi. 461 [c. A.D. 638]). “Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation …the new heresy.” (Sophronius, [quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council], Mansi, 893). < Proof of the Papacy Tool St. Sophronius of Jerusalem Apostolic See, Foundation of the Church, St. Peter “Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope’s) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church.” (Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Mansi, xi. 461 [c. A.D. 638]). “Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation …the new heresy.” (Sophronius, [quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council], Mansi, 893). Proof of the Papacy Tool

“For why did God not spare His only-begotten Son, but delivered Him up, although the only one He had? It was that He might reconcile to Himself those who were disposed towards Him as enemies, and make them His peculiar people. For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors.” (Treatise Concerning The Christian Priesthood, Book 2) “In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me, the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the Apostles (Peter) as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome.” (On the Inscription of the Acts, II, Chrysostom [c. 387]). “Jesus said to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep’. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep. (Homilies on John [21:15], 88.1). “If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.” (Homilies on John [21:19], 88.3). “Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe.” (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom). “Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.” (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote [c. 387]). “And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, ‘If you love me, preside over the brethren, …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii). “Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, ‘Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty …even denying the Lord.” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom). “(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world.” (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3). “And yet when Peter, the leader of the apostles, said this to Him, "Be it far from thee Lord, this shall not happen unto Thee,” (On Matthew 26:39). “In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock …he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, ‘And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.). “He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ‘ ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: ‘Simon, Simon, etc.’” (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5). “And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, ‘If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep.” (Homilies on John, 88.1). “Jesus said to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep’. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.” (Ibid). “Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles… when I name Peter I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation…” (Homily 3). “ ‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession.” ( Homily 53 on St. Matthew). “[After his repentance,] He [Peter] becomes again head of the Apostles and the whole world is committed to his care” (8th Discourse on the Jews). “[after Peter gave his three fold confirmation of faith in the 21st chapter of John,] He restored him to his former dignity, and He handed over to him the authority [jurisdiction / επιστασιαν] of the Universal Church; greatest of all, He proved to us that he, of all the apostles, had the most love for the Master. "Peter," He asks him, "do you love me more than these?" This alone carries equal esteem as a virtues. (On Repentance and Almsgiving, Homily 5) “This Peter, and when I say Peter I mean the solid rock, the tranquil foundation, the great apostle, the first disciple, the first one called by Christ, and the first one who obeyed. He did something not trivial but exceedingly great—he denied the Master Himself. I am saying this not to accuse that righteous individual but to give you cause for repentance.” (On Repentance and Almsgiving, Homily 3: Concerning Almsgiving and the Ten Virgins) “In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples" (Acts i. 15) : Both as being ardent and as intrusted by Christ with the flock, . . . he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put in his hands; for to him Christ had said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren' (Hom. iii. in Act. Apost).” “ ‘Feed my sheep’ (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren.” “This Linus [mentioned in 2 Timothy], some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter.” (Homily 10). “What then saith the mouth of the apostles, Peter, the ever fervent, the leader of the apostolic choir? When all are asked, he answers. And whereas when He asked the opinion of the people, all replied to the question; when He asked their own, Peter springs forward, and anticipates them, and saith,” (Homily 54 on Matthew’s Gospel). “And in those days," it says, "Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said." (v. 15.) Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honor, he always begins the discourse.” (Homily 3 on Acts). “I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven.” (Homily LIV). “And how has He set over us so many to reprove; and not only to reprove, but also to punish? For him that hearkens to none of these, He has commanded to be as a heathen man and a publican. And how gave He them the keys also? Since if they are not to judge, they will be without authority in any matter, and in vain have they received the power to bind and to loose.” (Homily 12 on the Gospel of John). “At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.” (Homily on St. Ignatius). St. John Chrysostom interprets the following passage in Galatians, where Paul rebukes Peter: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.” (Galatians 2:11-12). Now to the commentary: “Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers. But first a word must be said about Peter’s freedom in speech, and how it was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples. Indeed it was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated in common, he stepped before the others and answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Mat. xvi. 16.) This was when the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mount; (Mat. xvii. 4.) and when Christ spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, “Be it far from Thee.” (Mat. xvi. 22.) These words evince, if not a cautious temper, at least a fervent love; and in all instances we find him more vehement than the others, and rushing forward into danger. So when Christ was seen on the beach, and the others were pushing the boat in, he was too impatient to wait for its coming to land. (John xxi. 7.) And after the Resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and maddened, and sought to tear the Apostles in pieces, he first dared to come forward, and to declare, that the Crucified was taken up into heaven. (Acts ii. 14, 36.) It is a greater thing to open a closed door, and to commence an action, than to be free-spoken afterwards. How could he ever dissemble who had exposed his life to such a populace? He who when scourged and bound would not bate a jot of his courage, and this at the beginning of his mission, and in the heart of the chief city where there was so much danger,—how could he, long afterwards in Antioch, where no danger was at hand, and his character had received lustre from the testimony of his actions, feel any apprehension of the believing Jews? How could he, I say, who at the very first and in their chief city feared not the Jews while Jews, after a long time and in a foreign city, fear those of them who had been converted? Paul therefore does not speak this against Peter, but with the same meaning in which he said, “for they who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me.” But to remove any doubt on this point, we must unfold the reason of these expressions. “The Apostles, as I said before, permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him. For had he, having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offence; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. “Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over. Without this occurrence Paul’s exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter’s disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter disputed Paul’s sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used Peter so severely. Observe too Paul’s careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance of the plan, (oikonomias) and not from anger. “His words are, “When Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned;” that is, not by me but by others; had he himself condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so. And the words, “I resisted him to the face,” imply a scheme for had their discussion been real, they would not have rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples, for it would have been a great stumblingblock to them. But now this apparent contest was much to their advantage; as Paul had yielded to the Apostles at Jerusalem, so in turn they yield to him at Antioch.” (Commentary on Galatians). “If any is blameless." "In every city," he says, for he did not wish the whole island to be intrusted to one, but that each should have his own charge and care, for thus he would have less labor himself, and those under his rule would receive greater attention, if the Teacher had not to go about to the presidency of many Churches, but was left to be occupied with one only and to bring that into order.” (Homily 2 on Titus). "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church", that is on the faith of his confession. Thus he shows many will believe and raises his mind and makes him shepherd. . . . Do you see how he himself' leads Peter to high thoughts of him, and reveals himself and shows that he is the Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, namely to forgive sins, and to make the Church immovable in such an onset of waves, and to declare a jsherman to be stronger than any rock while all the world wars against him, these things he himself promises to give; as the Father said, speaking to Jeremiah, that he would set him as a column of brass and as a wall-but him for one nation, this man for all the world. I would ask those who wish to lessen the dignity of the Son, which gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave to him? The Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son, but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and of himself throughout the world; and to a mortal man he entrusted the authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys, who extended the Church throughout the world and declared it to be stronger than heaven.” (Homily 54, On Matthew). “After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial), after so great a sin, he brought him back to his former honour, and entrusted him with the care of the universal Church, and, what is more than all, he showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for he saith, " Peter, lovest thou me more than these?” (Homily 5, On Penitence). “And if anyone would say “How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem?", I would reply that he 1 appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world.” (Homily 88, On John). “Notice how Peter ends on a fearful note. He does not preach to them from the prophets, but from current events of which they were witnesses. Of course these add their witness and strengthen the word by what has now happened. And notice, he first allows the question to be moved in the Church, and then speaks…” (Homily 32, On the Acts of the Apostles). “If therefore we desire to partake of that Spirit which is from the Head, let us cleave to one another. For there are two kinds of separation from the body of the Church : the one when we wax cold in love, the other when we dare to do things unworthy of our membership; for in either way we cut ourselves off from the fullness. . . .. . . . Therefore I assert and protest that to make a schism in the Church is no less an evil than to fall into heresy. . . . I speak not of you who are present, but of those who are deserting from us. This act is adultery.” (Homily 11). “To this end was the Spirit given, that he might unite those who are separated by race and by different manners. And how then is this unity preserved? " In the bond of peace. " This cannot exist in strife and discord. " For ", he says, " where there are strifes among you, and jealousy, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk after the manner of men? " For as fire, when it finds dry pieces of wood, works up all together into one blazing pile, but, when the wood is wet, does not act at all or unite the pieces; as, in the same way, no cold substance can strengthen this union, but generally speaking any warm one can : thus it is that the glow of charity is produced ; by the bond of peace, he wishes to bind us all together.” (Homily 9, On the Epistle to the Ephesians). “They who were dragged hither and thither, who were despised and bound with fetters, and who suffered all those thousand torments, in their death are more honoured than kings; and consider how this has come to pass: in the most regal city of Rome, to the tomb of the fisherman and the tentmaker run emperors and consuls and generals.” (Contra Judaeos et Gentiles). “. . . . Where the seraphim praise and the cherubim do fly, there we shall see Paul with Peter. as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he so loved men that when he might have departed to be with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, its antiquity, its beauty, its numbers, its power, its riches, and its victories in war. But I let all these things pass, and bless it for this reason, that he both wrote to them when living, and loved them so much, and spoke to them when he was with them, and there ended his life. And so indeed the city is more famous for this than for all the other things. And as a body great and strong, it has two shining eyes,l the bodies of these saints. The heaven is not so bright, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all the world. Thence Paul will be caught up, thence Peter . . . What two crowns has the city about it, with what golden chains it is girded, what fountains it has! Therefore I admire the city, not for its much gold, not for its columns, not for any other phantasy, but for these pillars of the Church.” (Homily 32, On Romans). “ ‘And after they had held their peace, James answered . . .’ I. This man was bishop, as they say, and so he speaks last, and the saying is fulfilled, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". . . . " Men and brethren," he says, " hearken unto me." Notice the moderation of the man. His also is a fuller speech, for it completes the matter under discussion. " Symeon", he says, "declared" : in Luke, when he prophesied "how first God did visit the Gentiles " There was no arrogance in the Church. Peter speaks after Paul, and no one silences him. James waits patiently; he does not start up. Neither John nor the other apostles say anything ; they kept silence, for James was inuested with the chief rule, and they think this was no hardship, for their soul was clean from the love of glory. Peter certainly spoke more emphatically, but James more mildly; for it is necessary for one in high authority to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.” (Homily 33). "And in those days ", it says, " 'Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples and said ". Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honour,l he always begins the discourse. . . . Why did he riot ask Christ to give him some one in the room of Judas? It is better as it is. For in the first place, they were engaged in other things ; secondly, of Christ's presence with them the greatest proof that could be given was this : as he had chosen when he was among them, so did he now being absent. Now this was no small matter for their consolation. But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent, nothing imperiously. “. . . And so at the beginning he said, " Men and brethren, it is necessary to choose from among you". He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby both making the elected objects of reverence, and keeping himself clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest. ". . . One must be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection", that their college might not be left mutilated. Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself? “What was the motive? This, that he might not seem to bestow it of favour. And besides, he was not yet endowed with the Spirit. "And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." Not "he appointed them" ; but it was he that introduced the proposition to that effect, at the same time pointing out that even this was not his own, but from of old by prophecy ; so that he acted as expositor, not as preceptor. “. . . ‘Men and brethren . . .’ Here is forethought for providing a teacher : here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, "We are sufficient ". So far was he beyond all vainglory, and he looked to one thing alone. Andyet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these thinis be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and considering that prelacy was not then an affair of dignity, but of care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers they were called, nor those not elected to hake a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But these things are not done in that way nowadays ; no, quite the contrary. For observe, they were 120, and he asks for one out of the whole body; with good right, as having been put in charge of them ; for to him had Christ said, '' And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." (Homily 3, On Acts). “The merciful God is wont to give this honour to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation ; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere.” (Homily 24). . . . He says to hinl " Feed my sheep ". Why does he pass over the others and speak about these to him? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also, to show him that he must now have confidence, since the denial was done away, he entrusts him with the primacy1 of the brethren; and he does not bring forward the denial, or reproach him with the past, but says: " If you love me, rule the brethren,2 and now show the fervent love which you have always shown, and in which you rejoiced, and now give for my sheep the life which you said you would lay down for me." . . . And if anyone would say "How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem?", I would reply that he appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world. “And he [Christ] did this to withdraw them [Peter I and John] from the unseasonable sympathy for each other; for I since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was 11 necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together.” (Homily 5, On Penitence). “The apostles do not see their own affairs, but those of others, all together and each separately. Peter, the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ ; for he says " Peter, lovest thou me more than these? " I speak his paisis that you may learn that he loves Christ, for the care of the slaves isthe greatest proof of love to the Lord. It is not I who say these things, but the beloved Lord. "If thou lovest me," he says, "feed my sheep." Let us see whether he has the primacy of a shepherd.” (Homily 2, on Timothy 3:1). “ ‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’, that is on the faith of his confession. Thus he shows many will believe and raises his mind and makes him shepherd. . . . Do you see how he himself' leads Peter to high thoughts of him, and reveals himself and shows that he is the Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, namely to forgive sins, and to make the Church immovable in such an onset of waves, and to declare a jsherman to be stronger than any rock while all the world wars against him, these things he himself promises to give; as the Father said, speaking to Jeremiah, that he would set him as a column of brass and as a wall-but him for one nation, this man for all the world. I would ask those who wish to lessen the dignity of the Son, which gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave to him? The Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son, but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and of himself throughout the world; and to a mortal man he entrusted the authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys, who extended the Church throughout the world and declared it to be stronger than heaven.” (Homily 54, On Matthew). < Proof of the Papacy Tool St. John Chrysostom Keys, Rock of the Church, Papal Authority, Chief of the Apostles, Universal Jurisdiction, Foundation of the Church, St. Peter, Shepherd “For why did God not spare His only-begotten Son, but delivered Him up, although the only one He had? It was that He might reconcile to Himself those who were disposed towards Him as enemies, and make them His peculiar people. For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors.” (Treatise Concerning The Christian Priesthood, Book 2) “In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me, the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the Apostles (Peter) as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome.” (On the Inscription of the Acts, II, Chrysostom [c. 387]). “Jesus said to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep’. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep. (Homilies on John [21:15], 88.1). “If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.” (Homilies on John [21:19], 88.3). “Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe.” (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom). “Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.” (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote [c. 387]). “And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, ‘If you love me, preside over the brethren, …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii). “Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, ‘Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty …even denying the Lord.” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom). “(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world.” (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3). “And yet when Peter, the leader of the apostles, said this to Him, "Be it far from thee Lord, this shall not happen unto Thee,” (On Matthew 26:39). “In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock …he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, ‘And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.). “He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ‘ ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: ‘Simon, Simon, etc.’” (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5). “And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, ‘If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep.” (Homilies on John, 88.1). “Jesus said to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep’. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.” (Ibid). “Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles… when I name Peter I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation…” (Homily 3). “ ‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession.” ( Homily 53 on St. Matthew). “[After his repentance,] He [Peter] becomes again head of the Apostles and the whole world is committed to his care” (8th Discourse on the Jews). “[after Peter gave his three fold confirmation of faith in the 21st chapter of John,] He restored him to his former dignity, and He handed over to him the authority [jurisdiction / επιστασιαν] of the Universal Church; greatest of all, He proved to us that he, of all the apostles, had the most love for the Master. "Peter," He asks him, "do you love me more than these?" This alone carries equal esteem as a virtues. (On Repentance and Almsgiving, Homily 5) “This Peter, and when I say Peter I mean the solid rock, the tranquil foundation, the great apostle, the first disciple, the first one called by Christ, and the first one who obeyed. He did something not trivial but exceedingly great—he denied the Master Himself. I am saying this not to accuse that righteous individual but to give you cause for repentance.” (On Repentance and Almsgiving, Homily 3: Concerning Almsgiving and the Ten Virgins) “In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples" (Acts i. 15) : Both as being ardent and as intrusted by Christ with the flock, . . . he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put in his hands; for to him Christ had said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren' (Hom. iii. in Act. Apost).” “ ‘Feed my sheep’ (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren.” “This Linus [mentioned in 2 Timothy], some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter.” (Homily 10). “What then saith the mouth of the apostles, Peter, the ever fervent, the leader of the apostolic choir? When all are asked, he answers. And whereas when He asked the opinion of the people, all replied to the question; when He asked their own, Peter springs forward, and anticipates them, and saith,” (Homily 54 on Matthew’s Gospel). “And in those days," it says, "Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said." (v. 15.) Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honor, he always begins the discourse.” (Homily 3 on Acts). “I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven.” (Homily LIV). “And how has He set over us so many to reprove; and not only to reprove, but also to punish? For him that hearkens to none of these, He has commanded to be as a heathen man and a publican. And how gave He them the keys also? Since if they are not to judge, they will be without authority in any matter, and in vain have they received the power to bind and to loose.” (Homily 12 on the Gospel of John). “At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.” (Homily on St. Ignatius). St. John Chrysostom interprets the following passage in Galatians, where Paul rebukes Peter: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.” (Galatians 2:11-12). Now to the commentary: “Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers. But first a word must be said about Peter’s freedom in speech, and how it was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples. Indeed it was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated in common, he stepped before the others and answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Mat. xvi. 16.) This was when the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mount; (Mat. xvii. 4.) and when Christ spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, “Be it far from Thee.” (Mat. xvi. 22.) These words evince, if not a cautious temper, at least a fervent love; and in all instances we find him more vehement than the others, and rushing forward into danger. So when Christ was seen on the beach, and the others were pushing the boat in, he was too impatient to wait for its coming to land. (John xxi. 7.) And after the Resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and maddened, and sought to tear the Apostles in pieces, he first dared to come forward, and to declare, that the Crucified was taken up into heaven. (Acts ii. 14, 36.) It is a greater thing to open a closed door, and to commence an action, than to be free-spoken afterwards. How could he ever dissemble who had exposed his life to such a populace? He who when scourged and bound would not bate a jot of his courage, and this at the beginning of his mission, and in the heart of the chief city where there was so much danger,—how could he, long afterwards in Antioch, where no danger was at hand, and his character had received lustre from the testimony of his actions, feel any apprehension of the believing Jews? How could he, I say, who at the very first and in their chief city feared not the Jews while Jews, after a long time and in a foreign city, fear those of them who had been converted? Paul therefore does not speak this against Peter, but with the same meaning in which he said, “for they who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me.” But to remove any doubt on this point, we must unfold the reason of these expressions. “The Apostles, as I said before, permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him. For had he, having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offence; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. “Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over. Without this occurrence Paul’s exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter’s disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter disputed Paul’s sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used Peter so severely. Observe too Paul’s careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance of the plan, (oikonomias) and not from anger. “His words are, “When Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned;” that is, not by me but by others; had he himself condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so. And the words, “I resisted him to the face,” imply a scheme for had their discussion been real, they would not have rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples, for it would have been a great stumblingblock to them. But now this apparent contest was much to their advantage; as Paul had yielded to the Apostles at Jerusalem, so in turn they yield to him at Antioch.” (Commentary on Galatians). “If any is blameless." "In every city," he says, for he did not wish the whole island to be intrusted to one, but that each should have his own charge and care, for thus he would have less labor himself, and those under his rule would receive greater attention, if the Teacher had not to go about to the presidency of many Churches, but was left to be occupied with one only and to bring that into order.” (Homily 2 on Titus). "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church", that is on the faith of his confession. Thus he shows many will believe and raises his mind and makes him shepherd. . . . Do you see how he himself' leads Peter to high thoughts of him, and reveals himself and shows that he is the Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, namely to forgive sins, and to make the Church immovable in such an onset of waves, and to declare a jsherman to be stronger than any rock while all the world wars against him, these things he himself promises to give; as the Father said, speaking to Jeremiah, that he would set him as a column of brass and as a wall-but him for one nation, this man for all the world. I would ask those who wish to lessen the dignity of the Son, which gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave to him? The Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son, but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and of himself throughout the world; and to a mortal man he entrusted the authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys, who extended the Church throughout the world and declared it to be stronger than heaven.” (Homily 54, On Matthew). “After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial), after so great a sin, he brought him back to his former honour, and entrusted him with the care of the universal Church, and, what is more than all, he showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for he saith, " Peter, lovest thou me more than these?” (Homily 5, On Penitence). “And if anyone would say “How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem?", I would reply that he 1 appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world.” (Homily 88, On John). “Notice how Peter ends on a fearful note. He does not preach to them from the prophets, but from current events of which they were witnesses. Of course these add their witness and strengthen the word by what has now happened. And notice, he first allows the question to be moved in the Church, and then speaks…” (Homily 32, On the Acts of the Apostles). “If therefore we desire to partake of that Spirit which is from the Head, let us cleave to one another. For there are two kinds of separation from the body of the Church : the one when we wax cold in love, the other when we dare to do things unworthy of our membership; for in either way we cut ourselves off from the fullness. . . .. . . . Therefore I assert and protest that to make a schism in the Church is no less an evil than to fall into heresy. . . . I speak not of you who are present, but of those who are deserting from us. This act is adultery.” (Homily 11). “To this end was the Spirit given, that he might unite those who are separated by race and by different manners. And how then is this unity preserved? " In the bond of peace. " This cannot exist in strife and discord. " For ", he says, " where there are strifes among you, and jealousy, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk after the manner of men? " For as fire, when it finds dry pieces of wood, works up all together into one blazing pile, but, when the wood is wet, does not act at all or unite the pieces; as, in the same way, no cold substance can strengthen this union, but generally speaking any warm one can : thus it is that the glow of charity is produced ; by the bond of peace, he wishes to bind us all together.” (Homily 9, On the Epistle to the Ephesians). “They who were dragged hither and thither, who were despised and bound with fetters, and who suffered all those thousand torments, in their death are more honoured than kings; and consider how this has come to pass: in the most regal city of Rome, to the tomb of the fisherman and the tentmaker run emperors and consuls and generals.” (Contra Judaeos et Gentiles). “. . . . Where the seraphim praise and the cherubim do fly, there we shall see Paul with Peter. as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he so loved men that when he might have departed to be with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, its antiquity, its beauty, its numbers, its power, its riches, and its victories in war. But I let all these things pass, and bless it for this reason, that he both wrote to them when living, and loved them so much, and spoke to them when he was with them, and there ended his life. And so indeed the city is more famous for this than for all the other things. And as a body great and strong, it has two shining eyes,l the bodies of these saints. The heaven is not so bright, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all the world. Thence Paul will be caught up, thence Peter . . . What two crowns has the city about it, with what golden chains it is girded, what fountains it has! Therefore I admire the city, not for its much gold, not for its columns, not for any other phantasy, but for these pillars of the Church.” (Homily 32, On Romans). “ ‘And after they had held their peace, James answered . . .’ I. This man was bishop, as they say, and so he speaks last, and the saying is fulfilled, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". . . . " Men and brethren," he says, " hearken unto me." Notice the moderation of the man. His also is a fuller speech, for it completes the matter under discussion. " Symeon", he says, "declared" : in Luke, when he prophesied "how first God did visit the Gentiles " There was no arrogance in the Church. Peter speaks after Paul, and no one silences him. James waits patiently; he does not start up. Neither John nor the other apostles say anything ; they kept silence, for James was inuested with the chief rule, and they think this was no hardship, for their soul was clean from the love of glory. Peter certainly spoke more emphatically, but James more mildly; for it is necessary for one in high authority to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.” (Homily 33). "And in those days ", it says, " 'Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples and said ". Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honour,l he always begins the discourse. . . . Why did he riot ask Christ to give him some one in the room of Judas? It is better as it is. For in the first place, they were engaged in other things ; secondly, of Christ's presence with them the greatest proof that could be given was this : as he had chosen when he was among them, so did he now being absent. Now this was no small matter for their consolation. But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent, nothing imperiously. “. . . And so at the beginning he said, " Men and brethren, it is necessary to choose from among you". He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby both making the elected objects of reverence, and keeping himself clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest. ". . . One must be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection", that their college might not be left mutilated. Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself? “What was the motive? This, that he might not seem to bestow it of favour. And besides, he was not yet endowed with the Spirit. "And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." Not "he appointed them" ; but it was he that introduced the proposition to that effect, at the same time pointing out that even this was not his own, but from of old by prophecy ; so that he acted as expositor, not as preceptor. “. . . ‘Men and brethren . . .’ Here is forethought for providing a teacher : here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, "We are sufficient ". So far was he beyond all vainglory, and he looked to one thing alone. Andyet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these thinis be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and considering that prelacy was not then an affair of dignity, but of care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers they were called, nor those not elected to hake a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But these things are not done in that way nowadays ; no, quite the contrary. For observe, they were 120, and he asks for one out of the whole body; with good right, as having been put in charge of them ; for to him had Christ said, '' And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." (Homily 3, On Acts). “The merciful God is wont to give this honour to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation ; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere.” (Homily 24). . . . He says to hinl " Feed my sheep ". Why does he pass over the others and speak about these to him? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also, to show him that he must now have confidence, since the denial was done away, he entrusts him with the primacy1 of the brethren; and he does not bring forward the denial, or reproach him with the past, but says: " If you love me, rule the brethren,2 and now show the fervent love which you have always shown, and in which you rejoiced, and now give for my sheep the life which you said you would lay down for me." . . . And if anyone would say "How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem?", I would reply that he appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world. “And he [Christ] did this to withdraw them [Peter I and John] from the unseasonable sympathy for each other; for I since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was 11 necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together.” (Homily 5, On Penitence). “The apostles do not see their own affairs, but those of others, all together and each separately. Peter, the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ ; for he says " Peter, lovest thou me more than these? " I speak his paisis that you may learn that he loves Christ, for the care of the slaves isthe greatest proof of love to the Lord. It is not I who say these things, but the beloved Lord. "If thou lovest me," he says, "feed my sheep." Let us see whether he has the primacy of a shepherd.” (Homily 2, on Timothy 3:1). “ ‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’, that is on the faith of his confession. Thus he shows many will believe and raises his mind and makes him shepherd. . . . Do you see how he himself' leads Peter to high thoughts of him, and reveals himself and shows that he is the Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, namely to forgive sins, and to make the Church immovable in such an onset of waves, and to declare a jsherman to be stronger than any rock while all the world wars against him, these things he himself promises to give; as the Father said, speaking to Jeremiah, that he would set him as a column of brass and as a wall-but him for one nation, this man for all the world. I would ask those who wish to lessen the dignity of the Son, which gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave to him? The Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son, but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and of himself throughout the world; and to a mortal man he entrusted the authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys, who extended the Church throughout the world and declared it to be stronger than heaven.” (Homily 54, On Matthew). Proof of the Papacy Tool

“Anthimus has made himself guilty of many transgressions: In uncanonical manner he seized the patriarchal see of Constantinople and endeavoured to secure the agreement of the clergy and people. Secretly, however, he subscribed to the teaching of Eutyches, although he still made a profession of the four synods and also pretended to accept Leo's Tome. This was, however, to deceive the Emperor, the apostolic see of Rome and the patriarchs. But Pope Agapetus I discovered that he denied ecclesial dogmas, in particular the teaching of the two natures which the Synod of Chalcedon defined against Eutyches.Thus he is a supporter of Dioscorus and Eutyches. Because he has evaded the canonical process and has missed the acceptable moment for repentance, he must now be separated, as an unsuitable member, from the body of the holy Churches, deposed as bishop of Trebizond and, according to the judgement of the holy Pope [Agapetus], be declared to have forfeited every holy office and authority” (From the Council). < Proof of the Papacy Tool Council of Jerusalem, 536 Apostolic See, Papal Authority “Anthimus has made himself guilty of many transgressions: In uncanonical manner he seized the patriarchal see of Constantinople and endeavoured to secure the agreement of the clergy and people. Secretly, however, he subscribed to the teaching of Eutyches, although he still made a profession of the four synods and also pretended to accept Leo's Tome. This was, however, to deceive the Emperor, the apostolic see of Rome and the patriarchs. But Pope Agapetus I discovered that he denied ecclesial dogmas, in particular the teaching of the two natures which the Synod of Chalcedon defined against Eutyches.Thus he is a supporter of Dioscorus and Eutyches. Because he has evaded the canonical process and has missed the acceptable moment for repentance, he must now be separated, as an unsuitable member, from the body of the holy Churches, deposed as bishop of Trebizond and, according to the judgement of the holy Pope [Agapetus], be declared to have forfeited every holy office and authority” (From the Council). Proof of the Papacy Tool

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

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.

An article from St. Alphonus Liguori's "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation" < Heresies Tool The Heresy of Berengarius, and the Pretended Reformers, concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist 1. Mosheim, the Protestant Ecclesiastical Historian, asserts (1) that in the 9th century, the exact nature of the faith of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist was not established, and that, therefore, Pascasius Radbertus laid down in a book he wrote two principal points concerning it; first, that after the consecration nothing remained of the substance of the bread and wine, and, secondly, that in the consecrated Host is the very body of Jesus Christ, which was born of Mary, died on the cross, and arose from the sepulchue, and this, he said, is " what the whole world believes and professes." This work was opposed by Retramn, and perhaps others, and hence Mosheim concludes that the dogma was not then established. In this, however, he is astray, for, as Selvaggi writes (note 79, vol. iii), there was no controversy at all about the dogma, in which Retramn was agreed with Radbert; he only attacked some expressions in his work. (1) Mosh. His. t. 3, Cent. IX. c. 3, p. 1175. The truth of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar has been always established and universally embraced by the whole Church, as Vincent of Lerins says, in 434: " Mos iste semper in Ecclesia viguit, ut quo quisque forte religiosior, eo promtius novellis adinventionibus contrairet." Up to the ninth century the Sacrament of the Eucharist never was impugned, till John Scotus Erigena, an Irishman, first published to the world the unheard-of heresy that the body and blood of Christ were not in reality in the Holy Eucharist, which, he said, was only a figure of Jesus Christ. 2. Berengarius, or Berenger, taught the same heresy in the year 1050, taking his opinions from the works of Scotus Erigena, and in the twelfth century we find the Petrobrussians and Henricians, who said that the Eucharist was only a mere sign of the body and blood of our Lord. The Albigenses held the same error in the thirteenth century, and finally, in the sixteenth century the modern Reformers all joined in attacking this Holy Sacrament. Zuingle and Carlostad said that the Eucharist was a signification of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and Ecolampadius joined them afterwards, and Bucer, also, partially. Luther admitted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but said that the substance of the bread remained there also. Calvin several times changed his opinion on the matter; he said, in order to deceive the Catholics, that the Eucharist was not a mere sign, or naked figure of Christ, but was filled with his Divine Virtue, and sometimes he even admitted that the very substance of the body of Christ was there, but his general opinion was that the presence of Christ was not real but figurative, by the power placed there by our Lord. Hence Bossuet says in his " Variations," he never wished to admit that the sinner, in communicating receives the body of Christ, for then he should admit the Real Presence. The Council of Trent (Sess. xiii, c. 1), teaches, " that Jesus Christ, God and man, is really, truly, and substantially contained under the appearance of those sensible things in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine." 3. Before we prove the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we must know that it is a true Sacrament, as the Council of Florence declares in its Decree or Instruction for the Armenians; and the Council of Trent (Sess. vii. c. 1), in opposition to the Socinians, who say that it is not a Sacrament, but merely a remembrance of the death of our Saviour. It is, however, an article of Faith that the Eucharist is a true Sacrament; for, First, we have the sensible sign, the appearance of bread and wine. Secondly, there is the institution of Christ: " Do this in commemoration of me" (Luke, xxii). Thirdly, there is the promise of Grace: " Who eats my flesh hath eternal life." We now have to inquire what in the Eucharist constitutes a Sacrament. The Lutherans say that it is in the use, with all the actions that Christ did, at the last Supper, that the Sacrament consists, as St. Matthew tells us: " Jesus took bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples" (Matt. xxvi). The Calvinists, on the other hand, say that it is in the actual eating that the Sacrament consists. We Catholics believe that the consecration is not the Sacrament, because that is a transitory action, and the Eucharist is a permanent Sacrament, as we shall show hereafter (sec. 3), nor the use or communion, for this regards the effect of the Sacrament, which is a Sacrament before it is received at all, nor in the species alone, for these do not confer Grace, nor the body of Jesus Christ alone, because it is not there in a sensible manner; but the sacramental species, together with the body of Christ, form the Sacrament, inasmuch as they contain the body of our Lord. I OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 4. We have already said that the Council of Trent (Sess. xiii, c. 3) teaches that Jesus Christ is contained in the sacramental species, truly, really, and substantially truly, rejecting the figurative presence, for the figure is opposed to truth; really, rejecting the imaginary presence which Faith makes us aware of, as the Sacramentarians assert; and substantially, rejecting the doctrine of Calvin, who said that in the Eucharist it was not the body of Christ, but his virtue or power, that was present, by which he communicates himself to us; but in this he erred, for the whole substance of Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist. Hence, the Council of Trent (Can. 1), condemns those who assert that Christ is in the Sacrament as a sign, or figure, signo, vel figura, aut virtute. 5. The Real Presence is proved, first, by the words of Christ himself: "Take and eat, this is my body," words which are quoted by St. Matthew (xxvi, 26); St. Mark (xiv, 22); St. Luke (xxii, 19); and St. Paul (I. Cor. xi, 24). It is a certain rule, says St. Augustine (1), and is commonly followed by the Holy Fathers, to take the words of Scripture in their proper literal sense, unless some absurdity would result from doing so; for if it were allowed to explain every thing in a mystic sense, it would be impossible to prove any article of Faith from the Scripture, and it would only become the source of a thousand errors, as every one would give it whatever sense he pleased. Therefore, says the Council (Cap. 1), it is an enormous wickedness to distort the words of Christ by feigned figurative explanations, when three of the Evangelists and St. Paul give them just as he expressed them: " Quæ verba a sanctis Evangelistis commemorata, et a D. Paulo repetita cum propriam illam significationem præ se ferant indignissimum flagitium est ea ad fictitios tropos contra universum Ecclesiæ sensum detorqueri." Who will dare to doubt that it is his body and blood, says St. Cyril of Jerusalem, when Christ has said so (2)? " Cum ipse de pane pronunciaverit. Hoc est corpus meum, quis audebit deinceps ambigere? Et cum idem Ipse dixerit. Hie est sanguis meus, quis dicet non esse ejus sanguinem?" We put this question to the heretics: Could Jesus Christ turn the bread into his body or not? We believe not one of them will deny that he could, for every Christian knows that God is all-powerful, "because no word shall be impossible with God" (Luke i, 37). But they will answer, perhaps: We do not deny that he could, but perhaps he did not wish to do it. Did not wish to do it, perhaps? But tell me, if he did wish to do so, could he have possibly declared more clearly what his will was, than by saying: " This is my body?" When he was asked by Caiphas: "Art thou the Christ the Son of the blessed God? And Jesus said to him: I am" (Mark, xiv, 61, 62), we should say, according to their mode of explanation, that he spoke figuratively also. (1) St. Aug. l. 3, de Doct, Chris. c. 10. (2) St. Cyril. Hieros. Cath. Mystagog. 4. Besides, if you allow, with the Sacramentarians, that the words of Christ: " This is my body," are to be taken figuratively, why, then, do you object to the Socinians, who say that the words of Christ, quoted by St. John (x, 30): " I and the Father are one," ought to be taken not literally, but merely showing that between Christ and the Father there existed a moral union of the will, but not a union of substance, and, consequently denied his Divinity. We now pass on to the other proofs. 6. The Real Presence is proved, secondly, by that text of St. John where Christ says: " The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world" (John, vi, 52). Our adversaries explain away this text, by saying, that here our Redeemer does not in this chapter speak of the Eucharist, but of the Incarnation of the Word. We do not say that in the beginning of the chapter it is the Incarnation that is spoken of; but there cannot be the least doubt but that from the 52nd verse out it is the Eucharist, as even Calvin admits (3); and it was thus the Fathers and Councils always understood it, as the Council of Trent, which (Cap. 2, Sess. xiii, and Cap. 1, Sess. xxii) quotes several passages from that chapter to confirm the Real Presence; and the Second Council of Nice (Act. 6) quotes the 54th verse of the same chapter: " Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man," &c., to prove that the true body of Christ is offered up in the Sacrifice of the Mass. (3) Calvin. Instit. l. 4, c. 17, s. 1. It is in this chapter, also, that our Saviour promises to give to the Faithful, at a future time, his own flesh as food: " The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world" (ver. 52), and here he sets totally aside the false explanation of the sectarians, who say that he only speaks of the spiritual manducation by means of Faith, in believing the Incarnation of the Word; for if that was our Lord’s meaning, he would not say: " The bread which I will give," but " the bread which I have given," for the Word was already incarnate, and his disciples might then spiritually feed on Jesus Christ; therefore he said: " I will give," for he had not as yet instituted the Sacrament, but only promised to do so, and as St. Thomas (4) remarks, he says, " the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world;" he did not say, it means my flesh (as the Zuinglians afterwards explained it), but it is my flesh, because it is truly the body of Christ which is received. Our Lord next says: " My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John, vi, 56); and, therefore, St. Hilary (5) says he leaves us no room to doubt of the truth of his body and blood. In fact, if the real body and blood of Christ were not in the Eucharist, this passage would be a downright falsehood. We should not forget, also, that the distinction between meat and drink can only be understood as referring to the eating of the true body, and drinking the true blood of Christ, and not of spiritual eating by faith, as the Reformers assert; for, as that is totally internal, the meat and the drink would be only one and the same thing, and not two distinct things. 7. We have another strong proof in the same chapter of St. John (chap, vi); for the people of Caphernaum, hearing Christ speak thus, said: " How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (ver. 53); and they even thought it so unreasonable, that " after this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (ver, 67). Now, if the flesh of Christ was not really in the Eucharist, he could remove the scandal from them at once, by saying that it was only spiritually they were called on to eat his flesh by faith; but, instead of that, he only confirmed more strongly what he said before, for he said: " Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (ver. 54). And he then turned to the twelve disciples, who remained with him, and said: " Will you also go away? And Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life, and we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ the Son of God" (ver. 69, 70). 8. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is proved also from the words of St. Paul: " For let a man prove himself for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord" (I. Cor. xi, 28, 29). Now, mark these words, " the body of the Lord." Does not that prove how erroneously the sectarians act, in saying that in the Eucharist we venerate, by faith, the figure alone of the body of Christ; for if that was the case, the Apostle would not say that they who received in sin were deserving of eternal condemnation; but he clearly states that one who communicates unworthily is so, for he does not distinguish the body of the Lord from the common earthly food. (4) St. Thom. Loc. 9, in Joan. (5) St. Hilar. l. 8, de Trin. n. 13. 9. Fourthly, it is proved again from St. Paul, for speaking of the use of this Holy Sacrament, he says: " The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" (I. Cor. x, 16). Mark the words, " the bread which we break;" that which is first offered to God on the altar, and afterwards distributed to the people, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? Do not, in a word, those who receive it partake of the true body of Christ? 10. Fifthly, it is proved by the Decrees of Councils. We find it first mentioned in the Council of Alexandria, which was afterwards approved of by the first Council of Constantinople. Next, the Council of Ephesus sanctioned the twelve anathematisms of St. Cyril against Nestorius, and in this the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is taught. The Second Council of Nice (Act. 6) condemns, as an error against Faith, the assertion that the figure alone, and not the true body of Christ, is in the Eucharist; for, says the Council, Christ said, take and eat, this is my body, but he did not say, take and eat, this is the image of my body. In the Roman Council, under Gregory VII., in 1079, Berengarius, in the Profession of Faith which he made, confesses that the bread and wine are, by the consecration, substantially converted into the body and blood of Christ. The Fourth Council of Lateran, under Innocent III., in the year 1215 (chap. 1), says: " We believe that the body and blood of Christ are contained under the species of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood." In the Council of Constance the Propositions of Wickliffe and Huss were condemned, which said that (in the Eucharist) the bread was present in reality, and the body figuratively, and that the expression " this is my body" is a figure of speech, just like the expression, " John is Elias" The Council of Florence, in the Decree of Union for the Greeks, decrees, " that the body of Christ is truly consecrated (veracitur confici) in bread of wheat, either leavened or unleavened." 11. It is proved, sixthly, by the perpetual and uniform Tradition of the Holy Fathers. St. Ignatius the Martyr (6) says: " Eucharistiam non admittunt, quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi." St. Iræneus (7): " Panis percipiens invocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia." And in another place he says (8): " Eum, panem in quo gratis sunt actæ, corpus esse Christi, et calicem sanguinis ejus." St. Justin, Martyr, writes (9): " Non hunc ut communem panem suminus, sed quemadmodum per verbum Dei caro factum est J. C. carnem habuit," &c. He, there fore, says, that the same flesh which the Word assumed is in the Eucharist. Tertullian (10) says: " Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo saginctur." Origen writes (11): " Quando vitse pane et poculo frueris, manducas et bibis, corpus et sanguinem Domini." Hear St. Ambrose (12): " Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum; ubi accessor it consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi." St Chrysostom says (13): " Quot nunc dicunt vellem ipsius formam aspicere Ecce cum vides, Ipsum tangis, Ipsum manducas." St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and St. Gregory of Nazianzen, express the same sentiments (14). St. Augustine says (15): " Sicut mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Jesum, carnem suam nobis manducandam, bibendumque sanguinem dantem ficlei corde suspicimus." St. Remigius (16) says: "Licet panis videatur, in veritate corpus Christi est." St. Gregory the Great writes (17): " Quid sit sanguis agni non jam audiendo sed libcndo didicistis qui sanguis super utrumque postern ponitur quando non solum ore corporis, sed etiam ore cordis hauritur." (6) St. Ignat. Ep. ad Smirn. ap. Theodor. Dial. 3 (7) St. Iræn. l. ad Huer. c. 18, al 34. (8) Idem, 1. 4, c. 34. (9) St. Justin. Apol. 2. (10) Tertul. l. Resur. c. 8. c. 9. (11) Grig. Hom. 5, in divers. (12) St. Amb. l. 4, de Sacram. c. 4, (13) St. Chrys. Horn, ad Pop. Antioch.. (14) Apud. Antoin. de Euch. Theol. Univer. c. 4, 1. (15) St. Aug. l. 2, con. adver. legis. c. 9 (16) St. Remig. in Ep. ad Cor. c. 10. (17) St. Greg. Hom. 22, in Evang. St. John of Damascus (18) writes: " Panis, ac vinum, et aqua qua per Spiritus Sancti invocationem et adventum mirabili modo in Christi corpus et sanguinem vertuntur." Thus we see an uninterrupted series of Fathers for the first seven centuries proclaiming, in the clearest and most forcible language, the doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. 12. By this we see how false is the interpretation which Zuinglius put on that text, " This is my body," when he said that the word is means signifies, founding his heresy on a verse of Exodus (xii, 11): " For it is the Phase (that is the passage) of the Lord." Now, said he, the eating of the paschal lamb was not itself the passage of the Lord; it only meant it, or signified it. The Zuinglians alone follow this interpretation, for we never can take the sense of the word is for the word means or signifies, unless in cases, where reason itself shows that the word is has a figurative meaning; but in this case the Zuinglian explanation is contrary to the proper literal sense, in which we should always understand the Scriptures, when that sense is not repugnant to reason. The Zuinglian explanation is also opposed to St. Paul, relating to us the very words of Christ: " This is my body, which shall be delivered up for you" (I. Cor. xi, 24). Our Lord, we see, did not deliver up, in his Passion, the sign or signification of his body, but his real and true body. The Zuinglians say, be sides, that in the Syro-Chaldaic or Hebrew, in which our Redeemer spoke, when instituting the Eucharist, that there is no word corresponding in meaning to our word signify, and hence, in the Old Testament, we always find the word is used instead of it, and, therefore, the words of Christ, " This is my body," should be understood, as if he said, "This signifies my body." We answer: First It is not the fact that the word signifies is never found in the Old Testament, for we find in Exodus: " Man-hu ! which signifieth: What is this" (Exod. xvi, 15); and in Judges (xiv, 15): " Persuade him to tell thee what the riddle meaneth;" and in Ezechiel (xvii, 12): " Know you not what these things mean." Secondly Although the words mean or signify are not found in the Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic, still the word is must not always be taken for it, only in case that the context should show that such is the intention of the speaker; but in this case the word has surely its own signification, a we learn, especially from the Greek version; this language has both words, and still the Greek text says, " This is my body," and not " This means my body." (18) St. Joan. Daneas, l. 4, Orthodox, c. 14. 13. The opinion of those sectarians, who say that in the Eucharist only a figure exists, and not the body of Christ in reality, is also refuted by these words of our Lord, already quoted: " This is my body, which shall be delivered up for you" (I. Cor. xi, 24); for Jesus Christ delivered up his body to death, and not the figure of his body. And, speaking of his sacred blood, he says (St. Matt, xxvi, 28): " For this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." Christ, then, shed his real blood, and not the figure of his blood; for the figure is expressed by speech, or writing, or painting, but the figure is not shed. Piceninus (19) objects that St. Augustine, speaking of that passage of St. John, " Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man." says that the flesh of our Lord is a figure, bringing to our mind the memory of his passion: "Figura est præcipiens Passione Dominica esse communicandum." We answer, that we do not deny that our Redeemer instituted the Holy Eucharist, in memory of his death, as we learn from St. Paul (I. Cor. xi, 26): " For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord until he come;" but still we assert, that in the Eucharist there is the true body of Christ, and there is, at the same time, a figure, commemorative of his death; and this is St. Augustine’s meaning, for he never doubted that the body and blood of Christ were in the Eucharist really and truly, as he elsewhere expresses it (20): " Panis quem videtis in Altari, sanctificatus per verbum Dei, Corpus est Christi." 14. There is, I should say, no necessity of refuting Calvin’s opinions on the Real Presence, for he constantly refutes himself, changing his opinion a thousand times, and always cloaking it in ambiguous terms. Bossuet and Du Hamel (21) may be consulted on this point. (19) St. Aug. l. 3, de Doct. Christian. c. 16. (20) St. Aug. Ser. 83, de Div. n. 27. (21) Bossuet, His. des Variat. t. 2, l. 9; Du Hamel, Theol. De Euch. They treat the subject extensively, and quote Calvin’s opinion, who says, at one time, that the true substance of the body of Christ is in the Eucharist, and then again (22), that Christ is united to us by Faith; so that, by the presence of Christ, he understands a presence of power or virtue in the Sacrament; and this is confirmed by him in another part of his works, where he says that Christ is just as much present to us in the Eucharist as he is in Baptism. At one time, he says the Sacrament of the Altar is a miracle, and then again (23), the whole miracle, he says, consists in this, that the Faithful are vivified by the flesh of Christ, since a virtue so powerful descends from heaven on earth. Again, he says that even the unworthy receive in the Supper the body of Christ, and then, in another place (24), he says that he is received by the elect alone. In fine, we see Calvin struggling, in the explanation of this dogma, not to appear a heretic with the Zuinglians, nor a Catholic with the Roman Catholics. Here is the Profession of Faith which the Calvinist Ministers presented to the Prelates, at the Conference of Poissy, as Bossuet gives it (25): " We believe that the body and blood are really united to the bread and wine, but in a sacramental manner that is, not according to the natural position of bodies, but inasmuch as they signify that God gives his body and blood to those who truly receive him by Faith." It was remarkable in that Conference, that Theodore Beza, the first disciple of Calvin, and who had hardly time to have imbibed all his errors, said publicly, as De Thou (26) relates, " that Jesus Christ was as far from the Supper as the heavens were from the earth." The French Prelates then drew up a true Confession of Faith, totally opposed to the Calvinists: " We believe," said they, " that in the Sacrament of the Altar there is really and transubstantially the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, by the power of the Divine Word pronounced by the Priest," &c. (22) Calvin, Inst. l. 4, c. 1 1 . (23) Idem. (24) Idem (25) Bossuet, t. 2, l. 9. (26) Thuan. l. 28, r. 48.

An article from St. Alphonus Liguori's "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation" < Heresies Tool The Heresy of Michael Molinos 1. This heresiarch preached two impious maxims; one did away with every thing good, the other admitted every thing "evil. His first maxim was that the contemplative soul should fly from and banish all sensible acts of the will and understanding, which, according to him, impede contemplation, and thus deprive man of all those means which God has given him to acquire salvation. When the soul, he said, had given itself entirely up to God, and annihilated its will, resigning itself entirely into his hands, it becomes perfectly united with God, it should then have no further care for its salvation, no longer occupy itself with meditations, thanksgivings, prayers, devotion to Holy Images, or even to the Most Holy Humanity of Jesus Christ; it should avoid all devout affections of hope, of self sacrifice, of love for God, and in fine, drive away all good thoughts and avoid all good actions, for all these are opposed to contemplation, and to the perfection of the soul. 2. That we may perceive how poisoning this maxim is, we should know what is Meditation and what Contemplation. In meditation we labour to seek God by reasoning and by good acts, but in contemplation we behold him without labour, already found. In meditation the mind labours operating with its powers, but in contemplation it is God himself who operates, and the soul merely receives the infused gifts of his grace, anima potitur. Hence, when the soul is by passive contemplation absorbed in God, it should not strain itself to make acts and reflections, because then God supports it in an union of love with himself. " Then," says St. Theresa, " God occupies with his light the understanding, and prevents it from thinking of anything else." " When God," says the Saint, "wishes that our understanding should cease to reason, he occupies it, and gives us a knowledge superior to that which we can arrive at, and keeps the intellect suspended." But then she also remarks that the gift of contemplation and suspension of the intellectual powers, when it comes from God, produces good effects, but when it is procured by ourselves only makes the soul more dry than before. Sometimes in prayer, she says, we have a beginning of devotion which comes from God, and we wish to pass of ourselves into this quietude of will, but if it is procured by ourselves it is of no effect, it is soon over, and leaves nothing but dryness behind. This is the defect which St. Bernard noticed in those who wish to pass from the foot to the mouth, alluding to that passage in the Canticle of Canticles, which refers to holy contemplation: " Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth" (Cant, i, 1). " Longus saltus," says the Saint, " et arduus de pede ad os." 3. It may be objected to us, however, that our Lord says by David: " Be still, and see that I am God" (Psalm xlv, 11). The word " be still," however, does not mean that the soul should remain in a total state of quiescence in prayer, without meditating, offering up affections, or imploring grace. " Be still" means that in order to know God, and the immensity of his goodness, it is sufficient to abstain from vices, to remove ourselves from the cares of the world, to suppress the desires of self-love, and to detach ourselves from the goods of this life. That great mistress of prayer, St. Theresa, says: "It is necessary on our part to prepare ourselves for prayer; when God elevates us higher, to Him alone be the glory. When, therefore, in prayer, God elevates us to contemplation, and makes us feel that he wishes to speak to us, and does not wish that we should address him, we should not try to do anything then ourselves, lest we impede the Divine operation in us; we should only apply our loving attention to the voice of God, and say: Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth. When God, however, does not speak to us, then we should address him in prayer, making acts of contrition, acts of love, purposes of advancement in perfection, and not lose our time doing nothing." St. Thomas says: "Contemplatio diu durare non potest, licet quantum ad alios contemplationis actus, possint diu durare" (1). True contemplation, in which the soul is absorbed in God, can operate nothing, and does not last long; the effects of it, however, last, and so, when the soul returns to the active state, it ought to return also to labour, to preserve the fruit received in contemplation, by reading, reflecting, offering up pious affections, and performing similar acts of devotion, because, as St. Augustine confesses, he always felt himself, after being exalted to some unusual union with God, drawn back again as it were by a weight, to the miseries of this life, so that he felt obliged again to assist himself by acts of the will and the understanding, to an union with God. He says: " Aliquando, intromittis me in affectum inusitatum sed recido in hæc ærumnosis ponderibus, et resorbeor solitis" (2). (1) St. Thomas, 2, 2 7. 180, a. 8, ad 2, (2) St. Aug. Conf. l. 10, c. 40. 4. We have now to examine the pernicious propositions of Molinos, of which I will merely quote the principal ones, which will clearly show the impiety of his system. In his first proposition he says: " Oportet hominem suas potentias annihilare, et hæc est via interna;" in the second: " Velle operari active, est Deum offendere, qui vult esse Ipse solus agens; et ideo opus est seipsum in Deo totum, et totaliter delinquere, et postea permanere velut corpus exanime." Thus he wished, that, abandoning all to God, man should do nothing, but remain like a dead body, and that the wish to perform any good act of the intellect or the will was an offence against God, who wishes to do every thing by himself; this, he said, was the annihilation of the powers of the soul, which renders it divine, and transfuses it in God, as he said in his fifth proposition: " Nihil operando Anima se annihilat, et ad suum principium redit, et ad suam originem, quæ est essentia Dei, in quem trasformata remanet, ac divinizata et tune non sunt amplius duæ res unitse, sed una tantum." See what a number of errors in few words. 5. Hence, also, he prohibited his disciples from having any care about, or even taking any heed of, their salvation, for the perfect soul, said he, should think neither of hell or paradise: "Qui suum liberum arbitrium Deo Donavit, de nulla re debet curam habere, nec de Inferno, nec de Paradiso; nec desiderium propriæ perfectionis, nec proprise salutis, cujus spem purgare debet." Remark the words " spem purgare." To hope for our salvation, then, or make acts of hope, is a defect; to meditate on death and judgment, hell and heaven, shows a want of perfection, although our Lord says that the meditation on them is the greatest safeguard against sin: "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin" (Ecclcs. vii, 40). lie also taught that we should make no acts of love towards the Saints, the Divine Majesty, or even Jesus Christ himself, for we should banish all sensible objects from our soul. See his thirty-fifth proposition: " Nec debent elicere actus amoris erga B. Virginern, Sanctos, aut humanitatem Christi; quia, cum ista objecta sensibilia sint, talis est amor erga ilia." Good God ! to prohibit acts of love towards Jesus Christ, because he is a sensible object, and prohibits our union with God ! But, as St. Augustine says, when we approach Jesus Christ, is it not God himself we approach, for he is both God and man? How even can we approach God, unless through Jesus Christ? " Quo imus nisi ad Jesum, et qua imus, nisi per Ipsum?" 6. This is exactly what St. Paul says: " For by him we have access both in one spirit to the Father" (Ephes. ii, 18). And our Saviour himself says in St. John: " I am the door. By me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and he shall go in and go out, and shall find pastures" (John, x, 9). " he shall go in and go out," that is, as an author quoted by Cornelius Lapido explains it: " Ingredietur ad Divinitatem meam, et egredietur ad humanitatem, et in utriusque contemplatione mira pascua inveniet." Thus, whether the soul contemplates Jesus either as God or man, it will always find pastures. St. Theresa having once read in one of these condemned mystical books, that stopping in the contemplation of Christ prevented the soul from passing on to God, began to adopt this evil practice, but she constantly afterwards grieved for having done so. " Is it possible, my Lord," she says, " that you could be an impediment to me for greater good. Whence does all good come to me, if not from you alone?" She afterwards says: " I have seen that in order to please God, and that we may obtain great graces from him, he wishes that everything should pass through the hands of this Most Holy Humanity, in which he has declared that he is well pleased." 7. Molinos, in prohibiting us from thinking of Jesus Christ, consequently prevented us from meditating on his passion, though all the Saints have done nothing else during their lives than meditate on the ignominy and sufferings of our loving Saviour. St. Augustine says: " Nihil tam salutiferum quam quotidie cogitare, quanta pro nobis pertulit Deus homo;" and St. Bonaventure: "Nihil enim in Anima ita operatur universalem sanctificationem, sicut meditatio Passionis Christi." St. Paul said he wished to know nothing but Christ crucified: " For I judged not myself to know anything among you but Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (Cor. ii, 2). And withal, Molinos says we ought not to think on the humanity of Jesus Christ. 8. He also had the impiety to teach, that we should ask nothing from God, for petitioning is a defect of our own will. Here is his fourteenth proposition: " Qui Divine voluntati resignatus est, non convenit ut a Deo rem aliquam petat; quia petere est imperfectio, cum sit actus propriaa voluntatis. Illud autem Petite et accipietis, non est dictum a Christo pro Animabus internis," &c. He thus deprives the soul of the most efficacious means of obtaining perseverance in a good life, and arriving at the Grace of perfection. Jesus Christ himself, in the Gospel, tells us to pray unceasingly: " We ought always to pray, and not to faint" (Luke, xviii, 1); " Watch ye, therefore, praying at all times" (Luke, xxi, 36); and St. Paul says: " Pray without ceasing" (I. Thes. v, 17); and "Be instant in prayer" (Col. iv, 2). And still Molinos will tell us not to pray, and that prayer is an imperfection. St. Thomas (3) says that continual prayer is necessary for us till our salvation is secured; for though our sins may have been remitted, still the world and the devil will never cease to attack us till the last hour of our lives: " Licet remittantur peccata, remanet tamen fomes peccati nos impugnant interius, et mundus et Dæmones, qui impugnant exterius." In this battle we cannot conquer without the Divine assistance, and this is only to be acquired by prayer, as St. Augustine teaches us, that except the first Grace, that is, the vocation to Grace or Penance, every other Grace, especially that of perseverance, is only given to those who pray for it: " Deus nobis dat aliqua non orantibus, ut initium Fidei, alia nonnisi orantibus præparavit, sicut perseverantiam." 9. We have now to examine his second maxim, which, as we said in the commencement, allows evil to be innocent. When the soul, he says, is given up to God, whatever happens in the body is of no harm, even though we perceive that it is something unlawful; for the will, as he said, being then given to God, whatever happens in the flesh is to be attributed to the violence of the devil and of passion; so that, in that case, we should only make a negative resistance, and permit our nature to be disturbed, and the devil to operate. (3) St. Thom. 3 p. q. 1, 39, a. 5. Here is his seventeenth proposition: " Tradito Deo libero arbitrio, non est amplius habenda ratio tentationum, nec eis alia resistentia fieri debet nisi negativa, nulla adhibita industria; et si natura commovetur, oportet sinere ut commoveatur, quia est natura." And in the forty-seventh proposition, also, he says: " Cum hujusmodi violentiæ occurrunt, sinere oportet, ut Satanas operetur etiamsi sequantur pollutiones, et pejora et non opus est hæc confiteri." 10. Thus this deceiver led people astray, though our Lord tells us, through St. James: " Resist the devil, and he will fly from you" (James, iv, 7). It is not sufficient, then, to take no active part, negative se habere, we are not to allow the devil to operate in us, and our concupiscence to be gratified, for God commands us to resist him with all our strength. Nothing can be more false than what he says in his forty-first proposition: "Deus permittit, et vult ad nos humiliandos quod Dæmon violentiam inferat corporibus, et actus carnales committere faciat & c. Nay, it is most false, for St. Paul teaches us that God will not allow us to be tempted above our strength: " God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able; but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it" (I. Cor. x, 13). The meaning of the Apostle is this: that God will not fail to give us sufficient assistance in time of temptation to resist with our will, and by this resistance our temptations will be advantageous to us. He allows the devil to tempt us to sin; " but, as St. Jerom says, he will not permit him to force us: " Persuadere potest, præcipitare non potest." And St. Augustine(4) says that he is like a chained dog, who can bark at us, but not bite us, unless we put ourselves in his power. No matter how violent the temptation may be, if we call on God we will never fail: " Call on me in the day of trouble I will deliver you" (Psalm xlix, 15); " Praising I will call upon the Lord, and I will be saved from my enemies" (Psalm xvii, 4). It is on this account that St. Bernard says (5) that prayer prevails over the devil, and St. Chrysostom, that nothing is more powerful than the prayer of a man. (4) St. August. l. 5, de Civ. c. 20. (5) St. Bern. Serm. 49, de Modo bene viv. or. 7. 11. In his forty-fifth proposition Molinos says that St. Paul suffered violence in his hody from the devil, for the Saint says: " The good I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do." But we reply, that by the words " that I do," the Apostle only intends to say that he could not avoid involuntary motions of concupiscence; and, therefore, he says again: " Now that is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" (Rom. viii, 17). In his forty-ninth proposition, also, he adduces the example of Job: " Job ex violentia Dæmonis se propriis manibus polluebat eodem tempore, quo mundas habebat ad Deum præces." What a shocking perversion of the Scripture. Job says (chap, xvi): " These things I have suffered without the iniquity of my hand, when I offered pure prayers to God." Now, is there any allusion to indecency in this text? In the Hebrew, and the version of the Septuagint, as Du Hamel informs us, the text is: " I have not neglected God, nor injured any one." Therefore, by the words " these things I have suffered without the iniquity of my hand.”Job meant to say that he never injured his neighbour; as Menochius explains it: "I raised up my hands to God unstained by plunder or by any other crime." In his fifty-first proposition, also, he quotes in his defence the example of Sampson: "In sacra Scriptura multa sunt exempla violentiarum ad actus externos peccaminosos, ut illud Sampsonis, qui per violentiam seipsum occidit, cum Philistæi" &c. We reply, however, with St. Augustine, that this self-destruction of Sampson was accomplished by the pure inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and that is proved by the restoration to him, at the time, of his miraculous strength by the Almighty, who employed him as an instrument for the chastisement of the Philistines; for he having repented of his sins before he grasped the pillar which supported the building, prayed to the Lord to restore him his original strength: " But he called upon the Lord, saying: Lord God, remember me, and restore me now to my former strength." And hence, St. Paul places him among the Saints: " Sampson, Jeptha, David, Samuel, and the Prophets, who, by Faith, conquered kingdoms, wrought justice," &c. (Heb. xi, 32, 33). Behold, then, the impiety of the system of this filthy impostor. He had good reason to thank the Almighty for his mercies, in giving him Grace to die repentant, after his imprisonment of several years (Hist. c. 13, ar. 5, n. 32).

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.