Tuesday, March 31, 2009

New Sister Blog: Catholic Patristics

Check out my new sister blog, Catholic Patristics. Click here for a convenient index of posts. I'm at the start of a very long process of inserting quotes, hyperlinked references (including links to the versions in their original languages in Migne's Patrologia Latina and Patrologia Graeca), and my own glosses on the texts so that they are not just "spoof texts." Here's the blog description:
A Fordham University freshman theology major and athlete provides analysis (glosses on florigelia) and harmony/synthesis/consensus of the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, with a special focus on refuting Eastern Orthodox doctrines that are contrary to those of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I take the lionheart ascetic and genius St. Maximos the Confessor of Constantinople as my Heavenly patron for Catholic Patristics, and I pray that the blog, when it is much more fleshed out, will help evangelize non-Catholics, most especially the Eastern Orthodox, for whom I have much love and respect. God has blessed me with certain knowledge that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and I humbly hope that my new complementary blog will help show this truth from a Patristic and conciliar basis and help strengthen the faith of Catholics. May God make my faith and your faith stronger each day! Amen.
I hope you are doing well. God bless you and yours! Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

List of Great-Martyrs

Mirror link

The following is a list of Great-Martyrs (the Greek next to each is not always a direct translation of the English on the left, but a translation of the first name and/or another title of the saint):

Phanourius the Newly-Appeared of Rhodes [†?]
Eustathius Placidas of Rome [†9/20/118]
Parasceva the Virgin of Iconium [†10/28/3rd c.]
Mercurius of Eskentos [224-12/4/250]
Holy Glorious Great-martyr, Victory-bearer, and Wonderworker George of Lydda [281-4/23/303]
Procopius of Scythopolis (∏ροκόπιος) [†7/7/303]
Holy Unmercenary Healer Panteleimon (∏αντελεήμων) [275-7/27/303]
Margaret the Virgin of Antioch [†7/20/304]
Euphemia the All-Praised of Chalcedon [†9/16/304]
Anastasia the Healer of Sirmium [†12/25/304]
Athanasius of Klysma, Egypt [†7/18/305]
Catherine the Virgin of Alexandria (ἡ Ἁγία Αἰκατερίνη ἡ Μεγαλομάρτυς) [282-11/25/305]
Theodore the Recruit of Tyre [†2/17/306]
Holy and Glorious Great-martyr Demetrius the Myrrh-gusher of Thessalonica (Άγιος Δημήτριος της Θεσσαλονίκης) [270-10/26/306]
Barbara the Virgin of Nicomedia [†12/4/306]
Theodore the General of Heraclea [†2/8/319]
Artemius of Antioch [†10/20/363]
Nicetas the Goth [†9/15/372]
Irene of Thessalonica [†5/5/384]
James Intercisus of Persia [†11/27/421]
Prince Michael-Gobron of Georgia [†11/17/914]
Prince John-Vladimir of Serbia [†5/22/1015]

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, Filioque, and the Encylical of the Eastern Patriarchs

1. It would seem that the May 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs accuses Catholics of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which is an unforgivable sin. In section six the Patriarchs state:
But over time, by envy of the devil, the novelties respecting the sound and orthodox doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the blasphemy of Whom shall not be forgiven unto men either in this world or the next, according to the saying of our Lord [Matthew 12:32], and others that succeeded respecting the divine Mysteries, particularly that of the world-saving Baptism, and the Holy Communion, and the Priesthood, like prodigious births, overspread even Old Rome; and thus sprung, by assumption of special distinctions in the Church as a badge and title, the Papacy.
2. Section 20 makes the same allusion to Catholics as adding to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and therefore subjecting themselves to the anathema of Christ in Mt 12:32. Not withstanding the bankruptcy of the separated Patriarchs' objections to Filioque,{2}, the above accusation against Catholics seems self-defeating. Is it not true that there is no turning back towards salvation after one blasphemes the Holy Spirit? That is what the wording of our Lord implies. Therefore it would seem that the Patriarchs have, whether they realized or not, committed themselves to saying that someone who once professes the Catholic doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit can never be saved. This notion is absurd because the Patriarchs would have to say that, e.g., Fr. Alexis Toth of Wilkes-Barre († 5/7/1909), Isidore the Fool-for-Christ of Rostov († 5/14/1474), and Nicephorus the Solitary of Mt. Athos (†5/4/1340?), who instructed St. Gregory Palamas († 11/14/1359), in Hell, something they would have never dreamt of affirming.

3. In the same vein, the Eastern Orthodox do not blaspheme the Holy Spirit in the sense of Mt 12:32, even though they err in denying the Catholic dogma on the procession of the Holy Spirit.{3} Otherwise we could not venerate as saints the martyrs Josaphat Kuntsevych{4} and Constantine XI Palaiologos,{5} who converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to the true faith.

4. Sts. Maximos the Confessor, Cyril, Methodios, and Josaphat Kuntsevych, pray to our Lord for the imminent reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church! Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of death. Amen. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Amen.

Notes & References
{1} The anti-Catholic Encyclical has, among many other clerical signatures, the names of Patriarchs Anthimos VI of Constantinople († 1878), Hierotheos II of Alexandria († 1858), Methodios I of Antioch († 1859), and Cyril II of Jerusalem († 1872).
{2} "Filioque." Catholic Patristics. 6 Mar. 2009. 25 Mar. 2009 <http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/03/filioque.html>.
{3} Ibid.
{4} "Josaphat the Malevolent?" The Banana Republican. 20 Sept. 2008. 26 Mar. 2009 <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2008/09/josaphat-malevolent.html>.
{5} "A Special Note Concerning the Status of Blessed Constantine XI." The Society of St. John Chrysostom of Ayatriada Rum Katoliki Kilise. 26 Mar. 2009 <http://rumkatkilise.org/statusconstantineXI.htm>.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Florentine Reductio of Eastern Orthodoxy

Bypassing Dead-End Debates
1. All Gill citations in the main body of the post are from the source in note 3. The history of the Council of Florence proves that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot possibly be true. To conclusively demonstrate the falsehood of Eastern Orthodoxy, I here do not even have to prove, e.g., that Filioque is correct, although elsewhere I show that Filioque is true.{1} I only have to point out that by saying that Catholicism is false, the Eastern Orthodox are forced to admit that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Eastern Orthodox Church.

2. This follows easily, granted that (1) the unanimous consent of the four Patriarchs of the East at an ecumenical council trumps the dissension of a single metropolitan opposed to that consensus, and that, to borrow the terminology of the brilliant Catholic apologist Mark J. Bonocore, (2) an ecumenical council does not have to be "ratified" by the laity.{2} Other authors clearly show that (1) the Council of Florence satisfies all the criteria for ecumenicity and that (2) the Eastern clergy freely agreed to the terms of the union, so demonstrating these points is not my concern in this brief post.

The Short-Lived Union of the East and West
3. On 6/8/1439, the agreement (Latin cedula) on the procession of the Holy Spirit was freely signed by all the Eastern bishops except the lone dissenter Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus, including, most importantly, Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople († 6/10/1439) and the patriarchal legates, with the permission of Patriarchs Philotheos of Alexandria († 1459), Dorotheos II of Antioch († 1454), and Joachim of Jerusalem († 1450?).{3} Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox Church dogmatically agreed at an Ecumenical Council that the Catholic doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit, hitherto dogmatically rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church, is true. On 7/6/1439, the Eastern Orthodox Church dogmatically agreed at an Ecumenical Council that Catholicism is true, and so the Eastern Orthodox Church was, at the time, united to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Ardent unionist Joseph II reposed in the Lord on June 10, and the unionist Metrophanes II († 8/1/1443) succeeded him in May of 1440 (Gill 350). The unionist Gregory III Mammas († 1450) was elected Patriarch of Constantinople after the repose of Patriarch Metrophanes.

No Way Out
4. All five Patriarchates were Catholic{4} before the after-the-fact nonsensical repudiation instigated by the schismatic Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus,{5} who tragically anathematized the Latins even on his deathbed.{6} (A) For an Eastern Orthodox Christian to say that Catholicism is false would mean that he has to admit that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Eastern Orthodox Church, contrary to the promise of our Lord in Mt 16:18, and that therefore Eastern Orthodoxy is false. (B) For an Eastern Orthodox Christian to say that Catholicism is true would mean that he has to admit that Eastern Orthodoxy is false, since Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have mutually exclusive dogmas.{7}

5. The ineluctable historical data of the Council of Florence shows that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot possibly be true. Therefore the after-the-fact repudiation of the union--as Fr. Joseph Gill aptly chronicles in his 1964 Personalities of the Council of Florence which, together with his magnum opus The Council of Florence, I have been blessed by God to be able read in one of the Fordham libraries--is self-defeating. Q.E.D.

Notes & References
{1} "Filioque: Fathers, Popes, & Councils." Catholic Patristics. 4 Aug. 2009. 11 Dec. 2009 <http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/08/filioque.html>.
{2} Bonocore, Mark J. "Popes, Councils, and Orthodoxy." Evangelical Catholic Apologetics. 20 Mar. 2009 <http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm>.
{3} Fr. Gill narrates the solemn event in Chapter VIII of his excellent The Council of Florence. See pp. 293-296 of Gill, Joseph, S.J. The Council of Florence. London: Cambridge University Press, 1959.
{4} Ivan Ostroumoff's 1861 The History of the Council of Florence, trans. Basil Popoff, relies (169-170) on the myth of a 1443 anti-union decree of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. This story is not reliable, according to Fr. Gill's The Council of Florence (Gill 354). This is evident from (1) the lack of "repercussion in anti-unionist circles," (2) the lack of certain references to it (that of John Eugenikos is likely much later than 1450 and might even refer to the the 1285 Synod of Blachernae which posthumously condemned Patriarch John XI Bekkos of Constantinople), and (3) Scholarios's "ignorance of it [even] at the end of 1448." Besides, the "Letter of George Amiroutzes to Demetrius of Nauplion" is "spurious" (354).
{5} Gill, Joseph, S.J. Personalities of the Council of Florence. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964. The erudite and venerable Jesuit Fr. Joseph Gill describes how Mark Eugenikos stirred up anti-union sentiment in the uneducated monks and laymen of Constantinople, and how most of the bishops caved in to the mob mentality. Gill (62) says that the Greek prelates
did, however, recognize by their votes the cogency of the arguments of Bessarion and other Greek unionists, yet all the time Mark's rigid abstention was a permanent reproof that made them uneasy and left them with the feeling that they had betrayed the tradition of their Church. When to that was added the raucous condemnation of the monks and the mob of Constantinople after their return, they recanted one by one.
Towards the end of Chapter Five we read (64),
In the compositions he mingled deep reverence for tradition with scorn for the "innovators," ardent love of his Church and vulgar invective against the Latins and their Greek supporters (he never, however, wrote a disrespectful word about the Emperor), serious theological reasoning with the most blatant argumenta ad hominem. He was writing primarily, not for theologians, but for the mass of the Greeks, and he was clever enough to adapt his style and method to the educational level of the ignorant monks and the amorphous populace—very successfully
. But his greatest triumph was that he finally persuaded George Scholarius, who for a time had stood aloof from the controversy, to take up his prophetic mantle after his death, and he could not have chosen a better successor for this purpose.Also, in The Council of Florence we read (Gill 355-356) that Mark's ""Encyclical Letter to All Orthodox Christians on the Mainland and the Islands"
had little solid argument but much specious reasoning and no little scorn and even ribaldry against the "Greco-Latins." His longer productions contain much, clever disguised, repetition, harping on the same quotations from the Fathers. His argumentation was not very deep, as Scholarius had no difficulty in showing with regard to his "Syllogisms against the Latins about the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father only" [Schol. III, pp. 476-538], but that was probably part of his skill as a controversialist, for he was addressing, not the small cultured circle of Constantinople, but the mass of the parochial clergy, monks and people, unlearned in theology, on whom the intricacies of metaphysics would have been lost, but who could be deeply moved by argumenta ad hominem like ...
{6} On the day of his death the schismatic Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus said to his followers,
And lest my silence give occasion to those who do not know my views well and fully to suspect some kind of conciliation, I hereby state and testify before the many worthy men here present that I do not desire, in any manner and absolutely, and do not accept communion with him [Patriarch Gregory III of Constantinople] or with those who are with him, not in this life nor after my death, just as (I accept) neither the Union nor Latin dogmas, which he and his adherents have accepted, and for the enforcement of which he has occupies this presiding place, with the aim of overturning the true dogmas of the Church! I am absolutely convinced that the farther I stand from him and those like him, the nearer I am to God and all the saints; and to the degree that I separate myself from them am I in union with the Truth and with the Holy Fathers, the Theologians of the Church; and I am likewise convinced that those who count themselves with them stand far away from the Truth and from the blessed Teachers of the Church. And for this reason I say: just as in the course of my whole life I was separated from them, so at the time of my departure, yea and after my death, I turn away from intercourse and communion with them and vow and command that none (of them) shall approach either my burial or my grave, and likewise anyone else from our side, with the aim of attempting to join and concelebrate in our Divine services; for this would be to mix what cannot be mixed. But it befits them to be absolutely separated from us until such time as God shall grant correction and peace to His Church.
{7} The salient and most concrete dogmatic disagreement is over the orthodoxy of Filioque. While it seems, from my dabbling (I am no scholar and I have but a high school diploma, but I have spent many of my hours of each day in the past year researching it) in the history of the Filioque, that the controversy sprung from a misunderstanding of the respective nuances of the Greek and Latin tongues, it is clear that today the disagreement is real/substantial, since you can propose and explain an accurate formulation and understanding of the Filioque only to have your learned Eastern Orthodox interlocutor distinctly reject it.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Mark of Ephesus on the Afterlife

The following are some of the theses of Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos (Μάρκος Ευγενικός = Mark the Courteous) of Ephesus [1392-6/3/1444] regarding the afterlife:
1. The separated soul of the sinner does not suffer from a material fire. The damned do not suffer from punishment by fire until after the Last Judgment.
2. The absence of an abode with temporary punishment in Christ's Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus means that Purgatory does not exist.
3. The teaching of the existence of an abode of temporary punishment savors of the Origenist heresy of apokatastasis condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, because it teaches that there will be purification after this life and therefore makes people lazier in this life.
4. The righteous do not inherit the Kingdom prepared for them until they are
5. The existence of a purifying fire is nowhere mentioned in Scripture and the Church Fathers.
6. There is no need for posthumous purification because the different degrees of Heavenly happiness come from the different degrees of purification in this life; the little evil in the saints results not in punishment, but in different degrees of happiness. A purifying fire will eradicate the difference in degrees of happiness, contrary to the words of our Lord in Jn 14:2: "In My Father's house there are many mansions."
7. The longing for the beatific vision purifies people posthumously, making a purifying fire superfluous.
8. Just as the small good among great sins is not rewarded, the small sins among great goods do not need to be punished by a purifying fire.
9. St. Gregory the Great Theologian teaches [Easter Sermon] that there is no purification "beyond this night," meaning that there is no purification after this life.
10. As the Old Testament saints with light sins were held in prison without fire before Christ descended into Hades to free them, so do those in our era who sin lightly stay as in a prison, but without purifying fire, until the Second Coming of Christ.
11. The Holy Fathers who have been blessed to have visions of the afterlife "have nowhere explained a purifying temporary fire."
12. Purgatory is impossible because it contradicts the teaching on the immutability of the will of the soul after death, by making the person change from an evil will to a good will.
13. St. John Chrysostom the Great interprets 1 Cor 3:15 as discussing the Hell of the damned, not the fire of Purgatory.
14. St. Basil the Great on Ps 29:7, which reads, "The voice of the Lord divideth the flame of fire."

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Timeline of the Life of St. Photius the Great

820 Photius [Φώτιος] born to the saintly iconodules Sergios and Irene (5/13). During his holy youth he and his family were frequently persecuted for their right faith.

Ps 61:6-9: But be thou, O my soul, subject to God: for from Him is my patience. For He is my God and my Savior: He is my helper, I shall not be moved. In God is my salvation and my glory: He is the God of my help, and my hope is in God. Trust in Him, all ye congregation of people: pour out your hearts before Him. God is our helper forever.

7/4/847 St. Ignatius [Ιγνάτιος] elected lawful Patriarch of Constantinople.

12/25/857 Photius invalidly ordained Patriarch of Constantinople by Archbishop Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse. Ignatius already occupied the See of Constantinople and had previously excommunicated Gregory for insubordination. Photius is thus the anti-Patriarch (illegitimate Patriarch) of Constantinople until 9/25/867.

861 Ignatius appears before a pseudo-synod as a simple monk and is not allowed to talk to the papal delegates. He proves from pontifical canons that he was not validly deposed, and he refuses to treat the synod as authoritative. Ignatius appeals in vain to the pope. He flees to safety when Bardas issues an order for his execution.

4/863 Pope St. Nicholas I the Great of Rome excommunicates Photius for his unlawful elevation to and usurpation of the see of Constantinople.

866 Pope St. Nicholas I the Great of Rome writes [Epistle 98 to Emperor Michael III in PL 119:1030B], "Consider very carefully how Photius can stand, in spite of his great virtues and universal knowledge."

867 Photius sends an encyclical to the Patriarchs of Alexandria (Michael I † 870), Antioch (Nicholas II † 879), and Jerusalem (Theodosius I † 878) giving the reasons for his action: the Latins (1) fast on Saturday; (2) do not start Lent until Ash Wednesday; (3) do not allow priests to be married; (4) do not allow priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation; and (5) added the Filioque clause to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Now that the Apostolic See rightly does not regard him as the legitimate Patriarch, Photius changes his previous stance [Epistle 2 in PG 102:604-605D] that the different disciplines regarding fasting, clerical marriage, etc. were legitimate variations that did not rend the Faith. He calls the Latins "forerunners of apostasy, servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against God."

Nu 23:8: "How shall I curse him, whom God hath not cursed? By what means should I detest him, whom the Lord detesteth not?"
2 Tim 2:24: "But the servant of the Lord must not wrangle: but be mild toward all men, apt to teach, patient..."

867 Photius excommunicates Pope St. Nicholas I the Great of Rome. St. Nicholas dies before learning of his unjust condemnation.

Prov 26:21: "As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire, so an angry man stirreth up strife."
Sir 28:11: "For a passionate man kindleth strife, and a sinful man will trouble his friends, and bring in debate in the midst of them that are at peace."

The usurper Photius is deposed by Emperor Basil I, and Ignatius resumes his duties as the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople.

10/5/869 Pope Adrian II of Rome convokes the Eighth Ecumenical Council at the recommendation of St. Ignatius. Photius makes the excuse that the representatives of the Eastern patriarchates were "envoys of the Saracens."

Prov 26:22: "The words of a talebearer are as it were simple, but they reach to the innermost parts of the belly."

11/10/871 Pope Adrian II of Rome approves the Council of 869-870 as the Eighth Ecumenical Council.

876 Photius, from his exile, sends Emperor Basil I a fake family tree showing that the emperor is a descendant of Catholicos St. Gregory the Illuminator [Γρηγόριος Φωστήρ] of Armenia; Photius includes a fake prophecy that the emperor will be very great [Mansi xvi:284ABC]. The delighted Basil brings back Photius from exile and makes him the tutor of his son Constantine. At the reunion synod in 879-880 Photius dishonestly says, "I did not seek to return" and lived in exile "without importuning the Emperor, without hope or desire to be reinstated."

Sir 7:14: "Be not willing to make any manner of lie: for the custom thereof is not good."

10/23/877 Patriarch St. Ignatius of Constantinople, having reconciled and publicly exchanged the kiss of peace with and received medical aid from Photius, and having recommended Photius for the patriarchate this time around, reposes in the Lord.

*Sir 7:38: "Be not wanting in comforting them that weep, and walk with them that mourn."
*Rom 13:7: "Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honor, to whom honor."
*2 Chr 32:33: "Hezekiah rested with his ancestors; he was buried at the approach to the tombs of the descendants of David. All Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem paid him honor at his death. His son Manasseh succeeded him as king."

878 On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, Photius canonizes Ignatius by adding him to the Synodikon.

1 Jn 4:21: "And this commandment we have from God, that he who loveth God love also his brother."

879 Photius gets the approval of Pope John VIII of Rome for a council under the false pretense that it will eliminate any remnants of the 863-867 schism.

880 At the council, Photius repeats the same accusations against the Latins that he wrote to the other three Patriarchs of the East in 867. He anathematizes the Filioque addition to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and stirs up old anti-Latin schismatic sentiments. He alters the letters sent to him, Emperor Basil I, and the rest of the Byzantine Church by Pope John VIII of Rome, with the ironic excuse that he does not want to start controversy. The weak papal legates go with the wishes of the majority [Mansi xvii:374 sq.], and they do not understand Greek well. For the sake of peace, Pope John VIII accepts Photius as legitimate patriarch and accepts the synod in a qualified manner as a union synod and abrogates not the doctrinal canons of the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 869-870 (i.e., not that whole synod, contrary to the altered versions of his letters by the Photian party), but the disciplinary canons of that Council against Photius, which are not irreformable. The statement attributed to Pope John VIII that the Filioque addition is blasphemous (i.e., that the doctrine itself is heterodox) is fraudulent. In Epistle 7 the pontiff says, "If perchance at the same synod our legates have acted against Apostolic instructions, neither do we approve their action nor do we attribute any value to it." Pope John VIII and Photius remain in communion with each other, as Fr. Francis Dvornik shows.


883 Photius sends an epistle to the Metropolitan of Aquileia in which he states that the Holy Spirit proceeds, as regards His eternal hypostatic existence, from the Father alone.


886 Photius completes his polemical treatise Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit [PG 102:264-541], in which he offers myriad arguments for the eternal hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone. While the eloquent work is brilliant for its demonstration of the blasphemous consequences of compromising the monarchy of the Father, it is based on the error of Photius that Filioque destroys the monarchy of the Father. Photius misinterprets and misrepresents Scripture and the Fathers. Many Eastern Orthodox apologists will use as a polemical weapon the Photian treatise and the epitome of it by a later author.

Is 47:10: "Thy wisdom, and thy knowledge, this hath deceived thee."



2/6/891 St. Photius the Great of Constantinople, having repented of his sins and having been restored to communion with the Apostolic See, reposes in the Lord in the monastery of Armeniakon. Greek Byzantine Catholics commemorate our father among the saints Photius every February 6.

Ps 132:1: "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity."
1 Cor 2:9: "But, as it is written: 'That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard: neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him.'"


Sunday, March 01, 2009

Cardinal Bessarion on Cardinal Cesarini's Invincible Arguments for the Filioque Addition

Mirror link

Latin from Patrologia Graeca 161:343-359 (some of the words are hard to read, so feel free to offer corrections; thanks and God bless you and yours!).

Demonstrationes quod liceat verum Symbolo addere.
WRH: Demonstrations that it was indeed licit to add to the Symbol.

Concilium, seu concilia, non solum aliam fidem proferre, verum etiam componere vetant. Jam vero, si intelligant aliam fidem componere, pro eo quod est esse aliis vocabulis Symbolum enuntiatum, contingit omnes anathemati subjectos esse, qui aliis quidem vocabulis, codem vero sensu idem Symbolum ediderunt. Quod fere omnes sancti fecerunt: sed hoc falsum atque blasphemum est. Non igitur interdictum est aliis verbia vertiati consentientibus eamdem fidem exponere, sed contrarium fidem conscribere, id prohibitum est.

Secundo, Quarta synodus etiam sapaere ac docere aliter, eidem subjicit anathemati. Jam vero si sapere aut docere vocabulis quidem aliis, vertiati tamen consentientibus id prohibet, sub anathemate erunt, qui suam fidem, quibus sortiti sunt, unusquisque vocabulis docuerunt. Singuli enim sanctorum, aliis atque aliis verbis eamdem fidem docuerunt. At enim hoc absurdum est; non igitur voces, sed oppositi sensus prohibiti sunt; præsertim cum et sapere ad sensus, non ad verba referatur.

Tertio. Sexta synodus haec eadem habet, quæ et quarta. Etiam hoc amplius inhibet eos qui aliquam vocum notivatem, hoc est vocabuli inventionem, inducunt ad eversionem eorum quæ ab illis sancita sunt. Ex quo apparet illas tautum voces vetitas esse, quæ ad eversionem eroum quæ ab illis lata et condita sunt: non autem eas quæ non ad eversionem, sed eamdem servant intelligentiam, inducuntur.

Præterea. Tertia synodus decernit, non oportere aliam, præter Nicænam, fidem proferre: alioquin sub anathemate esse, qui id agant. Symboli vera secundæ synodi, quo nos modo utimur, nullam atentionem fecit. Si igitur Symboli secundæ synodi, tanquam quod diversum sit, alierumque existat a Symbolo primæ, ob eam causam a tertia synodo nulla facta est mentio, inexpiabile scelus nos modo committimus Symbolo primæ non utendo: quod ut maneret immutabile, Patres sanxerunt: secundæ vero tantum Symbolum tum in Ecclesia, tum privatim omnes recitando. Et secundum bane rationem sub anathemate sumus. Si vero tanquam idem sit, silentio præteritum est, idem esse videtur non verbis (his etenim multum admodum differt, additiones plurimas habens, et ademptiones); sed est idem sensu et intelligentia. Quare utrumque Symbolum tum primæ, tum secundæ, veluti unum, Patres tertiæ synodi arbitrati sunt. Quaproperter etiam omne Symbolum eamdem intelligentiam, quam et Symbolum primæ servans, idem erit atque illa, et nihil facit ad argumentum et rationem illorum qui dicunt non audendum aliud Symbolum tradere; aliud enim subaudiendum, quod sit contrariæ intelligentiæ, non autem quod vocabulis differat: quandoquidem, ut dictum est, Symbolum secundæ synodi, cum multum differat vocabulis a Symbolo primæ, non tamen aliud esse existimatum est. Quare concluditur: Quæ eamdem servant intelligentiam, etiam si verbis differeant, eadem esse, quamadmodum et Symbolum secundæ synodi, idem est ac Symbolum primæ.

Rursus. Unaquæque synodus, post recitatem totam squam definitionem, non tantum Symbolum, ait: His lectis, statuit sancta synodus, uemini licere aliam fidem proferre. Quare iliud: His lectis, ad totam defintionem refertur; igitur et quod deinceps sequitur, aliam fidem non licere proferre, ad totam definionem spectatl hoc est, non licere proferre aliam fidem, præter eam quæ in definitione universali, non solum in Symbolo continetur. Sed quod attinet ad verba, quarta synodus alia scripsit a tertia, et quinta a quarta, et sic deinceps. Quapropter de universali fide est sermo, deque iisdem sententiis, non de ipsis vocabulis.
Præterea septima synodus ueque omnino ullam facit mentionem Symboli ueque primæ, ueque secundæ: sed simplicter definitione sua edita, et explicata, in fine dicit: «His non licet addere, et ex his non licet adimere. Si quis vero addiderit, et ab ea fide admerit, anathema sit.» Quare constateam de fide dicere, et de ea quæ in dogmatibus est, contrarietate. Non enim certe Ecclesiam a definitionibus conscribendis arcuit.

Insuper: Quæ corde ad justitiam credimus, hæc etiam ore confiteri ad salutem debemus: sin minus imperfecta nobis erit, et ex dimidio fides. Oportet enim coram hominibus fidem confiteri, si nos quoque volumus coram Patre cœlesti præcornium consequi Salvatoris, secundum eloquium ejus. Atqui vera sapere necesse est; igitur necesse est etiam ea confiteri. Quare, quæ necessario sunt credenda, ea non solum impune, sed etiam necessario sunt confitenda.

Ad hæc in Actiis quartæ synodi, in prima actione expositum est, primum quidem ab Eutychete Symbolum Nicænum. Deinde infert idem hæreticus Eutyches, super hanc fidem, scilicet Nicænam, definitionem edidisse Ephesiam synodum hujuscemodi: Eum, qui præter hanc aliquid addiderit, vel excogitaverit, vel docuerit, pœnis tunc latis subjacere.

Eusebius vero episcopus Dorylensis, qui accusator erat hæretici Eutychetis, hæc audiens exclamavit: Non est talis definitio; non est talis canon id prohibens, menitus est. Sexcenti vero triginta Patres, qui Chalcedone fuerunt, hoc audientes tacuerunt: et Eutychen, utpote qui non pateretur etiam alia sapere præter ea quæ in Symbolo essent Nicæno, alia scilicet numero, non tanquam opposita, condemnarunt. Quare ostenderunt illas tantum voces vetari, quæ suut contrarie et adversæ, non autem consentientes. Ecce enem illud ex duabus, et in duabus naturis incommisitis Christum post id, quod semel assumpserat, mansisse, aliud cum sit a symbolo Nicæno, aliud vero dieo vocabulis, non intelligentia, tamen cogebant Eutychen illud sapere. Unde apparet Patres non simpliciter aliud prohibuisse, sed opposita.

Itiud porro considera diligenter: Iræc enim eadem verba tertiæ synodi, quæ nos producimus, nimirum nemini licere aliam fidem proferre, hæc ipsa pro se Eutyches producebat. Dorylensis vero episcopus, ac tota synodus, Non est talis, dixerunt, canon id vetans; sed eum, quippe qui prave canonem interpretaretur, condemnarunt. Explicabat enim ipsum canonem Eutyches, quemadmodum et nostrates, nimirum existimans omne iliud simpliciter prohiberi, quod vel ipsa verborum varietate aliud esset. Quod tamen concilio minime placuit, ob eamque causam eum damnarunt, cum aliam fidem arbitrarentur eam quæ esset contraria, non autem eam quæ verbis quidem differat, intelligentia vero sit consentiens.

Deinde ego etiam memini in explicatione Nomocanonis, quæ fit a Zonara, aliquid tale me vidisse. In eo enim Nomocanone hæc inhibitio tertiæ synodi, nimirum: His lectis statuit sancta synodus, et reliqua, inter alios canones tertiæ synodi continetur, septimusque enumeratur. Ante istum vero est alius sextus canon ejusdem tertiæ synodi qui excommunicatos facit eos qui audent aliquid labefactare ex statutis atque decretis a synodo. In hoc autem septimo, scilicet, His lectis, statuit sancta synodus nemini licere aliam fidem proferre; anathemate feriuntur, qui canonem transgrediuntur. Novet ergo quæstionem Zonaras (1), cur synodus in sexto canone excommunicatos facit laicos, in septimo eos anathemata percutit? Solvens autem dubitationem, sic habet ad verbum: Magna est differentia, quod aliquis, contra aliquam rem dicat, et quod de ea dabitet. Et propterea, qui dubitat de quæ jam recte sunt sancita, excommunicatione puniendus erit, quod nimirum exigit sextus canon: qui vero contra hæc dicit, tanquam contraria sapieus anathemate ferietur; quod scilicet postulat septimus canon, videlicet, definitio ista inhibitionis. Quare et iste interpres, aliam hic fidem manifeste, ac sine ulla dubitatione vocat id, quod est contrarium esse, et contraria sapere.

Postremo, Trullana synodus in primo suo canone ait: Definimus fidem nobis traditam ab inspectoribus, et famulis verbi a Deo electis apostolis, itemque a trecentis decem et octo sanctis et beatis Patribus, qui Nicææ convenere, absque ulla novitate invulneratam inviolatamque servandum esse. Ac deinceps omnes synodos enumerat, atque definit, ut fidem ab omnibus synodis traditam integram custodiamus. Tandem postremo infert: Si quis vero omnium prædicta pietatis dogmata non tenet et amplectitur, neque ita sentit et prædicat, sed contra ire conatur, anathema sit, juxta expositam jam definitionem a prædictis sanctis et beatis Patribus, et e Christianorum catalogo tanquam alienus expellatur, et excidat. Nos enim neque addere aliquid, neque sane adimere, secundum ea quæ ante definita sunt, prorsus intendimus, vel quacunque ratione potuimus.

Iste canon perspicue interpretatur definitionem tertiæ synodi et allarum præscribentem, ne cui liccat aliam fidem proferre. Dicit enim, Sit anathema, si quis adversus patria dogmata ire conatur juxta expositam jam definitionem, hanc scilicet, inhibitionis. Quare ista definitio contraria sapere vetat; et illud: Nos vero neque addimus neque adiminus aliquid; nimirum ad fidem, aiunt, se non addere, ab eaque non adimere; non a Symbolo; Symbolum enim hic non recitavit synodus. Sed eum de dogmatibus synodorum dixisset, infert: Neque addere neque adimere aliquid intendimus; et subjungit: Secundum ea quæ ante definita sunt, videlicet a Patribus. Quapropter, et qui eos antecesserunt Patres, cum dicunt, Non oportere addere vel adimere, non additamenta et diminutiones verborum, sed contrariorum in fide sensuum interdicunt. Ex hoc igitur solo manifeste ac inculenter solvitur iis quæsitum, qui nolunt contendere. Sane vellem scribere posse, vel mihi, ut omnes essent rationes promptæ, quas in contrarium partem nobis Latini attulere. Vidisses enim et maximam copiam argumentorum, et magnam vim babentium, atque veritatem.

Verum, quandoquidem etiam prædicta sic enodate decidunt quæstionem, ut veritatem quidem inscpicienti, ac sine contentione, et anticipatione ea, quæ dicuntur, audienti vel hæc sola satis sint; ei vero qui ad rixam et concertationes verborum paratus est, ne sexcenta quidem talia sufficiant: A unum tantum addens Latinorum argumentum, de his rebus finem faciam.

Est autem etiam hoc gravissimum, et fortissimum, quodque nostrorum evertit in hac quæstione fallaciam, perpende vero, quæso, diligenter.

Nos contendimus hanc inhibitionem a tertia synodo primum excogitatam, ut et antea dixi: dixi vero tunc et causam, quod nimirum videremus secundam synodum Symbolo primæ multa detraxisse, item multo plura addidisse. Quare non audebamus dicere ante secundam synodum hanc factam fuisse inhibitionem. Si enim hoc diceremus, alterntrum sequi necesse esset: vel Patres secundæ synodi contra leges fecisse, et esse sub anathemate; vel si hoc nefas est dicere, non igitur verborum additamentum, sed contrarias intelligentias impedivisse. Ob id dicebamus, post secundam synodum hoc obstaculum factum fuisse, quod ante ipsam non erat. Quare, si quis e contrario ostenderit ante secundam synodum factum fuisse interdictum, quod tertia synodus dixit, et iisdem ipsis ferme verbis, alterum ex prædictis duobus colligitur. Et quoniam eos sub anathemate esse, maleque fecisse non audemus dicere, superest secundum, nimirum istud impedimentum, non hunc babere sensum, quem nostri arbitrantur, sed contrariam fidem vetare. Hoc igitur nobis probarunt Latini. Ostensum enim est ab ipsis hanc inhibitionem primo Nicænam synodum primam fecisse iisdem verbis, quibus et tertia, et quæ deinceps subsecutæ fuerunt. Id vero ita ostenderunt, quemadmodum tu quoque, clarissime vir, qui istorum virorum familiaritate uteris, optime nosti. Ita sunt in suis gestis studiosi ac diligentes, ut non solum in rebus divinis, verum etiam mundanis et politicis nihil eos antiquitatis fugiat. Quare et in urbibus in suis publicis tabulariis, egregia facta omnia litteris consignata, ibique reservata reperies, quæ a temporibus, de quibus nulla exstat memoria, gesserint. Hoc itaque maxime omnium et in catholica Ecclesia diligenter observatur: asservantur in hanc usque diem omnia gesta, omnesque fere epistolæ antiquorum summorum pontificum.

Protulerunt itaque nobis in antiquissimo libro in membrana scripto epistolam Liberii papæ scriptam ad Athanasium Alexandrinum, cujus initium est: Olim et ab initio tantam percepimus a beato Petro apostolorum principe, etc. Deinde ultra pergens, dicit se recepisse epistolam sancti Athanasii, et eam legisse. Postremo subjungit: Fidem vero Nicæni concilii in eadem epistola rectam cum invenissemus, magnas Deo gratias retulimus: pro qua non solum vobis compati, simul et persecutionem pati parati sumus, verum necessitate flagitante etiam mori pro Christi nomine non recusaremus, quantumvis licet debiles simus. Prædicta enim sacrosancta Nicæna synodus, quemadmodum legimus, definivit, nemini licere aliam fidem proferre, vel conscribere, aut componere, aut sapere, aut docere aliter. Neque aliquid in fide sentire, vel proferre, quod definitionibus horum Patrum contrarium esse possit. Qui vero audet aliam fidem componere, aut proferre, aut docere, seu tradere aliud Symbolum iis qui ex quacunque hæresi, vel Judaismo, vel gentilismo ad viam veritatis rediere cupiunt; si episcopus quidem sit iste talis, vel clericus, episcopus sane ab episcopatu, clericus vero a clero alienetur. Sin autem monachus sit, aut laicus, anathemate feriatur.

Hæc nunc quidem, cum acta primæ synodi perierint, sunt nobis incognita; tunc vero cum exstarent, agnoscebant ea cum Liberius papa, tum sanctus Athanasius.

Hæc igitur his ipsis verba similia sunt verbis tertiæ synodi, et aliarum. Quid igitur dicemus de secunda synodo, deque Gregorio Theologo, qui huic secundæ synodo cum præsideret, Symbolo primæ in multis immutato, ipse fertur Symbolum, quo nos modo utimur conscripsisse? si istud interdictum hanc habet intelligentiam, quam profitentur nostri, heu ! loco sanctorum Patrum atque doctorum, Patres secundæ synodi, et magnus in theologia Gregorius, hominum pestiferorum ac fraudulentum locum obtinuerunt. Sed absit ut vel cogitemus istud convicium. Non igitur neque prima, neque tertia, neque ulla alia synodus, tanquam contraria his loquatur, hanc habet intelligentiam, sed contrariam fidem manifeste prohibet.

Verum id ita quidem, luceque clarius ostensum est ac dilucide demonstrtum, nihil obstare quominus vera tum fidei, tum Symbolo addantur, imo vero explicetur. Nultum enim veritatis est dogma, quod in Symbolo ac simplici traditione apostolorum non contineatur. Explicanda vero sunt, et cum Symbolo connectenda non semper scilicet, neque a quocunque, sed magna urgente necessitate, atque ita Ecclesia judicante.

His aliisque quamplurimus ejusdem generis, o vir Dei, dictis de hoc quæsito a Latinis, nos quidem ad ea nihil quod responderemus habenies (quid enim aliquis ad tantam veritatem jam imprudenter diceret?), conticebamus; illi vero hoc probato, quod nimirum vera sapere, eaque Symbolo addere minime prohibemur: consequens illad et alterum, quod ad Symbolum addidissent, polliciti sunt, velle se ostendere verum esse, nimirum Spiritum sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedere, nosque ad certamen provocabant. Nostri autem, cum in hoc victi et fugati fuissent, timebant secundum subire certamen; et accidit, quod ego illis a principio dicebam, cum eos vetarem ab hac quæstione principium sumere. Igitur animi sollicitudine vel maxime urgebantur, ac tremebant, et omnino nolebant amplius manere, sed clamabant omnes oportere a Latinis sejungi, et in patriam reverti; rationem vero quærentibus, reddere non poterant. Quid ergo Latinis dicemus? qua justa et honesta causa et ratione in medio certaminis, imo vero neque adhuc in principio constituti (quæstio enim de non addendo nihil ad rem), qua ratione, inquam, cum nondum cœperimus, redibimus? Dicere non poterant, sed temere ac nulla ratione clamabant: Redeamus in patriam. Aiebant vero et inter se, quemadmodum ad nostras pervenit aures, Latinos posse ostendere multorum sanctorum doctorum permultas sententias, quibus ad verbum dicitur Spiritus sanctus ex Patre Filioque procedere. Quid igitur ad hæc quispiam respondebit? separemur, sejungamur, abeamus. Audis doctorum et Patrum sententiam? Quoniam, inquiunt, multorum doctorum dicta possunt nobis ostendere, ad quæ nihil possumus respondere, dividamus nos a Latinis. Vix tamen aliquando cum perspexissent hanc sui consilii temeritatem, et fortissimi nostri imperatoris inducta et ratione persuasum illis esset, ab illo incœpto conatuque destiterunt.

Interim vero res ipsæ profectionem beatissimi papæ Ferraria Florentiam urserunt (1), eodemque synodi transpositionem. Abiit ergo ille, simul nos quoque abiimus. Omnibusque rebus Florentiæ paratis, dies disputationi dicitur, qua incipere opus erat, et constituta dies adfuit. Rursus igitur nos cœpimus accusare. Quemadmodum enim in quæstione de non addendo nos personam accusatoris gerebamus; Latini vero sic ad objecta responderunt, ut amplius dicere quidquam minime potuerimus; ita etiam in hoc dogmate nos quidem utpote qui accusabamus, in dubium revocavimus; illi vero in dicendo secundas partes obtinentes, respondebant. In omnibus enim ad nostrum arbitrium libidinemque causam disponebamus.

Itaque in quæstionem adduximus nos incipientes ab ipsis apostolis, et omnibus sacris conciliis, et corum dictis, et præterea omnium sanctorum Orientalium usi sumus quibus ostenditur, Spiritum sanctum non quidem a Fillio non procedere; nullum enim ejusmodi dictum habemus, ut optime tu quoque nosti, excepta sententia Damasceni (2), quæ habet: Spiritum Filii dicimus, ex Filio autem non dicimus. Aliis vero omnibus dictis hoc tantum ostenditur, Spiritum sanctum ex Patre procedere, non autem ex Filio non procedere. His itaque prolatis putabamus nos ostensuros, falsum esse Spiritum sanctum ex Filio procedere.

Latini vero ad hæc omnia dicta sanctorum, unum et illud commune dederunt responsum, omnia esse vera, sibique hoc idem videri, si quidem credunt et ipsi Spiritum sanctum ex Patre procedere; id tamen non esse contrarium suo dogmati. Hoc enim quod est ex Patre procedere, neque contradictorium, neque contrarium est alteri, quod est ex Filio procedere. Si enim horum alterum esset, tunc uno affirmato, alterum tolli necesse esset. Nunc vero nihil obstat, quominus et illud, quod est ex Patre procedere, verum sit; et illud quod est ex Filio, verum. Veluti si dicamus Spiritum sanctum mitti a Patre, alius vero quispiam dicat, Spiritum mitti ex Patre et Filio; et ambo sunt vera, et alterum alteri minime repugnat. Si igitur sancti dicerunt Spiritum ex Patre solo procedere, vel ex Filio non procedere, non esset mirum dicere, ipsos opinari falsum. Verum cum horum neutrum nemo unquam adhuc dixerit, illud quod est ex Patre procedere, non tollit alterum, quod est ex Filio procedere.

Hæc ad nostra dicta responderunt. Ad sententiam vero Damasceni, quando et nos illam non produximus, neque illi quidam responderunt. Ego vero tibi postea et in hujus solutione faciam satis.

Deinde vero illi ab alio principio sacra nimirum Scriptura nixi et freti, indeque copia minorum propositionum abundantes, exorsi sunt dicere deinceps per multos dies multa et varia argumenta, ostendentia Spiritum sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedere.

Postremo etiam auctoritates Patrum attulerunt, quibus manifeste ac luculenter hujus dogmatis veritas comprobatur. Protulerunt autem non solum Occidentalium, verum etiam doctorum Orientalium. Quarum aliquas, quæcunque mihi magis necssariæ visæ sunt, una cum hisce tibi misi, ut et ipsos Occidentales audias Patres, quid illi de hoc dogmate sapiant et doceant. Ad quas nos responsum nullum habebamus, quod daremus, nisi quod adulterinæ essent, et a Latinis corruptæ. Produxerunt nostrum Epiphanium in multis theologice disserentum et explicantem ex Patre Filioque Spiritum sanctum: adulterina ejus loca esse dicebamus; legerunt prædictam sententiam magni Basilii in libris adversus Eunomium: ascriptitia et non germana esse nobis videbatur. Adduxerunt dicta sanctorum Occidentalium, tota nostra Apologia illiud et nihil aliud erat, adulterina esse. Per multos igitur dies seorsum considerantes, et nos ipsos consulentes, quid ad hæc responderemus, præter hoc nullum inveniebamus responsum. Hoc vero rursus tanquam valde absurdum proferre, non bonum nobis esse videbatur. Primum quidem, propterea quod ex consequentibus et antecedentibus hujus opinionis mentem sanctorum esse constabat. Deinde etiam cum plurimi ac vetustissimi libri istud haberent, non poteramus illos veluti depravatos rejicere atque refutare. Præscertim cum nos nullum haberemus librum non Græce, non Latine scriptum, quem secus habere, quam Latini produxissent, ostenderemus; qui fieri posset ut jure optimo eorum libros tanquam vitiatos exciperemus? Certe enim, qui vult aliquem proscribere, et ut vitiatum atque corruptum excludere, sine debitis rationibus et firmis causis hoc præstare minime potest. Nos alios sanctos contrarium affirmantes ostendere non poteramus; eosdem ipsos Occidentales aliter dicentes alibi, minime ostendebamus. Ductis a natura rationibus eos deceptos probare, nihil minus poteramus. Nulla igitur ex parte justam causam nobis relictam videbamus, propterea et conticuimus.

Attamen non deerant, qui et alio abundarent responso, nimirum errasse Occidentales sanctos, et in hoc deceptos esse. Hoc autem catholicam fidem nobis evertere, manifestum est. Si enim fides nostra pendet a sanctis, hi vero falluntur in fidei veritate, fides eversa est.

Propterea igitur jure optimo cum Latinis subsecuta est et confirmata concordia, et omnes absque ulla vi, Deo teste, consenserunt. Quotquot autem consentire noluerunt (hi vero duo, et non amplius erant), non coacti, sed domini sui ipsius propriæque sententiæ remanserunt. Jurene ac merito, tu ipse judicabis, postquam videris ac legeris auctoritates sanctorum, quas tibi nunc mitto. Quis enim inter Christianos constitutus, non istos sequeretur, ac staret cum cœtu horum doctorum, itemque orientalium? Consona enim invicem dicere necesse est eos arbitrari, quemadmodum in oratione a me scripta (1) multis ostendo.

Dicta igitur sanctorum illa ipsa per sese ad solvendam omnem ambiguitatem, et unicuique persuadendum satis sunt. Quoniam mihi quoque non syllogismi, neque probabilitates et demonstrationes, sed ipse nuda dicta sanctorum persuaserunt. Simul enim ac vidi et audivi ea, statim contendere penitus desii, cum tamen prius non parum urgerem atque instarem. Existimavi enim sanctos, cum Spiritu sancto locuti fuerint, non posse a vero declinare, et ægre tuli, quod eorum dicta prius non audivissem. Nemo enim nostrum Latinos unquam tantam vim ex dictis sanctorum habituros esse arbitrabatur. Quamprimum tamen, tunc saltem vidi et audivi, ab omni contentione controversiaque discessi, gratesque Deo egi, quod inde tantam utilitatem percepissem. Igitur tibi quoque candido auditori, animumque cupidum veritatis habenti, atque omni Christiano tui simili hæc vel sola sufficient.

Quoniam vero et aliquot probationes a ratione petitas quæris, tua causa mediocriter, quantum fieri poterit, et hoc præstabimus, rationibus sanctorum, divinaque Scriptura nixi et freti. Quod quidem et in oratione, quæ de concordia inscribitur, præstitimus. Præstabimus tamen nihilominus et hic quasdam rationes attingentes. Antequam tamen de his singiliatim dicamus, ut facilior nobis deinceps fiat oratio, quædam prius sumere est necesse.