Anda di halaman 1dari 98

Greek Orthodox Bishops accuse Francis of Heresy | NOVUS ORDO WATCH

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/greek-accuse-francis-heresy.htm[25/05/2014 19:41:40]
Exposing the Modernist Vatican II Church
Comedy Hour with John Salza Novus Ordo Wire Liturgical Absurdistan
Heretics combatting an Apostate
Two Greek Orthodox Bishops
Accuse Francis of Heresy
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes. That Greek Heretico-Schismatics should accuse the
Catholic Church of heresy is really nothing new, but that two such bishops should accuse the man the world believes
to be the Pope, of the heresy of syncretism and rake him over the coals for his ecumenism and interreligious
dialogue, for his relations with Freemasonry, and for denying Christ before the J ews, that is truly noteworthy,
especially in today's ecumenical, irenic, and politically-correct climate.
In an 89-page letter (PDF here), the two Greek Orthodox Metropolitans Andrew of Dryinoupolis, Pogoniani & Konitsa
and Seraphim of Piraeus & Faliro accuse the Modernist Antipope Francis of holding to various true Catholic dogmas
they falsely, blasphemously, heretically, and disgustingly identify as heresies, such as the Immaculate Conception
and Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and papal infallibility. This is, of course, reprehensible in the
highest degree, but what do you expect from two heretical bishops whom the Modernist Vatican, nevertheless,
believes to have a mission from Christ?
But what's really significant here is what else these two non-Catholic bishops have to say. Here are some select
juicy quotes from their letter to Francis:
"Along with the J ews, Your Excellency is a favorite of the Freemasons, who, according to their own publications,
were anxiously awaiting your election and rejoiced when you were chosen!"


Home About Us Novus Ordo Wire J ohn XXIII J ohn Paul II Benedict XVI Francis I Ecumenism Holy Mass
Resources Contact Quotes FAQs Search Twitter Feed Book Store Site Map/Index
Greek Orthodox Bishops accuse Francis of Heresy | NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/greek-accuse-francis-heresy.htm[25/05/2014 19:41:40]
"Undisguised are the Syncretism and idolatry of Freemasonry, but also its anti-Christian character, something that
is clear from its claim at universality, which is in direct conflict with the catholicity and ecumenicity of the Christian
Faith and Church."
"[Freemasonry] is clearly an antichristian and pagan religion. The Masons are 'Satan worshipers and luciferists,
followers of the religion of Antichrist.' We also ascertain that the Freemasons, at least those in the higher degrees,
are Satan worshipers, praying to Lucifer as Baphomet, as they call their goat-headed god."
"Are you not aware, Your Excellency, that Freemasonry promotes, through Ecumenism, the universal religion of
Lucifer, as well as the fact that the source and womb of Freemasonry is the hideous International Zionism?"
"The head of the conference of Italian 'bishops', cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, appeared in an online video giving
the host ('Holy Communion') to a famous transsexual political activist, who was dressed in womens clothes! The
'performance' took place at the funeral of another 'priestly darling,' the controversial Genoan 'priest', Fr. Andrea
Gallo, who was a confessed Marxist and out-spoken advocate for homosexuals, and who last year was awarded
'Gay Character of the Year' by homosexual activists. In fact, during your election, he was in favor of the election
of a confessed homosexual as Pope!"
"We remind you of the act of restoration of the name J udah and of the act of exoneration of the J ewish people for
the crucifixion of Christ, which was performed by His former Excellency, Benedict XVI, while J udaism now and
throughout time with the satanic Kabbalah and the demonic Talmud crucify daily the Savior of the world! Who,
then, could believe that you were chosen by the Holy Spirit and not by the powerful ones of this world?"
"Your own affinity, Your Excellency, for the J ews is a known fact. The celebration of all of the J ews of the world
on your election, of their chosen 'pope', was made complete by a new incident, which caused a significant stir
when it was published. The J ewish website 'The J ewish Daily Forward' made known, Your Excellency, how your
favorite painting is the 'White Crucifixion' of the 'Jewish Jesus' . The painting, by the J ewish artist Marc
Chagall, is on display at the Art Institute of Chicago. The 'crucifix' in the painting is nailed to a 'cross' in the form
of a T. Instead of the familiar loincloth he is wearing a J ewish prayer shawl. Below the 'cross' is burning the
menorah. On the right of the 'crucifix' is shown a synagogue on fire and to its left the 'torah'. Those who know
about art affirm that this specific painting does not depict the Crucified Christ of the Christian faith, but 'crucified
J udaism'! Yet another blasphemous work, perverting the true message of the crucifixion. Of course, the J ews, on
their part, are busy at their 'work', the work they have been doing for two thousand years now, to demolish faith in
Christ."
"Can it really be possible, we ask, that you are also not aware as the 'Christian Pope' that the hideous Global
Zionism, which was condemned as extremely racist by the U.N. (when the U.N. was truly free) changed the
theism of the Old Testament and the Prophets into shameful Satanism, with the demonic Kabbalah and the vulgar
Talmud, work of the demonized Rabbis of fallen J udaism and of their ideals regarding world wide government and
domination, through the still awaited false messiah, namely Antichrist?"
BAM! What wonderfully refreshing, politically-incorrect words addressed directly to the Impostor-in-Chief! (By other
impostors, it is true, but at least they're not pretending to be the successors of Pope Pius XII!)
Here's a Novus Ordo summary news report on the letter of the two Greek Not-So-Orthodox bishops:
" Two Orthodox Bishops Accuse the Pope of Heresy" (Vatican Insider)
Of course, the usual critics of our position will say, "These two Greek bishops, being heretics and schismatics, have
no credibility theologically, since they deny Catholic dogma, so why do you suggest that we should listen to them
when they accuse Francis of Modernism, syncretism, ecumenism, etc.? Aren't you trying to have it both ways?"
So let's answer this objection directly: We are not saying anyone should listen, per se, to these two heretico-
schismatic bozos, on any theological matter. This isn't about their credibility or their "authority." The only reason
we're featuring this story is because it is so refreshing to see that finally someone is openly pointing out those errors
and impieties that you never hear anyone with a real voice complain about (other than the SSPX on occasion):
Syncretism, sacrilege, Freemasonry, J udaism, devil worship, ecumenism, etc. Even the mainstream Novus Ordo
media can't help but cover this.
For that fact alone, this story is extraordinary. That Andrew and Seraphim are bold heretics themselves is, as far as
the true significance of this document goes, almost beside the point, though of course it robs their justified charges of
heresy against Francis and the Vatican II Sect of any and all credibility, because now of course the Novus Ordo
pundits will zero in on the unjustified accusations and use that to dismiss the justified ones. (Right, Mark Shea?)
Greek Orthodox Bishops accuse Francis of Heresy | NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/greek-accuse-francis-heresy.htm[25/05/2014 19:41:40]
So, in a nutshell, the biggest story here is that finally someone is bringing up the issue of heresy again, in a world
and at a time where the very concept of heresy -- any heresy -- has practically vanished, thanks for the most part fo
the Modernist Vatican and its blessing of the heretical ecumenical movement. And though these two non-Catholic
bishops are heretics themselves, they are absolutely right about accusing Francis of the heresies of Freemasonry,
syncretism, J udaism, and ecumenism.
So, let's not focus on the fact that the clock is broken. Let's focus on what time it is when that clock is right.
Reality Check:
Against the Errors of the Greeks (St. Thomas Aquinas)
On the Reunion of Christendom (Pope Leo XIII)
Francis' Heresy regarding the Jews
Francis' Heresy about Faith without Works
The " Bad Popes" Argument
Apr 16, 2014, 6:36 AM
Disclaimer:
We are not responsible for the content of externally-linked web pages. We do not necessarily endorse the content linked, unless this is explicitly stated. When linked
content is endorsed by Novus Ordo Watch, this endorsement does not necessarily extend to everything expressed by the organization, entity, editor, or author of said
content.
Fair Use Notice:
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For Further Reading:
AddThis
Paul VI's New Rite of
Unholy Orders | NOVUS
ORDO WATCH
www.novusordowatch.org
Francis disses
Fundamental Theology,
calls it " Bo...
www.novusordowatch.org
Francis returns from
Brazil and places
Beach Ball on Altar
www.novusordowatch.org
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM
by
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, O.P.
translated by
Peter Damian Fehlner, F.I.
re-edited and missing chapters supplied by Joseph Kenny, O.P.
CONTENTS
PART ONE
PROLOGUE
1. How the Son is understood to be related to the Father as something caused to its cause.
2. How the Son is to be understood as second from the Father and the Holy Spirit third.
3. How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as third light.
4. How the essence is to understood as begotten in the Son and spirated in the Holy Spirit.
5. How J esus is to be understood as Son of the paternal essence.
6. How properties of the Father are to be understood as proper to the Son.
7. How the Father is to be understood as needing neither Son nor Holy Spirit for his
perfection.
8. How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as unbegotten.
9. How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the mean between Father and Son.
10. How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the image of the Son.
11. How the Holy Spirit is to be understood in the Father as in his image.
12. How the Holy Spirit is to be understood to be the word of the Son.
13. How by the name of Christ is to be understood the Holy Spirit.
14. How the assertion that the Holy Spirit does not send the Son is to be understood.
15. How the assertion that the Holy Spirit truly works through the Son is to be understood.
16. How God is to be understood as not dwelling in men before the incarnation of Christ.
17. How the divine essence is to be understood as conceived and born.
18. How the assertion that the deity was made is to be understood.
19. How the Son of God is to be understood to have assumed a human nature in his
essence.
20. How the assertion that a man was assumed is to be understood.
21. How the assertion God made man God is to be understood.
22. How the likeness of the first parent is to be understood as erased in Christ.
23. How the assertion: the creature cannot cooperate with the Creator, is to be understood.
24. How the assertion that the creature does not belong to the Creator, is to be understood.
25. How our assertion that the angels by nature are not ranked second and third is to be
understood.
26. How the assertion that even the Seraphim learn from Paul as a teacher is to be
understood.
27. How the assertion that the breath of life which God breathed into the face of man is not
the rational soul, but the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is to be understood.
28. How the impossibility of not blaspheming for one who has once blasphemed is to be
understood.
29. How the assertion that faith cannot be preached is to be understood.
30. How the assertion that faith is not ministered to us by angels is to be understood.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
31. How the assertion that even the New Testament is a death-dealing letter is to be
understood.
32. How the sole definition of the Nicene Council is to be understood as the unique and true
possession of the faithful.
PART TWO
PROLOGUE
1. That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son.
2. That the Son sends the Holy Spirit.
3. That the Holy Spirit receives of that which is the Sons.
4. That the Son works through the Holy Spirit.
5. That the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son.
6. That he is the character of the Son.
7. That he is also the seal of the Son.
8. That the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son.
9. That the Holy Spirit is from the Son.
10. That he is jointly from Father and Son.
11. That he is from both from eternity.
12. That the Holy Spirit is a person from persons.
13. That he is also from the essence of Father and Son.
14. That he also is naturally from the Son.
15. That the Son also spirates the Holy Spirit.
16. That the Son spirates he has from a personal property.
17. That on the same grounds he is spirated by Father and Son.
18. That he is spirated from the Son eternally.
19. That the Holy Spirit is spirated from the essence of the Son.
20. That the Holy Spirit emanates from the Son.
21. That the Holy Spirit flows from the Son and this from eternity.
22. That the Son also originates the Holy Spirit.
23. That the Son is the author of the Holy Spirit.
24. That the Son is also principle of the Holy Spirit.
25. That the Son is also source of the Holy Spirit.
26. The general conclusion: that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
27. That in the divine person to flow and to proceed is the same.
28. That to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit the Greek and Latin Doctors use
the same arguments.
29. That the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son in this that he is from him.
30. That the distinction of persons should be according to some order of nature.
31. That to believe the Holy Spirit is from the Son is necessary for salvation.
32. That the Roman Pontiff is the first and greatest among all bishops.
33. That the same Pontiff has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ.
34. That the same possesses in the Church a fullness of power.
35. That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ.
36. That to him belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith.
37. That he is the superior of the other patriarchs.
38. That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.
39. Against the position of those who deny the Sacrament may be confected with
unleavened bread.
40. That there exists a purgatory wherein souls are cleansed from sins not cleansed in the
present life.
EPILOGUE
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Pars 1
PART ONE
Prooemium PROLOGUE
Libellum ab excellentia vestra mihi
exhibitum, sanctissime pater Urbane
Papa, diligenter perlegi, in quo inveni
quamplurima ad nostrae fidei
assertionem utilia et expressa.
Consideravi autem, quod eius fructus
posset apud plurimos impediri propter
quaedam in auctoritatibus sanctorum
patrum contenta, quae dubia esse
videntur, et unde possent materiam
ministrare et contentiosis dare
occasionem calumniae et ideo, ut
remota omni ambiguitate, ex
auctoritatibus in praedicto libello
contentis verae fidei fructus purissimus
capiatur, proposui primo ea quae dubia
in auctoritatibus praedictis esse
videntur exponere, et postmodum
ostendere quomodo ex eis veritas
Catholicae fidei et doceatur et
defendatur.
The book, most Holy Father, Pope Urban,
which your Excellency called to my attention
[the Libellus de fide SS. Trinitatis of Nicholas
of Durazzo, Bishop of Cotrone] I have studied
carefully and have found expressed in it much
that is useful to the affirmation of our faith. I
believe, however, its fruitfulness for many
persons could be considerably diminished
because of some perplexing statements
contained in texts of the holy Fathers, and so
could provide the quarrelsome with the
material and occasion for calumny. And so,
after eliminating all ambiguity from the
authorities found in the aforesaid book so that
the purest fruit of the faith might be harvested,
I have proposed first to explain what seems
perplexing in the abovementioned authorities,
and then to show how by means of them the
truth of the Catholic faith may be taught and
defended.
Quod autem aliqua in dictis antiquorum
sanctorum inveniuntur quae modernis
dubia esse videntur, ex duobus
aestimo provenire. Primo quidem, quia
errores circa fidem exorti occasionem
dederunt sanctis Ecclesiae doctoribus
ut ea quae sunt fidei, maiori
circumspectione traderent ad
eliminandos errores exortos; sicut patet
quod sancti doctores qui fuerunt ante
errorem Arii, non ita expresse locuti
sunt de unitate divinae essentiae sicut
doctores sequentes; et simile de aliis
contingit erroribus, quod non solum in
diversis doctoribus, sed in uno egregio
doctore Augustino expresse apparet.
Nam in suis libris quos post exortam
Pelagianorum haeresim edidit, cautius
locutus est de potestate liberi arbitrii
quam in libris quos edidit ante
praedictae haeresis ortum: in quibus
libertatem arbitrii contra Manichaeos
defendens, aliqua protulit quae in sui
defensionem erroris assumpserunt
There are, in my opinion, two reasons why
some of the statements of the ancient Greek
Fathers strike our contemporaries as dubious.
First, because once errors regarding the faith
arose, the holy Doctors of the Church became
more circumspect in the way they expounded
points of faith, so as to exclude these errors. It
is clear, for example, that the Doctors who
lived before the error of Arius did not speak so
expressly about the unity of the divine essence
as the Doctors who came afterwards. And the
same happened in the case of other errors.
This is quite evident not only in regard to
Doctors in general, but in respect to one
particularly distinguished Doctor, Augustine.
For in the books he published after the rise of
the Pelagian heresy he spoke more cautiously
about the freedom of the human will than he
had done in his books published before the
rise of said heresy. In these earlier works,
while defending the will against the
Manichees, he made certain statements which
the Pelagians, who rejected divine grace, used
in support of their error. It is, therefore, no
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Pelagiani, divinae gratiae adversantes.
Et ideo non est mirum, si moderni fidei
doctores post varios errores exortos,
cautius et quasi elimatius loquuntur
circa doctrinam fidei, ad omnem
haeresim evitandam. Unde, si qua in
dictis antiquorum doctorum inveniuntur
quae cum tanta cautela non dicantur
quanta a modernis servatur, non sunt
contemnenda aut abiicienda, sed nec
etiam ea extendere oportet, sed
exponere reverenter.
wonder if after the appearance of various
errors, present day teachers of the faith speak
more cautiously and more selectively so as to
steer clear of any kind of heresy. Hence, if
there are found some points in statements of
the ancient Fathers not expressed with the
caution moderns find appropriate to observe,
their statements are not to be ridiculed or
rejected; on the other hand neither are they to
be overextended, but reverently interpreted.
Secundo, quia multa quae bene sonant
in lingua Graeca, in Latina fortassis
bene non sonant, propter quod eandem
fidei veritatem aliis verbis Latini
confitentur et Graeci. Dicitur enim apud
Graecos recte et Catholice, quod pater
et filius et spiritus sanctus sunt tres
hypostases; apud Latinos autem non
recte sonat, si quis dicat quod sunt tres
substantiae, licet hypostasis idem sit
apud Graecos quod substantia apud
Latinos secundum proprietatem
vocabuli. Nam apud Latinos substantia
usitatius pro essentia accipi solet,
quam tam nos quam Graeci unam in
divinis confitemur. Propter quod, sicut
Graeci dicunt tres hypostases, nos
dicimus tres personas, ut etiam
Augustinus docet in VII de Trinitate.
Nec est dubium quin etiam simile sit in
aliis multis.
Second, because many things which sound
well enough in Greek do not perhaps, sound
well in Latin. Hence, Latins and Greeks
professing the same faith do so using different
words. For among the Greeks it is said,
correctly, and in a Catholic way, that the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three
hypostases. But with the Latins it does not
sound right to say that there are three
substantiae, even though on a purely verbal
basis the term hypostasis in Greek means the
same as the term substantia in Latin. The fact
is, substantia in Latin is more frequently used
to signify essence. And both we and the
Greeks hold that in God there is but one
essence. So where the Greeks speak of three
hypostases, we Latins speak of three
personae, as Augustine in the seventh book
on the Trinity also teaches. And, doubtless,
there are many similar instances.
Unde ad officium boni translatoris
pertinet ut ea quae sunt Catholicae
fidei transferens, servet sententiam,
mutet autem modum loquendi
secundum proprietatem linguae in
quam transfert. Apparet enim quod si
ea quae litteraliter in Latino dicuntur,
vulgariter exponantur, indecens erit
expositio, si semper verbum ex verbo
sumatur. Multo igitur magis quando ea
quae in una lingua dicuntur,
transferuntur in aliam, ita quod verbum
sumatur ex verbo, non est mirum si
aliqua dubietas relinquatur.
It is, therefore, the task of the good translator,
when translating material dealing with the
Catholic faith, to preserve the meaning, but to
adapt the mode of expression so that it is in
harmony with the idiom of the language into
which he is translating. For obviously, when
anything spoken in a literary fashion in Latin is
explained in common parlance, the
explanation will be inept if it is simply word for
word. All the more so, when anything
expressed in one language is translated
merely word for word into another, it will be no
surprise if perplexity concerning the meaning
of the original sometimes occurs.
Caput 1
Quomodo intelligitur hoc quod
CHAPTER 1
How the Son is understood to be related to
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
dicitur quod filius habet a patre
sicut causatum a causa
the Father as something caused to its
cause.
Potest autem apud aliquos esse
dubium quod in plerisque locis harum
auctoritatum dicitur, patrem esse
causam filii, et patrem vel filium esse
causam spiritus sancti. Et hoc quidem
habetur primo in verbis Athanasii,
quae in Nicaena synodo dixisse
refertur, ubi dicit: quidquid habet filius
a patre, habet sicut verbum a corde,
splendor a sole et fluvius a fonte et a
causa omne causatum. Qui autem
iniuriatur vel negat causatum, equidem
et causam eius negat. Dicat causatus
genitus filius: qui me spernit, spernit
eum qui me misit. Et alibi: non est
imprincipiatus spiritus, hoc est sine
principio et causa: sed potius ipsum
demonstrat Deum verum, principiatum
tamen non ex tempore, sed ex causa
verae originis. Item Basilius spiritus
sanctus ab ipso Deo missus, causam
habet ipsum. Et item Theodoritus
super epistolam ad Heb.: causa filii
pater est.
Doubt may trouble some persons on
discovering that in many passages of these
authorities the Father is said to be the cause of
the Son, and the Father and Son the cause of
the Holy Spirit. And this occurs first in the
words which Athanasius is reported to have
spoken at the Council of Nicaea: Whatever the
Son has from the Father, he has a word from
the heart, as brightness from the sun, a stream
from its source, or an effect from its cause. He
who insults or denies what is caused quite
certainly also denies its cause. The begotten
Son who is caused says: He who rejects me
rejects Him who sent me (Lk. 10:16).
Elsewhere Athanasius says: The Spirit is not
unoriginated, that is, without any principle or
cause, but rather he shows himself to be true
God, originated, however, not in time, but from
the cause of true origin. And Basil says:
The Holy Spirit, sent by God himself, has a
cause. And Theodoret commenting on the
Epistle to the Hebrews says: The cause of the
Son is the Father.
Apud Latinos autem non est
consuetum quod pater dicatur causa
filii vel spiritus sancti, sed solum
principium vel auctor. Et hoc propter
tria.
Among the Latins, however, the Father is
not usually called the cause of the Son or of
the Holy Spirit, but only their principle or origin,
for this there are three reasons.
Primo quidem, quia pater non posset
intelligi causa filii per modum causae
formalis vel materialis vel finalis, sed
solum per modum causae originantis,
quae est causa efficiens. Hanc autem
semper invenimus secundum
essentiam diversam ab eo cuius est
causa. Et ideo, ne intelligeretur esse
filius alterius essentiae a patre, non
consuevimus dicere patrem esse
causam filii, sed magis utimur illis
nominibus quae significant originem
cum quadam consubstantialitate, sicut
fons, caput et alia huiusmodi.
First, because the Father cannot be
understood as a cause of the Son in the
manner of a formal or material or final cause,
but only after that of an originating cause, to wit
an efficient cause. But we find that an efficient
cause is always diverse in essence from that of
which it is the cause. Therefore, to exclude the
notion that the Son has an essence diverse
from that of the Father, we are not accustomed
to speak of the Father as cause of the Son, but
prefer to use words connoting origin jointly with
consubstantiality, such as fount, head, and the
like.
Secundo, quia causae apud nos
correspondet effectus: unde patrem
non dicimus esse causam, ne aliquis
intelligat filium esse factum. Nam et
Second, because for us cause and effect are
correlative terms. Hence we do not say the
Father causes, lest someone take this to mean
that the Son was made. And even with the
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
apud philosophos prima causa Deus
nominatur; omne autem causatum sub
universitate creaturarum
comprehenditur apud eos: et ideo si
filius causam dicatur habere, posset
intelligi quod sub universitate
creaturarum comprehenderetur.
philosophers God is called prime cause;
whatever is caused is included by them in the
universe of creatures. And so, if the Son could
be said to have a cause, he could be
understood as being included within the
universe of caused beings or creatures.
Tertio, quia de divinis non de facili
debet homo aliter loqui quam sacra
Scriptura loquatur. Scriptura autem
sacra patrem nominat principium filii, ut
patet Ioan. I, 1: in principio erat
verbum. Nusquam autem dicit patrem
causam, vel filium causatum. Unde,
cum causa plus dicat quam principium,
non praesumimus patrem dicere
causam, nec filium causatum.
Third, because when speaking of God man
should not lightly depart from the scriptural
mode. Sacred Scripture, however, calls the
Father the beginning (or principle) of the Word,
as is clear from J ohn 1:1. In the beginning was
the Word. Nowhere does it say that the
Father is a cause or that the Son is caused.
Therefore, since cause says more than
principle, we do not presume to say that the
Father is a cause or the Son is caused.
Nihil autem ad originem pertinens,
adeo proprie dicitur in divinis, sicut hoc
nomen principium. Quia enim ea quae
sunt in Deo, incomprehensibilia sunt,
et definiri a nobis non possunt,
convenientius utimur in Deo nominibus
communibus quam propriis: propter
quod maxime proprium nomen eius
dicitur esse qui est, quod est
communissimum, ut patet Exod. III.
Sicut autem causa est communius
quam elementum, ita et principium
quam causa: dicitur enim punctum
principium lineae, sed non causa. Et
ideo convenientissime nomine principii
utimur in divinis.
No word, however, connoting origin is more
aptly used when speaking of God than this
word principle. Because what is in God is
incomprehensible and cannot be defined by us,
in speaking of God we more fittingly use
general terms rather than proper terms: hence
his most proper name is said to be Who Is,
which is as a term most general, as is evident in
Exodus 3:14. And as cause is more general
than element, so principle is more general than
cause. Therefore, in speaking of God we very
appropriately use the term principle.
Nec tamen intelligendum est, quod
sancti praedicti, qui nomine causae et
causati utuntur in divinis personis,
intendant diversitatem naturae
inducere, aut filium esse creaturam.
Sed per hoc volunt ostendere solam
originem personarum, sicut nos
nomine principii. Unde dicit Gregorius
Nyssenus: causam autem et causatum
dicentes, non naturam propter haec
nomina significamus. Neque enim
haec nomina loco essentiae vel
naturae ratione damus; sed qualiter se
habent differentiam, demonstramus; ut
scilicet filium non ingenitum esse,
neque patrem per generationem
aliquam demonstramus ab aliquo. Item
This is not to be interpreted, however, as if the
aforementioned saints who used such terms as
cause and caused meant to imply that the
divine persons did not have the same nature,
or that the Son was a creature. They wished to
indicate merely the origin of the persons, as we
do when we use the term principle. Hence
Gregory of Nyssa states: When we say cause
and caused, we do not mean by these terms
natures. For we do not employ these terms as
substitutes for essence or nature; rather we
illustrate how precisely Father and Son differ,
namely we show how the Son is not
unbegotten and the Father is not from anyone
through a generation. Similarly, Basil says:
Because unbegotten the Holy Spirit, I say, has
not a Father; nor is he a creature, because he
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Basilius dicit: spiritum sanctum dico
ingenitum, non habere patrem; nec
creatorem; quia non est creatus; sed
causam habet Deum, cuius est vere
spiritus, a quo et procedit.
is not created, but has God as his cause; God
of whom he is truly the spirit, and from whom
he proceeds.
Caput 2
Quomodo intelligitur cum dicitur,
quod filius sit secundus a patre, et
spiritus sanctus sit tertius
CHAPTER 2
How the Son is to be understood as second
from the Father and the Holy Spirit third.
Item invenitur in auctoritatibus
praedictorum doctorum, quod filius sit
secundus a patre, et spiritus sanctus
tertius ab eodem. Dicit enim
Athanasius in sermone ad
Serapionem: spiritus sanctus tertius
est a patre; a filio tamen est
secundus. Et Basilius dicit: dignitate
quidem, et ordine secundus est a filio
spiritus.
In the abovementioned authorities passages are
found where the Son is said to be second in
order from the Father and the Holy Spirit third in
order from the same. For in the discourse to
Serapion Athanasius says: The Holy Spirit is
third in order from the Father, but the Son is
second. Similarly, Basil says: In dignity and
order the Spirit is second from the Son.
Hoc autem alicui potest videri esse
falsum. In divinis enim personis non
est nisi ordo naturae, secundum
quem, ut Augustinus dicit, non est
alter prior altero, sed est alter ex
altero. Nullus enim modus prioritatis
est, secundum quem pater prior filio
dici possit. Neque enim prior
tempore, cum filius sit aeternus;
neque prior natura, cum patris et filii
sit una natura; neque dignitate, cum
pater et filius sint aequales; neque
etiam intellectu, cum non
distinguantur nisi relationibus, relativa
autem sunt simul secundum
intellectum, cum unum sit de
intellectu alterius. Et ita patet, quod
proprie loquendo, filius non possit dici
secundus a patre, nec spiritus
sanctus tertius a patre.
These statements may strike a person as false.
For, as Augustine says, the only order existing
among the divine persons is an order, not of
priority whereby one comes before another, but
of origin, whereby one is from another. For
there is no mode of priority in virtue of which the
Father could be said to be prior to the Son. For
the Father is not prior in time, since the Son is
eternal; nor prior in nature, since the one nature
belongs to Father and Son; nor prior in dignity,
since Father and Son are equal; nor even prior
in understanding, since they are distinguished
only by relations, and relative entities are
understood simultaneously, since each
pertains to the understanding of the other. And
so it is clear that properly speaking the Son
cannot be said to be second in order from the
Father and the Holy Spirit third in order from the
Father.
Dicunt ergo doctores praedicti, filium
esse secundum et spiritum sanctum
tertium, secundum ordinem in
numerando, quod patet ex ipso
Basilio, qui dicit: recepimus spiritum
sanctum a patre et filio, tertium
connumeratum, et glorificatum
spiritum ipsius filii Dei, qui tradens
ordinem salutiferi Baptismatis, dixit:
The aforementioned Doctors, therefore, call the
Son second and the Holy Spirit third according
to their numerical order. This is clear from Basil
himself who says: We have received the Holy
Spirit from Father and Son as third numbered
and conglorified, the Spirit of the very Son of
God, who when instituting the order of salvific
baptism said: Going, baptize all men in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
euntes, baptizate omnes gentes in
nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti.
Et Epiphanius dicit: spiritus Dei ex
patre et ex filio tertius est
appellatione.
Holy Spirit. And Epiphanius says: The Spirit
of God who is from Father and Son is third
named.
Quod autem dicit Basilius, quod
spiritus est secundus a filio dignitate,
videtur maiorem habere calumniam:
quia videtur in dignitate Trinitatis
constituere gradum, cum sit par
dignitas et eadem trium personarum.
Potest autem hoc exponi non de
dignitate naturali, sed de personali;
sicut et secundum nos dicitur, quod
persona est hypostasis proprietate
distincta ad dignitatem pertinente.
Secundum quem modum dicit
Hilarius, quod pater est maior filio
propter auctoritatem originis; filius
tamen non est minor patre propter
substantiae unitatem.
But when Basil asserts that the Spirit is second
from the Son in dignity, he appears more
seriously mistaken, because he seems to posit
degrees of dignity in the Trinity, whereas all
three persons are equal in dignity. This
statement, however, can be explained as
referring, not to natural, but to personal dignity in
God, just as we say that a person is a
hypostasis in virtue of a distinct property
entailing dignity. Hilary adopts this manner of
speaking when he says that the Father is
greater than the Son by reason of authority of
origin. But by reason of oneness in substance
the Son is not thereby less than the Father.
Caput 3
Quomodo intelligitur hoc quod spiritus
sanctus sit tertium lumen
CHAPTER 3
How the Holy Spirit is to be understood
as third light.
Adhuc autem videtur esse magis
calumniosum quod ex verbis sancti
Epiphanii Cypriensis episcopi inducitur
dicentis: spiritus sanctus spiritus est
veritatis, lumen tertium a patre et filio. Ubi
enim est unitas, non est ordo primi et
tertii. Pater autem et filius et spiritus
sanctus sunt unum lumen, sicut et unus
Deus. Sicut ergo non potest Catholice
dici, quod spiritus sanctus sit tertius Deus
a patre et filio, ita non potest dici quod sit
tertium lumen.
Even more calumnious seems the inference
to be drawn from a text of the Cypriot bishop
St. Epiphanius: The Holy Spirit is the spirit
of truth, a light third in order from Father and
Son. Now where there is unity, there is
no order of first and third. But Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit are one light, just as they
are one God. Therefore, just as Catholics
cannot say that the Holy Spirit is a third God
distinct from Father and Son, so they cannot
say that he is as third light.
Dicitur autem quod est tertia persona
propter personarum pluralitatem. Ex hoc
ergo quod dicit lumen tertium, sequitur
quod sint tria lumina; quod ipse
postmodum expresse subiungit, dicens:
alia vero omnia positione vel
compositione sive appellatione lumina
dicuntur; non tamen istis tribus luminibus
similia.
He is said, however, to be the third person
because of the plurality of persons. From the
fact, then, that he speaks of a third light, it
follows that there are three lights. This
Epiphanius expressly states in a subsequent
passage: All other things are called lights by
reason of position or composition or
appellation, not however being similar to
these three lights.
Potest autem dici, quod lumen originem On the other hand, it might be said in
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
quandam importat: nam lumen est quod
ex aliqua luce diffunditur, et etiam aliud
lumen diffundere potest. Et secundum
hoc, nomen luminis ad personales
proprietates trahi potest ratione
proprietatis diffusivae, licet secundum
ipsam naturam lucis ad essentiam
pertineat. Et hoc attendens dictus pater,
tertium lumen et tria lumina dixit in divinis;
licet hoc nullo modo sit ad consequentiam
trahendum, sed simpliciter confitendum,
quod pater et filius et spiritus sanctus
sunt unum lumen.
explanation that a light implies a certain
origin; for light is what is diffused from
some source and of itself can also diffuse
further light. In this way the word light can be
stretched to connote personal properties in
virtue of the diffusive property of light, even
though light by nature properly pertains to
the realm of essence. Noting this the said
Father spoke of a third light and three lights
in God. But this statement should not be
pressed too far. Rather, Father, Son and
Holy Spirit should simply be confessed as
one light.
Caput 4
Quomodo intelligitur, quod essentia sit
genita in filio, et spirata in spiritu
sancto
CHAPTER 4
How the essence is to understood as
begotten in the Son and spirated in the
Holy Spirit.
Invenitur autem in dictis praedictorum
patrum, quod essentia sit genita in filio, et
spirata in spiritu sancto. Dicit enim
Athanasius in tertio sermone gestorum
Nicaenae synodi, ex persona filii loquens:
tuum spiritum ex mea essentia a te genita
ipsis hominibus compenso; et parum post:
ex tua essentia, quam in me genuisti,
spiritum sanctum da eis. Et idem in
epistola ad Serapionem: essentiam suam
in se ipse genitor retinens, totam in filio
suo inenarrabiliter genuit. Et iterum: sicut
pater habet vitam in semet ipso, idest
naturam vivam spirantem, sic dedit et filio
vitam habere in semetipso, id est eandem
naturam genuit in filio spirantem spiritum
vivum. Et infra dicit, patris et filii unam
esse divinitatem naturaliter spirantem
unum spiritum sanctum. Ex quibus verbis
habetur, quod natura divina in filio sit
genita, et in patre et filio sit spirans.
Among the sayings of the aforesaid Fathers
is met the assertion that the essence is
begotten in the Son and spirated in the Holy
Spirit. For Athanasius in his third discourse
on the Acts of the Council of Nicaea,
speaking in the person of the Son, says: I
distribute to men your Spirit together with
the divine essence begotten of you. And a
little further on: From your essence which
you have begotten in me I give the Holy
Spirit to them. The same Father writes
in his letter to Serapion: The Parent himself
keeping in himself his essence ineffably
begot it whole and entire in his Son. And
again: As the Father has life in himself, that
is, a living spirating nature, so he has given
to the Son to have life in himself, that is, he
begot in the Son the same nature spirating
a living Spirit. Subsequently he says of the
Father and Son that the deity is one
naturally spirating one Holy Spirit. From
these passages it follows that in the Son the
divine nature spirates the Holy Spirit.
Item Cyrillus in libro thesaurorum contra
haereticos: virtus increata et genita in filio,
filii est per omnem modum naturae
paternae. Et iterum: pater filio dedit vitam,
idest suam vitam naturalem genuit in filio.
Item Basilius: ipse filius, quem dat nobis
pater, est Deus de Deo essentialiter
genitus, habens in se totam essentiam
patris genitam. Item Athanasius dicit in
Cyril in his Thesaurus against the heretics
states: The power, uncreated and begotten
in the Son, pertains to the Son according to
every modality of the Sons nature. And
again: The Father gives life to the Son, that
is, he begot his natural life in the Son.
And Basil says: The Son himself whom the
Father gives us is God in essence begotten
of God, having in himself the whole essence
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
epistola ad Serapionem, essentiam
divinam in spiritu sancto esse spiratam,
dicens, quod spiritus sanctus est vera et
naturalis imago filii per essentiam
omnimode ab eodem in se spiratam.
of the Father as begotten. Athanasius
likewise asserts in his letter to Serapion that
the divine essence in the Holy Spirit is
spirated. He says: The Holy Spirit is the
true and natural image of the Son in virtue
of the essence wholly spirated into him by
the same.
Hic autem modus loquendi calumniosus
est: et in sacro Lateranensi Concilio
reprobatum est dogma Ioachim, qui hunc
modum loquendi contra Magistrum
Petrum Lombardum defendere
praesumpsit. Ostendit enim praedictus
Magister in quinta distinctione primi libri
sententiarum, quas edidit, quod communis
essentia nec generat, nec gignitur, nec
procedit. Et hoc ideo, quia in divinis
invenitur aliquid commune indistinctum, et
aliquid quod distinguitur et non est
commune. Illud ergo quod est distinctionis
ratio in divinis, non potest attribui ei quod
est commune et indistinctum, sed solum ei
quod distinguitur. Nulla autem alia
distinctionis ratio in divinis invenitur nisi ex
eo quod unus generat et alius nascitur et
alius procedit. Non ergo hoc ipsum quod
est generare vel nasci vel procedere
potest essentiae divinae attribui, quae est
communis et omnino indistincta in tribus
personis. Id autem quod est distinctum in
divinis, est persona vel hypostasis vel
suppositum divinae naturae, id est, quod
est habens divinam naturam. Et ideo illa
quae significant, vel supponere possunt
personam, recipiunt congruenter
praedicationem generationis aut
processionis, sicut haec nomina pater et
filius et spiritus sanctus significant
personas determinatas, et hoc nomen
persona vel hypostasis, in communi. Unde
convenienter dicitur quod pater generat
filium, et quod filius nascitur a patre, et
quod spiritus sanctus procedit a patre et
filio; et similiter quod persona generet vel
spiret personam, aut generetur aut
spiretur a persona.
This manner of speaking, however, is highly
misleading, and at the [Fourth] Lateran
Council the teaching of J oachim, who
presumptuously defended it against Master
Peter Lombard, was condemned. In the 5
th
distinction of his First Book of the
Sentences the aforementioned Master
Peter shows that the common essence
does not beget, is not begotten, and does
not proceed; this is because in God there is
a common element indistinct and one which
is distinguished and not common.
Therefore, that which is the ground of
distinction in God cannot be attributed to
what is common and indistinct, but only to
that which is distinguished. There is,
however, no other ground of distinction in
God but this: that one person begets,
another is begotten, and another proceeds.
Therefore, to beget or to be begottten or to
proceed cannot be attributed to the divine
essence, which is common and indistinct in
the three persons. What is distinct in God,
however, is the person or hypostasis or
supposit of the divine nature, i.e., what has
the divine nature. Hence, those terms which
signify or can stand for a person receive the
appropriate predication of generation or
procession. Thus, these terms: Father, Son
and Holy Spirit, connote specific persons,
while this term: person, or hypostasis,
connotes them generically. Hence, it is
proper to say that the Father begets the
Son, and that the Son is begotten of the
Father and that the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Father and the Son, and also that a
person begets or spirates a person, or is
begotten or spirated by a person.
Hoc autem nomen Deus, quia significat
essentiam communem per modum
concreti (significat enim habentem
divinitatem), potest supponere ex modo
suae significationis pro persona; et ideo
etiam huiusmodi locutiones convenienter
The term God, however, because it signifies
the divine essence as existing concretely
for it signifies someone who possesses
divinitycan, therefore, because of its
manner of signifying, stand for a person and
so the following ways of speaking are
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
conceduntur: Deus generat Deum, et
Deus nascitur vel procedit a Deo.
properly permitted: God begets God; God is
begotten or proceeds from God.
Hoc autem nomen essentia, et divinitas,
et quaecumque in abstracto significantur,
non habent ex modo suae significationis
neque quod significent neque quod
supponant pro persona. Et ideo non
proprie ea quae sunt propria personarum,
de huiusmodi nominibus praedicantur, ut
dicatur essentia generans vel genita; licet
quaedam horum nominum propinquiora
sint personis, inquantum significant
principia actuum qui proprie sunt
personarum; sicut lumen, sapientia,
bonitas, et huiusmodi. Unde et quae sunt
propria personarum, de talibus minus
inconvenienter praedicantur; ut cum
dicitur filius lumen de lumine, sapientia de
sapientia; sed essentia de essentia magis
inconvenienter dicitur.
But the terms essence and divinity and any
other connoting abstractly cannot by reason
of their mode of signifying signify or stand
for a person. And so, personal properties
cannot rightly be predicated of the essence
or of the Godhead, for instance, the
essence begets or is begotten. Some of
these terms, however, are more closely
linked to the personal, inasmuch as they
signify principles of acts proper to persons,
e.g., light, wisdom, goodness and the like.
Hence, it is less inappropriate to predicate
personal properties of such, for example,
the Son is light of light or wisdom of
wisdom. But the phrase: essence of
essence, entails greater difficulty.
Sed quia, licet modus significandi diversus
sit cum dicitur Deus et divinitas, tamen res
est penitus eadem: ideo propter rei
identitatem, sicut unum de altero
praedicatur, ut cum dicitur, Deus est
divinitas, vel persona divina sive pater est
divina essentia; ita et a sanctis interdum
unum pro alio ponitur, ut sic dicatur quod
essentia divina generat, quia pater, qui est
essentia divina, generat; et essentia est
de essentia, quia filius qui est essentia,
est de patre, qui est eadem essentia
divina. Et sic exponit Cyrillus in Lib.
thesaurorum, dicens: pater de se vita
vivente et essentia veraciter existente,
tanquam a vera radice, generando filium,
dat ei naturaliter suam naturalem vitam et
essentiam. Sic etiam cum dicitur quod
pater genuit naturam suam in filio,
exponendum est, quod per generationem
suam naturam filio dedit, sicut ex
praemissis verbis Cyrilli habetur.
Although the mode of signifying is diverse in
the case of the terms God and deity, the
reality to which they refer is absolutely the
same. And therefore, just as by reason of
that identical reality one is predicated of the
other, as when God is called the deity, or a
divine person or the Father the divine
essence, so too from time to time the saints
have used the terms interchangeably,
stating, for example, that the divine essence
begets because the Father who is the
divine essence begets, or that the essence
is from the essence because the Son who is
the essence is from the Father who is the
same divine essence. Cyril in his Thesaurus
says: The Father living of himself by his
own life and truly existing by his own
essence, in begetting the Son as from a true
root, gives him naturally his own natural life
and essence. So when it is stated that
the Father begets his own nature in the
Son, this is to be interpreted as meaning
that by generation he gives his own nature
to the Son, as in the text of Cyril just quoted.
Caput 5
Quomodo intelligitur quod Iesus
dicitur filius paternae essentiae
CHAPTER 5
How Jesus is to be understood as Son of
the paternal essence.
Ex hoc etiam patet qualiter exponendum From this it is clear how is to be interpreted
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
sit quod idem Cyrillus in eodem libro
dicere inducitur: quomodo ergo Iesus
filius paternae essentiae, erit creatura?
Non enim dicitur filius paternae
essentiae, quasi a paterna essentia
genitus, sed quasi paternam essentiam
per generationem accipiens. Et per hunc
modum exponenda sunt omnia quae
similiter dici inveniuntur; sicut quod
dicitur filius vel spiritus essentialiter
procedere, inquantum procedendo
essentiam a patre accipiunt.
what in the same work Cyril is led to say:
How, therefore, will J esus, the Son, be a
product of the Fathers essence? For he is
not called the Son of the Fathers essence as
if he were begotten by the essence of the
Father, but as it were receiving by generation
the essence of the Father. And this is how all
similar statements are to be interpreted, as,
e.g., the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to
proceed by essence in so far as by
proceeding they receive essence from the
Father.
Caput 6
Quomodo intelligitur, quod quae
sunt propria naturaliter patris, sunt
propria filii
CHAPTER 6
How properties of the Father are to be
understood as proper to the Son.
Potest esse dubium quod Cyrillus in
eodem Lib. thesaurorum dicit: omnia
quae patris sunt propria naturaliter,
sunt propria et filii. Aut enim hoc
intelligitur de essentialibus attributis, et
sic neque patri neque filio sunt propria,
sed utrique communia; aut de
personalibus, et sic quae sunt propria
patris, non sunt propria filii, sicut
innascibilitas et paternitas nullo modo
sunt filii, sed solum patris.
Another statement of Cyril in the same
Thesaurus could be considered dubious. All
that is by nature proper to the Father is also
proper to the Son. For this could either
refer to the essential attributes, which are
proper neither to Father nor to Son, but are
common to both; or it could refer to the
personal attributes, and thus those which are
proper to the Father are not proper to the Son,
as for instance innascibility and paternity
pertain only to the Father and no wise to the
Son.
Patet autem ex praemissis ab eo, quod
loquitur de essentialibus attributis.
Praemittit enim quod quaecumque
naturaliter dicuntur inesse patri, illa
omnia insunt filio, sicut vita, veritas, lux
et huiusmodi. Haec autem dicuntur
esse propria patri non in respectu ad
filium, nec filio in respectu ad patrem,
sed utrique in respectu ad creaturam,
cui in comparatione ad Deum non
proprie praedicta conveniunt; vel
proprium, hic dicitur non quod convenit
uni soli, sed quod proprie et vere alicui
convenit secundum se.
It is clear, however, from his prior affirmations
that he is speaking of essential attributes. For
he takes as premise that: Whatever by nature
belongs to the Father belongs also to the
Son, such as life, truth, light and the like.
These are said, however, to be proper to the
Father not in relation to the Son, and proper to
the Son not in relation to the Father, but to
both in relation to creatures, to which in
contrast with God the aforementioned do not
properly belong. Or they may be said to be
proper to each person, not as pertaining to him
exclusively, but as pertaining to him of himself.
Caput 7
Quomodo intelligitur quod pater
neque filio neque spiritu sancto
indiget ad sui perfectionem
CHAPTER 7
How the Father is to be understood as
needing neither Son nor Holy Spirit for his
perfection.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Item potest esse dubium quod
Athanasius dicit in epistola ad
Serapionem, quod pater per se et in
se sine alicuius indigentia plenus et
perfectus existens Deus, ad sui
perfectionem neque filio neque spiritu
sancto indiget. Quod enim pater non
sit indigens, dubium non est: sic enim
neque filius neque spiritus sanctus
indigens est. Illud enim proprie est
indigens cui in se considerato aliquid
deest ad suam perfectionem: quod
non potest dici neque de patre neque
de filio, neque de spiritu sancto.
A further difficulty stems from a passage of
Athanasius in his letter to Serapion, namely,
that the Father existing fully and perfectly as
God in himself and of himself, without need of
anyone, needs neither the Son nor the Holy
Spirit. That the Father has no need of
anything is beyond doubt; in the same way
neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit wants for
anything. To be in need, in the proper sense of
the term, is to lack something pertaining to
ones perfection; and to be in need in this sense
cannot be said of the Father, or the Son, or of
the Holy Spirit.
Sed tamen non posset esse pater
perfectus, nisi filium haberet, quia nec
pater sine filio esset, nec esset Deus
perfectus, nisi haberet verbum, et nisi
haberet spiramen vitae, sicut idem
Athanasius dicit in tertio sermone
gestorum Nicaeni Concilii, sic inquiens
de Arianis, qui negabant filium et
spiritum sanctum esse coessentiales
patri: dicunt sterilem esse et
infructuosam naturam paternam, quae
omnibus rebus insitam et
propagativam similium dedit naturam.
Et mutum faciunt patrem et sine
verbo, qui omnibus rationalibus
facultatem dedit loquendi. Mortuum
etiam ipsum patrem dicunt, et
expertem viventis naturae, inquantum
scilicet negant spiritum sanctum
coessentialem patri. In quo apparet
quod non esset pater Deus perfectus,
nisi filium et spiritum haberet. Idem
etiam Athanasius dicit in epistola ad
Serapionem, quod pater non potuit
creare creaturam nisi per verbum, et
deificandis creaturis se non potest
communicare nisi per idem verbum: et
similiter nec filius nisi in spiritu sancto.
Nevertheless, the Father could not be perfect
unless he had a Son, because the Father would
not exist without the Son nor would God be
perfect, unless he had a Word and unless he
had the breath of life, as the same Athanasius
says in this third discourse on the Acts of the
Council of Nicaea. Speaking of the Arians who
denied that the Son and Holy Spirit are
consubstantial with the Father, he says: They
describe as sterile and unfruitful the nature of
the Father who has given to each things its
inmost nature capable of propagating in kind.
And they make the Father dumb and wordless,
although he gave to all rational creatures the
faculty of speech. They describe the Father as
dead and deprive him of a living nature,
inasmuch as they deny that the Holy Spirit is
coessential with the Father. From this it is clear
that the Father would not be perfect God if he
did not have the Son and the Holy Spirit. The
same Athanasius states in his letter to Serapion
that the Father could not create the creature
except through his Word and could not
communicate himself through creatures who
were to be made godlike except through the
Word. And similarly neither could the Son do
this except in the Holy Spirit.
Commune ergo est patri et filio et
spiritui sancto, quod nullus eorum sit
indigens. Item commune est cuilibet
eorum quod nullus sine aliis duobus
potest esse Deus perfectus. Sed hac
ratione proprie de patre dicit
Athanasius, quod ad sui perfectionem
filio et spiritu sancto non indiget, quia
ipse suam perfectionem non habet ab
It is, therefore, common to Father, Son and Holy
Spirit that none of them is in need. So, too, it is
common to each of them that none can be
perfect God without the other two. But for this
reason Athanasius specifically says of the
Father that he does not need the Son or the
Holy Spirit because he does not have his
perfection from another, whereas the Son and
Holy Spirit have their perfection from the Father.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
alio; filius autem et spiritus sanctus
suam perfectionem habent a patre.
Unde idem Athanasius dicit in epistola
ad Serapionem: non ratione filii, nec
ratione spiritus sancti pater existit
plenus beatus Deus. Neque enim a
supra se habet a quo sit, neque ab
infra se habet a quo habeat, idest
quod sit a filio, vel a spiritu sancto.
Thus, the same Athanasius in his letter to
Serapion says: Neither by reason of the Son,
nor by reason of the Holy Spirit does the Father
exist as God perfect and blessed. Nor has he
any source before him from whom he is, nor any
after him from he derives anything, that is, which
would be from the Son or from the Holy Spirit.
Caput 8
Quomodo intelligitur quod spiritus
sanctus dicatur ingenitus
CHAPTER 8
How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as
unbegotten.
Item videtur esse dubium quod
Gregorius Nazianzenus in sermone de
Epiphania dicit, quod spiritus sanctus
secundum quod est inde procedit ut sit
ingenitus et non filius, medius ingeniti
genitique. Non enim videtur quod
spiritus sanctus ingenitus dici possit.
Hilarius enim dicit in Lib. de synodis,
quod si quis duos ingenitos dicit, duos
deos facit. Et Athanasius dicit in
epistola ad Serapionem, quod non est
ingenitus spiritus sanctus, quia
imprincipiatum esse et ingenitum soli
Deo patri Catholica Ecclesia
congregata apud Nicaeam recte et
fideliter attribuit, et de solo patre hoc
esse credendum et praedicandum, sub
anathemate toti mundo mandavit.
Doubtful also seems a text of Gregory
Nazianzenus in his sermon on the Epiphany:
The Holy Spirit as he exists in God proceeds
such that he is unbegotten and not the Son, a
mean between unbegotten and begotten.
Now it does not seem that the Holy Spirit can
be said to be unbegotten. For Hilary in his book
on the Synods states that if anyone say
there are two unbegottens, he asserts there are
two gods. Similarly, Athanasius says in his
letter to Serapion that the Holy Spirit is not
unbegotten, because the Catholic Church
assembled at Nicaea rightly and faithfully
attributed to the Father alone the property of
being without origin and unbegotten, and
commanded this to be believed only of the
Father and preached to the whole world under
penalty of anathema.
Sed dicendum, quod ingenitus
dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo pro
eo quod caret principio, et sic soli patri
convenit, ut ex dictis Athanasii patet.
Alio modo pro eo quod non est
genitum, licet sit principium habens, et
sic non solum Gregorius Nazianzenus
in verbis praemissis, sed etiam
Hieronymus in regulis definitionum
contra haereticos spiritum sanctum
dicit esse ingenitum.
It should be noted, however, that unbegotten
can be taken in two senses. Taken one way it
connotes him who is without a principle, and in
this sense it applies only to the Father, as is
clear from the words of Athanasius. Taken in
the other way it signifies him who, though he
has a principle, is not begotten; and in this
sense, not only Gregory Nazianzenus in the
passage quoted above, but also J erome in
his rules for definitions against heretics says
the Holy Spirit is unbegotten.
Caput 9
Quomodo intelligitur quod spiritus
sanctus dicitur medius patris et
filii
CHAPTER 9
How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the
mean between Father and Son.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Item in verbis praemissis Gregorii
Nazianzeni dubium est quod dicit,
spiritum sanctum esse medium
ingeniti genitique, idest patris et filii,
cum magis dicatur esse tertius, vel
tertia in Trinitate persona, ut supra
dictum est.
There is another doubt in the passage of
Gregory cited above (chapter 8) where he says
that the Holy Spirit is a mean between the
unbegotten and the begotten, that is,
between Father and Son, whereas he should
rather be termed third or third person in the
Trinity, as noted previously (chapter 2).
Sed dicendum, quod non dicitur esse
medius secundum ordinem
enumerationis, qui respondet ordini
originis, sic enim filius medius est
inter patrem et spiritum sanctum; sed
dicitur medius quasi communis nexus
amborum: est enim communis amor
patris et filii. Et similiter exponendum
est quod Epiphanius dicit in libro de
Trinitate, quod spiritus sanctus est in
medio patris et filii.
But it is to be observed that he is not said to be a
mean by reason of the numeration
corresponding to the order of origin. For in this
order the Son is a mean between Father and
Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is said to be a
mean in the sense of a common link between
Father and Son, for he is the common love of
Father and Son. A similar interpretation is to be
given the statement of Epiphanius in his book on
the Trinity that the Holy Spirit is in the middle of
the Father and the Son.
Caput 10
Quomodo intelligitur hoc quod
dicitur, quod spiritus sanctus sit
imago filii
CHAPTER 10
How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as
the image of the Son.
Item in pluribus locis harum
auctoritatum dicitur, quod spiritus
sanctus sit imago filii, sicut Athanasius
in sermone tertio Nicaeni Concilii:
spiritus sanctus patris et filii una deifica
et vivifica dicitur et est veritas, imago
filii, ipsum per omnia in se essentialiter
tenens, naturaliter repraesentat,
quemadmodum et filius est imago
patris; et in epistola ad Serapionem:
spiritus sanctus ipsum filium in se
continet naturaliter, tanquam eius vera
et naturalis imago. Item Basilius: spiritus
sanctus dicitur digitus, spiramen, unctio,
sufflatio, sensus Christi, processio,
productio, missio, emanatio, effusio,
vaporatio, splendor, imago, character,
Deus verus; et iterum: spiritus sanctus a
patre et filio tertius vera et naturalis
imago patris et filii existit, ipse utrumque
nobis naturaliter repraesentans.
So, too, in many passages of these
authorities the Holy Spirit is said to be the
image of the Son, as Athanasius says in his
third discourse on the Council of Nicaea: The
Holy Spirit is said to be and is the one deifying
and vivifying truth of Father and Son, the
image of the Son, throughout all holding him
fast by essence in himself, by nature
representing him, just as the Son is the image
of the Father. And in his letter to Serapion:
The Holy Spirit naturally contains the Son
within himself as his true and natural image.
And Basil: The Holy Spirit is called the
finger, breath, unction, breeze, mind of Christ,
procession, production, mission, emanation,
effusion, warmth, splendor, image, mark, true
God. And elsewhere: The Holy Spirit
exists as true power emanating from Father
and Son and as the natural image of Father
and Son, naturally representing both to us.
Apud Latinos autem non consuevit dici
quod spiritus sanctus sit imago patris
vel filii. Dicit enim Augustinus in VI de
Trinitate, quod verbum solus filius
accipitur, et quod sic verbum dicitur
Among the Latins, however, the Holy Spirit
is not ordinarily called the image of Father or
Son. For Augustine in the sixth chapter on the
Trinity says that only the Son is called the
Word, and that only the Son is the image of
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
quomodo imago, et quod solus filius est
imago patris, quemadmodum et filius.
Richardus etiam de sancto Victore in
suo libro de Trinitate assignat rationem,
quare spiritus sanctus non possit dici
imago, sicut filius; quia scilicet, licet
patri sit similis in natura, sicut et filius,
non tamen convenit cum eo in aliqua
proprietate relativa, sicut convenit filius
cum patre in spiratione activa spiritus
sancti.
the Father as only he is Son. Richard of
St. Victor in his book on the Trinity also
gives a reason why the Holy Spirit, though like
the Father in nature as is the Son, is not one
with him in any relative property as is the Son
with the Father in actively spirating the Holy
Spirit.
Quidam etiam huius rationem
assignant, quod propter hoc spiritus
sanctus non potest dici imago, quia
esset imago duorum, scilicet patris et
filii, cum sit a duobus: non potest autem
duorum esse una imago. In auctoritate
etiam sacrae Scripturae, quam
praetergredi non licet de divinis
loquentes, expresse habetur quod filius
sit imago patris: dicitur enim Coloss. I,
13: transtulit nos in regnum filii
dilectionis suae, in quo habemus
remissionem peccatorum, qui est imago
Dei invisibilis; et Hebr. I, 3, dicitur de
filio: cum sit splendor gloriae et figura
substantiae eius.
Some, however, assign as reason why the
Holy Spirit cannot be called an image the fact
that this would make him the image of two
persons, namely of the Father and of the Son,
since he proceeds from both. But to be the
one image of two persons is impossible. And
on the authority of Holy Scripture as well,
which it is forbidden to contradict in treating of
God, the Son is explicitly called the image of
the Father. For the Epistle to the Colossians
(1:13) says: He has transferred us into the
kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we
have redemption, the forgiveness of sins: he
is the image of the invisible God, and in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (1:3) it is stated of the
Son: He reflects the glory of God and bears
the very stamp of his nature.
Sed sciendum, quod a sanctis Graecis
duae auctoritates sacrae Scripturae
inducuntur, in quibus videtur dici quod
spiritus sanctus sit imago filii. Dicitur
enim Rom. VIII, 29: quos praescivit et
praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis
filii sui. Imago autem filii nihil aliud
videtur esse quam spiritus sanctus. Item
I ad Cor. XV, 49, dicitur: sicut
portavimus imaginem terreni, portemus
et imaginem caelestis, idest Christi;
It should be kept in mind, however, that the
saintly Greeks offer two texts of Holy
Scripture in proof that the Holy Spirit is the
image of the Son. For in the Epistle to the
Romans (8:29) asserts: Those whom he
foreknew he also predestined to be conformed
to the image of his Son.; and the image of
the Son seems to be none other than the Holy
Spirit. Second, the First Epistle to the
Corinthians (15: 49) says: Even as we have
borne the image of the earthly, let us bear
also the likeness of the heavenly, that is, of
Christ
per quam imaginem intelligunt spiritum
sanctum, licet in his auctoritatibus non
expresse spiritus sanctus imago dicatur.
Potest enim intelligi, quod homines
conformentur imagini filii, vel quod
portent imaginem Christi inquantum ipsi
homines sancti per dona gratiarum, ut
sint similes Christo, perficiuntur,
secundum illud apostoli II ad Cor. III, 18:
By this image they understand the Holy Spirit,
though in these passages the Holy Spirit is
not expressly called an image. It might also be
interpreted to mean that men are conformed
to the image of the Son, or that they bear the
image of Christ, inasmuch as these holy men
are by gifts of grace perfected so as to be
similar to Christ, as the Apostle says in 2 Cor.
3:18: But we all, with faces unveiled,
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
nos omnes revelata facie gloriam domini
speculantes, in eandem imaginem
transformamur a claritate in claritatem
tanquam a domini spiritu. Hic enim
imaginem non dicit esse spiritum Christi,
sed aliquid a spiritu Dei in nobis
existens.
reflecting as in a mirror the glory of the Lord,
are being transformed into his very image
from glory to glory, as through the Spirit of the
Lord. For he does not state here that the
image is the Spirit of Christ, but something
from the Spirit of Christ existing in us.
Sed quia praesumptuosum est tantorum
doctorum tam expressis auctoritatibus
contraire, possumus quidem dicere
spiritum sanctum esse imaginem patris
et filii, ita quod per imaginem nihil aliud
intelligatur quam existens ab alio et eius
similitudinem gerens. Si autem per
imaginem intelligatur aliquid existens ab
altero, ex ipsa suae originis ratione
habens quod similitudinem gerat eius a
quo existit, inquantum est ab altero, ut
filius genitus, vel ut verbum conceptum,
sic solus filius dicitur imago: de ratione
enim filii est quod similitudinem patris
habeat in quacumque natura; et similiter
de ratione verbi est quod sit similitudo
eius quod verbo exprimitur,
cuiuscumque sit verbum; sed non est de
ratione spiritus vel amoris, quod sit
similitudo eius cuius est, in omnibus.
Sed hoc in spiritu Dei verificatur propter
divinae essentiae unitatem et
simplicitatem, ex qua oportet quod
quidquid est in Deo, sit Deus.
But because it would be presumptuous to
contradict the explicit texts of such great
Doctors. We may say that the Holy Spirit is
the image of the Father and of the Son
provided image is understood to mean
derived from another and bearing his likeness.
If, however, image is understood to mean
something deriving its being from another and
by reason of that origination bearing the
likeness of that from which it has being
inasmuch as it is from that other, as a
begotten Son or a conceived Word, then the
term applies only to the Son. For it is
distinctive of a son to possess the same
nature as his father, whatever the nature
involved. Likewise it is distinctive of a word to
resemble that which is expressed by the word,
whatsoever be the word. But it is not proper to
the nature of a spirit or of love that it be the
likeness in all things of him to whom it
belongs. Such likeness, however, is in fact
verified in the Spirit of God because of that
unity and simplicity of the divine essence,
whence whatever is in God must be God.
Nec obstat ad rationem imaginis quod
spiritus sanctus non convenit cum patre
in aliqua personali proprietate, quia
similitudo et aequalitas divinarum
personarum non attenditur secundum
proprietates personales, sed secundum
attributa essentialia. Neque enim
inaequalitas et dissimilitudo secundum
personalium proprietatum differentiam in
divinis dici debet, sicut Augustinus dicit
in libro contra Maximinum. Cum dicitur
filius a patre genitus, non ostenditur
inaequalitas substantiae, sed ordo
naturae. Similiter etiam non obstat quod
spiritus sanctus est a duobus. Est enim
a duobus, inquantum sunt unum, cum
pater et filius sint unum principium
spiritus sancti.
Nor is the fact that the Holy Spirit does not
share with the Father some personal property
a reason for refusing to speak of him as an
image. For the likeness and equality of the
divine persons does not rest on what is proper
to each, but on essential attributes. Nor
should inequality or unlikeness be attributed
to God on the basis of different personal
properties, as Augustine says in his book
against Maximus. For when the Son is said to
be begotten of the Father, inequality of
substance is not indicated, but order of
nature. In like manner, also, no difficulty
arises from the fact that the Holy Spirit is from
two persons; for he is from two in so far as
they are one, since Father and Son are the
one principle of the Holy Spirit.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Caput 11
Quomodo intelligitur quod filius sit in
patre sicut in sua imagine
CHAPTER 11
How the Holy Spirit is to be understood in
the Father as in his image.
Adhuc autem videtur esse magis
dubium, quod Athanasius dicit in epistola
ad Serapionem: filius est in suo patre
tanquam in propria sua imagine. Non
enim pater est imago filii, sed magis filius
imago patris.
A still greater difficulty arises from what
Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion:
The Son is in his Father as in his own
image. The Father, in fact, is not the
image of the Son, but it is the Son who is the
image of the Father.
Sed dicendum, quod imago hic improprie
sumitur pro exemplari: sic enim
quandoque abusive accipitur.
But it is to be observed that here image is
used improperly in the sense of exemplar; for
thus it is sometimes used less than
correctly.
Caput 12
Quomodo intelligitur quod spiritus
sanctus dicitur verbum filii
CHAPTER 12
How the Holy Spirit is to be understood to
be the word of the Son.
Item videtur esse falsum quod Basilius
dicit in III sermone de spiritu sancto
contra Eunomium haereticum: sicut,
inquit, filius se habet ad patrem, eodem
modo spiritus sanctus se habet ad
filium. Et propter hoc Dei quidem
verbum filius, verbum autem filii spiritus.
Portansque omnia, inquit apostolus,
verbo virtutis suae. Verbum enim, ut
Augustinus dicit in Lib. de Trinitate,
solus filius est. Unde et Ioannes nomen
verbi pro nomine filii ponit, tam in
principio Evangelii sui cum dicit: in
principio erat verbum; quam etiam in
sua canonica ubi dicit: tres sunt qui
testimonium dant in caelo: pater,
verbum et spiritus sanctus. Nec refert, si
quis translationem mutet, ut loco verbi
eloquium ponat: nam id quod quis
loquitur, verbum eius est. Unde sicut
solus filius in divinitate est verbum, ita
solus est eloquium.
What Basil says in the third discourse on the
Holy Spirit against Eunomius appears to be
false: As the Son is related to the Father, so
the Holy Spirit is related to the Son. And this
is why the Son is the Word of the Father, and
the Holy Spirit is the Word of the Son:
upholding the universe, says the Apostle
(Heb. 1:3), by the word of his power. For
as Augustine says in the book on the Trinity,
only the Son is the Word. This is why J ohn
also names the Son Word. For at the
beginning of his Gospel he says: In the
beginning was the Word (J n 1:1). He states
also in his first Epistle (5:7): There are three
who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the
Word and the Holy Spirit. Nor does it make
any difference whether one translates:
Eloquence, in place of Word. For that which
one utters is his word. Hence, as the Son
alone is the Word in the Godhead, so he
alone is the Eloquence.
Sed dicendum, quod verbum Dei
quandoque dicitur etiam sermo divinitus
inspiratus et prolatus: et de hoc verbo
hic Basilius intelligit, dicens spiritum
sanctum esse verbum vel eloquium filii
effective, inquantum sancti ab eo
inspirati de filio sunt locuti, secundum
quod dicitur Ioan. XVI, 13, de spiritu
But it should be noted that sometimes by
word of God is meant a discourse divinely
inspired and uttered. This is how Basil
understands the term when he says that the
Holy Spirit is effectively the word or
eloquence of the Son, in so far as the saints
inspired by the Holy Spirit have spoken of the
Son in accord with what is said in the Gospel
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
sancto: quaecumque audiet, loquetur. Et
quod hic sit intellectus Basilii, patet ex
eo quod subdit: ex quo eloquium filii per
Deum: gladium spiritus, dicit, sumite,
quod est verbum Dei. Ipsum enim
verbum fidei a sanctis prolatum, gladius
spiritus manifeste dicitur.
of J ohn about the Holy Spirit (16:13):
Whatever he hears, he will speak. That this
is Basils mind is clear from what he adds
later : From him the eloquence of the Son for
God. For the very word of faith uttered by
the saints is obviously called the sword of the
Spirit.
Caput 13
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur, quod
nomine Christi intelligitur spiritus
sanctus
CHAPTER 13
How by the name of Christ is to be
understood the Holy Spirit.
Item dubium esse videtur quod Cyrillus in
Lib. thesaurorum videtur dicere, quod
aliquando nomine Christi spiritus sanctus
intelligatur, sic inquiens: apostolus
appellatione Christi spiritum Christum
vocavit; ait enim: si in vobis Christus est,
corpus quidem mortuum est et cetera. Et
post pauca: spiritus sanctus in nomine
Christi operando, et eundem Christum in se
repraesentando, nomen Christi accipere, et
Christus ab apostolo appellari dicitur.
Doubtful seems the passage of Cyril in his
Thesaurus where he says that sometimes
by the title Christ is understood the Holy
Spirit. He states: The Apostle by the
name of Christ calls the Holy Spirit Christ;
for he says: Christ is in you, although your
bodies are dead, etc. (Rom. 8:10), and a
little further on:The Holy Spirit working in
the name of Christ and representing Christ
in himself is said to receive the name of
Christ and to be called Christ by the
Apostle.
Hoc autem videtur esse contra personarum
distinctionem, ut nomen unius personae
alteri attribuatur. Sicut enim pater nunquam
est filius, nec e converso, ita filius nunquam
est spiritus sanctus, nec e converso. Non
potest ergo nomen Christi de spiritu sancto
praedicari, neque igitur pro spiritu sancto
poni.
To attribute, however, the name of one
person to another seems incompatible
with the distinction between persons. For,
as the Father is never called the Son,
and vice versa, so the Son is never called
the Holy Spirit, and vice versa. Hence, the
term Christ may never be predicated of
the Holy Spirit; nor can it stand for the
Holy Spirit.
Sed dicendum, quod dictus pater
appellatione Christi dicit spiritum Christum
vocari, vel nomen Christi accipere, et
Christus appellari, non quasi Christus de
spiritu sancto praedicetur, vel e converso
(hoc enim esset Sabellianae impietatis),
sed intelligitur in nomine Christi spiritus
sanctus ratione concomitantiae, quia
ubicumque est Christus, est spiritus Christi,
sicut ubicumque est pater, est filius. Unde
interponit: numquid in hoc veritatis
praedicator, scilicet apostolus, veritatem
inconfusibilium personarum confudit
sabellizando? Non, sed potius hoc
Ecclesiae indicare curavit ut spiritus
sanctus non sit alienus a natura verbi.
But it should be observed that this Father
does not say the Spirit is called Christ or
receives the name of Christ, as if Christ is
predicated of the Holy Spirit or vice versa,
for this would smack of impious
Sabellianism; but the Holy Spirit is
understood included in the term Christ by
reason of concomitance, just as wherever
the Father is present, there is the Son.
Hence, the same Father interjects: Did
the preacher of truth, namely the Apostle,
deny the distinction of persons, as
Sabellius did? No. Rather he was at pains
to point out to the Church that the Holy
Spirit has the same nature as the Son.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Caput 14
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur:
quod spiritus sanctus non mittit
filium
CHAPTER 14
How the assertion that the Holy Spirit does
not send the Son is to be understood.
Item dubium esse videtur quod
Athanasius dicit in III sermone Nicaeni
Concilii, loquens de Arianis. Non, inquit,
ut asserunt alienati a gratia Evangelii, et
privati Deo spiritu, spiritus gratificat et
mittit filium, propter quod audierunt: et
nunc dominus misit me, et spiritus eius:
Isai. XLVIII, 16; et alibi: spiritus domini
super me: Isai. LXI, I. Hoc enim videtur
esse contrarium ei quod Augustinus
dicit in Lib. de Trinitate, quod filius sit
missus a spiritu sancto, probans hoc per
auctoritates inductas. Nec solum a
spiritu sancto, sed etiam a se ipso
probat eum missum, quia est missus a
tota Trinitate.
Likewise perplexing is a test of Athanasius in
his third discourse on the Council of Nicaea.
Speaking of the Arians he says: The Spirit
does not, as these people far removed from
the grace of the Gospel and deprived of God
the Spirit assert, gratify the Son and send
him. They base their opinion on two texts; And
now the Lord and his Spirit have sent me;
and: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.
Now, this seems to contradict what Augustine
says in his book on the Trinity that the Son
was sent by the Holy Spirit, proving this by the
very authorities just quoted. Moreover, he
proves that Christ was sent not only by the
Holy Spirit, but also by himself, because he
was sent by the whole Trinity.
Sed dicendum quod in missione divinae
personae duo possunt considerari:
primo auctoritas personae mittentis ad
personam quae mittitur; secundo
effectus in creatura, ratione cuius
persona divina mitti dicitur. Cum enim
personae divinae sint ubique per
essentiam, praesentiam et potentiam,
secundum hoc persona mitti dicitur,
secundum quod novo modo per aliquem
novum effectum incipit esse in creatura:
sicut filius dicitur esse missus in
mundum, inquantum novo modo incepit
esse in mundo per visibilem carnem
quam assumpsit, secundum illud
apostoli Gal. IV, 4: misit Deus filium
suum, factum ex muliere, factum sub
lege. Dicitur etiam mitti spiritualiter et
invisibiliter ad aliquem, inquantum per
sapientiae donum in eo incipit
inhabitare: de qua missione dicitur Sap.
IX, 10: mitte illam, scilicet sapientiam, a
sede magnitudinis tuae, ut mecum sit et
mecum laboret. Similiter etiam spiritus
sanctus ad aliquem mitti dicitur,
inquantum ipsum inhabitare incipit per
donum caritatis, secundum illud Rom. V,
5: caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus
nostris per spiritum sanctum, qui datus
But it is to be observed that in the mission of a
divine person two things may be considered:
first, the authority of the person sending with
respect to the person sent; and second, the
effect in the creature for the sake of which the
divine person is said to be sent. For, since the
divine persons are everywhere by essence,
presence and power, a divine person is said
to be sent inasmuch as in some new way
through some new effect he begins to be
present in a creature. Thus, the Son is said to
be sent into the world inasmuch as he begins
to be in the world in a new way through the
visible flesh which he assumed, as the
Apostle says in Galatians (4:4): God sent his
Son, born of a woman, born under the law.
He is also said to be sent someone spiritually
and invisibly inasmuch as he begins to dwell
in him through the gift of wisdom. It is of this
that the Book of Wisdom speaks: Send her,
that is wisdom, forth from the throne of thy
glory that she may be with me and toil with
me (9:10). Similarly, the Holy Spirit is also
said to be sent to someone inasmuch as he
begins to dwell in him through the gift of
charity, according to Romans (5:5): Gods
love has been poured into our hearts through
the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
est nobis.
Si ergo in missione divinae personae
consideretur auctoritas mittentis ad
personam missam, sic sola persona
potest aliam mittere a qua est persona
missa: et secundum hoc pater mittit
filium, et filius spiritum sanctum, non
autem spiritus sanctus filium; et sic
Athanasius loquitur. Si autem in
missione personae divinae consideretur
effectus, ratione cuius persona mitti
dicitur, cum effectus sit communis toti
Trinitati (nam tota Trinitas operata est
carnem Christi, et operatur sapientiam
et caritatem in sanctis), tunc potest dici,
quod persona mittitur a tota Trinitate; et
sic intelligit Augustinus.
If, therefore, in the mission of a divine person
the authority of the person sending be
considered with respect to the person sent,
only that person from whom another proceeds
can send the other. Thus, the Father sends
the Son, and the Son sends the Holy Spirit,
not however the Holy Spirit the Son; and it is
in this sense that Athanasius speaks. But, if in
the mission of a divine person the effect for
the sake of which the person is said to be sent
is considered, then it may be said that the
person is sent by the whole Trinity, since the
effect is common to the whole Trinity. (For the
whole Trinity produced the flesh of Christ and
produces wisdom and charity in the saints). In
this way Augustine understands the matter.
Sed tamen sciendum quod licet persona
divina interdum secundum Augustinum
dicatur mitti a persona a qua non
procedit, non tamen persona quae a
nullo procedit, potest dici quod mittatur.
Pater enim, quia a nullo est, a nullo
mittitur, licet per aliquod novum gratiae
donum hominem inhabitet, et ad
hominem venire dicatur, secundum illud
Ioan. XIV, v. 23: pater meus diliget eum,
et ad eum veniemus, et mansionem
apud eum faciemus. Sic ergo in
persona quae mittitur, requiritur quod
aeternaliter ab aliqua persona procedat,
sed non est necessarium quod procedat
aeternaliter ab illa persona a qua
mittitur, sed sufficit quod ab illa persona
sit effectus secundum quem mittitur. Et
hoc dico secundum modum quo
Augustinus loquitur de missione.
It must be borne in mind, however, that
although according to Augustine a divine
person may sometimes be said to be sent by
a person from whom he does not proceed, it
cannot be said of a person who does not
proceed from another that he is sent. Now,
since the Father is from no one, he cannot be
sent, although he dwells in man by the new
gift of grace and may be said to come to him,
according to J ohn (14:23): My Father will
love him and we will come to him and make
our home with him. Hence, for a person to be
sent it is necessary that he proceed eternally
from another person; but it is not necessary
that he proceed eternally from that person by
whom he is sent. It is enough that the effect
according to which he is sent should proceed
from that person. I say this in accord with the
manner in which Augustine speaks of mission.
Sed secundum Graecos, persona non
mittitur nisi ab illa a qua procedit
aeternaliter: unde filius non mittitur a
spiritu sancto, nisi forte secundum quod
est homo. Propter quod Basilius
auctoritates praedictas exponit, ut per
spiritum intelligatur pater, secundum
quod spiritus essentialiter sumitur, ut
habetur Ioan. IV, 24: Deus spiritus est;
et sic etiam Hilarius exponit in Lib. de
Trinitate.
But according to the Greeks a person is not
sent except by that person from whom he
proceeds eternally; hence the Son is not sent
by the Holy Spirit except perhaps in so far as
he is man. For this reason Basil explains
the aforementioned authorities in the sense
that by Spirit is meant the Father in so far as
Spirit connotes the divine essence as in the
Gospel of J ohn (4:24): God is spirit; and so
Hilary explains this in his book on the Trinity.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Caput 15
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur,
quod spiritus sanctus vere per
filium operatur. Per filium operatur
CHAPTER 15 How the assertion that the Holy
Spirit truly works through the Son is to be
understood.
Item dubium est quod Basilius dicit in
libro contra Eunomium, quod spiritus
sanctus vere per filium operatur:
quod quidem videtur esse falsum.
Nam persona dicitur operari per illam
quae ab ipsa est, sicut pater per
filium, et non e converso.
Another doubt stems from a passage of Basil in
his book against Eunomius: The Holy Spirit
truly works through the Son. This indeed seems
to be false; for a divine person is said to work
through the person who proceeds from him, as
the Father is said to work through the Son, and
not vice versa.
Sed dicendum, quod spiritus sanctus
dicitur operari per filium secundum
naturam humanam, non autem
secundum naturam divinam.
Rather the Holy Spirit should be said to work
through the Son according to his human nature,
not according to his divine.
Caput 16
Quomodo intelligitur quod Deus non
habitaverit per gratiam in hominibus
ante Christi incarnationem
CHAPTER 16
How God is to be understood as not
dwelling in men before the incarnation of
Christ.
Item dubium esse videtur quod dicit
Athanasius ad Serapionem: impossibile
erat secundum praedeterminationem
divinae rationis ut Ecclesia Deum
invisibilem formam et incorpoream
immediate nudam reciperet; sed
consubstantiavit se Deus eidem
Ecclesiae, formam eius in se assumens.
Ex quo videtur quod ante Christi
incarnationem Deus per gratiam in
hominibus non habitaret. Quod etiam
quidam haeretici dicere praesumpserunt
occasione illius quod dicitur Ioan. VII, 11:
nondum erat spiritus datus, quia nondum
erat Iesus glorificatus.
Doubt provoking also is a statement of
Athanasius to Serapion: According to the
forechoice of the divine counsel it was
impossible that the Church of the Lord
should directly receive an invisible form,
incorporeal and unclothed, but the Lord
made himself of one substance with the
Church by assuming her form to himself.
This would seem to imply that before the
incarnation of Christ God did not dwell in
man by grace. Certain heretics
presumptuously asserted this while
commenting on the Gospel of J ohn (7:39):
As yet the Spirit had not been given,
because J esus was not net glorified.
Utrumque autem eodem modo est
intelligendum. Nam sicut dicitur quod
spiritus sanctus non fuerit ante datus,
quia non in tanta plenitudine datus fuerat,
in quanta apostoli eum post Christi
resurrectionem acceperunt, ita etiam
Ecclesia in tanta plenitudine gratiae
Deum accipere non potuit secundum
ordinationem divinam, in quanta accepit
per Christi incarnationem, quia gratia et
veritas per Iesum Christum facta est, ut
habetur Ioan. I, 17. Unde in sermone
Both texts are to be interpreted in the same
way. For just as it is said that the Holy Spirit
was not given previously because he was
not yet given with the same fullness as when
he was received by the Apostles after the
resurrection of Christ, so the Church was not
able to receive the gift of grace with the
same fullness as, in accord with the divine
ordinance, she received it through the
incarnation of Christ, since grace and truth
as J ohn says (1:17) came through J esus
Christ. Therefore, in his discourse on the
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Nicaeni Concilii Athanasius dicit:
equidem ipsos consummari et perfici
impossibile est, nisi ego perfectum
suscipiam hominem. Quod eodem modo
intelligendum est sicut et quod supra
dictum est.
Council of Nicaea Athanasius says: It is
indeed impossible that they should be
consummated and perfected unless I
assume a perfect man. This is to be
understood in the sense above.
Ideo autem dicit secundum
praedeterminationem divinam, quia
possibile erat Deo alio modo quam per
Christi incarnationem, perfectionem
gratiae humano generi conferre,
loquendo de potentia absoluta; sed non
potuit humanum genus hanc
plenitudinem aliter consequi, supposita
Dei ordinatione.
There, however, the qualification in accord
with the divine forechoice was added,
because, although it was possible for God by
his absolute power to confer the perfection
of grace on the human race in a way other
than the incarnation of Christ, it was not
possible, given the divine ordinance, for the
human race to acquire this fullness of grace
in any other way.
Caput 17
Quomodo intelligitur, essentiam
divinam conceptam esse et natam
CHAPTER 17
How the divine essence is to be understood
as conceived and born.
Item videtur esse dubium quod
Athanasius dicit in epistola ad
Serapionem, essentiam divinam
increatam, conceptam esse et natam
ex divina virgine matre. Magister
enim in III Sentent., dist. VIII, dicit,
quod quae res non est de patre
genita, non videtur de matre esse
nata, ne res aliqua filiationis nomen
habeat in humanitate quae non habet
in divinitate. Et sic, cum divina
essentia non sit nata de patre, non
potest dici esse de matre.
Likewise doubtprovoking are these words of
Athanasius in his letter to Serapion: The
uncreated divine essence was conceived and
born of the Virgin Mary. Now, the Master
says in his third book of the Sentences, dist. VIII,
that what is not begotten of the Father is not
properly said to be born of the Mother, lest some
reality, of which the term filiation is not
predicated in the divine order, should enjoy such
predication in the human. Hence, since the
divine essence is not born of the Father, so
neither can it be said to be born of the Mother.
Sed dicendum, quod sicut improprie
essentia divina dicitur generans vel
genita secundum generationem
aeternam, inquantum essentia ponitur
pro persona, ut intelligatur essentia
generare, quia pater, qui est essentia
generat; secundum eundem modum
dicitur essentia divina nata de virgine,
quia filius Dei, qui est divina essentia,
est de virgine natus.
But it is to be noted that just as the divine
essence is said improperly to beget or to be
begotten via an eternal generation in so far as
the essence stands for person and so is
understood to beget, because the Father who is
the essence begets, so in the same way the
divine essence is said to be born of the Virgin,
because the Son of God, who is the divine
essence, was born of the Virgin.
Caput 18
Quomodo intelligitur cum dicitur
deitas homo facta
CHAPTER 18
How the assertion that the deity was made
is to be understood.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Item potest esse dubium quod
Athanasius dicit in eadem epistola:
deitas homo facta, per suum spiritum
sibi Ecclesiam conformavit. Dicit enim
Magister in quinta distinctione tertii libri
sententiarum, quod non debet dici quod
divina natura sit caro facta, sicut dicitur:
verbum caro factum est. Sic autem
dicitur verbum caro factum est quia
verbum homo factus est. Non ergo
debet dici quod divina essentia, sive
divinitas, facta sit homo.
Doubt also arises from another passage of
Athanasius in the same letter: The Godhead
made man has conformed the Church to
himself through his Spirit. Now, the Master
in the fifth distinction of the third book of the
Sentences states that the divine nature
should not be said to have become flesh, as is
said: The Word became flesh. For the
statement: The Word became flesh, is made,
because the Word was made man. Therefore
it should not be said that the divine essence or
divinity was made man.
Sed dicendum, quod non dicitur
divinitas esse facta homo quasi divina
natura sit conversa in humanam, sed
per illum modum quo dicitur quod
natura divina assumpsit naturam
humanam in una persona, scilicet verbi.
Sicut etiam Damascenus dicit, quod
natura divinitatis in una suarum
personarum incarnata est, idest carni
unita.
But it is to be observed that the divinity is not
said to have been made man because the
divine nature was changed into human nature,
but was made man in the sense that the
divine nature is said to have assumed a
human nature in the one person, namely, of
the Word. As also the Damascene says that:
the nature of the divinity in one of its persons
became incarnate, that is, united to flesh.
Sciendum tamen, quod alia ratione
dicitur quod verbum est homo, et quod
divinitas est homo. Cum enim dicitur,
verbum est homo, est praedicatio per
informationem; quia scilicet persona
verbi est subsistens in humana natura.
Cum vero dicitur, divinitas est homo,
non est praedicatio per informationem,
quia humana natura non informat
divinam, sed est praedicatio per
identitatem; sicut etiam cum dicitur,
essentia divina est pater, vel, essentia
divina est filius: homo enim supponit pro
persona filii, cum dicitur, divinitas est
homo. Et eadem ratio veritatis est cum
dicitur, divinitas facta est homo, quia
incepit esse persona filii incarnata, quod
importatur in nomine hominis, licet non
inceperit esse filii persona: semper enim
deitas fuit filius, sed non semper fuit
homo.
It should be recognized, however, that it is on
a different basis that the Word is said to be
man and the divinity is said to be man. For
when it is said: The Word is man, the
predication involved is that via information,
because the person of the Word subsists in a
human nature. But, when it is said: the divinity
is man, the predication is not via information,
because the human nature does not inform
the divine. Rather the predication is via
identity, as when it is said: the divine essence
is the Father, or: the divine essence is the
Son; for man stands for the person of the
Word when it is said: the divinity is man. And
the same is true when it is said: the divinity is
made man, because the person of the Son
has begun to be incarnate, a fact implied by
the term man, even though the person of the
Son did not begin to be. For the deity was
always Son, but not always man.
Caput 19
Quomodo intelligitur quod filius Dei
assumpsit humanam naturam in sua
essentia
CHAPTER 19
How the Son of God is to be understood to
have assumed a human nature in his
essence.
Item dubium videtur quod Athanasius Another doubt occurs when Athanasius says
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
dicit in III sermone Nicaeni Concilii de
filio Dei loquens: in sua usia, idest
essentia, nostram naturam a nobis
assumpsit. Cum enim assumptio ad
unionem terminetur: sicuti unio non est
facta in natura, sed in persona, ita non
videtur quod humana natura sit
assumpta in essentia filii.
of the Son of God in his third discourse on the
Council of Nicaea: In his ousia, that is,
essence, he assumed from us our human
nature. Since assumption terminates at
union, and the union was not effected in the
nature but in the person, it therefore seems
that the human nature was not assumed in the
essence of the Son.
Dicendum est ergo, quod locutio est
impropria, et est sic exponenda:
assumpsit naturam nostram in sua
usia, idest ut esset unita suae usiae in
una persona.
Rather, this manner of speaking must be
described as imprecise, and should be
interpreted thus: He assumed our nature in his
essence in such wise, namely, that it is united
in his essence in the unity of the person.
Caput 20
Quomodo intelligitur cum dicitur,
hominem esse assumptum
CHAPTER 20
How the assertion that a man was
assumed is to be understood.
Item videtur esse dubium quod
Athanasius dicit in eodem sermone,
hominem esse assumptum, sic inquiens,
ex persona filii loquens: pro pleno homine
assumpto, plenum et perfectum
hominibus donem spiritum sanctum
Deum; et in epistola ad Serapionem:
communio Ecclesiae est a patre per filium
in spiritu sancto per deificum et Deum
factum hominem ab eodem filio
assumptum.
Likewise perplexing in the same discourse
by Athanasius is the assertion that man is
assumed. Speaking in the person of the Son
he says: Having assumed man in full I have
given the Holy Spirit fully and perfectly to
men. And in his letter to Serapion he
states: The unity of the Church is from the
Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit
through the deifying and deified man,
assumed by the same Son.
Sciendum est autem, quod cum nihil
sumat seipsum, oportet semper esse
diversum assumens et assumptum, sicut
et recipiens et receptum. Si ergo homo
dicitur assumptus a filio Dei, oportet quod
id quod supponitur nomine hominis,
diversum sit ab eo quod supponitur in
nomine filii Dei. Nomine autem hominis
potest supponi vel aliqua persona
hominis completa, vel saltem aliquod
suppositum hominis, non habens
rationem personae. Si ergo dicatur quod
homo sit assumptus, secundum quod
homo supponit pro aliqua persona
humana, sic sequetur quod persona
divina assumpsit humanam personam, et
sic erunt duae personae in Christo: quod
est haeresis Nestorianae; et ideo
Augustinus dicit in Lib. de fide ad Petrum,
quod Deus verbum non accepit personam
hominis, sed naturam.
It should be noted, however, that since no
one assumes himself, the one assuming
must be distinct from what is assumed, the
recipient from what is received. If, therefore,
man is said to be assumed by the Son of
God, what is connoted by the term man must
be diverse from what is connoted in the term
Son of God. By the term man, however, can
be connoted either a complete human
person, or less: a human supposit not
enjoying human personhood. If, therefore,
the statement should be made that a man is
assumed, where man connotes a human
person, it will follow that a divine person has
assumed a human person, and thus there
will be two persons in Christ, which is the
Nestorian heresy. Augustine, therefore, says
in his book De fide ad Petrum that God the
Word did not take to himself the person of a
man, but the nature.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Quidam vero dixerunt, volentes hunc
errorem vitare, quod cum dicitur homo
assumptus a verbo, in nomine hominis
intelligitur quoddam suppositum humanae
naturae, quod est hic homo, non tamen
est persona hominis, quia non est per se
separatim existens, sed est unitum alicui
digniori, scilicet filio Dei. Et quia hoc
suppositum hominis, quod significatur
assumptum, cum dicitur homo
assumptus, est aliud a supposito filii Dei,
dicunt in Christo duo supposita, sed non
duas personas.
Some, wishing to avoid this error, have
said that when a man is said to be assumed
by the Word, by the term man is understood
a supposit of human nature, namely, this
man, but not a human person, because it
does not exist separately of itself, but is
united to someone of greater dignity,
namely, the Son of God. And because this
human supposit, which is designated as
assumed when the phrase: assumed man, is
used, is distinct from the supposit which is
the Son of God, they affirm that these are
two supposits in Christ, but not two persons.
Sed ad hanc positionem sequitur quod
haec propositio non sit vera: filius Dei est
homo. Impossibile est enim quod duorum
quorum unum est aliud secundum
suppositum ab altero, unum de altero
vere praedicetur. Et ideo communiter
tenetur, quod sit unum tantum
suppositum, quod supponitur nomine
hominis, et nomine filii Dei. Ex quo
sequitur quod haec sit falsa vel impropria:
homo est assumptus; sed est exponenda:
filius Dei assumpsit hominem, idest
humanam naturam.
But on this view, it follows that this
proposition: the Son of God is a an, would
not be true. For it is impossible that of two
things different from one another as two
supposits one could truly be predicated of
the other. And, therefore, it is commonly
held that there is but one supposit connoted
by the term man and the term Son of God.
From this it follows that the statement : man
is assumed, is false or imprecise. It should
be interpreted to mean: The Son of God
assumed man, that is, human nature.
Caput 21
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur,
quod Deus fecit hominem Deum
CHAPTER 21
How the assertion God made man God is
to be understood.
Item dubium est de hoc quod
Athanasius dicit in eadem epistola: filius
Dei, ut hominem ad se reduceret,
hominem in sua hypostasi assumens
deificando Deum fecit; et in III sermone
Nicaeni Concilii: ipsos consummari
impossibile est, nisi ego perfectum
suscipiam hominem, et deificem, et
mecum Deum faciam. Ex quibus datur
intelligi quod haec sit vera: homo factus
est Deus.
Another doubt arises from what Athanasius
says in the same letter: The Son of God,
assuming man in his own hypostasis in order
that he might lead man back to himself, made
him God, deifying him. And in his third
discourse on the Council of Nicaea: It is
impossible for them to be consummated
unless I assume a perfect man and deify him
and make him God with me. By this it is
implied that the proposition: man has become
God, is true.
Sed sciendum, quod secundum illam
opinionem quae in Christo dicit duo
supposita, aequaliter utraque est vera:
Deus factus est homo, et: homo factus
est Deus. Est enim sensus secundum
eos, cum dicitur, Deus factus est homo:
suppositum divinae naturae unitum est
It is to be noted that the propositions: God
was made man, and man was made God, are
equally true according to the opinion which
claims there are two supposits in Christ, for
when it is said: God was made man, from that
point of view, is that a supposit of divine
nature was united to the supposit of human
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
supposito humanae naturae; et e
converso cum dicitur, homo factus est
Deus, sensus est: suppositum humanae
naturae est unitum filio Dei.
nature: and conversely, when it is said that
man was made God, the sense is that a
supposit of human nature was united to the
Son of God.
Sed tenendo quod in Christo sit unum
tantum suppositum, haec est vera et
propria: Deus factus est homo, quia ille
qui fuit Deus ab aeterno, incepit esse
homo ex tempore. Haec autem non est
vera proprie loquendo: homo factus est
Deus; quia suppositum aeternum quod
supponitur nomine hominis, semper fuit
Deus; unde exponenda est sic: homo
factus est Deus, idest, factum est ut
homo sit Deus.
But if it is maintained that in Christ there is but
one supposit, then the statement : God was
made man, is true in the proper sense,
because he who was God from eternity began
to be man in time. Properly speaking,
however, this proposition is not true: man was
made God, because the eternal supposit
connoted by the term man was always God.
Hence, the passages of Athanasius are to be
explained thus: man was made God, that is, it
came to be that man is God.
Caput 22
Quomodo intelligitur amotam esse a
Christo imaginem primi parentis
CHAPTER 22
How the likeness of the first parent is to
be understood as erased in Christ.
Item dubium est quod dicit Athanasius in
praedicta epistola, ex persona Christi
loquens: post resurrectionem amota a me
omni imagine primi parentis, et abolita
per trophaeum crucis, ego iam immortalis
vos patri meo in filios adopto.
Dubious also is what Athanasius in the
aforesaid letter says speaking in the person
of Christ after the resurrection: Having
erased in myself the likeness of the first
parent, destroying it in the victory of the
cross, I being now immortal make you the
adopted sons of the Father.
Sciendum est enim, quod imaginem primi
parentis tripliciter aliquis potest habere.
Primo quidem quantum ad similitudinem
naturae, sicut dicitur Genes. V, 2: vixit
Adam centum triginta annis, et genuit
filium ad imaginem et similitudinem suam.
Secundo, quantum ad culpam, de quo
dicitur I Corinth. XV, 49: sicut portavimus
imaginem terreni, ita portemus imaginem
caelestis. Tertio, secundum poenalitatem,
sicut habetur Zach. XIII, 5: homo agricola
ego sum, quoniam Adam exemplum
meum ab adolescentia mea. Primam ergo
Adae imaginem Christus assumpsit cum
nostra natura, et nunquam deposuit;
secundam vero nunquam habuit; tertiam
assumpsit quidem, sed in resurrectione
deposuit: et de hac loquitur Athanasius.
Now, it is to be observed that a person may
possess a likeness to the first parent in three
ways. First, in terms of likeness in nature, as
in Genesis (5: 3): When Adam had lived a
hundred and thirty years, he became the
father of a son in his own likeness. Second,
in terms of sin, as in 1 Cor. 15: J ust as we
have borne the image of the man of dust, we
shall bear also the image of the man in
heaven. Third, in terms of punishment, as in
Zechariah (13:5): I am a tiller of the soil, for
Adam has been my model from my youth.
Christ assumed the first likeness to Adam in
assuming our nature and he has never laid it
aside; the second likeness he never had;
and the third he did assume, but laid it aside
at the resurrection, and it is of this third
likeness that Athanasius speaks.
Caput 23
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur,
CHAPTER 23
How the assertion: the creature cannot
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
quod creatura non potest cooperari
creatori
cooperate with the Creator, is to be
understood.
Item dubium esse videtur de hoc quod
Athanasius in sermone Nicaeni Concilii
dicit: aut quomodo creatura creatori
cooperatur, intiment nobis. Ex quo datur
intelligi quod creatura creatori cooperari
non possit: quod videtur esse falsum,
cum sancti dicantur esse Dei adiutores
et cooperatores, secundum apostolum.
Perplexing also is what Athanasius says in
his discourse on the Council of Nicaea: Or
let them tell us how the creature cooperates
with the Creator. Thereby it is implied that
the creature cannot cooperate with the
Creator. This seems false, since the saints
are said by the Apostle to be Gods helpers
and fellow-workers. (1 Cor. 3:9)
Sed sciendum, quod aliquid dicitur
cooperari alicui dupliciter. Uno modo,
quia operatur ad eundem effectum, sed
per aliam virtutem; sicut minister
cooperatur domino, dum eius praeceptis
obedit, et instrumentum artifici, a quo
movetur. Alio modo dicitur aliquid
cooperari alicui, inquantum operatur
eandem operationem cum ipso: sicut si
diceretur de duobus portantibus aliquod
pondus, vel de pluribus trahentibus
navem, quod unus alteri cooperetur.
It must be borne in mind, however, that
something is said to cooperate with another
in two ways. First, because it works toward
the same effect, but by a different power, as a
servant cooperates with his lord, or an
instrument with the artisan by whom it is
moved. Second, something is said to
cooperate with another in so far as it effects
conjointly with another the same operation,
as when two men carry a single burden or
drag a boat.
Secundum ergo primum modum
creatura potest dici creatori cooperari
quantum ad aliquos effectus, qui fiunt
mediante creatura: non tamen quantum
ad illos effectus qui sunt immediate a
Deo, ut creatio et sanctificatio. Secundo
autem modo creatura creatori non
cooperatur, sed solum tres personae sibi
invicem cooperantur, quia earum est
operatio una; non autem ita quod
quaelibet earum partem virtutis
possideat, per quam operatio completur,
sicut accidit in multis trahentibus navem:
sic enim cuiuslibet virtus esset
imperfecta; sed ita quod tota virtus ad
operationem sufficiens est in qualibet
trium personarum.
A creature, therefore, can cooperate in the
first way with the Creator in respect to effects
which come to pass through the creature, but
not in respect to those effects which are
immediately from God such as creation and
sanctification. A creature, however, does not
cooperate in the second way with the
Creator; only the three persons of the Trinity
cooperate in this way, since theirs is a single
operation: not, however, as if each possessed
a part of the power by which the operation is
performed as is the case with many men
dragging a boat, for thus the power of each
would be imperfect; but in the sense that the
entire power sufficient for the effect is in each
of the three Persons.
Caput 24
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur,
creaturam creatori non esse
propriam
CHAPTER 24
How the assertion that the creature does not
belong to the Creator, is to be understood.
Item dubium videtur esse quod
Basilius contra Arrium dicit, quod
creatura increato non est propria:
Dubious, too, is what Basil says in his book
against Arius: The creature does not belong to
the Creator. This contradicts what is said in
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
quod est contra id quod dicitur
Ioannis I, 11: in propria venit.
J ohn (1:11) : He came unto his own.
Sed hoc solvit Gregorius in quadam
homilia dicens, quod creatura est
propria Dei secundum potestatem,
aliena vero secundum naturam, idest
alterius naturae a Deo existens.
But Gregory resolves this doubt in one of his
homilies when he says that the creature
belongs to the Creator in relation to his power,
but is foreign to him in relation to his nature, that
is, exists of a nature different from Gods.
Caput 25
Quomodo intelligitur quod in Angelis,
quantum ad naturam, non dicimus
esse secundum et tertium
CHAPTER 25
How our assertion that the angels by
nature are not ranked second and third is
to be understood.
Item dubium est quod Basilius dicit
contra Eunomium: in Angelis ordinatum
dicimus unum principem, alium autem
subiectum in natura, tamen non dicimus
secundum et tertium. Ex quo videtur
quod omnes in natura sunt aequales a
Deo creati, ut posuit Origenes. Apud
nos autem dicitur, quod sicut differunt in
donis gratiarum, ita et in naturalibus
bonis.
Another doubt stems from what Basil says in
his book against Eunomius: We say that
among the angels there is rank, one being
prince and another subject, but we do not
rank them as second or third by nature.
This seems to imply that all the angels were
created equal by God, as Origen held. We
say, however, that as they differ in gifts of
grace, so they differ in natural endowments.
Sed dicendum, quod dicit Basilius, in
Angelis non esse quantum ad naturam
secundum et tertium, non est
intelligendum quod unus non sit
perfectioris naturae quam alius, sed
quia omnes communicant in una
generis natura, licet non in natura
speciei.
Basils assertion about the angels not being
ranked second and third by nature, is not,
therefore, to be interpreted as meaning that
one is not naturally more perfect than another,
but that all share one nature generically,
although not specifically.
Caput 26
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur,
quod docente Paulo etiam
Seraphim addiscunt
CHAPTER 26
How the assertion that even the Seraphim
learn from Paul as a teacher is to be
understood.
Item dubium est quod dicit Cyrillus in
libro thesaurorum, quod docente
Paulo non solum humana ratio
addiscit, verum etiam et Seraphim
supernis mysteria cordis paterni
occulta reserantur. Ex quo videtur
quod ad Angelos etiam summos
cognitio deveniat per homines. Et
videtur hoc esse dictum propter id
quod habetur Ephes. III, 8: mihi
omnium sanctorum minimo data est
Perplexing also is what Cyril says in his
Thesaurus that from Paul as teacher not only is
human reason instructed but the hidden
mysteries of the Fathers heart are disclosed to
the Seraphim alone. This seems to mean
that even to the highest angels knowledge
comes from men. And the basis for this appears
to be Ephesians (3:8): To me, the least of all the
saints is granted this grace, to proclaim to the
pagans the unfathomable riches of Christ, so that
through the Church the manifold wisdom of God
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
gratia haec, in gentibus evangelizare
investigabiles divitias gratiae Christi
ut innotescat principibus et
potestatibus in caelestibus per
Ecclesiam multiformis sapientia Dei.
may be known to the principalities and powers in
the heavenly places.
Sed contrarium huius docet
Dionysius in IV cap. angelicae
hierarchiae, ostendens quod cognitio
divinorum prius ad Angelos quam ad
homines pervenit; et in VII eiusdem
libri capitulo dicit, quod Seraphim
immediate a Deo edocentur. Et
Augustinus dicit super Genesim ad
litteram, quod non latuit Angelos
mysterium regni caelorum, quod
opportuno tempore revelatum est pro
nostra salute.
But Denis teaches the contrary in chapter four of
the Angelic Hierarchy, where he shows that
the knowledge of things divine is received by the
angels before men; and in chapter seven of the
same book he says that the Seraphim are taught
immediately by God. And Augustine says in
his literal commentary on Genesis that the
mystery of the Kingdom of heaven was not
hidden from the angels, the mystery revealed in
due season for our salvation.
Et ideo dicendum est quod cum
Angelorum non sit futura
praenoscere, sed Dei solius, licet
Angeli ipsum mysterium nostrae
redemptionis a saeculis cognoverint,
ut Augustinus dicit, tamen aliquas
huius redemptionis circumstantias
nesciverunt plene quandiu erant
futura, sed eis completis, eorum
notitiam acceperunt, sicut et aliorum
quae praesentialiter fiunt. Non ergo
sic intelligendum est quod docente
Paulo mysteria divina supernis
Seraphim sint revelata, quasi ipsi a
Paulo didicerint, sed quia Paulo
praedicante, et aliis apostolis,
perficiebantur ea quae praesentialiter
Angeli cognoscebant, et futura
ignoraverant. Et hoc sonant verba
Hieronymi dicentis, angelicas
dignitates praefatum mysterium ad
purum non intellexisse, donec
completa est passio Christi, et
apostolorum praedicatio per gentes
dilatata.
And so it is to be noted that since future
events are foreknown only to God and not to
angels, although as Augustine says the angels
knew the mystery of our redemption from the
beginning, they did not therefore know at all
some circumstances of this redemption so long
as such were still in the future. But once these
were accomplished, they came to know them as
they do other things actually occurring. Hence,
the divine mysteries are not to be understood as
being revealed to the highest Seraphim by Paul
in the act of teaching, as if they had learned from
Paul, but rather on the preaching of Paul and the
other apostles there were accomplished those
things which the angels came to know because
present reality, but which had remained unknown
to them so long as they were still in the future.
And this is what the words of J erome mean
when he says that the angels had no full
understanding of the mystery until the passion of
Christ was accomplished and the preaching of
the Apostles extended to the Gentiles.
Caput 27
Quomodo intelligitur cum dicitur,
quod spiramen quod spiravit Deus
in faciem hominis, non est anima
rationalis, sed spiritus sancti effusio
CHAPTER 27
How the assertion that the breath of life
which God breathed into the face of man is
not the rational soul, but the outpouring of
the Holy Spirit is to be understood.
Item dubium est quod Cyrillus dicit, Another doubt arises from Cyrils statement
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
quod cum dicitur Genes. I, quod spiravit
Deus in faciem hominis spiraculum
vitae, ut fieret homo in animam
viventem: ipsum spiramen non dicimus
animam: si enim esset anima
inconvertibilis esset et non peccaret,
quia de essentia esset divina: sed
sancti spiritus effusionem in ipso
principio superpositam humanae
animae dixit Moyses;
that when in Genesis 1 God is said to have
breathed the breath of life into the face of man
in order that man might become a living being,
we do not call this breath of life the soul. For
were it the soul, the soul would be
unchangeable and would not sin because it
would be of the divine essence; rather Moses
said the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was
superimposed on the human soul.
quod est contra expositionem
Augustini, qui animam humanam per
illud spiramen ponit, et ostendit quod
non propter hoc sequitur quod sit de
substantia divina. Est enim tropica
locutio, ut dicatur inspirasse non
corporaliter, sed quia spiritum, idest
animam, fecit ex nihilo. Et quod est
amplius, videtur esse repugnans dictis
apostoli, qui I ad Cor. XV, 45, dicit:
factus est primus homo Adam in
animam viventem; novissimus Adam in
spiritum vivificantem; sed non prius
quod spirituale est, sed quod animale.
Ubi expresse illam vitam animae dicit
esse aliam a vita quae est per spiritum
sanctum: unde illa inspiratio per quam
dicitur homo factus in animam
viventem, non potest de gratia spiritus
sancti intelligi.
This is contrary to the explanation of
Augustine who claims that by that breath is
meant the human soul, and who shows how
from this it does not follow that it is of the
divine substance: for it is a figurative way of
speaking, meaning not that the Holy Spirit
breathed as a body, but only that he made the
spirit, that is the soul, out of nothing. And what
is more, it appears to contradict statements of
the Apostle who says in 1 Cor. 15 (45): The
first Adam became a living being; the last
Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not
the spiritual which is first but the physical, and
then the spiritual. Here the life of the soul is
expressly declared to be different from the life
which is through the Holy Spirit. Hence that
inbreathing by which man became a living
being cannot be understood as the grace of
the Holy Spirit.
Unde dicendum est, quod expositio
Cyrilli non potest esse litteralis, sed
solum allegorica.
Hence, Cyrils explanation cannot be
described as literal, but only allegorical.
Caput 28
Quomodo intelligitur quod qui semel
blasphemat, impossibile est non
blasphemare
CHAPTER 28
How the impossibility of not blaspheming
for one who has once blasphemed is to
be understood.
Item dubium esse potest de hoc quod
Athanasius in epistola ad Serapionem
dicit, quod Arianos qui non semel tantum,
sed pluries blasphemarunt, impossibile
est non blasphemare: quod videtur esse
libertati arbitrii repugnans.
Still another doubt arises from the statement
of Athanasius in the letter to Serapion that it
was impossible for Arians who had not only
once but often blasphemed not to
blaspheme. This appears to contradict
the freedom of the will.
Sed dicendum, quod impossibile hic pro
difficili sumitur, quae difficultas ex
consuetudine provenit; sicut et Ier. XIII,
But here impossible must be taken as the
equivalent of difficult, the difficulty stemming
from habit as J eremiah (13:23) says: Can the
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
23, dicitur: si mutare potest Aethiops
pellem suam, et vos poteritis benefacere,
cum didiceritis malum.
Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his
spots? Then also you can do good who are
accustomed to do evil.
Caput 29
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur, quod
fides non sit praedicabilis
CHAPTER 29
How the assertion that faith cannot be
preached is to be understood.
Item dubium est quod Chrysostomus dicit
in sermone de fide, quod fides est non
praedicabilis.
Dubious also is what Chrysostom says in
his sermon on faith that faith cannot be
preached.
Sed intelligendum est, idest per
praedicationem non perfecte explicabilis.
But this is to be interpreted thus: it cannot
be fully explained through preaching.
Caput 30
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur,
quod fides non sit nobis ministrata
per Angelos
CHAPTER 30
How the assertion that faith is not
ministered to us by angels is to be
understood.
Item dubium est de hoc quod
Athanasius dicit quod fides nobis
administrata est non ab Angelis, neque
a signis et portentis; cum dicatur Hebr.
II, 4, quod fides annuntiata est
contestante Deo signis et portentis.
A further difficulty centers on Athanasius
assertion that faith is given us neither by
angels nor by signs and wonders, whereas
in Hebrews 2:4 it is said that faith was
proclaimed, God bearing witness by signs and
wonders.
Sed intelligendum est, quod fides nostra
non habet auctoritatem neque ab
Angelis, neque ab aliquibus miraculis
factis, sed a revelatione patris per filium
et spiritum sanctum; licet et Angeli ea
quae sunt fidei nostrae revelaverint
aliquibus, ut Zachariae, et Mariae, et
Ioseph; et etiam ad fidei robur miracula
plurima facta sint.
But our faith is to be understood as deriving
its authority not from angels nor from any
miracles worked, but from the revelation of the
Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit;
although angels also revealed some matters
pertaining to our faith to certain persons, such
as Zachary and Mary and J oseph, and
many miracles were also worked to
strengthen the faith.
Caput 31
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur
littera mortalis etiam novi testamenti
CHAPTER 31
How the assertion that even the New
Testament is a death-dealing letter is to be
understood.
Item dubium est quod Athanasius dicit
in epistola ad Serapionem: littera
mortalis haec est: ab initio et ante
saecula, etc.; et subiungit multa
testimonia de veteri et novo testamento.
Littera autem legis novae non videtur
A further difficulty arises from a text of
Athanasius in the letter to Serapion: This is a
deathdealing letter: From the beginning and
before all ages I was created, etc. (Eccl. 24:
14), and he adds many illustrations from the
Old and New Testaments. The letter, however,
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
esse littera mortis, sic enim non differret
a littera veteris legis, de qua dicitur II
Cor. III, 6, quod littera occidit.
of the New Testament does not seem to be
deathdealing; for thus it would not differ from
the letter of the Old Testament, about which 2
Cor. 3:6 says that the letter kills.
Sed dicendum, quod neque littera novi
testamenti neque veteris occidit nisi per
occasionem. Sed occasionem mortis ex
littera accipiunt aliqui dupliciter. Uno
modo inquantum ex littera sacra
accipiunt occasionem erroris; et hoc est
commune tam litterae veteris
testamenti, quam novi: unde et Petrus
dicit, II canonicae, ult. 16, quod in
epistolis Pauli sunt quaedam difficilia
intellectu, quae indocti et instabiles
depravant, sicut et ceteras Scripturas,
ad suam damnationem.
But a correct formulation should say that
neither the letter of the New Testament nor
that of the Old kills, except occasionally.
Occasion of death some take in a twofold
sense. In one sense, in so far as the sacred
text is an occasion of error, something
common both to the letter of the Old as well as
the New Testament; hence St. Peter says in
his second letter (3:16) that in the letters of St.
Paul there are some things hard to
understand, which the ignorant an unstable
twist to their own destruction, as they do not
understand the scriptures.
Alio modo inquantum ex praeceptis in
littera sacrae Scripturae contentis
sumitur occasio male vivendi, dum per
prohibitionem concupiscentia augetur,
et gratia adiuvans non confertur; et sic
littera veteris testamenti dicitur mortalis,
non autem littera novi.
In another way, in so far as the precepts
contained in Holy Scripture become the
occasion for evil living, concupiscence being
intensified by its prohibition when helping
grace is not given; and in this way the letter of
the Old Testament is said to be deathdealing,
but not the letter of the New.
Caput 32
Quomodo intelligitur quod sola
definitio Nicaeni Concilii est unica
et vera possessio fidelium
CHAPTER 32
How the sole definition of the Nicene
Council is to be understood as the unique
and true possession of the faithful.
Item dubium est de hoc quod dicit
Athanasius in eadem epistola quod
sola paterna definitio Nicaeni Concilii,
emuncta a spiritu et non littera, est
unica et vera possessio orthodoxorum.
Posset enim aliquis intelligere, quod
definitio dicti Concilii, auctoritate
praeferatur litterae veteris, vel novi
testamenti, quod est omnino falsum.
Doubt also arises from the same letter where
Athanasius says that only the definition of the
Fathers of the Council of Nicaea, discerned in
the spirit and not in the letter, is the unique and
true possession of the orthodox. Someone
might interpret this as implying that the
definition of the said Council enjoys greater
authority than the letter of the Old Testament,
which is absolutely false.
Intelligendum est autem quod per
dictum Concilium verus intellectus ex
sacra Scriptura est acceptus quem soli
Catholici habent, licet littera sacrae
Scripturae sit communis Catholicis et
haereticis et Iudaeis.
The text, however, must be read in the sense
that through the said Council the true meaning
of Sacred Scripture is perceived, a meaning
which only Catholics possess, although the
letter of Sacred Scripture is common to
Catholics and heretics and J ews.
PART TWO
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Pars 2
Prooemium PROLOGUE
His igitur expositis, ostendendum est
quomodo ex auctoritatibus in praedicto
libello contentis vera fides docetur, et
contra errores defenditur.
Considerandum siquidem est, quod in
hoc apparuit filius Dei, ut dissolvat
opera Diaboli, ut dicitur I Ioan. III, 8,
unde et Diabolus versa vice ad hoc
totum suum conatum apposuit et
apponit, ut ea quae sunt Christi,
dissolvat. Quod quidem primo per
tyrannos facere tentavit, Christi
martyres corporaliter occidentes; sed
postmodum per haereticos, per quos
spiritualiter plurimos interfecit. Unde si
quis diligenter inspiciat haereticorum
errores, ad hoc principaliter videntur
tendere, ut Christi derogent dignitati.
After these explanations, then, we proceed
now to show how on the basis of the
authorities contained in the aforementioned
book the true faith is taught and defended
against error. It is to be kept in mind that the
Son of God appeared precisely in order to
destroy the works of the devil, as stated in 1
J ohn 3:8). Hence, he has exerted and
continues to exert his every energy in the
opposite direction to destroy the work of
Christ. He attempted to do this initially via
tyrants who inflicted bodily death on the
ministers of Christ: subsequently, however,
via heretics through whom he worked the
spiritual death of many. Hence, on careful
examination the errors of heretics appear
tending mainly to diminish the dignity of
Christ.
Derogavit namque dignitati Christi
Arrius, dum filium Dei coessentialem
patri esse negavit, eum asserens
creaturam. Derogavit et Macedonius,
qui dum spiritum sanctum creaturam
esse dixit, filio subtraxit auctoritatem
spirandi divinam personam. Derogavit
et Manichaeus: qui dum visibilia a malo
Deo creata asseruit, per filium omnia
esse creata negavit. Dissolvit et quae
sunt Christi, Nestorius, qui dum aliam
personam esse filii hominis, et aliam filii
Dei docuit, Christum esse aliquid unum
negavit. Dissolvit et Eutyches, qui dum
ex duabus naturis, divina scilicet et
humana, in Christi incarnatione unam
conficere voluit, utramque subtraxit:
quod enim ex duobus conficitur,
neutrum eorum veraciter dici potest.
Dissolvit et Pelagius, qui dum gratia nos
non indigere ad capessendam salutem
confixit, adventum filii Dei in carnem
frustravit: gratia enim et veritas per
Iesum Christum facta est: Ioan. I, 17.
Derogavit et Christo Iovinianus, qui dum
virgines in coniugio viventibus aequavit,
dignitati Christi detraxit, qua eum natum
de virgine confitemur. Derogavit et
Vigilantius, qui dum paupertatem pro
Indeed, Arius diminished the dignity of Christ
by destroying that He was the Son of God
consubstantial with the Father and by
asserting Him to be a creature. Macedonius,
by asserting that the Holy Spirit is a creature,
took from the Son the honor of spirating a
divine person. Mani diminished the dignity of
Christ when he claimed that visible things
were created by an evil God, thereby denying
that all things were created through the Son.
So, too, Nestorius destroyed what belonged to
Christ, for in making one Person in Christ the
son of man and another the Son of God he
denied the unity of Christ. So, too, Eutyches,
who by asserting that in the incarnation of
Christ one nature was formed out of two,
namely, the divine and the human, in fact
deprived Him of both natures; for what is a
composite of two things cannot truly be said to
be either. Pelagius also dissolved Christ, for
by saying that we do not need grace to attain
salvation, he rendered Christs coming
pointless; for, as stated in J ohn 1:17: Grace
and truth come through J esus Christ. J ovinian
lessened the dignity of Christ when he said
that married persons were the equal of virgins,
since we profess that Christ was born of a
Virgin. Vigilantius lessened the dignity of
Christ, when in attacking poverty embraced
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Christo susceptam impugnavit,
perfectioni, quam Christus servavit et
docuit, contradixit; unde non immerito
dicitur I Ioan. IV, 3: omnis spiritus qui
solvit Iesum, ex Deo non est, et hic est
Antichristus.
for the love of Christ he spoke against the
perfection which Christ observed and taught.
Therefore, it is justly remarked in 1 J ohn 4:3 :
Every spirit that dissolves J esus is not of God,
but is the Antichrist.
Sic ergo et in hoc tempore aliqui esse
dicuntur qui solvere Christum tentant,
eius dignitatem quantum in ipsis est
minuentes. Dum enim dicunt spiritum
sanctum a filio non procedere, eius
dignitatem minuunt, qua simul cum
patre est spiritus sancti spirator. Dum
vero unum caput Ecclesiae esse
negant, sanctam scilicet Romanam
Ecclesiam, manifeste unitatem corporis
mystici dissolvunt: non enim potest esse
unum corpus, si non fuerit unum caput,
neque una congregatio, si non fuerit
unus rector; unde Ioan. X, 16, dicitur:
fiet unum ovile et unus pastor.
So, also, at the present time some are
described as dissolving Christ by diminishing
His dignity so far as this lies in their power. In
saying that the Holy Spirit does not proceed
from the Son, they lessen His dignity, since
He together with the Father is the Spirator of
the Holy Spirit. In denying, moreover, that
there is one head of the Church, namely, the
holy Roman Church, they clearly dissolve the
unity of the Mystical Body; for there cannot be
one body if there is not one head, nor one
congregation if there is not one ruler. Hence,
J ohn 10:16 says: There will be one fold and
one shepherd.
Dum vero sacramentum altaris ex
azymis posse confici negant, manifeste
ipsi Christo repugnant, qui prima die
azymorum, quando nihil fermentatum
secundum legem debebat in Iudaeorum
domibus inveniri, Evangelistae tradunt
eum hoc sacramentum instituisse.
Videntur etiam et puritati ipsius
sacramentalis corporis Christi derogare,
ad quam apostolus fideles exhortatur,
dicens, I ad Corinth. V, 8, quod non est
epulandum in fermento malitiae et
nequitiae, sed in azymis sinceritatis et
veritatis. Huius etiam sacramenti
virtutem minuunt dum Purgatorium
negant, quod in Ecclesia communiter
pro vivis et mortuis consecratur; cum,
Purgatorio sublato, in mortuis nullam
efficaciam possit habere. Non enim
prodest his qui sunt in Inferno, ubi nulla
est redemptio; neque illis qui sunt in
gloria, qui suffragiis nostris non egent.
In denying that the sacrament of the altar can
be consecrated of unleavened bread, they are
manifestly in opposition to Christ, who, as the
evangelists relate, instituted this sacrament on
the first day of the unleavened read, when it
was against the law for there to be leavened
bread in the houses of the J ews. Their view
also seems to diminish the purity of the
sacramental body of Christ, to which the
Apostle exhorts the faithful in 1 Cor. 5:8,
saying: Let us, therefore, celebrated the
festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of
malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread
of sincerity and truth. In denying purgatory
they also lessen the power of this sacrament
which is offered in the Church both for the
living and for the dead; for if purgatory does
not exist, it avails the dead nothing; it cannot
profit them if they are in hell, where there is no
redemption; nor can it do them any good if
they are in heaven, where they are in no need
of our prayers.
Quomodo igitur ex praemissis
auctoritatibus errores huiusmodi
confutentur, breviter ostendam,
incipiens prius a processione spiritus
sancti.
How these errors may be refuted using the
authorities already cited, I will briefly
demonstrate, dealing first with the procession
of the Holy Spirit.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Caput 1
Quod spiritus sanctus est spiritus
filii
CHAPTER 1
That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son.
Ad ostendendum autem quod spiritus
sanctus a patre procedat et filio, primo
sumendum est quod etiam ab ipsis
errantibus negari non potest, cum
expresse auctoritate Scripturae
probetur: quod scilicet spiritus sanctus
sit spiritus filii.
The starting point of any demonstration that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the
Son must be what those in error also cannot
deny, namely, that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit
of the Son, since this is expressly proved on
the authority of Holy Scripture.
Dicitur enim ad Galat. IV, 6: quoniam
estis filii Dei, misit Deus spiritum filii sui
in corda vestra clamantem, abba,
pater; et Rom. IIII, 9: si quis spiritum
Christi non habet, hic non est eius; et
actuum XVI, 1: cum venissent Misiam,
tentabant ire in Bithyniam; et non
permisit eos spiritus Iesu. Dicitur etiam
I Corinth. II, 16: nos autem sensum
Christi habemus; quod de spiritu
sancto necesse est intelligi, ut patet
per ea quae ab apostolo praemittuntur.
Galatians, 4:6: Because you are sons, God has
sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,
crying Abba, Father. And Romans 4 (rather
8:9): Anyone who does not have the Spirit of
Christ does not belong to him. Acts 16: 7:
When they had come opposite Mysia, they
attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of
J esus did not allow them. And 1 Cor. 2:16: We
have the mind of Christ. And from what the
Apostle says previously it is clear that this must
be understood of the Holy Spirit.
Nominatur etiam spiritus sanctus,
spiritus veritatis, Ioan. XV, 26, ubi
dicitur: cum venerit Paraclitus, quem
mittam vobis a patre, spiritum veritatis
et spiritus vitae, Rom. VIII, 2: lex
spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu; unde cum
filius de se dicat, Ioan. XIV, 6: ego sum
via, veritas et vita, concludunt doctores
Graecorum, quod sit spiritus Christi;
quod similiter adstruunt ex hoc quod
habetur in Psal. XXXII, 6: verbo domini
caeli firmati sunt, et spiritu oris eius
omnis virtus eorum. Nam os patris
filius dicitur, sicut et verbum.
The Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of truth,
as in J ohn 15:26: When the Paraclete comes,
whom I shall send you from the Father, the
Spirit of truth. He is also called the Spirit of life,
as in Romans 8:2: The law of the spirit of life in
Christ J esus. Hence, when the Son says of
himself: I am the Way, the Truth and the Life
(J ohn 14: 6), the Greek doctors conclude
that this is the Spirit of Christ. They argue
similarly from the words of the Psalm (32:6): By
the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
and all their host by the breath of his mouth.
For the Son is also called mouth of the Father
as well as Word.
Sed ne aliquis posset dicere, quod
alius sit spiritus qui a patre procedit, et
alius qui est filii, ostenditur ex
Scriptura, quod idem spiritus sanctus
sit patris et filii. Nam Ioan. XV, 11,
simul dicitur: spiritus veritatis et qui a
patre procedit; et Rom. VIII, 9,
postquam dixerat: si spiritus Dei
habitat in vobis, statim subiungit: si
quis spiritum Christi non habet, ut
ostendat eundem esse spiritum patris
et filii. Unde Basilius dicit contra
Eunomium, postquam praedicta verba
But lest anyone claim that the Spirit who
proceeds from the Father is other than the
Spirit of the Son, the Scriptures show that the
same Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the
Son. For in J ohn 15:11 he is simultaneously
called Spirit of truth and Spirit who proceeds
from the Father. And Romans 8:9 after stating :
If the Spirit of God who dwells in you,
immediately adds: If anyone has not the Spirit
of Christ, to indicate that the Spirit of Father
and Son is one and the same. Hence Basil,
after citing these words of the Apostle, refutes
Eunomius thus: Behold he, namely, the
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
apostoli induxerat: ecce in patre et filio,
et patris et filii, unum spiritum vidit,
scilicet apostolus; et Theodoretus dicit
super Epist. ad Rom., exponens idem
verbum apostoli: communis est patris
et filii spiritus sanctus.
Apostle, saw in Father and Son the one Spirit
both of Father and of Son. And Theodoret,
explaining the same passage in his
commentary on the letter to the Romans, says:
The Holy Spirit is common to Father and Son.
Quaerendum est ergo, quomodo
spiritus sanctus sit spiritus filii, vel
spiritus Christi. Potest autem aliquis
dicere, quod est spiritus Christi quasi
in homine Christo plenarie inhabitans,
secundum illud Luc. IV, 1: Iesus plenus
spiritu sancto regressus est a Iordane;
de cuius plenitudine nos omnes
accepimus, ut dicitur Ioan. I, 16. Haec
autem responsio sustineri non potest,
ut scilicet hac tantum ratione spiritus
sanctus spiritus Christi dicatur.
The question, then, to be pondered is how the
Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son or the Spirit
of Christ. One might say that he is the Spirit of
Christ in so far as he dwelt fully in the man
Christ, ad in Luke 4:1 : J esus full of the Holy
Spirit returned from J ordan, or in J ohn 1:16: Of
whose fullness we have all received. This
solution, however, cannot be defended when
taken as the only reason why the Spirit is
called the Spirit of Christ.
Invenitur enim a doctoribus
Graecorum, quod spiritus sanctus sit
naturalis spiritus filii. Dicit enim
Athanasius in sermone III Nicaeni
Concilii: sicut in Christo vivit nostra
natura deifice, et ipse in ea regnat; ita
et nos in suo naturali spiritu simus,
vivamus et regnemus. Idem in epistola
ad Serapionem: accepistis spiritum
adoptionis, idest naturalem spiritum de
natura naturalis filii. Et Cyrillus dicit
super Ioan.: existit siquidem filius in
proprio genitore, habens in se ipsum
gignentem se. Et sic patris spiritus,
veraciter et naturaliter filii videtur et est
spiritus. Spiritus autem non est
naturalis Christo secundum
humanitatem, quia non pertinet ad
naturam humanitatis, sed gratis a Deo
in natura humanitatis effunditur. Non
igitur potest propter hoc dici spiritus
filii, quia Christum excellenter replevit
secundum humanitatem.
For it is shown by the Greek doctors that the
Holy Spirit is the natural Spirit of the Son.
Athanasius says in his third discourse on the
Council of Nicaea: As our nature lives divinely
in Christ and He reigns in it, so in his natural
Spirit we are and live and reign. The same
Doctor adds in his letter to Serapion: You have
received the Spirit of adoption, that is, the
natural Spirit from the nature of the natural
Son. And Cyril comments on J ohn: The
Son indeed exists in his own Begettor, having
for himself the one begetting him; and so the
Spirit of the Father truly and naturally appears
to be and is the Spirit also of the Son. But
the Spirit is not naturally of Christ according to
his humanity, since he does not belong to man
by nature, but is poured forth gratuitously by
God on human nature; hence, the Spirit cannot
be called Spirit of the Son because he filled
Christ par excellence according to his
humanity.
Item Athanasius dicit in sermone de
incarnatione verbi, quod ipse Christus
mittebat spiritum e sursum sicut Deus
filius, et ipse deorsum accipiebat
spiritum ut homo. Ex ipso igitur in
ipsum habitat de divinitate eius, in
humanitate eiusdem. Non solum ergo
spiritus sanctus est spiritus Christi quia
humanitatem eius replevit, sed magis
Similarly Athanasius states in a sermon on the
Incarnation of the Word that: The Christ, qua
God the Son, sent the Spirit from on high, and
as man he received the Spirit on earth. From
him, therefore, unto him he (the Spirit) dwells in
the humanity of the same (Christ) from his
divinity. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not
only the Spirit of Christ because he filled his
humanity, but more so because he proceeds
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
quia est ex divinitate ipsius. from his divinity.
Potest autem aliquis dicere, quod
spiritus sanctus est filii secundum
deitatem, sicut a filio Dei datus et
missus, non autem sicut a filio
personaliter et aeternaliter existens.
Sed hoc etiam stare non potest. Dicit
enim Cyrillus super Ioannem: proprius
est spiritus sanctus Dei et patris; sed
non est minus ipsius Dei filii, non
tanquam alius et alius spiritus. Idem
dicit in exhortatorio sermone ad
Theodosium imperatorem: spiritus
sanctus sicut est proprius patris, a quo
procedit; sic et in veritate est et ipsius
filii. Si ergo patris est, non solum quia
ab ipso temporaliter datur et mittitur,
sed etiam quia ab ipso aeternaliter
existit; eadem etiam ratione et filii erit,
quasi ab eo aeternaliter existens. Item
Cyrillus dicit super Ioan. Veracissimus
fructus essentiae ipsius filii existit ipse
spiritus; est igitur filii, quasi a filio
essentiam habens.
One might, however, object that the Holy Spirit
is of the Son according to his divinity in so far
as given and sent by the Son of God, but not
as existing from the Son personally and
eternally. But neither can this stand on
analysis. For Cyril, commenting on J ohn, says:
The Holy Spirit is properly the Spirit of God the
Father, but is no less the Spirit of God the Son,
not however as two distinct Spirits. He also
says in his exhortation to the Emperor
Theodosius: As the Holy Spirit belongs to the
Father from whom he proceeds, so also in truth
he belongs to his Son. If, therefore, he is of
the Father, not only because he is given and
sent by him in time, but also because he exists
from him eternally, by the same token he is the
Spirit of the Son as eternally existing of him.
Cyril, commenting on J ohn, likewise says: The
Holy Spirit exists as the truest fruit of the
essence of the Son himself. He is,
therefore, of the Son, as it were having his
essence from the Son.
Patet ergo quod ex hoc quod spiritum
sanctum spiritum Christi confitentur,
necesse est quod ulterius dicatur esse
a filio ab aeterno
Hence, it is clear that since they confess the
Holy Spirit to be the Spirit of Christ, they must
further recognize that he is from the Son
eternally.
Caput 2
Quod filius mittit spiritum sanctum
CHAPTER 2
That the Son sends the Holy Spirit.
Similiter autem patet ex auctoritate sacrae
Scripturae quod filius mittit spiritum
sanctum. Dicitur enim Ioan. XV, v. 26:
cum venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam
vobis a patre, etc., et XVI, 7: si enim non
abiero, Paraclitus non veniet ad vos. Si
autem abiero, mittam eum ad vos.
Habetur etiam ex auctoritate Scripturae,
quod pater dat spiritum sanctum: Ioan.
XIV, 16: ego rogabo patrem, et alium
Paraclitum dabit vobis. Sed quod et filius
det eundem spiritum sanctum patet;
dicitur enim Ioan. XX, v. 22, quod post
resurrectionem dominus discipulis
insufflavit, et dixit eis: accipite spiritum
sanctum; quod etiam Athanasius
confitetur in sermone Nicaeni Concilii,
dicens ex persona filii loquens: quomodo
It is likewise evident on the authority of Holy
Scripture that the Son sends the Holy Spirit.
For in J ohn 15:26 it is stated: When the
Paraclete comes whom I shall send you,
and in J ohn 16:7: If I do not go away, he
Paraclete will not come to you, but if I go, I
will send him to you. On the authority of
Scripture (J ohn 14:16) it is also certain that
the Father gives the Holy Spirit: I will ask the
Father and he will give you another
Paraclete. But that the Son gives the same
Holy Spirit is clear from J ohn 20: 22), for it is
there stated that after the resurrection the
Lord breathed upon the disciples and said to
them: Receive the Holy Spirit. Athanasius
confesses the same in his discourse on the
Council of Nicaea: How will they be
consummated unless I, your Word, am
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
erunt consummati ipsi, nisi ego verbum
tuum consummem, idest perfectum
assumam, et perficiam in me hominem, et
eis mihi aequalem per omnia mihi
cooperantem donem spiritum sanctum?
Et idem in epistola ad Serapionem: hunc
spiritum sanctum a filio te recepisse
credo, o sancte consacerdos.
consummated, that is, assume a perfect
man, and perfect mankind within myself
and grant them the Holy Spirit, my equal
and in all things my cooperator? And the
same point in the letter to Serapion: I
believe, o holy fellow priest, that you have
received this Holy Spirit from the Son.
Dicit autem idem Athanasius in eadem
epistola: hic est ordo naturae divinae a
patre in filio: ut qui a nullo est, a nullo
mittatur; et qui est ab alio, in nomine suo
non veniat, sed in nomine illius a quo
existit. Ita et spiritus sanctus, qui a se non
est, a se venire non debuit; sed in nomine
illius a quo est, et a quo habet ut
hypostasi sit Deus: quemadmodum de eo
dicit filius: Paraclitus spiritus sanctus,
quem mittet pater in nomine meo. Patet
ergo quod ex hoc quod spiritus sanctus
mittitur a filio, sequitur quod a filio existat
aeternaliter, et ab eo habeat quod sit
Deus.
The same Athanasius, moreover, in the
same letter says: This is the order of divine
nature from the Father in the Son that he
who is from no one should be sent by no
one, and he who is from another should
come not in his own name, but in the name
of him from whom he exists. So the Holy
Spirit who is not from himself, should not
come of himself, but in the name of him
from whom he is and from he derives his
hypostatic status as God, wherefore of him
the Son says (J ohn 14:26): The Paraclete,
the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name. From the fact that the Holy
Spirit is sent by the Son, it clearly follows
that he exists eternally of the Son and
derives from him his status as God.
Item Niceta dicit super Ioan. V: non alia
proprietate pater mittit spiritum, qua
proprietate non mittat filius; vel aliqua alia
proprietate filius mittit spiritum qua, non
mittit et pater. Ex quo patet quod eadem
proprietate et ratione pater et filius mittunt
spiritum sanctum. Si ergo pater mittit
spiritum quasi ab ipso aeternaliter
existentem; et similiter filius spiritum
sanctum mittet quasi de se aeternaliter
existentem.
Nicetas, commenting on J ohn, likewise
says: The Father does not send the Holy
Spirit in virtue of a property other than the
one by which the Son sends him; nor does
the Son send the Holy Spirit in virtue of
some property by which the Father does not
send him. Whence it is clear that the
Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit in
virtue of the same property and on the same
basis. If, therefore, the Father sends the
Holy Spirit as one who exists eternally of
him, similarly the Son will send the Holy
Spirit as one who eternally exists of him.
Item Athanasius dicit in sermone Nicaeni
Concilii, ex persona filii loquens: sicut me
perfectum genuisti Deum, et perfectum
me assumere fecisti hominem; sic ex te et
ex mea essentia da eis perfectum
spiritum sanctum. Idem dicit in epistola ad
Serapionem: sicut in filio Dei nostra sibi
unita manet natura, quam de nobis
assumpsit; ita et ipse manet in nobis per
suum spiritum coessentialem sibi, quem
de sua essentia essentialiter spirat et
donat nobis. Idem dicit in sermone de
So, too, Athanasius in his discourse on the
Council of Nicaea, speaking in the person of
the Son, says: As you begot me perfect
God and caused me to assume a perfect
man, so of yourself and of my essence give
them the perfect Holy Spirit. And in his
letter to Serapion, As in the Son of God the
nature which he took from us remains united
to him, so also he remains in us through his
own Spirit coessential with him, whom in
virtue of his essence he spirates from his
essence and gives to us. And in his
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
incarnatione verbi, quod datus est spiritus
sanctus discipulis de plenitudine deitatis.
Item Niceta super Ioan. dicit: filius
spiritum sanctum ex se dat ut pater.
sermon on the Incarnation of the Word he
says The Holy Spirit is given to the
disciples from the fullness of the Godhead.
Likewise Nicetas commenting on J ohn
says: As the Father, the Son gives the
Spirit of himself.
Ex quibus omnibus accipitur quod non
solum sic dicitur spiritus a filio dari vel
mitti, inquantum donum gratiae, per quod
spiritus sanctus nos inhabitat, est a filio;
sed inquantum ipse spiritus sanctus est a
filio. Impossibile est enim quod donum
gratiae, cum sit quoddam creatum, sit ex
essentia filii, sed spiritus sanctus
coessentialis est filio: unde de essentia
filii dari potest vel mitti.
From all this it is concluded that the Spirit is
said to be given or sent by the Son, not only
in so far as the gift of grace through which
the Holy Spirit dwells in us is from the Son,
but in so far as the Holy Spirit is from the
Son. For it is impossible that the gift of
grace, being something created, should be
of the essence of the Son. But the Holy
Spirit is coessential with the Son. Wherefore
he can be given or sent from the essence of
the Son.
Item a nullo potest dari nisi quod eius est.
Spiritus ergo sanctus ab eo datur cuius
est, sicut habetur I Ioannis IV, 13: in hoc
cognoscimus quoniam in eo manemus, et
ipse in nobis, quia de spiritu suo dedit
nobis. Si ergo filius mittit vel dat spiritum
sanctum, oportet quod sit spiritus eius. Ex
hoc autem quod est spiritus eius, sequitur
quod ab eo sit aeternaliter, sicut
ostensum est. Ex hoc ergo quod filius
mittit vel dat spiritum sanctum, sequitur
quod ab eo similiter aeternaliter existat.
Moreover, nothing but what belongs to him
can be given by anyone. The Holy Spirit,
therefore, is given by him whose he is, as 1
J ohn 4:3 states: By this we know that we
abide in him and he in us, because he has
given us of his own Spirit. If, therefore, the
Son sends or gives the Holy Spirit, the Spirit
must be his. From the fact that it is his Spirit,
it follows that the Spirit is from him eternally,
as has been shown. From this, that the
Son sends or gives the Holy Spirit, it follows
that the Spirit likewise exists of him
eternally.
Caput 3
Quod spiritus sanctus accipit de eo
quod est filii
CHAPTER 3
That the Holy Spirit receives of that which
is the Sons.
Ulterius autem ex auctoritate sacrae
Scripturae habetur quod spiritus
sanctus accipiat de eo quod est filii.
Dicitur enim Ioan. XVI, 14: ille me
clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet, et
annuntiabit vobis.
Further, on the authority of Holy Scripture it is
proven that the Holy Spirit receives of that
which is the Sons. For in J ohn 16:4, it is said:
He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine
and declare it to you.
Potest autem aliquis dicere, quod
spiritus sanctus licet accipiat id quod
est filii, non tamen accipit a filio: accipit
enim essentiam patris a patre, quae
quidem essentia est etiam filii, et pro
tanto dicit filius, quod de meo accipiet;
quod videtur innui ex consequentibus
Someone may object that, although the Holy
Spirit receives what is the Sons, he does not
receive it from the Son; for he receives the
essence of the Father from the Father, an
essence identical with that of the Son, and this
would explain why the Son says: He shall
receive of mine. And the Lords words which
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
domini verbis; subdit enim, quasi se
exponens: omnia quaecumque habet
pater, mea sunt: propterea dixi vobis,
quia de meo accipiet.
follow (J ohn 16:15) seem to suggest this, for
he adds, almost in explanation of himself: All
that the Father has is mine; therefore I said
that he will take what is mine.
Sed ex hac domini expositione de
necessitate concluditur, quod spiritus
sanctus a filio accipiat. Si enim omnia
quae sunt patris, sunt etiam filii, oportet
quod auctoritas patris, secundum quam
est principium spiritus sancti, sit etiam
filii. Sicut ergo spiritus sanctus accipit
de eo quod est patris a patre, ita accipit
de eo quod est filii, a filio;
But from this explanation of the Lord, it is
necessarily concluded that the Holy Spirit
receives from the Son. If all that belongs to the
Father belongs to the Son, then the authority
by reason of which the Father is the principle
from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds must also
belong to the Son. As, therefore, the Holy
Spirit receives from the Father what is the
Fathers, so he receives from the Son what is
the Sons.
hinc est quod Athanasius dicit in
epistola ad Serapionem: de sua propria
essentia spiritum sanctum existentem
Deum de se essentialiter suis apostolis
et suae sponsae Ecclesiae
demonstrando Christus affirmavit, sic
dicens: de meo accipiet; idest ut de
mea essentia habet ut sit Deus; sic a
me habet et esse et loqui. Item
Athanasius in sermone Nicaeni Concilii:
spiritus sanctus quidquid habet, habet a
verbo Dei; et in epistola ad Serapionem
dicit: spiritus sanctus est coessentialis
filio, a quo habet omnia quaecumque
habet. Idem in eadem epistola: filius ait:
ille, scilicet spiritus sanctus, me
glorificabit; idest, in se meam, ut habet
a me, deitatem, me gloriosum Deum
demonstrabit; sicut et ego glorifico
patrem meum, idest sicut in me ab ipso
eius habeo deitatem. Et Basilius contra
Eunomium dicit: denominatio a patre
transit in filium, ut de Deo patre sit Deus
filius, ex domino dominus, ex
omnipotente omnipotens, ex sapiente
sapientia, ex summe loquente verbum,
ex virtute virtus: verus filius
denominationes patris habet in se. Ita
etiam et spiritus sanctus est dominus et
Deus omnipotens, sapiens, virtus;
naturaliter sumens habet a domino Deo
patre et filio, a quo est et datur.
This is why Athanasius says in his letter to
Serapion: In teaching his Apostles and his
Bride the Church Christ affirmed that from his
very own being the Holy Spirit exists of himself
essentially as God, saying thus: He shall
receive of mine, that is, he has from my
essence his divinity, so he has from me
existence and speech. And again in his
discourse on the Council of Nicaea: Whatever
the Holy Spirit has, he has from the Word of
God. And in his letter to Serapion he says
The Holy Spirit is coessential with the Son
from he has whatever he has. And, again,
in the same letter: The Son says: He, namely,
the Holy Spirit, will glorify me, that is, as he
has in himself my Godhead from me, he will
prove me to be the glorious and just God, just
as I glorify my Father, that is, as I have in
myself his Godhead from him. And Basil
writing against Eunomius says: An attribute
passes from the Father to the Son, such that
the Son qua God is God from the Father, Lord
from the Lord, Almighty from the Almighty,
Wisdom from the Wise, Word from the highest
Speaker, Power from Power; the true Son has
the attributes of the Father in himself. In the
same way the Holy Spirit is Lord and God, the
Almighty, Wisdom, Power, naturally taking the
attributes he possesses from the Lord God,
Father and Son, from whom he is and by
whom he is given.
Patet autem quod per hoc quod filius
habet deitatem (et quidquid habet) a
patre, aeternaliter est a patre. Spiritus
ergo sanctus est aeternaliter a patre et
It is clear, however, that from the fact that the
Son has the Godhead and whatever else he
has from the Father, he is eternally from the
Father. Hence, the Holy Spirit is eternally from
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
filio sicut ab eis accipiens deitatem et
quidquid habet.
the Father and Son as receiving from them the
Godhead and whatever he has.
Caput 4
Quod filius operatur per spiritum
sanctum
CHAPTER 4
That the Son works through the Holy Spirit.
Habetur etiam ex auctoritate sacrae
Scripturae quod filius operetur in
spiritu sancto, vel per spiritum
sanctum. Dicit enim apostolus,
Roman. XV, 19: non audeo aliquid
loqui eorum quae non per me efficit
Christus in obedientiam gentium,
verbo et factis, in virtute signorum et
prodigiorum, in virtute spiritus
sancti; et I Corinth. II, 10: dicitur
nobis revelavit Deus per spiritum
suum. Est autem spiritus patris et
filii. Pater ergo et filius per spiritum
sanctum revelando operantur.
It is also established on the authority of Sacred
Scripture that the son works in the Holy Spirit or
through the Holy Spirit. The Apostles in Romans
15: 18 says: For I will not venture to speak of
anything except what Christ has wrought through
me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word
and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by
the power of the Holy Spirit. And in 1 Cor. 2:10 it
is said: God has revealed them through his Spirit.
For he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son.
Hence the Father and the Son work in revealing
through the Holy Spirit.
Hinc est quod Athanasius dicit in
epistola ad Serapionem: filius Dei
illuminando nos praeveniens, et
iustificando in fide corroborans, et
Scripturas reserando donis suae
sapientiae nos replens, non in
alieno, et non suo spiritu dona
concedit, remittens peccata, et
charismatibus nos imbuens; sed
potius in suo proprio spiritu sancto.
Cyrillus etiam dicit in sermone
dogmatum Dei, quod filius proprium
habet in se essentialiter spiritum
sanctum, et ex se naturaliter
missum, in quo operatus est divina
miracula, tanquam in propria et vera
sua virtute.
This is why Athanasius says in the letter to
Serapion: The Son of God, by enlightening us in
going before us and by justifying us in
strengthening our faith and by unlocking the
Scriptures in filling us with the gifts of wisdom,
bestows his gifts while he forgives sin and endows
us with his charisms, not in the spirit of another
not his own, but in his own Holy Spirit. And
Cyril also says in his discourse on the dogmas of
God: The Son has by essence in himself the Holy
Spirit as his own and as naturally sent from him; in
him he has worked divine miracles as by his own
true and proper power.
Ex hoc autem quod filius operatur
per spiritum sanctum, de
necessitate concluditur quod spiritus
sanctus sit a filio. Potest enim dici
aliquis per aliquid operari dupliciter.
Uno modo ex eo quod illud per
quod operatur, est sibi principium et
causa operandi, sive efficiens et
movens, sicut dicitur balivus operari
per regem; sive causa formalis,
sicut dicitur homo per artem operari.
Alio modo ita quod id per quod
From the fact that the Son works through the
Holy Spirit it is necessarily concluded that the
Holy Spirit is from the Son. Someone may be said
to work through another in two ways. One way, in
so far as that by which one works is a principle
unto itself and cause of the operation, either as
the efficient and moving cause, as the bailiff is
said to work through the king; or as the formal
cause, as man is said to work through his art. The
other way, in so far as that by which one works is
a cause in relation to the work and not to the
agent, as the king is said to work through his baliff
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
operatur, sit causa operato, et non
operanti, sicut cum dicitur rex
operari per balivum, et artifex
operari per instrumentum: et tunc
oportet quod e converso operans sit
principium operandi ei per quod
operatur, sicut rex balivo, et artifex
instrumento.
and the artist through his instrument. In this case
the one working must contrariwise be called the
principle of the operation in relation to that by
which the operation is accomplished, as the king
in relation to that by which the operation is
accomplished, as the king in relation to the bailiff
or the artist in relation to the instrument he uses.
Cum autem dicitur filius per spiritum
sanctum operari, non potest intelligi
quod spiritus sanctus sit principium
operandi filio, quia filius a spiritu
sancto non accipit. Relinquitur ergo
quod filius sit principium operandi
spiritui sancto: quod quidem esse
non potest nisi per hoc quod dat ei
virtutem operativam. Non autem dat
ei tanquam prius non habenti: sic
enim daret ei tanquam indigenti, et
sequeretur quod spiritus sanctus
esset filio minor. Relinquitur ergo
quod ab aeterno ei dederit. Nec est
aliud virtus operativa spiritus sancti
quam eius essentia, cum spiritus
sanctus sit simplex, sicut et pater.
Relinquitur ergo quod ab aeterno
filius essentiam divinam spiritui
sancto dederit.
When, therefore, it is said that the Son works
through the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit cannot be
understood to be the principle of operation in
relation to the Son, since the Son does not
receive from the Holy Spirit. The only alternative,
then, is that the Son is the principle of operation in
relation to the Holy Spirit. And this cannot be
except on this basis that he give him his operative
power. But he does not give this to him as though
he had it not previously, for this would imply that
the Holy Spirit lacked it and so would be less than
the Son. Hence, the only alternative is that he give
it to him from eternity. Nor is the operative power
of the Holy Spirit anything else than his essence,
since the Holy Spirit, like the Father, is simple.
Hence, the only alternative is that the Son give the
divine essence to the Holy Spirit from eternity.
Et hoc expresse ostendit
Athanasius in epistola ad
Serapionem: sicut pater per filium,
et in filio a se deoriginato operatur
naturaliter, et non e converso; ita et
filius in spiritu sancto a se
deoriginato naturaliter operatur
tanquam in sua propria virtute, et
non e converso.
And Athanasius says this expressly in his letter to
Serapion: As the Father naturally works through
the Son and in the Son originating from him and
not contrariwise, so the Son naturally works in the
Holy Spirit originating from him as in his own
power, and not contrariwise.
Caput 5
Quod spiritus sanctus sit imago filii
CHAPTER 5
That the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son.
Habetur etiam ex auctoritate sacrae
Scripturae quod spiritus sanctus sit
imago filii, secundum expositiones
doctorum Graecorum, ut supra dictum
est: quod, hoc quod dicitur Roman.
VIII, 11: quos praescivit conformes fieri
imaginis filii sui etc., et iterum quod I
Corinth. XV, 49: sicut portavimus
imaginem terreni, ita portemus
On the authority of Sacred Scripture it is
established, according to the interpretation of
the Greek doctors as noted above, that the
Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. They
interpret what is said in Romans 8:29: Those
whom he foreknew he predestined to be
conformed to the image of his Son, and in 1
Cor. 15: 49: J ust as we have borne the image
of the man of dust, so we shall also bear the
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
imaginem caelestis, exponunt
imaginem filii spiritum sanctum esse
dicentes. Hinc est quod Athanasius
dicit in epistola ad Serapionem, ex
persona filii Dei loquens: accipite
ipsam imaginem meam spiritum
scilicet sanctum; et Gregorius
Caesariensis dicit: spiritus sanctus est
imago filii perfecti. Constat autem quod
imago deducitur ab eo cuius est
imago. Ex hoc ergo quod spiritus
sanctus est imago filii, sequitur quod
spiritus sanctus sit a filio.
image of the man of heaven, as meaning that
the image of the Son is the Holy Spirit. This is
why Athanasius in his letter to Serapion,
speaking in the person of the Son, says:
Receive my very own image, the Holy Spirit of
knowledge. And Gregory of Caesarea says:
The Holy Spirit is the perfect image of the
Son. It is well known, however, that an
image derives from that of which it is the image.
From the fact, therefore, that the Holy Spirit is
the image of the Son, it follows that the Holy
Spirit is from the Son.
Posset autem aliquis dicere, quod est
imago filii, inquantum assimilatur filio
secundum aliquem effectum quem
facit, sicut et filius: vel quia est a patre,
sicut filius. Sed hoc excluditur per
auctoritates sanctorum, quae spiritum
sanctum naturalem imaginem filii esse
dicunt. Non enim potest dici imago
naturalis filii spiritus sanctus, nisi
inquantum secundum naturam filio
similatur, accipiens a filio naturam.
Semper enim oportet quod forma
imaginis proveniat a forma eius cuius
est imago.
One might indeed object that he is the image of
the Son in so far as he is likened to the Son on
the basis of some effect which he brings about
jointly with the Son, or because he is from the
Father just as the Son is. But on the basis of
texts of the saints which state that the Holy
Spirit is the natural image of the Son this is
excluded. For he could not be called the natural
image of the Son, except in so far as he is
likened to the Son in nature, receiving his
nature from the Son. For the form of the image
must always be derived from the form of that of
which it is the image.
Hinc est quod Athanasius in praedicta
epistola dicit: quemadmodum
consubstantiavit Deus Ecclesiae,
formam eius in se assumens; ita ipsam
eandem sua imagine naturali, scilicet
spiritu sancto de sua essentia
naturaliter existente, deifice et
superabunde insignivit; et Cyrillus in
libro thesaurorum: qui recipit filii
imaginem naturalem, hoc est spiritum
sanctum, habet veraciter per ipsum
spiritum eundem filium, et filii patrem.
Quomodo ergo connumerabitur
creaturis spiritus sanctus, cum sit
naturalis et incommutabilis imago filii
Dei? Item Basilius dicit contra
Eunomium: naturalis filii imago est
spiramen eius spiritus.
This is why Athanasius in the aforementioned
letter says As God made himself
consubstantial with the Church by assuming
her form in himself, so he sealed her divinely
and superabundantly with his own image,
namely, the Holy Spirit by nature existing of his
essence. And in his Thesaurus Cyril says:
He who receives the natural image of the Son,
that is, the Holy Spirit, through the Son truly
possesses the same Son and the Father of the
Son. How, therefore, could the Holy Spirit be
numbered among creatures since he is the
natural and incommunicable image of the Son
of God? And Basil writing against
Eunomius says: The natural image of the Son
is his breath, the Spirit.
Caput 6
Quod est character filii
CHAPTER 6
That he is the character of the Son.
Secundum vero rationem eandem dicunt On the same grounds the aforesaid doctors
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
praedicti doctores, quod spiritus sanctus
sit character filii. Dicit enim Athanasius
in praefata epistola quod filius spiritum
sanctum tanquam characterem et suam
imaginem ad reformandam Ecclesiam et
sibi deifice conformandam
transfundendo impressit; et Basilius dicit
in libro contra Arium et Sabellium: sicut
filius acquisivit nos patri, ex patre ipse
idem: sic et spiritus acquirit nos filio per
fidem, imprimens nobis characterem filii
in Baptismate, a quo filio existit, et eius
spiritus et character praedicatur verus.
say that the Holy Spirit is the character of the
Son. For Athanasius in the letter just cited
says that the Son in pouring forth the Holy
Spirit stamps him as his character and very
own image on the Church to reform the
Church and divinely conform her to himself.
And Basil in his book against Arius and
Sabellius says: As the Son gained us for the
Father, he himself being from the Father, so
the Spirit gains us for the Son through faith,
imprinting on us in baptism the character of
the Son, from whom he is and of whom he is
proclaimed the true spirit and character.
Caput 7
Item quod est sigillum filii
CHAPTER 7
That he is also the seal of the Son.
Similiter etiam dicunt, quod spiritus
sanctus sit sigillum filii. Dicit enim
Athanasius in praedicta epistola:
equidem spiritus sanctus est unctio et
sigillum impressivum imaginis in se
habitae: in quo spiritu vere tanquam in
suo sigillo, idest imagine suae naturae,
consignat et characterizat imprimendo
ipsam suam imaginem Deus verbum
Ecclesiae sponsae suae; et infra:
Christus in suo proprio spiritu ungit et
superungit, et eo tanquam suo sigillo
continente ipsius essentiam se imprimit
Ecclesiae suae sponsae. Et
Chrysostomus dicit super epistolam ad
Romanos: si spiritus est sigillum et
caracter Christi; qui non habet sigillum et
characterem Christi, hic non est ipsius
Christi.
Similarly they say that the Spirit is the seal of
the Son. For Athanasius in the
aforementioned letter says: The Holy Spirit
is the anointing and seal, impressing the
image contained in himself, in which Spirit,
as truly as in his own seal, that is, by the
image of his nature, God the Word seals,
and marks the Church his spouse,
impressing on her his very own image. And
further on: Christ in his own image anoints,
and super-anoints the Church and through
him, as through his seal containing his own
essence, he impresses himself on the
Church his spouse. Chrysostom
commenting on Romans says: If the Spirit is
the character and seal of Christ, he who
does not have the seal and character of
Christ is not Christs.
Constat autem quod character et sigillum
derivantur ab eo cuius sunt. Unde per
auctoritates doctorum dictorum aperte
ostenditur, quod spiritus sanctus a filio
derivatur.
It is well known, however, that the character
and seal are derived from him whose they
are. Hence, from the texts of these Doctors it
is expressly shown that the Holy Spirit
derives from the Son.
Horum autem auctoritates etiam ex
auctoritate sacrae Scripturae
confirmantur. Dicitur II Corinth. I, 21:
unxit nos Deus, et signavit nos, et dedit
pignus spiritus in cordibus nostris; quod
quidem de patre et filio intelligi oportet;
cum uterque spiritum sanctum det, ut
ostensum est; et ad Ephes. I, 13: in quo,
scilicet Christo, credentes signati estis
The texts of these Doctors, moreover, are
also confirmed by the authority of Holy
Scripture. For in 2 Cor. 1:22 it is said: God
who has anointed us has also put his seal
upon us and given his Spirit in our hearts as
his guarantee. This is to be understood,
naturally, of the Father and Son, since both
give us the Holy Spirit, as has been shown.
And in Eph. 1: 13-14: In whom, that is, in
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
spiritu promissionis sancto, qui est
pignus hereditatis nostrae.
Christ, you also, who have heard the word of
truth, the gospel of your salvation and have
believed in him, were sealed with the
promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of
our inheritance.
Caput 8
Item quod spiritus sanctus est a
patre per filium
CHAPTER 8
That the Holy Spirit is from the Father
through the Son.
Traditur etiam a praedictis Graecorum
doctoribus, quod spiritus sanctus est a
patre per filium. Dicit enim Cyrillus in
libro thesaurorum: Deus pater per
manum suam propriam, idest suam
sapientiam et potentiam, cuncta
produxit in esse in uno suo vero et
vivifico atque deifico coessentiali sibi
spiritu, quem de se essentialiter per
eundem filium naturaliter coaeternum
spiravit; et Basilius dicit: non est filius
filii spiritus, quia est ex Deo, scilicet
patre per filium. Et idem dicit contra
Eunomium: si ex verbo tuo, o qui
inimicaris veritati, ex proprio intellectu
tuo spiritum producis, aereum per
verbum verberans non eiusdem
essentiae, spiritum sanctum ex
intellectu patre per verbum unigenitum
dubitas provenire? Et infra: ex patre se
ipsum filius nominat verbum, et ex
patre per se verbum spiritum nobis
indubitanter affirmavit.
It is also taught by the aforesaid Doctors that
the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the
Son. For in his Thesaurus Cyril says: God the
Father by his own right hand, that is, by his
power and wisdom, brought all things into being
in his one true and life-giving and divinizing
Spirit coessential with himself, whom in
essence he spirated from himself through the
same Son by nature coeternal with him. And
Basil says: The Son is not the Son of the Spirit
because the Spirit is from God the Father
through the Son. And writing against
Eunomius the same Saint says: If from your
own word, O you who resist the truth, from your
very own intelligence your produce a spirit by
beating the air with a word not of the same kind,
do you doubt the Holy Spirit proceeds in an
intellectual manner from the Father through the
only-begotten Son? And further on: The Son
calls himself the Word of the Father and
unhesitatingly declares to us that the Spirit is of
the Father through himself, the Word.
Ex hoc autem ostenditur de
necessitate quod spiritus sanctus sit a
filio. Dictum est enim supra, quod cum
dicitur aliquis per aliquid operari,
oportet quod sit principium operandi
ipsi operanti, vel saltem sit principium
operationis ex parte eius ad quod
terminatur operatio. Filius autem non
potest esse principium spirandi patri.
Unde si pater per filium spiritum
sanctum spirat, de necessitate
sequitur quod filius sit principium
spiritus sancti.
Thus, it is shown conclusively that the Spirit is
from the Son. For it was remarked above that
when anyone is said to work through
something, that something must be a principle
of operation for the agent, or at the least must
be a principle of operation for that in which the
operation terminates. But the Son cannot be a
principle of spiration for the Father. Hence, if
the Father spirates the Holy Spirit through the
Son, it necessarily follows that the Son is a
principle of the Holy Spirit.
Idem autem habetur ex eo quod
Gregorius Nyssenus dicit: spiritum
sanctum ex patre esse mediante filio
tenemus. Sic enim dicitur esse spiritus
The same is proven from the statement of
Gregory of Nyssa: We hold the Holy Spirit is
from the Father through the mediation of the
Son. For so the Holy Spirit is said to be from
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
sanctus a patre, mediante filio, sicut et
a patre per filium, inquantum pater est
principium filii, et filius principium
spiritus sancti.
the Father through the Son, in as much as the
Father is the principle of the Son, and the Son
is the principle of the Holy Spirit.
Caput 9
Quod spiritus sanctus sit a filio
CHAPTER 9
That the Holy Spirit is from the Son.
Sed iam accedere oportet ad ponendum
auctoritates doctorum Graecorum, ex
quibus habetur expresse quod spiritus
sanctus sit a filio. Dicit enim Athanasius
in epistola ad Serapionem: Christus de
suo spiritu dixit: non loquetur a
semetipso, sed quaecumque audiet
loquetur, idest, non est a semet ipso ut
sit imprincipiatus spiritus, quod est solius
patris; sed maxime et proprie est ab ipso
filio, a quo et accipit ut sit Deus essentia,
ab eo etiam audit quae et loquitur. Et
Basilius dicit contra Arium et Sabellium:
quomodo adoptat in filio spiritus sanctus,
si alienus est a patre et filio? Quomodo
inhabitat extraneus in illis quos Christus
redimit, si non est a Christo?
But this is the point where authorities from
the Greek Fathers are to be adduced stating
that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. For in his
letter to Serapion Athanasius says: Christ
said (J ohn 16: 13) of his Spirit: He will not
speak of himself, but will speak whatever he
shall hear, that is, not as though an
unoriginated Spirit, a property of the Father
alone, but above all in the proper sense he is
from the Son himself from whom he receives
the divine essence and from whom he also
hears whatever he speaks. Against Arius
and Sabellius Basil says: How does the Holy
Spirit adopt in the Son, if he is a stranger to
Father and Son? How does he, an outsider,
dwell in those Christ redeems, if he is not
from Christ?
Caput 10
Quod simul a patre et filio
CHAPTER 10
That he is jointly from Father and Son.
Ne autem aliquis dicat aliter esse
spiritum sanctum a patre, et aliter a
filio, simul ab utroque a praedictis
doctoribus esse asseritur. Dicit enim
Epiphanius in libro de Trinitate: Deus
ex Deo patre et filio est spiritus
sanctus.
Lest anyone object that the Holy Spirit proceeds
one way from the Father, but another from the
Son, both these Doctors assert that he
proceeds jointly from both. So Epiphanius says
in his book on the Trinity, God from God the
Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit.
Caput 11
Quod ab utroque ab aeterno
CHAPTER 11
That he is from both from eternity
Si vero dicat aliquis, quod spiritus
sanctus esse a patre et filio dicitur,
tanquam ab eis temporaliter datus et
missus, et non ab aeterno ab eis
existens, per sequentia ostenditur esse
falsum. Dicit enim idem Epiphanius in
libro de vestibus pellicinis Adae et
Evae: sicut dicit Christus: spiritus
veritatis qui a patre procedit, ita et de
If anyone says that the Holy Spirit is said to be
from the Father and the Son in the sense of
being temporally sent by them and not existing
from them from eternity, this is shown to be
false from what follows. For the same
Epiphanius says in his book on the skin
dresses of Adam and Eve: As Christ says, the
Spirit of Truth which proceeds from the Father
shall also receive from what is mine. So the
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
meo accipiet. Ecce ex ambobus
duorum semper spiritus existit. Idem
dicit in sermone de incarnatione verbi:
pater siquidem erat semper, et filius
erat semper, et spiritus sanctus a patre
et filio erat semper. Est ergo
aeternaliter ab utroque.
Spirit always exists from both of the two. He
also says in a sermon on the Incarnation of the
Word: The Father, after all, always existed;
the Son always existed, and the Holy Spirit
always existed from the Father and the Son.
He is therefore eternally from both.
Caput 12
Quod spiritus sanctus sit persona
de personis
CHAPTER 12
That the Holy Spirit is a person from
persons.
Item ex auctoritatibus praedictorum
doctorum habetur quod spiritus sanctus
sit persona de personis patris et filii.
Dicit enim Athanasius in sermone
Nicaeni Concilii: damnat Ecclesia
mater hic congregata adinventores
huius haereseos, scilicet Arianorum, et
spiritum sanctum increatum, Deum
verum, hypostasim de patris et filii
hypostasibus, eisdem coessentialem
confitetur; et Epiphanius in libro
anchorali: spiritus sanctus in se est
hypostasis vera, non alia a patre et a
filio essentia, nec aliena, sed eiusdem
essentiae veraciter existens,
hypostasis vero per se ex hypostasibus
patris et filii.
So, too, from texts of the same Doctors it is
established that the Holy Spirit is a person from
the persons of Father and Son. For Athanasius
says in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea:
Holy Mother Church here assembled damns
the inventions of his heresy, namely of the
Arians, and confesses the Holy Spirit to be
uncreated, true God, a hypostasis from the
hypostases of Father and Son, and coessential
with them. And Epiphanius in his Ancoratus
says: The Holy Spirit in himself is a true
hypostasis, not other or different essentially
from the Father and the Son, but truly existing
of the same essence, a hypostasis in himself
from the hypostases, however, of Father and
Son.
Non ergo solum est a patre et filio
secundum donum gratiae, in quo datur
vel mittitur, sed ratione suae personae.
Est igitur a patre et filio ab aeterno.
Hence, he is from Father and Son, not only in
relation to the gift of grace in which he is given
or sent, but by reason of his very person. He
is, therefore, from Father and Son from
eternity.
Caput 13
Item quod est ex essentia patris et filii
CHAPTER 13
That he is also from the essence of Father
and Son.
Item ex auctoritatibus praedictorum
habetur quod sit ex essentia patris et filii.
Dicit enim Athanasius in sermone
Nicaeni Concilii: in spiritu sancto omnium
peccatorum et omnis blasphemiae fit
remissio, qui, ut dictum est, de essentia
existens patris et filii, eorum habet
virtutem, cuncta per omnia cum eisdem
creans et disponens. Item in epistola ad
Serapionem ostendit: Christus de sua et
So, too, from texts of the aforementioned it is
proven that he is from the essence of Father
and Son. For in the discourse on the Council
of Nicaea Athanasius says: Remission of all
sins and of every blasphemy is accomplished
in the Holy Spirit, who, as was said, being
from the essence of the Father and the Son
shares their power, with them creating and
disposing all things. Again, in his letter to
Serapion he says: Christ of his own and the
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
patris communi essentia sempiternaliter
existentem spiritum sanctum spiratum; et
infra: Christus in suo proprio spiritu
sancto, de sua, ut supra dictum est, usia
existente, omnia nobis condonat. Et in
eadem epistola: ab una et eadem
divinitate patris et filii de filio existens
spiritus sanctus, unus est.
Fathers common essence spirated the
eternally existing Holy Spirit. And further
on: Christ in his own Holy Spirit, existing as
noted above of his own essence, forgives us
all. And in the same letter: The Holy
Spirit existing of the Son by one and the
same divinity of Father and Son is one.
Caput 14
Item quod sit naturaliter a filio
CHAPTER 14
That he also is naturally from the Son.
Item habetur quod sit naturaliter a filio.
Dicit enim Cyrillus: quis est vita? Ille
equidem qui dixit Christus, ego sum via,
veritas, et vita, tanquam in ipso veraciter,
et ex ipso naturaliter spiritus eius
existens spiritualem legem ponit.
So, too, it is established that he is naturally
from the Son. For Cyril says: Who is life?
Christ himself who said (J ohn 14:6): I am the
Way, the Truth and the Life, as it were, his
Spirit truly and naturally existing in him and
of him lays down the law of the spirit.
Ex quibus omnibus habetur quod spiritus
sanctus non tantum est a filio sicut
temporaliter datus vel missus, sed sicut
ab aeterno ab eo procedens, utpote
essentiam et naturam ab ipso accipiens.
From this is is proven that the Holy Spirit is
from the Son, not merely as given or sent in
time, but as proceeding from him eternally,
as receiving from him eternally, as receiving
from him his essence and nature.
Hoc etiam haberi potest ex ipso modo
loquendi: quia praedicti doctores non
solum dicunt quod spiritus sanctus est a
filio, quod posset referri ad temporalem
missionem, sed etiam quod a filio existit,
quod non potest referri nisi ad
processionem aeternam: existit enim
unumquodque secundum quod in se est.
Dicit enim Cyrillus Ierosolymitanus
patriarcha: spiritus sanctus a patre
procedit, et ex deitate patris et filii existit.
Basilius etiam dicit contra Eunomium:
spiritus sanctus a filio habet existere, et
ab ipso accipere, et annuntiare nobis.
This can also be proven from the very turn of
phrase of the aforesaid Doctors for not only
do they say that the Holy Spirit is of the Son,
which could refer merely to a temporal
mission, but also that he exists by the Son,
which can refer only to the eternal
procession; for each thing exists in so far as
it is in itself. For Cyril, the Patriarch of
J erusalem, says: The Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Father and exists from the Godhead
of Father and Son. And against
Eunomius Basil says: The Holy Spirit has
being from the Son and from him receives
what he announces to us.
Caput 15
Item quod filius spirat spiritum
sanctum
CHAPTER 15
That the Son also spirates the Holy Spirit.
Ulterius autem habetur ex auctoritatibus
praedictorum expresse quod filius spirat
spiritum sanctum. Dicit enim Athanasius
in epistola ad Serapionem: filius de patre
genitus, de sua immensa essentia non
extra se, sed intra se, immensum Deum
Further, it is expressly established from texts
of the aforementioned that the Son spirates
the Holy Spirit. For Athanasius in his letter to
Serapion says: The Son, begotten of the
Father, from his immense essence spirates,
not outside himself, but within himself, God
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
spirat spiritum sanctum. Item Cyrillus dicit
in exhortatorio sermone ad Theodosium
imperatorem: salvator de se ipso producit
spiritum, et spirat, sicut et ipse pater.
the Holy Spirit. Cyril, too, in his
exhortation to the Emperor Theodosius,
says: The Savior produces and spirates
from himself the Spirit, just as the Father
does.
Caput 16
Quod hoc quod spirat, ex sua
proprietate habet filius
CHAPTER 16
That the Son spirates he has from a
personal property.
Ne autem aliquis dicat, quod filius non
proprie spirat spiritum sanctum,
nominatur a praedictis doctoribus filius
spiritus sancti spirator, tanquam hoc ex
sua proprietate habens quod spiritum
sanctum spiret. Dicit enim Athanasius in
epistola ad Serapionem: haeretici ipsum
filium verum spiratorem veri spiritus
Paracliti blasphemant et negant; et in
eadem epistola: qui blasphemat in
spiritum spiratum, blasphemat equidem
in spiratorem eius, idest in ipsum filium,
et per filium blasphemat in genitorem
eius. Item Basilius dicit contra
Eunomium: filium spiritus sancti
spiratorem et datorem sine aliquo dubio
credimus.
Lest anyone object that the Son does not
spirate the Holy Spirit in the proper sense of
the term, the Son is called by these Doctors
the spirator of the Holy Spirit, having
precisely from a personal property that he
should spirate the Holy Spirit. For Athanasius
says in his letter to Serapion The heretics
blaspheme and deny the Son, the Spirator of
the true Spirit, the Paraclete. And again in
the same letter: He who blasphemes against
the Spirit spirated also blasphemes his
Spirator, that is, the Son, and through the Son
he blasphemes his Father. Against
Eunomius Basil also says: Without any doubt
we believe the Son to be the Spirator and
giver of the Holy Spirit.
Caput 17
Quod eadem ratione spiratur a patre et
filio
CHAPTER 17
That on the same grounds he is spirated
by Father and Son.
Ut autem ostendatur quod simul et
eadem ratione spiritus sanctus a patre
spiratur, et filio, dicit Athanasius in
praedicta epistola ad Serapionem, quod
filius est conspirans patri, sic inquiens:
Deus pater per Deum verbum non
tanquam per organum, quod absit, sed
per coessentialem suae essentiae vere
viventi conspirantem vivum et deificum
spiramen spirat Deum plenum et beatum
spiritum sanctum.
To show, however, that the Holy Spirit is
spirated on the same grounds jointly by the
Father and Son, Athanasius says in the just
cited letter to Serapion that the Son co-
spirates with the Father: God the Father
through God the Word, not indeed as
through an organ God forbid but through
a co-spirator, co-essential with his own truly
living essence, he spirates the living and
divinizing Breath, fully God and blessed Holy
Spirit.
Caput 18
Quod est aeternaliter a filio spiratus
CHAPTER 18
That he is spirated from the Son eternally.
Ne quis autem dicat quod spiratio ad
processionem pertinet temporalem,
Lest someone object that this spiration
pertains to the temporal procession, the
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
exprimunt praedicti doctores, quod
spiritus sanctus sit aeternaliter a filio
spiratus. Dicit enim Athanasius in
sermone Nicaeni Concilii, ex persona filii
loquens: ut credat mundus a me
essentialiter spiritum Paraclitum, et
aeternaliter spiratum. Item Cyrillus in
libro thesaurorum: spiritum sanctum a
Christo et aeternaliter et essentialiter
credimus et confitemur spiratum existere
Deum.
aforesaid Doctors state that the Holy Spirit is
spirated eternally by the Son. For Athanasius
says in his discourse on the Council of
Nicaea,speaking in the person of the Son:
That the world may believe that the Spirit,
the Paraclete, is in essence and from eternity
spirated by me. And in his Thesaurus Cyril
says: We believe and confess that the Holy
Spirit, from eternity and in essence spirated
by Christ, exists as God.
Caput 19
Quod de essentia filii spiratur
spiritus sanctus
CHAPTER 19
That the Holy Spirit is spirated from the
essence of the Son.
Ad hoc etiam facit quod in eisdem
auctoritatibus continetur, quod de
essentia filii spiratur spiritus sanctus.
Dicit enim Athanasius in sermone
Nicaeni Concilii: de essentia ipsius
verbi adoramus spiramen spiritum
coaeternaliter spiratum Deum; et in
eodem: Deus filius ex sua essentia
spiravit spiritum sanctum; et in
epistola ad Serapionem: haeretici a
filio sunt exheredati, quia ab eius
essentia essentialiter Deum spiratum
non recipiunt spiritum sanctum; et in
eadem quasi exponens quod dicit ex
sua essentia, idest ex se essentia, sic
dicit: filius natus a patre in se patris
naturam tenens, equidem nomen non
paternitatis, sed communicabilitatis
cum ordine naturae servavit, ut ex se
sua essentia non filium gignitive, sed
spiritum sibi per omnia aequalem
Deum et coaeternum spiraret; et hoc
quidem multoties in eius verbis
habetur.
Also confirmatory of this is the fact that in the
same texts it is stated that the Holy Spirit is
spirated from the essence of the Son. For
Athanasius says in his discourse on the Council
of Nicaea: We adore the Breath of life from the
essence of the Son, the Spirit, the coeternally
spirated God. And again in the same work:
From his essence God spirated the Holy Spirit.
And in his letter to Serapion: The heretics
are disinherited by the Son because they do not
accept the Holy Spirit as in essence God
spirated from his essence. And in the same
letter explaining as it were what from his
essence means, that is, from himself as
essence, he says as follows: The Son born of
the Father, truly possessing in himself the
Fathers nature, retained not the property of
paternity, but that of natural communicability, so
that of himself from himself as his own essence
he should spirate not a son by generation, but
the Spirit, equal and coeternal with him as God
in all things. And the same point it
repeatedly made in his texts.
Ex quo patet quod cum dicitur spiritus
sanctus spiratus esse a filio, non
potest referri ad processionem
temporalem tantum, sed ad aeternam,
secundum quam spiritus sanctus a
filio essentiam divinam accepit.
From this it is clear that when it is asserted that
the Holy Spirit is spirated by the Son, this
cannot be said in reference only to his temporal
procession, but to his eternal as well whereby
the Holy Spirit receives the divine essence from
the Son.
Caput 20
Quod spiritus sanctus emanat a filio
CHAPTER 20
That the Holy Spirit emanates from the Son
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Habetur etiam ex auctoritatibus
eorundem doctorum processio spiritus
sancti a filio sub verbo emanationis.
Dicit enim Athanasius in praedicta
epistola ad Serapionem: a verbo vivente
spiritus vivus emanans, et a forti virtus
indeficiens desuper effunditur Ecclesiae;
et Theodoretus super epistolam ad
Ephesios: spiritus sanctus de sursum
emanat a Christo, et sine invidia datur
omnibus recipientibus.
Texts from the same Fathers refer to the
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son by
the word emanation. For Athanasius says in
the same letter to Serapion: The living Spirit
emanating from the living Word, like an
unfailing power coming from strength, is
poured out on the Church. And
Theodoretus says on the letter to the
Ephesians: The Holy Spirit from above
emanates from Christ, and is given without
jealousy to all who receive him.
Caput 21
Quod spiritus sanctus profluit a filio,
et quod ab aeterno
CHAPTER 21
That the Holy Spirit flows from the Son
and this from eternity.
Utuntur autem et praedicti doctores ad
processionem spiritus sancti a filio
ostendendam, verbo profluxus. Dicit
enim Athanasius in sermone Nicaeni
Concilii, ex persona Christi loquens:
mitto apostolos in mundum non in virtute
hominis, sed in virtute spiritus sancti ex
mea usia profluentis; et in eodem
sermone: si non ita credendum est de
spiritu sancto, et praedicandum, quod sit
veritas patris et filii coessentialis utrique,
de eorum essentia profluens; quomodo
in divino symbolo salutiferi Baptismatis
salvator Deus filius sibi et patri
cooperantem salutem nostram
connumeraret? Et in epistola ad
Serapionem dicit: spiritus sanctus
coessentialem patri filium, cuius ipse
erat spiritus, et eidem coessentialis, ipse
tanquam de essentia eius profluens
Deus, per patres Nicaenos credi et
praedicari fecit. Et Cyrillus dicit in libro
thesaurorum: quando spiritus sanctus in
nobis effunditur, configuratos
demonstrat nos Deo: profluit enim a
patre et filio.
The same Doctors, moreover, also employ
the term outflowing to demonstrate the
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son.
For Athanasius in his discourse on the
Council of Nicaea, speaking in the person of
Christ, says: I send Apostles into the world,
not in the power of man, but in the power of
the Holy Spirit flowing out of my own
essence. And in the same discourse: If it
is not to be believed and preached of the
Holy Spirit that he is the truth of the Father
and Son, coessential with both, flowing out of
their essence, how in the divine creed of
saving baptism does God the Son, our
Savior, count him with the Father and Himself
as cooperating to effect our salvation?
And in his letter to Serapion he says: The
Holy Spirit caused it to be believed and
proclaimed by the Fathers at Nicaea that the
Son is coessential with him, as it were God
flowing out of his essence. And Cyril in
the Thesaurus says: When the Holy Spirit is
poured out on us, he reveals us configured to
God; for he flows out of the Father and the
Son.
Ex quo etiam habetur quod spiritus
sanctus ab aeterno est a filio tanquam
ab ipso essentiam habens.
From this it is also established that the Holy
Spirit is eternally from the Son, precisely in
having the divine essence from him.
Caput 22
Item quod filius deoriginat spiritum
sanctum
CHAPTER 22
That the Son also originates the Holy
Spirit.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Ex auctoritatibus etiam eorundem habetur
quod filius deoriginat spiritum sanctum.
Dicit enim Athanasius in sermone Nicaeni
Concilii, quod ipse filius ex se naturaliter
et coaeternaliter ut est Deus, deoriginat
spirando spiritum; et in epistola ad
Serapionem dicit, quod filius in spiritu a se
deoriginato naturaliter operatur tanquam
in sua propria virtute. Quod non videtur
convenienter ad temporalem
processionem trahi posse: nam ab illo
deoriginatur aliquis a quo habet suum
esse. Deoriginare enim est originem alicui
dare.
From these authorities it is also proven that
the Son originates the Holy Spirit. For
Athanasius in his discourse on the Council
of Nicaea says: The Son himself, naturally
and eternally of himself qua God, in
spirating originates the Holy Spirit. And
in his letter to Serapion he says that the
Son works in the Holy Spirit originated by
him naturally, as in his own power. It
hardly seems proper to restrict this to the
temporal procession; for someone is
originated of him from whom he has his
being; for to originate means to give
someone origin.
Caput 23
Quod filius est auctor spiritus sancti
CHAPTER 23
That the Son is the author of the Holy
Spirit.
Habetur etiam a praedictis doctoribus
quod filius sit auctor spiritus sancti. Dicit
enim Athanasius in epistola ad
Serapionem: apostolus quae in eo
operatur spiritus et efficit, filio auctori
eius attribuit; sicut et filius quae ipse
facit opera suo auctori Deo patri
attribuit. Auctoritas autem in divinis
personis unius ad alteram non est nisi
secundum quod aeternaliter una est ab
alia. Est ergo spiritus sanctus
aeternaliter a filio.
It is also established from the aforesaid
Doctors that the Son is author of the Holy
Spirit. For Athanasius in his letter to Serapion
says: The Apostle attributes what the Spirit
works and effects in him to the Son, his
author, as the Son attributes to God the
Father, his author, the works he performs.
Authority of one person in relation to another
among the divine persons only exists insofar
as one is from another eternally. Hence, the
Holy Spirit is from the Son eternally.
Caput 24
Item quod filius est principium
spiritus sancti
CHAPTER 24
That the Son is also principle of the Holy
Spirit.
Habetur etiam ex praedictis
auctoritatibus quod filius sit principium
spiritus sancti. Dicit enim Gregorius
Nazianzenus in sermone
Constantinopolitani Concilii: nostrum est
credere sanctam Trinitatem, patrem
scilicet sine principio, filium vero
principium a patre principio, spiritum
autem sanctum cum principio filio unum
Deum esse per omnia et super omnia.
Pater autem per hoc est principium filii
quod filius est ab eo aeternaliter. Spiritus
ergo sanctus aeternaliter est a filio.
It is also proven from the aforesaid authorities
that the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit.
For Gregory Nazianzen says in his discourse
on the Council of Constantinople: We
believe the holy Trinity namely, the Father
without a principle, the Son, however, a
principle from a principle, the Father, but the
Holy Spirit with the Son as principle, to be
one God throughout all and over all. But
the Father is principle of the Son in this that
the Son is from him eternally. Hence, the
Holy Spirit is from the Son eternally.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Caput 25
Item quod filius sit fons spiritus
sancti
CHAPTER 25
That the Son is also source of the Holy
Spirit.
Habetur etiam ex auctoritatibus
eorundem quod filius sit fons spiritus
sancti. Dicit enim Athanasius in
sermone Nicaeni Concilii: sicut spiritus
est in filio, sicut fluvius in fonte: et filius
est in patre sicut splendor in sole
gloriae per naturam: sic per gratiam
spiritus sancti electi sunt in patre et filio.
Et in epistola ad Serapionem dicit: est
equidem filius apud patrem fons et lux;
cuius fontis et lucis spiritus sanctus est
verus fluvius, et splendor aeternae
gloriae. Et in eadem epistola dicit: non
enim spiritus sanctus operatur in Deo
Christo verbo, suo scilicet naturali
fonte; et infra: genitus filius et fons
spiritus sancti utrumque in se continet,
patrem scilicet, et spiritum, quorum ipse
medium ordinem tenet: et idem
Athanasius in sermone de incarnatione
verbi dicit: David psallit dicens: quoniam
apud te est fons vitae: quoniam
siquidem apud patrem filius est fons
spiritus sancti.
It is established from the same authorities that
the Son is source of the Holy Spirit. For
Athanasius in his discourse on the Council of
Nicaea says: J ust as the Spirit is in the Son
as a stream in its source, and just as the Son
is in the Father as splendor in the sun of glory
by nature, so by the grace of the Holy Spirit
the elect are in the Father and the Son.
And in his letter to Serapion he says: As a
fountain and as light the Son is indeed with the
Father; of this fountain and light the Holy Spirit
is the true stream and the splendor of eternal
glory. And in the same letter he says: For the
Holy Spirit does not work in God, the Christ
and Word, namely, in his natural source. And
further on: The begotten Son and source of
the Holy Spirit, between whom he holds the
middle place. And Athanasius in his
sermon on the Incarnation of the Word says:
David sings in the psalm (35:10), saying: For
with you is the font of life; because jointly with
the Father the Son indeed is the source of the
Holy Spirit.
Ex quo etiam habetur quod filius sit
principium spiritus sancti sicut a se
aeternaliter existentis.
From this it is also proven that the Son is the
principle of the Holy Spirit as one existing of
him eternally.
Caput 26
Conclusio ex omnibus, quod
spiritus procedit a filio
CHAPTER 26
The general conclusion: that the Spirit
proceeds from the Son.
Volunt autem quidam adversarii
veritatis post tot testimonia, verae
fidei confessioni resistere, dicentes,
quod spiritus sanctus quamvis
probetur esse, existere, spirari,
emanare et profluere a filio, non
tamen est concedendum quod a filio
procedat. Hoc enim in nulla
praemissarum auctoritatum
continetur, neque etiam in auctoritate
sacrae Scripturae, quae spiritum
sanctum a patre dicit procedere, patri
in hoc filium non adiungens, cum
dicitur Ioan. XV, 26: cum venerit
After so many testimonies, however, certain
adversaries (meaning the Greek theologians
opposing the Latins from the time of Photius) of
the truth refuse to confess the true faith, saying
that although the Holy Spirit has been shown to
exist, to be spirated, to emanate, and to flow out
of the Son, nonetheless that he proceeds from
the Son is not to be admitted. For this is not
contained in any of the cited authorities; nor in
any authority of Holy Scripture, which states that
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, without
however joining the Son in this to the Father,
when in J ohn 15:26 it is said: When the
Paraclete comes, whom I shall send you from the
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a
patre, spiritum veritatis, qui a patre
procedit. Ostendendum est ergo
quod ex praemissis de necessitate
sequitur quod spiritus sanctus
procedat a filio.
Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the
Father. Accordingly, it must be shown how on the
basis of the foregoing it necessarily follows that
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
Verbum enim processionis inter
omnia quae ad originem pertinent,
magis invenitur esse commune, et
minus modum originis determinare.
Quidquid enim quocumque modo est
ab aliquo, secundum consuetum
modum loquendi ab ipso procedere
dicimus: sive sit ab eo naturaliter,
sicut Petrus dicitur a suo patre
processisse sive emissive, sicut
spiramen procedit a spirante, sive
effluxive, sicut fluvius procedit a
fonte; sive artificialiter, sicut domus
procedit ab artifice; sive localiter
tantum, sicut sponsus dicitur de
thalamo procedens.
Now, of all the words relating to origin, the term
procession is found to be more generic and
less specific of a mode of origin. For according to
accepted usage we designate as proceeding
whatever is from another in any way whatsoever,
whether this be naturally from another as Peter is
said to proceed from his father, or emissively as
breath proceeds from someone breathing, or
flowingly as a stream proceeds from a source, or
artificially as a house proceeds from a builder, or
locally as the bridegroom proceeds from the
bridal chamber.
Non autem quidquid est ab alio
quocumque modo, potest dici vel
spirari, vel generari, vel fluere, vel
emitti. Et propter hoc verbum
processionis origini divinarum
personarum maxime est
accommodum: quia, sicut supra
dictum est, divina per communia
melius quam per specialia
designantur. Ex quolibet igitur eorum
quae ostensa sunt, scilicet quod
spiritus sanctus existit a filio, vel fluit,
vel spiratur, vel emanat, de
necessitate concluditur, quod spiritus
sanctus a filio procedat.
Not everything, however, in any way from
another can be described as being spirated, or
begotten, or flowing, or emitted. Hence, the term
procession is also particularly suitable to
express the origin of the divine persons, for, as
observed previously, the divine is better
designated by generic rather than specific terms.
So, from any of the points which have been
discussed, namely, that the Holy Spirit exists of
the Son, flows from him, or is spirated or
emanates, it is necessarily concluded that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
Caput 27
Quod idem est in divinis personis
profluere et procedere
CHAPTER 27
That in the divine person to flow and to
proceed is the same.
Item Cyrillus in expositione Nicaeni
symboli dicit: coessentialis est spiritus
patri et filio, et profluit, hoc est procedit
tanquam a fonte, ex Deo et patre. Ex quo
habetur quod idem est in divinis personis
profluere et procedere. Spiritus autem
sanctus profluit a filio, ut supra ostensum
est. Ergo a filio procedit.
Again Cyril says in his explanation of the
Nicene Creed: The Spirit is coessential
with the Father and the Son and flows forth,
that is, proceeds from God and Father as
from a source. From this it is established
that in the divine persons to flow forth and
to proceed are synonymous. The Holy
Spirit flows forth from the Son as was
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
demonstrated above; therefore he
proceeds from the Son.
Hoc autem magis confirmatur ex hoc quod
in epistola Nestorio directa dicit, quod
Christus est veritas, et spiritus sanctus
profluit ab eo sicut ex Deo et patre. Si ergo
idem est ipsum profluere a patre quod
procedere, etiam per hoc quod a filio
profluit, ostenditur ab eodem procedere.
This, moreover, is further confirmed by this
statement he makes in his letter sent to
Nestorius, namely, that Christ is the truth
and the Holy Spirit flows forth from him as
he does from God and Father. If,
therefore, to flow forth from the Father is
the same as to proceed from him, from this
that he flows from the Son he is shown to
proceed from him.
Item Gregorius Nazianzenus in sermone
de Epiphania: spiritus sanctus unde est,
inde procedit. Est autem a filio, sicut
probatum est. A filio igitur procedit. Item
Cyrillus dicit super Ioelem: spiritus sanctus
est proprius ipsius Christi, et in ipso et ex
ipso, quemadmodum et ab ipso intelligitur
Deo et patre. Et maximus monachus in
sermone de candelabro et septem
lucernis: spiritus sanctus quemadmodum
per naturam existit a Deo patre secundum
essentiam, sic et a filio secundum naturam
et essentiam existit veraciter, tanquam ex
patre per filium procedat Deus: intelligitur
autem et est ex patre sicut ab ipso
procedens. Ergo est a filio sicut ab ipso
procedens.
Gregory Nazianzen also says in his sermon
on the Epiphany: Whence the Holy Spirit
is, thence he proceeds. But, as has
been proven, he is from the Son. Therefore,
he proceeds from the Son. Cyril, too, says
in his commentary on J oel: The Holy Spirit
belongs to Christ himself and is in him and
from him, just as he is understood to be
from God and Father. And Maximus the
monk says in his sermon on the candlestick
and the seven lights: J ust as the Holy Spirit
naturally exists by God the Father
according to his essence, so also he truly
exists by the Son according to his nature
and essence, as it were proceeding as God
from the Father through the Son.
Item Athanasius dicit in epistola ad
Serapionem: quemadmodum filius se
habet ad patrem ordine naturae, ita et
spiritus sanctus se habet ad filium. Et in
eadem epistola dicit, ex persona filii
loquens: eundem ordinem et eandem
naturam habet spiritus ad me filium, ut sit
Deus de Deo, quem ordinem et quam
naturam habeo ego ad patrem, ut sim
Deus de Deo.
Likewise Athanasius in his letter to
Serapion says: As the Son is by nature
related to the Father, so the Holy Spirit is
related to the Son. And in the same
letter, speaking in the person of the Son, he
says: The Spirit has the same nature and
relationship toward me, the Son, so as to be
God of God, as I have toward the Father so
as to be God of God.
Item Basilius contra Eunomium: sicut filius
se habet ad patrem, eodem modo spiritus
sanctus se habet ad filium. Filius autem
hoc modo se habet ad patrem sicut ab eo
procedens; dicit enim filius, Ioan. VIII, 42:
ego ex Deo processi et veni. Ergo et
spiritus sanctus procedit ex filio.
Basil, too, against Eunomius says: As the
Son is related to the Father, so in the same
way the Holy Spirit is related to the Son.
But the Son is related to the Father as
proceeding from him. For in J ohn 8: 42 he
says: I have proceeded and came from
God. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Son.
Sed et ipso verbo processionis utitur But Epiphanius even uses the word
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Epiphanius in Lib. de Trinitate, dicens:
secundum quem modum nemo novit
patrem nisi filius, neque filium novit quis
nisi pater; sic audeo dicere, neque
spiritum novit quis, nisi pater et filius, a
quo accipit, et a quo procedit.
procession in his book on the Trinity In the
same way as no one knows the Father
except the Son and no one knows the Son
except the Father (Matt. 11:27), so I dare to
say that no one knows the Holy Spirit
except the Father and the Son from whom
he receives and from whom he proceeds.
Et Athanasius in symbolo dicit: spiritus
sanctus a patre et filio, non factus nec
creatus nec genitus, sed procedens.
And Athanasius on the Creed says: The
Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son,
not made, nor created, nor begotten, but
proceeding.
Caput 28
Quod ad ostendendum processionem
spiritus sancti, eisdem rationibus
utuntur Graeci et Latini doctores
CHAPTER 28
That to demonstrate the procession of the
Holy Spirit the Greek and Latin Doctors
use the same arguments.
Considerandum est etiam, quod eisdem
rationibus utuntur doctores Graecorum
ad ostendendum processionem spiritus
sancti a filio quibus et utuntur Latini
doctores. Argumentatur enim Anselmus
in Lib. de processione spiritus ad
ostendendam processionem spiritus
sancti ex hoc quod pater et filius sunt
unius essentiae. Ex quo sequitur quod
pater et filius non differant ab invicem
nisi in hoc quod hic est pater, et ille filius.
Habere autem spiritum sanctum ex se
procedentem non pertinet ad rationem
paternitatis, neque ad rationem filiationis.
Non enim ex hoc pater dicitur pater,
quod spiritus sanctus ab eo procedit;
neque filiationi repugnat quod habeat ex
se spiritum procedentem. Relinquitur
ergo quod habere ex se spiritum
procedentem, est commune patri et filio.
That the Greek Doctors use the same
arguments to demonstrate the procession of
the Holy Spirit as do the Latin Doctors should
also be pondered. In his book on the
procession of the Holy Spirit Anselm
argues for the procession of the Holy Spirit
on these grounds that Father and Son are of
one essence. From this it follows that Father
and Son do not differ from each other except
that the former is the Father and the latter the
Son. To have the Holy Spirit proceeding from
himself pertains neither to the notion of
paternity nor to that of filiation; for the Father
is not called Father because the Holy Spirit
proceeds from him. Nor is it contrary to the
notion of filiation that the Son should have the
Spirit proceeding from him. Hence, the only
remaining conclusion is that to have the Holy
Spirit proceeding from oneself is common to
Father and Son.
Et similiter Niceta super Ioannem sic
argumentatur: ex quo filius omnia quae
patris sunt, essentialiter habet, habet et
spiritum; et Cyrillus dicit in Lib.
thesaurorum: vere spiritum Christi et
spiritum patris apostolus dixit esse
unum, et non plures: quoniam omnia
quae sunt patris, veraciter et proprie
transeunt secundum naturam in vero
filio.
And similarly Nicetas commenting on J ohn
argues thus: From the fact that the Son has
in his essence everything belonging to the
Father, he also has the Spirit. And Cyril
says in his Thesaurus: The Apostle says that
the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the Father
are truly one and not many, because all
things belonging to the Father truly and in the
proper sense pass naturally to the true Son.
Ex hoc autem patet quod cum dicitur in From this, however, it is clear that when in
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Evangelio, spiritus sanctus a patre
procedere, datur intelligi quod procedat a
filio, licet in Evangelio non addatur. Ea
enim quae essentialiter dicuntur de patre
et filio, dicta de patre, oportet quod
intelligantur de filio, etiam si cum
exclusione dicatur; sicuti cum dicitur
Ioan. XVII, 3: ut cognoscant te solum
Deum verum; et I Tim. VI, 15: quem,
scilicet Christum, suis temporibus
ostendet beatus et solus potens rex
regum et dominus dominantium, qui
solus habet immortalitatem. Intelliguntur
enim huiusmodi et de filio verificari ea
ratione, quia filius et pater secundum
essentiam unum sunt, secundum quod
dicitur Ioan. X, 30: ego et pater unum
sumus.
the Gospel the Holy Spirit is said to proceed
from the Father, he is to be understood to
proceed as well as from the Son, even though
in the Gospel this is not added. For those
things which are predicated of the Father
must be understood of the Son as well,
even when predicated exclusively; as stated
in J ohn 17:3: That they may know you, the
only God. And in 1 Tim. 6:15: Whom, that is,
Christ, God will cause to appear in his own
time- God, the blessed and only Ruler, the
King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is
immortal. For these things are understood as
true of the Son as well, because Father and
Son are one in essence, as is asserted in
J ohn 10: 30: I and the Father are one.
Cum ergo habere spiritum ex se
procedentem, sit commune patri et filio,
sicut ea quae essentialiter dicuntur, ut ex
dictis patet; cum dicitur in Evangelio,
spiritus sanctus a patre procedere,
intelligendum est quod procedat a filio.
Eadem ratione cum in symbolo a
patribus edito dictum est quod spiritus
sanctus procedat a patre, intelligi oportet
quod procedat et a filio; sicut cum in
eodem symbolo dicitur de patre quod sit
omnipotens, et visibilium et invisibilium
factor, oportet quod et de filio intelligatur.
Since, therefore, to have the Spirit
proceeding from oneself is common to Father
and Son, exactly as anything predicated of
them essentially, as is clear from what has
been said, then when it is said in the Gospel
(cf. J ohn 15: 26) that the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Father, he must be understood to
proceed also from the Son; just as when in
the same Creed the Father is said to be the
Almighty, the Creator of things visible and
invisible, the Son must be understood equally
so.
Caput 29
Quod spiritus sanctus distinguitur
a filio per hoc quod est ab eo
CHAPTER 29
That the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the
Son in this that he is from him.
Ostenditur etiam ex dictis dictorum
patrum, quod spiritus sanctus a filio
distinguitur per hoc quod ab eo est.
Dicit enim Gregorius Nyssenus:
dogma faciens de deitate,
incommutabilem esse naturam
divinam confitemur, et differentiam
quae est secundum causam et
causatum, non negamus; idest,
secundum principium et quod est de
principio, ut supra expositum est. Et
postea subdit: item aliam differentiam
intelligimus: unum nempe propinquum
ex primo, scilicet filium ex patre; alium
autem ex propinquo et ex primo,
It is also shown from the texts of the aforesaid
Fathers that the Holy Spirit is distinguished from
the Son, because he is from him. Gregory of
Nyssa teaching dogmatically about the
Godhead says: We confess the divine nature to
be immutable; but we do not deny the difference
between cause and thing caused, that is, as
explained above, the distinction between the
principle and that which is from the principle.
Afterwards he adds: We also recognize
another difference, namely, between one who is
the Relative from the First, that is, the Son from
the Father, and the other who is from the
Relative and from the First, that is, the Spirit
who is from the Father and the Son.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
spiritum scilicet ex filio et ex patre.
Patet ergo quod per primam
differentiam spiritus sanctus et filius a
patre distinguuntur; per secundam
autem distinguitur spiritus sanctus a
filio; quia scilicet filius a patre
procedit, non per spiritum, sed spiritus
sanctus per filium. Sicut et Richardus
de s. Victore in V de Trinitate, ostendit
duarum processionum differentiam
per hoc quod filius procedit ab uno
tantum, spiritus vero sanctus a
duobus. Relinquitur ergo secundum
utriusque sententiam quod filius et
spiritus sanctus ab invicem non
distinguerentur, si unus ab alio non
esset.
It is clear, therefore, that in virtue of the first
difference the Holy Spirit and Son are
distinguished from the Father; in virtue of the
second the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the
Son, namely, because the Son proceeds from
the Father not through the Spirit, but the Spirit
proceeds from the Son. Similarly, Richard of St.
Victor in book five on the Trinity also shows
the difference between the two processions
from this that the Son proceeds from only one
person, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds from
two. According to the views of both the only
possible conclusion is that the Son and Holy
Spirit would not be distinguished from one
another unless one were from the other.
Caput 30
Quod oportet distinctionem
personarum esse secundum aliquem
ordinem naturae
CHAPTER 30
That the distinction of persons should be
according to some order of nature.
Item distinctio personarum oportet quod
sit secundum aliquem ordinem, qui est
ordo naturae, ut Augustinus dicit. Unde
et ordinem personarum distinctarum
Athanasius in epistola ad Serapionem
catenae assimilat, dicens: equidem qui
caput catenae trahit, medium et aliam
extremitatem trahit; sic et qui in spiritum
blasphemat, tertiam personam; et in
filium medium, et in patrem extremum,
idest principium caput catenae trini
discreti inconfusi ordinis divini
blasphemat; sicut et e converso qui
spiritum credit et recipit Deum, recipit et
filium cuius et a quo est: sicut qui tenet
unum caput catenae ad se trahens,
medium eius tenet, et per medium aliud
caput apprehendit.
Similarly, the distinction of persons should
rest on an order which is natural, as
Augustine says. Hence, Athanasius in his
letter to Serapion likens the order of distinct
persons to a chain: Indeed, just as he who
pulls the head link of a chain pulls also its
middle link, and against the Father, the
opposite extremity, so he who blasphemes
also against the Spirit, the third person,
blasphemes also against the Son, the middle
link, and against the Father, the opposite link,
the head of the chain of the triune, distinct,
unconfused divine order. Contrariwise, he
who believes and receives the Spirit as God,
receives God and the Son whose he is and
from whom he is, just as one who holds one
end of a chain pulling it toward himself, holds
the middle and through the middle grasps the
other end.
Et propter hoc etiam in eadem epistola
idem dicit, quod spiritus Paraclitus
terminus trini beati et superessentialis
divini ordinis, infallibiliter terminat
proprium finem in se sua hypostasi,
sicut et pater tenet ipsius ordinis caput
et fontale principium imprincipiatus ipse.
Medium autem extremitatum ordinis
For this reason he also says in the same
letter: The Spirit Paraclete, the term of the
blessed and transcendent divine order,
infallibly constitutes the proper termination of
this order in himself by his own hypostasis,
just as the Father himself without principle
contains the head and frontal origin of this
order. The Son, however, occupies the
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
veraciter tenet filius inter patrem scilicet
et spiritum. Et paulo post: pater a se
principio trini ordinis divini per medium
filium genitum terminat ipsius ordinis
finem naturali proprietate in tertio spirato
spiritu.
intermediate position of this order between its
extremes, namely the Father and the Holy
Spirit. And shortly after: The Father from
himself, as origin of the triune divine order,
through the medium of his begotten Son
established by a natural property the term of
this very order in the third person, the
spirated Spirit.
Cyrillus etiam dicit in Lib. thesaurorum:
spiritum sanctum ex filio secundum
naturam existentem, et ab ipso ad
creaturam missum, renovationem
Ecclesiae operantem, et terminum
sanctae Trinitatis existentem; et
concludit: si hoc ita est, Deus ergo ex
Deo filio spiritus sanctus est. Si enim
spiritus sanctus non esset a filio, non
magis spiritus sanctus esset terminus
Trinitatis quam filius; nec ordo Trinitatis
assimilaretur catenae, sed magis
triangulo.
Cyril also says in the Thesaurus: The Holy
Spirit is by nature from the Son and is sent by
him to the creature, to work the renewal of
the Church and to be the term of the Holy
Trinity. And he concludes: If this is so, then
God from God the Son is the Holy Spirit.
For if the Holy Spirit were not from the Son,
the Holy Spirit would no more be the term of
the Trinity than the Son, nor would the order
of the Trinity be likened to a chain but rather
to a triangle.
Hanc etiam rationem tangit Richardus
de s. Victore in V de Trinitate: ubi
ostendit, quod in divinis personis non
potest esse nisi una sola a qua non
procedat divina persona; nec etiam
possunt esse duae personae quae sint
ab una sola persona. Utrumque enim
praedicto ordini, qui in divinis personis
attenditur, repugnaret: quorum tamen
utrumque oportet poni, si spiritus
sanctus a filio non procederet.
Richard of St. Victor also touches on this
argument in book five on the Trinity, where
he shows that among the divine persons there
can be only one person from another person
from whom another person does not proceed,
nor can there be two persons from only one
person. Either of these alternatives would be
in contradiction to the aforesaid order among
the divine persons, but both would be posited
if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the
Son.
Hunc etiam personarum divinarum
ordinem Cyrillus in Lib. thesaurorum
ostendit sub alia similitudine ex
auctoritate Scripturae assumpta, quae
spiritum sanctum digitum Dei nominat in
Evangelio, cum dicit: si in digito Dei
eiicio Daemonia; loco cuius in alio
Evangelio dicitur: si in spiritu Dei et
cetera. Filius autem dicitur brachium
patris, Isai. LI, 9: induere fortitudine
brachium domini. Dicit ergo: sicut
brachium et manus naturaliter a corpore
innatum et propagatum existit, et de
manu naturaliter provenit digitus; ita a
Deo patre naturaliter filius brachium, et
manus eius generative deoriginatur
Deus de Deo; et ab ipso filio tanquam a
naturali manu patris naturaliter
Cyril in his Thesaurus explains this order
among the divine persons via another
analogy employed on the authority of Holy
Scripture, which in the Gospel calls the Holy
Spirit the finger of God: If I by the finger of
God drive out demons (Luke 11:20), and the
parallel passage in another Gospel: If I in the
Spirit of God, etc. (Matt. 12: 28). The Son,
however, is called the arm of God: Clothe
yourself with strength, O arm of the Lord (Is.
51: 9). Cyril says: As the arm and hand exist
naturally from the body and prolong it, and as
the finger extends naturally from the hand, so
from God the Father, as his arm and hand,
the Son naturally arises by generation God
from God, and from the Son as from the
natural hand of the Father God the Holy Spirit
called finger is produced, flowing forth
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
producitur profluens spiritus sanctus
dictus digitus.
naturally.
Concludi ergo potest quod spiritus
sanctus sit a filio, per rationes
uniformiter a doctoribus Latinis et
Graecis prolatas.
To conclude, therefore, the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Son for reasons affirmed
equally by the Latin and Greek Doctors.
Caput 31
Quod spiritum sanctum esse a filio,
credere est de necessitate salutis
CHAPTER 31
That to believe the Holy Spirit is from the
Son is necessary for salvation.
Quia vero inter disputantes plerumque
contradictio accidit circa aliqua quae non
sunt de necessitate salutis, ne aliquis
opinetur non esse de necessitate fidei
per quam salvamur, credere spiritum
sanctum esse a filio, ostendendum est
per auctoritates doctorum Graecorum,
hoc esse de necessitate fidei et salutis.
It frequently happens that when disputants
disagree, the points on which they disagree
are not necessary to salvation. Lest anyone
think that believing the Holy Spirit to be from
the Son is not necessary to the faith by which
we are saved, it should be shown from texts
of the Greek Doctors that such is necessary
for faith and salvation.
Dicit enim Athanasius in epistola ad
Serapionem: iuxta quod mandat
apostolus: haereticum hominem post
primam et secundam correctionem
devita. Etiam si quos videris cum Elia
volantes per aera, et cum Petro et
Moyse sicco pede calcantes maria; nisi
spiritum sanctum profiteantur Deum
naturaliter ex Deo filio existentem, sicut
et filium naturaliter Deum genitum
aeternaliter ex Deo et patre existentem,
ut nos profitemur: eos non recipias. Et
iterum: blasphemantibus et negantibus
spiritum sanctum Deum esse de natura
Dei filii, non communices.
For Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion:
In accord with the command of the Apostle
(Tit. 3:10): After a first and second correction
avoid a heretic, even those you might see
flying through the air with Elijah or walking
dryshod on the water like Peter and Moses;
unless they profess just as we profess that
the Holy Spirit is God naturally existing from
God the Son, as the son also is naturally God
begotten eternally and existing of God and
Father, you are not to receive them. And
again: Have no communion with those who
blaspheme and deny that the Holy Spirit is
God from the nature of God the Son.
Item Cyrillus dicit in libro thesaurorum:
necessarium salutis nostrum est confiteri
spiritum sanctum de essentia filii
existere, tanquam ex ipso secundum
naturam existentem. Item Epiphanius in
libro de Trinitate: te ipsum alienas a
gratia Dei, cum non recipis a patre
filium, neque spiritum sanctum a patre et
filio dicis.
Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: It is
necessary for our salvation to confess that
the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the
Son, as existing of him by nature. So, too,
Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: You cut
yourself off from the grace of God when you
do not admit the Son to be from the Father or
say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father
and the Son.
Patet igitur quod nullo modo sunt
tolerandi qui spiritum sanctum a filio
procedere negant.
It is, therefore, clear that in no way are they to
be tolerated who deny the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Son.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Caput 32
Quod pontifex Romanus est primus
et maximus inter omnes episcopos
CHAPTER 32
That the Roman Pontiff is the first and
greatest among all bishops.
Similis autem error est dicentium Christi
vicarium, Romanae Ecclesiae
pontificem, non habere universalis
Ecclesiae primatum, errori dicentium,
spiritum sanctum a filio non procedere.
Ipse enim Christus Dei filius suam
Ecclesiam consecrat et sibi consignat
spiritu sancto quasi suo charactere et
sigillo, ut ex supra positis auctoritatibus
manifeste habetur. Et similiter Christi
vicarius suo primatu et providentia
universam Ecclesiam tanquam fidelis
minister Christo subiectam conservat.
Ostendendum est ergo ex auctoritatibus
Graecorum doctorum, praedictum
Christi vicarium in totam Ecclesiam
Christi potestatis plenitudinem obtinere.
The error of those who say that the Vicar of
Christ, the Pontiff of the Roman Church, does
not have a primacy over the universal Church
is similar to the error of those who say that
the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the
Son. For Christ himself, the Son of God,
consecrates and marks her as his own with
the Holy Spirit, as it were with his own
character and seal, as the authorities already
cited make abundantly clear. And in like
manner the Vicar of Christ by his primacy and
foresight as a faithful servant keeps the
Church Universal subject to Christ. It must,
then, be shown from texts of the aforesaid
Greek Doctors that the Vicar of Christ holds
the fullness of power over the whole Church
of Christ.
Quod enim Romanus pontifex successor
Petri et Christi vicarius, sit primus et
maximus omnium episcoporum, canon
Concilii expresse ostendit, sic dicens:
veneramur secundum Scripturas et
canonum definitionem sanctissimum
antiquae Romae episcopum, primum
esse et maximum omnium episcoporum.
Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor
of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and
greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated
in the canon of the Council which reads:
According to the Scriptures and definition of
the canon we venerate the most holy bishop
of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the
bishops.
Hoc autem auctoritati consonat sacrae
Scripturae, quae inter apostolos Petro
attribuit primum locum tam in Evangeliis
quam in actibus apostolorum. Unde dicit
Chrysostomus super Matth., super illud,
accesserunt discipuli ad Iesum dicentes:
quis maior est in regno caelorum?
Quoddam humanum scandalum
conceperunt, quod in se occultare iam
non poterant, et tumorem cordis non
sustinebant, in eo quod viderant Petrum
sibi praeferri et praehonorari.
This, moreover, accords well with Sacred
Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in
the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18; J ohn
21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns
first place among the Apostles to Peter.
Hence, Chrysostom commenting on the text
of Matthew !8: 1: The disciples came to J esus
and asked, who is the greatest in the
kingdom of heaven, says: For they had
created in their minds a human stumbling
block, which they could no longer keep to
themselves; nor did they control their hearts
pride, because they saw that Peter was
preferred to them and was given a more
honorable place.
Caput 33
Quod idem pontifex in totam
Ecclesiam Christi universalem
praelationem habet
CHAPTER 33
That the same Pontiff has universal
jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ.
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
Ostenditur etiam, quod praedictus
Christi vicarius in totam Ecclesiam
Christi universalem praelationem
obtineat. Legitur enim in
Chalcedonensi Concilio, quod tota
synodus acclamavit Leoni Papae: Leo
sanctissimus, apostolicus et
oecumenicus idest universalis,
patriarcha per multos annos vivat.
It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has
universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of
Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of
Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed
Pope Leo: Long live Leo, the most holy,
apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal
patriarch.
Et Chrysostomus super Matth.: filius,
quae patris est et ipsius filii,
potestatem Petro ubique terrarum
concessit, et homini mortali omnium
quae in caelo sunt, dedit auctoritatem,
dando eidem claves ad hoc ut
Ecclesiam ubique terrarum amplificet.
Et super Iohannem in omelia LXXXV:
Iacobum localiter in loco terminat,
Petrum autem totius orbis ordinat
magistrum et doctorem. Idem super
actus apostolorum: Petrus a filio super
omnes quae filii sunt, potestatem
accepit, non ut Moyses in gente una,
sed in universo orbe.
And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew
says: The power which is of the Father and
of the Son himself the Son conferred
worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man
authority over all things in heaven, giving him
the keys in order that he might extend the
Church throughout the world. And in homily
85 on J ohn: He allocated J ames a determined
territory, but he appointed Peter master and
teacher of the whole world. Again,
commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: Not
like Moses over one people, but throughout the
whole world Peter received from the Son
power over all those who are His sons.
Hoc etiam trahitur ex auctoritate sacrae
Scripturae; nam Petro indistincte oves
suas Christus commisit, dicens, Ioan.
ult.: pasce oves meas; et Ioan. X, 16:
ut sit unum ovile et unus pastor.
This is also taught on the authority of Holy
Scripture. For Christ entrusted hi sheep to the
care of Peter without restriction, when he said
in the last chapter of J ohn (21:15): Feed my
sheep; and in J ohn 10:16: That there might be
one fold and one shepherd.
Caput 34
Quod idem habet in Ecclesia
plenitudinem potestatis
CHAPTER 34
That the same possesses in the Church a
fullness of power.
Habetur etiam ex praedictorum
doctorum auctoritatibus quod Romanus
pontifex habeat in Ecclesia plenitudinem
potestatis. Dicit enim Cyrillus patriarcha
Alexandrinus in libro thesaurorum: sicut
Christus accepit a patre dux et sceptrum
Ecclesiae gentium ex Israel egrediens
super omnem principatum et
potestatem, et super omne
quodcumque est, ut ei genu cuncta
curventur, plenissimam potestatem; sic
et Petro et eius successoribus
plenissime commisit; et infra: nulli alii
quam Petro Christus quod suum est
It is also established from the texts of the
aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff
possesses a fullness of power in the Church.
For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in
his Thesaurus: As Christ coming forth from
Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of
the Gentiles was granted by the Father the
fullest power over every principality and
power and whatever is that all might bend the
knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the
fullest power to Peter and his successors.
And again: To no one else but Peter and to
him alone Christ gave what is his fully. And
further on: The feet of Christ are his
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
plenum, sed ipsi soli dedit; et infra:
pedes Christi humanitas est, ipse homo,
cui tota Trinitas plenissimam dedit
potestatem; quem unus trium assumpsit
et in unitate personae, transvexit ad
patrem super omnem principatum et
potestatem, ut adorent eum omnes
Angeli Dei; quem totum dimisit per
sacramentum et potestatem Petro et
Ecclesiae eius.
humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom
the whole Trinity gave the fullest power,
whom one of the Three assumed in the unity
of his person and lifted up on high to the
Father above every principality and power, so
that all the angels of God might adore him
(Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left
in sacrament and power to Peter and to his
Church.
Et Chrysostomus dicit ad consulta
Bulgarorum, ex persona Christi loquens:
ter te interrogo, an me diligas, quia ter
me tepidus et timidus negasti. Nunc
autem reductus, ne credant te fratres
gratiam et clavium auctoritatem
amisisse, quia amas me, coram ipsis tibi
iam confirmo quod meum est plenum.
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian
delegation speaking in the person of
Christ: Three times I ask you whether you
love me, because you denied me three times
out of fear and trepidation. Now restored,
however, lest the brethren believe you to have
lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now
confirm in you that which is fully mine,
because you love me in their presence.
Hoc etiam trahitur ex auctoritate
Scripturae; nam dominus, Matth. XVI,
19, universaliter Petro dixit:
quodcumque solveris super terram, erit
solutum et in caelis.
This is also taught on the authority of
Scripture. For in Matthew 16: 19 the Lord said
to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you
shall bind upon earth shall be bound in
heaven.
Caput 35
Quod est in eadem potestate quae
collata est Petro a Christo
CHAPTER 35
That he enjoys the same power conferred
on Peter by Christ.
Ostenditur etiam quod Petrus sit Christi
vicarius, et Romanus pontifex Petri
successor in eadem potestate ei a
Christo collata. Dicit enim canon
Concilii Chalcedonensis: si quis
episcopus praedicatur infamis, liberam
habeat sententiam appellandi ad
beatissimum episcopum antiquae
Romae: quem habemus Petrum
petram refugii, et ipsi soli libera
potestate loco Dei sit ius discernendi
episcopi criminati infamiam secundum
claves a domino sibi datas; et infra: et
omnia diffinita ab eo teneantur
tanquam a vicario apostolici throni.
It is also shown that Peter is the Vicar of Christ
and the Roman Pontiff is Peters successor
enjoying the same power conferred on Peter
by Christ. For the canon of the Council of
Chalcedon says: If any bishop is sentenced as
guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the
sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome,
whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and
to him alone, in the place of God, with
unlimited power, is granted the authority to
hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy
in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord.
And further on: And whatever has been
decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar
of the apostolic throne.
Item Cyrillus Ierosolymitanus
patriarcha dicit ex persona Christi
loquens: tu cum fine, et ego sine fine,
cum omnibus quos loco tui ponam,
Likewise, Cyril, the Patriarch of J erusalem,
says, speaking in the person of Christ You for
a while, but I without end will be fully and
perfectly in sacrament and authority with all
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
plene et perfecte sacramento et
auctoritate cum eis ero sicut sum et
tecum. Et Cyrillus Alexandrinus in libro
thesaurorum dicit, quod apostoli in
Evangeliis et epistolis affirmaverunt in
omni doctrina Petrum esse loco domini,
et eius Ecclesiam, eidem dantes locum
in omni capitulo et synagoga, in omni
electione et affirmatione. Et infra: cui,
scilicet Petro, omnes iure divino caput
inclinant, et primates mundi tanquam
ipsi domino Iesu obediunt. Et
Chrysostomus dicit ex persona filii
loquens: pasce oves meas; idest loco
mei praepositus esto fratrum.
those whom I shall put in your place, just as I
am with you. And Cyril of Alexandria in his
Thesaurus says that the Apostles in the
Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their
teaching that Peter and his Church are in the
place of the Lord, granting him participation in
every chapter and assembly, in every election
and proclamation of doctrine. And further on:
To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine
ordinance bow the head and the rulers of the
world obey him as the Lord himself. And
Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ,
says: Feed my sheep (J ohn 21:17), that is, in
my place be in charge of your brethren.
Caput 36
Quod ad eum pertinet determinare
quae sunt fidei
CHAPTER 36
That to him belongs the right of deciding
what pertains to faith.
Ostenditur etiam quod ad dictum
pontificem pertineat quae sunt fidei,
determinare. Dicit enim Cyrillus
Alexandrinus in libro thesaurorum: ut
membra maneamus in capite nostro
apostolico throno Romanorum
pontificum, a quo nostrum est quaerere
quid credere et quid tenere debemus.
Et maximus in epistola Orientalibus
directa dicit: omnes fines orbis qui
dominum sincere receperunt, et ubique
terrarum Catholici veram fidem
confitentes, in Ecclesiam Romanorum
tanquam in solem respiciunt, et ex ipsa
lumen Catholicae et apostolicae fidei
recipiunt. Nec immerito; nam Petrus
legitur primo perfectam fidem esse
confessus, domino revelante cum dixit
Matth. XVI, 16: tu es Christus filius Dei
vivi. Unde et ei dominus dicit: ego pro
te rogavi, Petre, ut non deficiat fides
tua.
It is also demonstrated that to the aforesaid
Pontiff belongs the right of deciding what
pertains to faith. For Cyril in his Thesaurus
says: Let us remain as members in our head
on the apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs,
from whom it is our duty to seek what we must
believe and what we must hold. And
Maximus in the letter addressed to the
Orientals says: All the ends of the earth which
have sincerely received the Lord and Catholics
everywhere professing the true faith look to
the Church of the Romans as to the sun, and
receive from it the light of the Catholic and
Apostolic Faith. Rightly so, for Peter is
recorded as the first to have, while the Lord
was enlightening him, confessed the faith
perfectly when he said to him (Matt. 16:16):
You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And hence the Lord also said to him (Lk.
22:32): I have prayed for you, Peter, that your
faith may not fail.
Caput 37
Quod ipse aliis patriarchis praelatus
existit
CHAPTER 37
That he is the superior of the other
patriarchs.
Patet etiam quod ipse aliis patriarchis
praelatus existat ex hoc quod Cyrillus
dicit, quod ipsius, scilicet apostolici
throni Romanorum pontificum, solius est
It is also clear that he is the superior of the
other patriarchs from this statement of Cyril:
It is his, namely, of the Roman Pontiffs of
the apostolic throne, exclusive right to
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
reprehendere, corrigere, statuere,
disponere, solvere, et loco illius ligare
qui ipsum aedificavit. Et Chrysostomus
super actus apostolorum dicit, quod
Petrus est vertex sanctissimus beati
apostolici chori, pastor bonus.
reprove, correct, enact, resolve, dispose and
bind in the name of Him who established it.
And Chrysostom commenting on the Acts
of the Apostles says that Peter is the most
holy summit of the blessed apostolic choir,
the good shepherd.
Et hoc etiam patet ex auctoritate domini
dicentis Luc. XXII, 32: tu aliquando
conversus confirma fratres tuos.
And this also is manifest on the authority of
the Lord, in Luke 22:32 saying: You, once
converted, confirm your brethren.
Caput 38
Quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de
necessitate salutis
CHAPTER 38
That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is
necessary for salvation.
Ostenditur etiam quod subesse Romano
pontifici sit de necessitate salutis. Dicit
enim Cyrillus in libro thesaurorum: itaque,
fratres mei, sic Christum imitamur, ut
ipsius oves vocem eius audiamus,
manentes in Ecclesia Petri, et non
inflemur vento superbiae, ne forte
tortuosus serpens propter nostram
contentionem nos eiiciat, ut Evam olim de
Paradiso. Et Maximus in epistola
Orientalibus directa dicit: coadunatam et
fundatam super petram confessionis Petri
dicimus universalem Ecclesiam
secundum definitionem salvatoris, in qua
necessario salutis animarum nostrum est
manere, et ei est obedire, suam
servantes fidem et confessionem.
It is also shown that to be subject to the
Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For
Cyril says in his Thesaurus: Therefore,
brethren, if you imitate Christ so as to hear
his voice remaining in the Church of Peter
and so as not be puffed up by the wind of
pride, lest perhaps because of our
quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from
paradise as once he did Eve. And
Maximus in the letter addressed to the
Orientals says: The Church united and
established upon the rock of Peters
confession we call according to the decree
of the Savior the universal Church, wherein
we must remain for the salvation of our souls
and wherein loyal to his faith and confession
we must obey him.
Caput 39
Contra hoc quod negant posse
confici in azymo
CHAPTER 39
Against the position of those who deny the
Sacrament may be confected with
unleavened bread.
Sicut autem praedicti errantes contra
unitatem corporis mystici peccant,
Romani pontificis potestatem plenariam
abnegantes, sic contra puritatem
sacramenti corporis Christi delinquunt,
dicentes ex azymo pane corpus Christi
consecrari non posse: quod etiam
doctorum Graecorum auctoritatibus
improbatur.
But just as the aforesaid misguided persons
sin against the unity of the mystical Body by
denying the plenary power of the Roman
Pontiff, so they sin against the purity of the
sacrament of the Body of Christ, saying that
the Body of Christ cannot be consecrated from
unleavened bread. This, too, is disproved from
texts of the Greek Doctors.
Dicit enim Chrysostomus super illud
Evangelii: prima die azymorum: primam
For Chrysostom commenting on the Gospel
pericope, On the first day of the unleavened
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
diem dicit diem Iovis, in quo incipiebant
legis cultores Pascha celebrare, idest
azyma comedere omni expulso
fermento. Dominus igitur mittit
discipulos suos die Iovis, quam dicit
Evangelista primam diem azymorum, in
qua ad vesperas salvator comedit
Pascha. In quo facto per omnia
apertissime demonstravit a principio
suae circumcisionis suae usque ad
extremum diem Paschae, quod non
erat contrarius divinarum legum. Patet
autem quod esset contrarius, si
fermentato pane usus fuisset. Patet
ergo quod Christus in institutione huius
sacramenti ex pane azymo corpus
suum consecravit.
bread, says: The first day he says is
Thursday, on which observers of the Law
began to celebrate the Passover, that is, to eat
unleavened bread, absolutely free of yeast.
The Lord, therefore, sends his disciples on
Thursday, which the Evangelist calls the first
day of the unleavened bread, on which in the
evening the Savior ate the Passover; in this
deed, as in all he did from the beginning of his
circumcision to the final day of his passover,
he clearly showed that he was not opposed to
divine laws. But it is obvious that he would
have acted against the law if he had used
leavened bread. Hence it is clear that in the
institution of this sacrament Christ consecrated
his body from unleavened bread.
Sciendum tamen, quod quidam dicunt
Christum praevenisse diem azymorum
propter passionem imminentem, et tunc
fermentato pane eum usum fuisse.
Quod quidem ostendere nituntur ex
duobus. Primo ex hoc quod dicitur Ioan.
XIII, quod ante diem festum Paschae
dominus cum discipulis coenam
celebravit, in qua corpus suum
consecravit, sicut apostolus tradit I Cor.
XI. Unde videtur quod Christus coenam
celebravit ante diem azymorum, et sic
in consecratione sui corporis, usus
fuerit pane fermentato. Hoc etiam
confirmare volunt per hoc quod habetur
Ioan. XVIII, 28, quod sexta feria, qua
Christus est crucifixus, Iudaei non
intraverunt praetorium Pilati, ut non
contaminarentur, sed manducarent
Pascha. Pascha autem dicuntur azyma.
Ergo concludunt, quod coena fuit
celebrata ante azyma.
It should be remarked, however, that some
claim Christ anticipated the day of
unleavened bread because his passion was at
hand, and so used leavened bread. This they
attempt to show on two grounds. First,
because in J ohn 13: 1, it is said that before the
feast of the Passover J esus celebrated with
his disciples the supper in which he
consecrated his body, as the Apostle teaches
in 1 Cor. 11: 21. Whence it seems that Christ
celebrated the Passover before the day of the
unleavened bread, and so in the consecration
of his body he used leavened bread. Further,
they would confirm this by noting that
according to J ohn 18: 28, on the Friday on
which Christ was crucified the J ews did not
enter the praetorium of Pilate in order that
they might not defile, but eat the Passover.
But the Passsover is called the unleavened
bread. They therefore conclude that the
supper was celebrated before the unleavened
bread.
Ad hoc autem respondet Chrysostomus
super Ioannem sic, super illud: ut non
contaminarentur etc.: quid est hoc
dicere, nisi quia in alia die comederunt
Pascha et legem solverunt, ut pessimi
animi sui adimplerent desiderium in
morte Christi. Christus autem non
praeteriit tempus Paschae diem scilicet
Iovis, sed in ipso Pascha comedit.
To this, however, Chrysostom replies,
commenting on that very text of J ohn: That
they might not be defiled, etc.: What does this
mean, but that they ate the Passover on
another day and broke the law in order that
they might fulfill the most wicked desire of
their soul in the death of Christ; Christ,
however, did not transgress Holy Thursday in
paschal week, but on that day he ate the
Passover.
Sed quia hoc non constat, melius But since this is not certain, it might be better
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
potest dici, quod sicut dominus mandat
Exod. XII, festum azymorum septem
diebus celebrabatur, inter quos dies
prima erat sancta atque solemnis
praecipue inter alias, quod erat
quintadecima die mensis. Sed quia
apud Iudaeos solemnitates a
praecedenti vespere incipiebant, ideo
quartadecima die ad vesperam
incipiebant comedere azyma, et
comedebant per septem subsequentes
dies. Et ideo dicitur in eodem capitulo:
primo mense, quartadecima die mensis
ad vesperam comedetis azyma usque
ad diem vigesimamprimam eiusdem
mensis ad vesperam: septem diebus
fermentum non invenietur in domibus
vestris. Et eadem quartadecima die ad
vesperas immolabatur agnus paschalis.
to say that, as the Lord commands in Exodus
12:18-19, the feast of the unleavened bread
was observed throughout seven days, of
which the first day, that is, the fifteenth day of
the month, was holier and more solemn than
the others. But because among the J ews
solemn feasts began to be celebrated on the
preceding evening, the unleavened bread
began to be eaten on the fourteenth day in the
evening and was eaten during the seven
following days. That is why it is said in the
same chapter: In the first month, on the
fourteenth day of the month in the evening,
you shall eat the unleavened bread, until the
twenty-first day of the month in the evening;
for seven days leaven shall not be found in
your houses. And on the same fourteenth day
in the evening the paschal lamb was
sacrificed.
Prima ergo dies azymorum a tribus
Evangelistis, Matthaeo, Marco et Luca,
dicitur quartadecima die mensis, quia
ad vesperam comedebatur azyma, et
tunc immolabatur Pascha, idest agnus
paschalis; et hoc erat, secundum
Ioannem, ante diem festum Paschae,
idest ante quintumdecimum diem
mensis, qui erat solemnior inter omnes,
in quo Iudaei volebant comedere
Pascha, idest panes azymos
paschales, non autem agnum
paschalem. Et sic nulla discordia inter
Evangelistas existente, planum est
quod Christus ex azymo pane corpus
suum consecravit in coena.
Hence, the first day of the unleavened bread
is called by the three Evangelists, Matthew 26:
17; Mark 14:12; and Luke 22:7, the fourteenth
day of the month, because toward evening the
unleavened bread was eaten and then the
Passover, that is, the paschal lamb was
sacrificed. And, according to J ohn 13: 1, this
was before the feast of the Passover, that is,
before the fifteenth day of the month, because
this was the most solemn day on which the
J ews wished to eat the Passover, that is, the
unleavened paschal bread as well as the
paschal lamb. Thus, there being no
disagreement among the Evangelists, it is
plain that Christ consecrated his body from
unleavened bread at the supper.
Hoc etiam patet quod magis congruit
puritati corporis mystici, idest Ecclesiae,
quae in hoc sacramento figuratur. Unde
dicit Gregorius Nazianzenus de Pascha
domini: celebremus domino festum in
iubilo, non in fermento veteri malitiae et
nequitiae, sed in azymis puritatis et
sinceritatis.
Clearly, also, this is more fitting for the purity
of the mystical Body, that is, the Church,
typified in this sacrament. Hence, Gregory
Nazianzen says in his sermon on the feast of
the Passover of the Lord: Let us celebrate a
feast to the Lord with jubilation, not in the
leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the
unleavened bread of sincerity and purity (1
Cor. 5:8).
Non autem propter hoc intendimus
quod ex fermentato hoc sacramentum
confici non possit. Dicit enim Gregorius
Papa in registro: Romana Ecclesia
offert azymos panes, propterea quod
dominus sine ulla commixtione suscepit
We do not, however, mean by this that the
sacrament may not be confected using
leavened bread. For Pope Gregory says in his
Register: The Roman Church offers
unleavened bread because the Word of the
Father took flesh without any carnal
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
carnem; sed ceterae Ecclesiae offerunt
fermentatum, pro eo quod verbum
patris indutum est carne, et est verus
Deus et verus homo. Ita et fermentum
commiscetur farinae, et efficitur corpus
domini nostri Iesu Christi verum.
conmingling; but other Churches offer
leavened bread because the Word of the
Father is clothed with flesh and is true God
and true man. So, also, yeast is mixed with
flour and this becomes the true body of our
Lord J esus Christ.
Caput 40
Quod est Purgatorium, in quo
purgantur animae a peccatis non in
vita praesenti purgatis
CHAPTER 40
That there exists a purgatory wherein
souls are cleansed from sins not cleansed
in the present life.
Minuitur autem virtus huius sacramenti
ab his qui Purgatorium negant post
mortem. Nam in Purgatorio existentibus
praecipuum remedium ex hoc
sacramento confertur. Dicit enim
Gregorius Nyssenus in sermone de
defunctis: si aliquis hic in labili vita
purgare peccata minus potuerit, post
transitum hinc, per Purgatorii ignis
conflationem citius magis ac magis
fidelis sponsa sponso dona et hostiam
in passionis memoriam offert pro filiis
quos ipsi sponso verbo et sacramento
rei praeclarae genuit, poena alacriter
expeditur, secundum quod praedicamus
dogma veritatis servantes, ita et
credimus.
The power of this sacrament, however, is
lessened by those who deny here exists a
purgatory after death; for on the souls in
purgatory special healing is conferred by this
sacrament. For Gregory of Nyssa in his
sermon on the dead says: If anyone her in
his frail life has been less than able to cleanse
himself of sin, after departing hence, through
the blazing fire of purgatory the penalty is the
more quickly paid, the more and more the
ever-faithful Bride offers to her Spouse in
memory of his passion gifts and holocausts on
behalf of the children she has brought forth for
that Spouse by word and sacrament; just as
we preach in fidelity to this dogmatic truth, so
we believe.
Item Theodoretus episcopus Cyrensis
super illud I ad Cor. III, 11: si cuius opus
arserit etc., sic dicit: dicit apostolus,
quod salvabitur sic tanquam per
conflatorium ignem purgantem quidquid
intervenit per incautelam practicae vitae
ex pulvere saltem pedum terreni
sensus: in quo igne tandiu manet,
quandiu quidquid corpulentiae et terreni
affectus inhaesit, purgetur: pro quo
mater Ecclesia orat et dona pacifica
devote offert; et sic per hoc mundus et
inde prius exiens, domini Sabaoth
purissimis oculis immaculatus assistit.
Likewise Theodoret, Bishop of Cyr,
commenting on that passage of 1 Cor. 3: 11: If
any mans work burn, etc., says thus: The
Apostle states that one is saved thus as
through a blazing fire cleansing whatever
accumulated through carelessness in lifes
activity, or at least from the dust of the feet of
earthly living. In this fire one remains so long
as any earthly and bodily affections are being
purged. For such a person holy Mother
Church pays and devoutly offers peace
offerings, and so through this such a one
emerging clean and pure assists immaculate
before the most pure eyes of the Lord of
hosts.
Caput 41
Epilogus
CHAPTER 41
EPILOGUE
Haec sunt, pater sanctissime, quae ex Most holy Father, these are the points which at
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
auctoritatibus doctorum Graecorum
secundum vestram iussionem excepi et
exponenda, et ad confirmationem verae
fidei inducenda. Inveniuntur tamen inter
praedictas auctoritates quaedam
indecentes expositiones interpositae,
sicut quod logon exponit translator fere
ubique sermonem mentalem, cum
secundum usum Scripturae Latinae
convenientius exponeret verbum. Et
hypostasim exponit essentialem
personam; quam expositionem
sequens aliquando cogitur
inconveniens dicere, sicut ubi dicit:
Deus trinipostatos, idest trinus
essentialiter personalis: hoc enim est
omnino erroneum, quod Deus sit
essentialiter trinus. Sufficeret autem pro
hypostasi transferre simpliciter
personam. Sic enim utimur nomine
personae in confessione fidei, sicut
Graeci nomine hypostasis, ut
Augustinus dicit, licet non sit omnino
eadem ratio significandi per nomen.
your command I have excerpted from the texts
of the Greek Doctors, both to be clarified and
to be cited in confirmation of the true faith.
Scattered, however, among the
aforementioned authorities are a number of
inappropriate interpretations, as when the
translator renders logos almost always as
sermo mentalis (mental discourse),
whereas, in conformity with the Latin usage, it
should have been more appropriately
rendered :verbum (word).And hypostasis he
translates as essential person, and
following this interpretation he is forced at
times to use unfortunate phrases as when he
says: Deus Trinipostatos (God-tri-postatic),
that is, tri-personal by essence. Now it is
absolutely wrong to say God is triune by
essence. It would have been enough to render
hypostasis as person; for we so use the
term person in the profession of faith where
the Greeks use the term hypostasis, as
Augustine says, even though the manner of
signifying of each term is not identical.
Inducit etiam ad laudem sanctorum
patrum aliqua quae modum puri
hominis excedunt, aliquos nominans
patres fidei, quod solius Christi est, a
quo secundum apostolum ad Heb. II,
principium accepit fides enarrandi.
Ceteri vero possunt dici doctores, vel
expositores fidei, non autem patres.
He also introduces certain praises of the holy
Fathers which raise them above the level of
mere men; he calls some of them fathers of
the faith, something exclusive to Christ
alone, from whom according to the Apostle in
Hebrews 2:3 faith takes its origin. Others,
however, may be called teachers or expositors
of the faith, but not its fathers.
Inducit etiam in principio huius libelli
quasdam auctoritates sacrae
Scripturae, quae si nude proferantur,
non expresse probant processionem
spiritus sancti a filio, sicut quod inducit:
spiritus domini ferebatur super aquas et
ego sum Deus Abraham, et cetera.
He also cites at the beginning of this book
certain texts of Holy Scripture which of
themselves do not expressly prove the
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son,
such as: the Spirit of the Lord was hovering
over the waters (Gen. 1:2); or : I am the
God of Abraham, etc. (Exodus 3:6).
Utitur etiam et ipse aliquibus modis
loquendi quos in auctoritatibus
sanctorum patrum invenit, qui, sicut
superius dictum est, magis sunt
reverenter in dictis patrum exponendi,
quam ab aliis usurpandi: sicut quod in
divinis personis sit primum, secundum
et tertium, et causa et causatum.
He also uses certain turns of phrase which he
finds in texts of the holy Fathers, which, as
noted above, are in the statements of the
Fathers to be interpreted reverently rather than
be cited by others; for instance that there is in
God a first, second, third; a cause and a
caused.
In suis etiam expositionibus multis
impropriis verbis et indecentibus utitur,
In his own explanations as well he uses
words improperly and inappropriately, as when
Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm[25/05/2014 19:42:21]
sicut quod dicit, quod filius habet
proprietatem geminam inter patrem et
spiritum, ut ita dicam, subalternam per
modum praedicandi. Primo se habet ad
patrem tanquam subiectum ad
praedicatum, et secundo ut
praedicatum ad subiectum ad spiritum
sanctum. Quod est omnino erroneum.
he says that the Son has a kind of twin
property, subalternated so to speak in terms of
predication. He is first to the Father as subject
to predicate and then to the Holy Spirit as
predicate to subject, which is absolutely
mistaken.
Item dicit, quod imago in Graeco idem
est quod entitas secunda: quod omnino
indecenter dicitur. Item dicit, quod
imago non importat originem; quod est
contra Augustinum in Lib. LXXXIII
quaestionum.
He likewise says that, in Greek, image means
the same as second entity, an absolutely inept
phrase. He also says that the word image
does not imply origin, which contradicts what
Augustine says in the book on the 83
questions.
Sunt autem fortassis et alia in praedicto
libello quae vel dubia esse possunt, et
expositione indigerent, vel quae ad fidei
assertionem utilia esse possent, sed ad
ea quae praemissa sunt, ut credo, fere
omnia possunt reduci.
There are perhaps other points in the
aforesaid book which either could be
considered doubtful and would need
clarification, or which could be useful in
affirming the faith. But almost all of them can
be reduced, I believe, to the points set forth
above.
Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm[25/05/2014 19:43:28]
Home About this site What is an encyclical? Document Directory Pope Directory Church Councils Pictures E-mail

PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE
THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM
Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII
J une 20, 1894
To Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Catholic World
In Grace and Communion with the Apostolic See
Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction,
The splendid tokens of public rejoicing which have come to Us from all sides in the whole course of last year, to commemorate Our Episcopal
J ubilee, and which were lately crowned by the remarkable devotion of the Spanish Nation, have afforded Us special joy, inasmuch as the Unity of
the Church and the admirable adhesion of her members to the Sovereign Pontiff have shone forth in this perfect agreement of concurring
sentiments. During those days it seemed as if the Catholic world, forgetful of everything else, had centered its gaze and all its thoughts upon the
Vatican.
The special missions sent by Kings and Princes, the many Pilgrimages, the letters We received so full of affectionate feeling, the Sacred Services-
-everything clearly brought out the fact that all Catholics are of one mind and of one heart in their veneration for the Apostolic See. And this was
all the more pleasing and agreeable to Us, that it is entirely in conformity with Our intent and with Our endeavors. For, indeed, well acquainted
with Our times, and mindful of the duties of Our Ministry, We have constantly sought during the whole course of Our Pontificate and striven, as
far as it was possible, by teaching and action, to bind every Nation and people more closely to Us, and make manifest everywhere the salutary
influence of the See of Rome. Therefore, do We most earnestly offer thanks in the first place to the goodness of God, by whose help and bounty
We have been preserved to attain Our great age; and then, next, to all the Princes and Rulers, to the Bishops and Clergy, and to as many as have
co-operated by such repeated tokens of Piety and Reverence to Honor Our Character and Office, while affording Us personally such seasonable
consolation.
A great deal, however, has been wanting to the entire fullness of that consolation. Amidst these very manifestations of public joy and Reverence
Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they
lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of Christians.
This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were,
from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief.
But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and
now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the
example of Our Redeemer and Master, J esus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that
His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that
they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in J esus Christ, but
also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our
hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of
Divine Faith.
Pressed on to Our intent by Charity, that hastens fastest there where the need is greatest, We direct Our first thoughts to those most unfortunate of
all nations who have never received the light of the Gospel, or who, after having possessed it, have lost it through neglect or the vicissitudes of
time: Hence do they ignore God, and live in the depths of error. Now, as all salvation comes from J esus Christ--for there is no other Name under
Heaven given to men whereby we must be saved--Our ardent desire is that the most Holy Name of J esus should rapidly pervade and fill every
land.
And here, indeed, is a duty which the Church, faithful to the Divine Mission entrusted to her, has never neglected. What has been the object of
her labors for more than nineteen centuries? Is there any other work she has undertaken with greater zeal and constancy than that of bringing the
nations of the earth to the Truth and Principles of Christianity? Today, as ever, by Our Authority, the Heralds of the Gospel constantly cross the
Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm[25/05/2014 19:43:28]
seas to reach the farthest corners of the earth; and We Pray God daily that in His goodness He may deign to increase the number of His Ministers
who are really worthy of this Apostolate, and who are ready to Sacrifice their convenience, their health, and their very life, if need be, in order to
extend the frontiers of the Kingdom of Christ.
Do Thou, above all, O Savior and Father of mankind, Christ J esus, hasten and do not delay to bring about what Thou didst once promise to do--
that when lifted up from the earth Thou wouldst draw all things to Thyself. Come, then, at last, and manifest Thyself to the immense multitude of
souls who have not felt, as yet, the ineffable Blessings which Thou hast earned for men with Thy Blood; rouse those who are sitting in darkness
and in the shadow of death, that, enlightened by the rays of Thy Wisdom and Virtue, in Thee and by Thee "they may be made perfect in one."
As We consider the Mystery of this Unity We see before Us all the countries which have long since passed, by the Mercy of God, from timeworn
error to the wisdom of the Gospel. Nor could We, indeed, recall anything more pleasing or better calculated to extol the work of Divine
Providence that the memory of the days of yore, when the Faith that had come down from Heaven was looked upon as the common inheritance of
one and all; when civilized nations, separated by distance, character and habits, in spite of frequent disagreements and warfare on other points,
were united by Christian Faith in all that concerned Religion. The recollection of that time causes Us to regret all the more deeply that as the ages
rolled by the waves of suspicion and hatred arose, and great and flourishing nations were dragged away, in an evil hour, from the bosom of the
Roman Church. In spite of that, however, We trust in the Mercy of God's Almighty Power, in Him Who alone can fix the hour of His benefits
and Who has Power to incline man's will as He pleases; and We turn to those same nations, exhorting and beseeching them with Fatherly love to
put an end to their dissensions and return again to Unity.
First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the
yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient
faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so
great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons
and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.
The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them
consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them
that Christ's Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs.
Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus,
Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry
with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man
separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the
East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the
Vicar of Christ here on earth.
And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on
the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, "in
order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report"; so that the
history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began. Finally, in
two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as
Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.
We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our
own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of
kindly feeling. To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy
Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.
Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire
that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: "What
answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One
Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified? What will our defense be in the eyes of posterity? Oh, my Venerable Fathers,
we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren."
Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a
desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union,
such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse
of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which J esus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which
consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.
Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your
Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to
make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary, if you re-
establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased. May God,
then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: "Make the schisms of the Churches cease," and "Assemble those who
are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." May you thus return to that one Holy Faith
which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced
by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St.
J ohn Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the
East and to the West.
Suffer that We should address you more particularly, nations of the Slavonic race, you whose glorious name and deeds are attested by many an
ancient record. You know full well how much the Slavs are indebted to the merits of St. Cyril and St. Methodius, to whose memory We
Ourselves have rendered due honor only a few years ago. Their virtues and their labors were to great numbers of your race the source of
Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm[25/05/2014 19:43:28]
civilization and salvation. And hence the admirable interchange, which existed for so long between the Slavonic nations and the Pontiffs of
Rome, of favors on the one side and of filial devotion on the other. If in unhappy times many of your forefathers were separated from the Faith of
Rome, consider now what priceless benefits a return of Unity would bring to you. The Church is anxious to welcome you also to her arms, that
she may give you manifold aids to salvation, prosperity, and grandeur.
With no less affection do We now look upon the nations who, at a more recent date, were separated from the Roman Church by an extraordinary
revolution of things and circumstances. Let them forget the various events of times gone by, let them raise their thoughts far above all that is
human, and seeking only truth and salvation, reflect within their hearts upon the Church as it was constituted by Christ. If they will but compare
that Church with their own communions, and consider what the actual state of Religion is in these, they will easily acknowledge that, forgetful of
their early history, they have drifted away, on many and important points, into the novelty of various errors; nor will they deny that of what may
be called the Patrimony of Truth, which the authors of those innovations carried away with them in their desertion, there now scarcely remains to
them any article of belief that is really certain and supported by Authority.
Nay, more, things have already come to such a pass that many do not even hesitate to root up the very Foundation upon which alone rests all
Religion, and the hope of men, to wit, the Divine Nature of J esus Christ, Our Savior. And again, whereas formerly they used to assert that the
books of the Old and the New Testament were written under the inspiration of God, they now deny them that Authority; this, indeed, was an
inevitable consequence when they granted to all the right of private interpretation. Hence, too, the acceptance of individual conscience as the sole
guide and rule of conduct to the exclusion of any other: hence those conflicting opinions and numerous sects that fall away so often into the
doctrines of Naturalism and Rationalism.
Therefore it is, that having lost all hope of an agreement in their persuasions, they now proclaim and recommend a union of brotherly love. And
rightly, too, no doubt, for we should all be united by the bond of mutual Charity. Our Lord J esus Christ enjoined it most emphatically, and wished
that this love of one another should be the mark of His Disciples. But how can hearts be united in perfect Charity where minds do not agree in
Faith?
It is on this account that many of those We allude to men of sound judgment and seeking after Truth, have looked to the Catholic Church for the
sure way of salvation; for they clearly understand that they could never be united to J esus Christ, as their Head if they were not members of His
Body, which is the Church; nor really acquire the True Christian Faith if they rejected the Legitimate teaching confided to Peter and his
Successors. Such men as these have recognized in the Church of Rome the Form and Image of the True Church, which is clearly made manifest
by the Marks that God, her Author, placed upon her: and not a few who were possessed with penetrating judgment and a special talent for
historical research, have shown forth in their remarkable writings the uninterrupted succession of the Church. of Rome from the Apostles, the
integrity of her Doctrine, and the consistency of her Rule and Discipline.
With the example of such men before you, Our heart appeals to you even more than Our words: to you, Our Brethren, who for three centuries and
more differ from Us on Christian Faith; and to you all likewise, who in later times, for any reason whatsoever, have turned away from Us: Let us
all meet in the Unity of Faith and of the Knowledge of the Son of God. Suffer that We should invite you to the Unity which has ever existed in
the Catholic Church and can never fail; suffer that We should lovingly hold out Our hand to you. The Church, as the common mother of all, has
long been calling you back to her; the Catholics of the world await you with brotherly love, that you may render Holy Worship to God together
with us, united in perfect Charity Worship to God together with us, united in perfect charity by the profession of one Gospel, One Faith and One
Hope.
To complete the harmony of this most desired unity, it remains for Us to address all those throughout the world whose salvation has long been the
object of Our thoughts and watchful cares; We mean Catholics, whom the profession of the Roman Faith, while it renders them obedient to the
Apostolic See, preserves in Union with J esus Christ. There is no need to exhort them to True and Holy Unity, since through the Divine Goodness
they already possess it; nevertheless, they must be admonished, lest under pressure of the growing perils on all sides around them, through
negligence or indolence they should lose this great Blessing of God. For this purpose, let them take this Rule of thought and action, as the
occasion may require, from those instructions which at other times We have addressed to Catholic people, either collectively or individually; and
above all, let them lay down for themselves as a Supreme Law, to yield obedience in all things to the teaching and Authority of the Church, in no
narrow or mistrustful spirit, but with their whole soul and promptitude of will.
On this account let them consider how injurious to Christian Unity is that error, which in various forms of opinion has oft-times obscured, nay,
even destroyed the True Character and idea of the Church. For by the Will and Ordinance of God, its Founder, it is a Society perfect in its kind,
whose Office and Mission it is to school mankind in the Precepts and Teachings of the Gospel, and by safeguarding the integrity of Morals and
the exercise of Christian Virtue, to lead men to that happiness which is held out to every one in Heaven. And since it is, as we have said, a perfect
Society, therefore it is endowed with a living Power and efficacy which is not derived from any external source, but in virtue of the Ordinance of
God and its own Constitution, inherent in its very nature; for the same reason it has an inborn Power of making Laws, and J ustice requires that in
its exercise it should be dependent on no one; it must likewise have freedom in other matters appertaining to its rights.
But this freedom is not of a kind to occasion rivalry or envy, for the Church does not covet Power, nor is she urged on by any selfish desire; but
this one thing she does wish, this only does she seek, to preserve amongst men the duties which Virtue imposes, and by this means and in this
way to provide for their everlasting welfare. Therefore is she wont to be yielding and indulgent as a mother; yes, it not infrequently happens that
in making large concessions to the exigencies of States, she refrains from the exercise of her own rights, as the compacts often concluded with
civil governments abundantly testify.
Nothing is more foreign to her disposition than to encroach on the rights of civil power; but the civil power in its turn must respect the rights of
the Church, and beware of arrogating them in any degree to itself. Now, what is the ruling spirit of the times when actual events and
circumstances are taken into account? No other than this: it has been the fashion to regard the Church with suspicion, to despise and hate and
spitefully calumniate her; and, more intolerable still, men strive with might and main to bring her under the sway of civil governments. Hence it is
that her property has been plundered and her liberty curtailed: hence again, that the training of her Priesthood has been beset with difficulties; that
laws of exceptional rigor have been passed against her Clergy; that Religious Orders, those excellent safeguards of Christianity, have been
suppressed and placed under a ban; in a word, the principles and practice of the regalists have been renewed with increased virulence.
Such a policy is a violation of the most Sacred Rights of the Church, and it breeds enormous evils to States, for the very reason that it is in open
Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm[25/05/2014 19:43:28]
conflict with the Purposes of God. When God, in His most Wise Providence, placed over human society both temporal and Spiritual Authority,
He intended them to remain distinct indeed, but by no means disconnected and at war with each other. On the contrary, both the Will of God and
the common weal of human society imperatively require that the civil power should be in accord with the Ecclesiastical in its Rule and
Administration.
Hence the State has its own peculiar rights and duties, the Church likewise has hers; but it is necessary that each should be united with the other in
the bonds of concord. Thus will it come about that the close mutual relations of Church and State will be freed from the present turmoil, which
for manifold reasons is ill-advised and most distressing to all well-disposed persons; furthermore, it will be brought to pass that, without confusion
or separation of the peculiar interests of each, the people will render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
There is likewise a great danger threatening unity on the part of that association which goes by the name of Freemasons, whose fatal influence for
a long time past oppresses Catholic nations in particular. Favored by the agitations of the times, and waxing insolent in its power and resources
and success, it strains every nerve to consolidate its sway and enlarge its sphere. It has already sallied forth from its hiding-places, where it
hatched its plots, into the throng of cities, and as if to defy the Almighty, has set up its throne in this very city of Rome, the Capital of the
Catholic world. But what is most disastrous is, that wherever it has set its foot it penetrates into all ranks and departments of the commonwealth,
in the hope of obtaining at last supreme control. This is, indeed, a great calamity: for its depraved principles and iniquitous designs are well
known. Under the pretence of vindicating the rights of man and of reconstituting society, it attacks Christianity; it rejects revealed Doctrine,
denounces practices of Piety, the Divine Sacraments, and every Sacred thing as superstition; it strives to eliminate the Christian Character from
Marriage and the family and the education of youth, and from every form of instruction, whether public or private, and to root out from the minds
of men all respect for Authority, whether human or Divine. On its own part, it preaches the worship of nature, and maintains that by the principles
of nature are truth and probity and justice to be measured and regulated. In this way, as is quite evident, man is being driven to adopt customs
and habits of life akin to those of the heathen, only more corrupt in proportion as the incentives to sin are more numerous.
Although We have spoken on this subject in the strongest terms before, yet We are led by Our Apostolic watchfulness to urge it once more, and
We repeat Our warning again and again, that in face of such an eminent peril, no precaution, howsoever great, can be looked upon as sufficient.
May God in His Mercy bring to naught their impious designs; nevertheless, let all Christians know and understand that the shameful yoke of
Freemasonry must be shaken off once and for all; and let them be the first to shake it off who are most galled by its oppression--the men of Italy
and of France. With what weapons and by what method this may best be done We Ourselves have already pointed out: the victory cannot be
doubtful to those who trust in that Leader Whose Divine Words still remain in all their force: I have overcome the world.
Were this twofold danger averted, and government and States restored to the Unity of Faith, it is wonderful what efficacious remedies for evils
and abundant store of benefits would ensue. We will touch upon the principal ones.
The first regards the Dignity and Office of the Church. She would receive that Honor which is her due and she would go on her way, free from
envy and strong in her liberty, as the Minister of Gospel Truth and Grace to the notable welfare of States. For as she has been given by God as a
Teacher and Guide to the human race, she can contribute assistance which is peculiarly adapted to direct even the most radical transformations of
time to the common good, to solve the most complicated questions, and to promote uprightness and justice, which are the most solid foundations
of the commonwealth.
Moreover there would be a marked increase of union among the nations, a thing most desirable to ward off the horrors of war.
We behold the condition of Europe. For many years past peace has been rather an appearance than a realty. Possessed with mutual suspicions,
almost all the nations are vying with one another in equipping themselves with military armaments. Inexperienced youths are removed from
paternal direction and control, to be thrown amid the dangers of the soldier's life; robust young men are taken from agriculture or ennobling
studies or trade of the arts to be put under arms. Hence the treasures of States are exhausted by the enormous expenditure, the national resources
are frittered away, and private fortunes impaired; and this, as it were, armed peace, which now prevails, cannot last much longer. Can this be the
normal condition of human society? Yet we cannot escape from this situation, and obtain True Peace, except by the aid of J esus Christ. For to
repress ambition and covetousness and envy--the chief instigators of war--nothing is more fitted than the Christian Virtues and, in particular, the
Virtue of J ustice; for, by its exercise, both the law of nations and the faith of treaties may be maintained inviolate, and the bonds of brotherhood
continue unbroken, if men are but convinced that J ustice exalteth a nation.
As in its external relations, so in the internal life of the State itself, the Christian Virtues will provide a guarantee of the commonweal much more
sure and stronger far than any which laws or armies can afford. For there is no one who does not see that the dangers to public security and order
are daily on the increase, since seditious societies continue to conspire for the overthrow and ruin of States, as the frequency of their atrocious
outrages testifies.
There are two questions, forsooth--the one called the social, and the other the political question--which are discussed with the greatest
vehemence. Both of them, without doubt, are of the last importance, and, though praiseworthy efforts have been put forth, in studies and
measures and experiments for their wise and just solution, yet nothing could contribute more to this purpose than that the minds of men in general
should be imbued with right sentiments of duty from the internal principle of Christian Faith. We treated expressly of the social question in this
sense a short time ago, from the standpoint of principles drawn from the Gospel and natural reason.
As regards the political question, which aims at reconciling liberty with Authority--two things which many confound in theory, and separate too
widely in practice--most efficient aid may be derived from the Christian Philosophy. For, when this point has been settled and recognized by
common agreement, that, whatsoever the form of government, the Authority is from God, reason at once perceives that in some there is a
Legitimate right to command, in others the corresponding duty to obey, and that without prejudice to their dignity, since obedience is rendered to
God rather than to man; and God has denounced the most rigorous judgment against those in Authority, if they fail to represent Him with
uprightness and justice. Then the liberty of the individual can afford ground of suspicion or envy to no one; since, without injury to any, his
conduct will be guided by Truth and rectitude and whatever is allied to public order. Lastly, if it be considered what influence is possessed by the
Church, the mother of and peacemaker between rulers and peoples, whose mission it is to help them both with her Authority and Counsel, then it
will be most manifest how much it concerns the commonweal that all nations should resolve to unite in the same belief and the same profession of
the Christian Faith.
Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm[25/05/2014 19:43:28]
With these thoughts in Our mind and ancient yearnings in Our heart, We see from afar what would be the new order of things that would arise
upon the earth, and nothing could be sweeter to Us than the contemplation of the benefits that would flow from it. It can hardly be imagined what
immediate and rapid progress would be made all over the earth, in all manner of greatness and prosperity, with the establishment of tranquility and
peace, the promotion of studies, the founding and the multiplying on Christian lines according to Our directions, of associations for the cultivators
of soil, for workmen and tradesmen, through whose agency rapacious usury would be put down, and a large field opened up for useful labors.
And these abundant benefits would not be confined within the limits of civilized nations, but, like an overcharged river, would flow far and wide.
It must be remembered, as we observed at the outset, that an immense number of races have been waiting, all through the long ages, to receive the
light of Truth and civilization. Most certainly, the counsels of God with regard to the eternal salvation of peoples are far removed above the
understanding of man; yet if miserable superstition still prevails in so many parts of the world, the blame must be attributed in no small measure
to Religious dissensions. For, as far as it is given to human reason to judge from the nature of events, this seems without doubt to be the mission
assigned by God to Europe, to go on by degrees carrying Christian civilization to every portion of the earth. The beginnings and first growth of
this great work, which sprang from the labors of former centuries, were rapidly receiving large development, when all of a sudden the discord of
the sixteenth century broke out. Christendom was torn with quarrels and dissensions, Europe exhausted with contests and wars, and the Sacred
Mission felt the baneful influence of the times. While the causes of dissension still remain, what wonder is it that so large a portion of mankind is
held enthralled with barbarous customs and insane rites?
Let us one and all, then, for the sake of the common welfare, labor with equal assiduity to restore the ancient concord. In order to bring about this
concord, and spread abroad the benefits of the Christian Revelation, the present is the most seasonable time; for never before have the sentiments
of human brotherhood penetrated so deeply into the souls of men, and never in any age has man been seen to seek out his fellowmen more eagerly
in order to know them better and to help them. Immense tracts of land and sea are traversed with incredible rapidity, and thus extraordinary
advantages are afforded not only for commerce and scientific investigations but also for the propagation of the Word of God from the rising of the
sun to the going down of the same.
We are well aware of the long labors involved in the restoration of that order of things which We desire; and it may be that there are those who
consider that We are far too sanguine and look for things that are rather to be wished for than expected. But we unhesitatingly place all Our hope
and confidence in the Savior of mankind, J esus Christ, well remembering what great things have been achieved in times past by the folly of the
Cross and its preaching, to the astonishment and confusion of the wisdom of the world. We beg of Princes and Rulers of States, appealing to
their statesmanship and earnest solicitude for the people, to weigh Our Counsels in the balance of Truth and second them with their Authority and
favor. If only a portion of the looked-for results should come about, it will cause no inconsiderable boon in the general decadence, when the
intolerable evils of the present day bring with them the dread of further evils in days to come.
The last years of the past century left Europe worn out with disasters and panic-stricken with the turmoils of revolution. And why should not our
present century, which is now hastening to its close, by a reversion of circumstances bequeath to mankind the pledges of concord, with the
prospects of the great benefits which are bound up in the Unity of the Christian Faith?
May God, Who is rich in Mercy, and in Whose Power are the times and moments, grant Our wishes and desires, and in His great Goodness,
hasten the fulfillment of that Divine Promise of J esus Christ: There will be One Fold and One Shepherd.
As a pledge of these Heavenly Gifts, and in witness of Our good will to you, Venerable Brothers, and to the Clergy and people committed to each
of you, We most lovingly grant in the Lord the Apostolic Benediction.

Bergoglio-Francis: J ewsStill God'sChosenPeople| NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-jews-chosen-people.htm[25/05/201419:44:06]
Exposing the Modernist Vatican II Church
Un-Veiled: Francis' Statue of Mary Novus Ordo Wire Novus Ordo Bishops Invalid
Francis the Judaizer...
HERESY!
Jorge Bergoglio in 2010:
" Jews Still God's Chosen People"
The attacks on Catholicism perpetrated by J orge Mario Bergoglio, former "Archbishop" of Buenos Aires and now
"Pope" Francis in the Vatican II Sect, apparently know no bounds. In 2010, then-"Cardinal" Bergoglio co-authored a
book with J ewish rabbi AbrahamSkorka (as we reported here), entitled On Heaven and Earth. It has since been
translated fromthe original Spanish and published in the United States and many other parts of the world.
In Chapter 24 of this book, we find Mr. Bergoglio uttering the following incredibly bold heresy, which he bases, of
course, on the Second Vatican Council (1962-65):
There is a phrase fromthe Second Vatican Council that is
essential: it says that God showed Himself to all men and
rescues, first of all, the Chosen People. Since God is faithful to
His promises, He did not reject them. The Church officially
recognizes that the People of Israel continue to be the Chosen
People. Nowhere does it say: "You lost the game, now it is our
turn." It is a recognition of the People of Israel. That, I think, is
the most courageous thing fromVatican II on the subject.
(J orge M. Bergoglio and AbrahamSkorka, On Heaven and
Earth [New York: Image, 2013], p. 188)
Home About Us Novus Ordo Wire J ohn XXIII J ohn Paul II Benedict XVI Francis I Ecumenism Holy Mass Resources Contact Quotes FAQs Search Twitter Feed Book Store Site Map/Index
Bergoglio-Francis: J ewsStill God'sChosenPeople| NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-jews-chosen-people.htm[25/05/201419:44:06]
Wow!
Obviously, Francis cannot produce a shred of evidence fromthe Catholic Church to support his heretical thesis that
today's J ews are God's Chosen People, which is why he must refer to the Novus Ordo Church's bogus Second
Vatican Council to substantiate it. Bergoglio is quite aware that his idea contradicts the prior, true Catholic
Magisterium, as is evidenced by him calling the council's doctrine "courageous." Obviously there would be nothing
courageous about simply repeating the constant teaching of the Church. On the other hand, some kind of courage is
required for uttering something novel, something revolutionary, something for which one could perhaps be censured
or otherwise punished.
So, let us pose the question: Are today's J ews God's Chosen People?
No, of course not. Yet this is an error very prevalent in the Novus Ordo Sect, which considers the J ews of our day to
be Catholics' "elder brothers in the Faith," as Antipope John Paul II first infamously put it in 1987. To call J ewish
people our "elder brothers in the Faith" is as non-sensical as it is heretical, for the J ews do not possess the Faith but
reject it, so they could hardly be our supernatural brothers. To say that theirs is the Faith of Abraham is likewise
false, as Our Blessed Lord made clear when this very argument was raised against Him: "If you be the children of
Abraham, do the works of Abraham" (J n 8:39); and "Abrahamyour father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw
it, and was glad" (J n 8:56).
Holy Scripture is permeated with evidence that the J ews who reject J esus Christ the Messiah are not God's Chosen
People, and even those who do accept Himare not the Chosen People either if they adhere to the J udaizing heresy
(or any other heresy), which began during the time of the Apostles and sought to bind Christians to the law of Moses
(see Acts 15).
Let us take a moment and look at a select few passages fromHoly Writ to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a
doubt that today's descendants of Abrahamare no longer God's Chosen People. This helps also to illustrate that it
does not take any complicated theological argument to understand this fundamental tenet of Christianity; but a mere
basic reading of the Bible suffices to come to understand the concept that there is now a New Covenant which
includes anyone and does away with the idea of a Chosen People predicated on a line of fleshly descendants:
Daniel 9:26
And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: and the people that shall deny him shall not be his.
Mt 3:9-10
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abrahamfor our father. For I tell you that God is able of these
stones to raise up children to Abraham. For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that
doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.
Mt 21:42-45
J esus saith to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is
become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes. Therefore I say
to you, that the kingdomof God shall be taken fromyou, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits
thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him
to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they knew that he spoke of them.
Lk 16:16
The law and the prophets were until J ohn; fromthat time the kingdomof God is preached, and every one useth
violence towards it.
Jn 8:42-45
J esus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For fromGod I proceeded, and
came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my
word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer fromthe
beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his
own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not.
Rom 11:19-23
Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well: because of unbelief they were
broken off. But thou standest by faith: be not highminded, but fear. For if God hath not spared the natural
branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee. See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards
them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness,
otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is
able to graft them in again."
Bergoglio-Francis: J ewsStill God'sChosenPeople| NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-jews-chosen-people.htm[25/05/201419:44:06]
1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing: but the observance of the commandments of God.
2 Cor 3:11-15
For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is in glory. Having therefore such
hope, we use much confidence: And not as Moses put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel might not
steadfastly look on the face of that which is made void. But their senses were made dull. For, until this present
day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made
void). But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.
Gal 3:7
Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:26-29
For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ J esus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ,
have put on Christ. There is neither J ew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor
female. For you are all one in Christ J esus. And if you be Christ' s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs
according to the promise.
Heb 8:6-13
But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament, which is
established on better promises. For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been
sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will
perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of J uda, a new testament: Not according to the testament
which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt:
because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the testament
which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind, and in
their heart will I write them: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: And they shall not teach every
man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me fromthe least to the
greatest of them: Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more. Now in
saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.
Heb 10:9
Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which
followeth.
There is absolutely no excuse. Few things are taught more clearly in Holy Scripture than the fact that the Old
Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ, and that in this New Covenant the Chosen People are
not the fleshly descendants of Abrahambut all those who are baptized in Christ and profess the True Faith.
The Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV taught on this matter just as clearly:
[This council] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the
matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the
Mosiac law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites,
sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to
signify something in the future, although they were suited to
the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had
been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the
New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the
passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and
submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if
faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.
Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the
promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed
until they were believed to be in no way necessary for
salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts
that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal
salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe
circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of
the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the
least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday
they recover fromthese errors.
Bergoglio-Francis: J ewsStill God'sChosenPeople| NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-jews-chosen-people.htm[25/05/201419:44:06]
(Council of Florence, Decree Cantate Domino [1442]; Denz.
712; underlining added.)
This is the Catholic Faith; not the hippie talk you hear fromFrancis, which he has now "officially" promulgated in his
wordy " Apostolic Exhortation" Evangelii Gaudium, and on account of which "Fr." Paul Kramer has now publicly
admitted Francis cannot be the Pope.
But the evidence continues.
In addition to the foregoing, we can also find the true Catholic position enunciated by ordinary Catholic authors and
missionaries. As Fr. Richard F. Clarke, S.J ., succinctly put it: "We ought to remember that Catholics are, far more
than the J ews were, the chosen people of God..." (Clarke, "The Ministry of J esus: Short Meditations on the Public
Life of Our Lord", in Beautiful Pearls of Catholic Truth [Cincinnati, OH: Henry Sphar & Co., 1897], p. 542). Yes,
"far more than the J ews were," because while the J ews were the Chosen People of the Promise, Catholics are the
Chosen People of the Fulfillment, as the New Covenant has replaced the Old, as the Reality has replaced the
foreshadowing.
This is echoed by Dom Gaspar Lefebvre, O.S.B., who in his popular St. Andrew Daily Missal writes the following note
explaining the reference to Agar in the Epistle for the Fourth Sunday of Lent (Galatians 4:22-31):
St. Paul provides us with an interpretation of a famous
passage of Genesis (16; 21. 1-21) showing that in the
economy of salvation all is based on the gift of God, the
"promise." Christians, successors to the J ews, are the
authentic heirs to this promise.
(St. Andrew Daily Missal, Vol. 2 [St. Paul, MN: E.M. Lohmann,
1958], p. 158)
Fr. William Gahan, O.S.A., elaborates on this, emphasizing the heinousness of the apostate J ews' rejection of Christ,
which had as its immediate effect God's rejection of them:
They despised the oracles of Heaven, and rejected the
Messiah who had been especially promised to their fore-
fathers; they were unwilling he should reign over them, and
blindly preferred the tyrannical dominion of Herod to the
sweet yoke of his Gospel. It is no wonder, then, that they
ceased to be the chosen people of God; no wonder that,
after thus frustrating the designs of his mercy, they felt the
severe effects of his justice, and in their turn were rejected
and cast off like abortives, in punishment of their obstinacy
and perverseness, and on account of their infidelity in not
corresponding with the graces which were offered to them.
(Gahan, Sermons and Moral Discourses: for all the
Sundays and Principal Festivals of the Year , Vol. 2, 3rd
ed. [Dublin: Richard Coyne, 1846], p. 55; underlining added.)
Does Mr. Bergoglio believe this? No, of course not. He doesn't because he is not a Catholic; he is a heretic. He
rejects the perennial teaching of the Church and instead prefers the "courageous" novelties of the Second Vatican
Council. Such are the facts. Clearly, the true doctrine is that the J ews, by rejecting Christ, have forfeited their status
as the Chosen People. Catholics are right; Francis is wrong. It's really that simple.
But Holy Mother Church does not merely teach this truth in her Scriptures, magisterial documents, and approved
catechisms; she also teaches it through her Sacred Liturgy (which is exactly why the Vatican II Modernists had to
come up with a New Liturgy). Let us take a quick look at two prayers that are extremely clear and insightful on this
point:
Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
"Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once Thy chosen people: Of old they called down
upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life."
Bergoglio-Francis: J ewsStill God'sChosenPeople| NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-jews-chosen-people.htm[25/05/201419:44:06]
Notice the Church in this indulgenced prayer calls the J ews "once [God's] chosen people" -- "once," as in, "now no
longer." There is no roomfor interpretation here.
And further:
Good Friday Liturgy, Sacred Congregation of Rites, Nov. 16, 1955
"Let us pray also for the unbelieving J ews: that almighty God may remove the veil fromtheir hearts; so that they
too may acknowledge J esus Christ our Lord. ... Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude fromthy mercy
even J ewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging
the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered fromtheir darkness."
Here, too, it would seem rather difficult to square the notion of "Still-the-Chosen-People" with their "unbelief", their
"faithlessness", and their "darkness", fromall of which this beautiful prayer begs they be delivered. It is no wonder the
Novus Ordo liturgy discarded this Good Friday prayer and replaced it with a blasphemous petition to God that the
apostate J ews would "continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness [!!] to his covenant" (more here). It
is patently obvious that the Novus Ordo Church has changed the Catholic teaching.
Exit the "hermeneutic of continuity."
This brief exposition of the true doctrine suffices to refute Bergoglio's laughably absurd claim that today's J ews
"continue to be the Chosen People", that God "did not reject them", and that "nowhere does it say: 'You lost
the game, now it is our turn.'" As we have seen, the Church says precisely that.
One can see the utter absurdity of the Bergoglian heresy also in some simple but sober considerations: If the J ews
are God's Chosen People, what in the world are we doing being Catholics? Why not become J ewish then?
Alternatively, if it be said that Christ is only for non-J ews, i.e. Gentiles, why did He preach exclusively to the J ews,
adding that "if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin" (J n 8:24)? Furthermore, why did the Messiah
allow Himself to be crucified "King of the J ews"?
No one who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of the New Testament could innocently claim that today's
J ews are the Chosen People and do not need Christ, that they somehow still have a valid Covenant with God, on the
specious pretext that "God is faithful."
Now, for the sake of being clear, let us emphasize that it is crucial to distinguish the J ewish people of today fromthe
J ews of the Old Testament. There may be a physical connection between the two, inasmuch as the former descend
carnally fromthe latter, but spiritually there is no association whatsoever because today's J ews are the spiritual
descendants of Annas and Caiphas, who rejected Christ and therefore the true religion. "It is the spirit that
quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing," we must remember (J n 6:63).
So, what does this mean for today's J ews, then? Quite simply, it means that they, too, like anyone else, must convert
to the Holy Catholic Church, the Ark of Salvation, which God has established for the salvation of all, if they wish to be
saved fromhell: "Where there is neither Gentile nor J ew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian,
bond nor free. But Christ is all, and in all" (Col 3:11). They must receive baptism and believe the True Faith and die
in the state of sanctifying grace, so that their souls will be presented spotless before the Eternal Throne of
God through the merits of Christ, so they will hear these blessed words: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess
you the kingdomprepared for you fromthe foundation of the world" (Mt 25:34).
This is what we mean when we say that God is faithful to His promises. The Catholic Church is the means of
salvation of the New Covenant, established by Christ for this very reason. The New Covenant in the Blood of Christ
is the fulfillment and flower, as it were, of the Old Covenant (see Mt 5:17). The Synagogue has become the Church.
God is faithful indeed, by fulfilling what He has promised: to bring salvation in the New Covenant through the Blood
of Christ by means of His Catholic Church, foreshadowed in many different ways in the Old Covenant. Christ is the
fulfillment of the law.
By denying all this, J orge Bergoglio is denying the J ews the greatest charity of all: the True Faith, which alone can
save their souls, because without it, "it is impossible to please God" (Heb 11:6).
"But though we, or an angel fromheaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let
him be anathema" (Gal 1:8).
Anathema to Bergoglio the Apostate!
See Also:
Bergoglio-Francis: J ewsStill God'sChosenPeople| NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-jews-chosen-people.htm[25/05/201419:44:06]
Meet Kosher Frank - Francis joins Rabbi Skorka in Jewish Prayers at Vatican
" Cardinal" Bergoglio (Francis) Hosts Jewish Memorial Service in Catholic Cathedral
Moishe Chagall's " White Crucifixion" is Francis' Favorite Painting
Francis on Atheists, Redemption, and " Doing Good"
" How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking" by J oseph Roddy (Reprint fromLook Magazine, 1966)
The Modernist Errors of the Second Vatican Council (3-Hour Radio Program)
For the Conversion of the Jews by Tertullian
" Present-Day Judaism Is Not Old Testament Judaism" by David Goldstein (convert fromJ udaism)
Letters of a Hebrew Catholic to Mr. Isaacs by David Goldstein, convert fromJ udaism -- great apologetics tool,
charitably showing why today's J udaism is not the J udaism of the Old Testament and why J esus Christ is the
Promised Messiah
What Say you? by David Goldstein -- great apologetics tool answering questions fromatheists, agnostics, J ews,
Protestants, Seventh-Day Adventists, secularists
Nov 3, 2013, 11:19 PM
Disclaimer:
We are not responsible for the content of externally-linked web pages. We do not necessarily endorse the content linked, unless this is explicitly stated. When linked
content is endorsed by Novus Ordo Watch, this endorsement does not necessarily extend to everything expressed by the organization, entity, editor, or author of said
content.
Fair Use Notice:
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you
wish to use copyrighted material fromthis site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission fromthe copyright owner.
More Heresy from Francis: Faith Without Works Not True Faith? | NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/heresy-francis-true-faith.htm[25/05/2014 19:44:35]
Exposing the Modernist Vatican II Church
Poll: " Saint" John Paul II and the Semi -Trads Novus Ordo Wire Deacon Sandy Speaks
CAUTION! Francis Speaks!
HERESY:
Francis says Faith without Works
" Is Not [True] Faith"
When a man who does not possess true Faith presumes to lecture the world on what constitutes true Faith, it is not
exactly surprising that he should get it wrong. In his "stream of consciousness" homily of Feb. 21, 2014, at the daily
Novus Ordo worship service at the Vatican guest house, "Pope" Francis uttered a verbatim denial of Catholic dogma
as defined by the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
The Argentinian antipope said: "A faith that does not bear fruit in works is not faith" (source).
Sounds good, doesn't it? Except it's heresy:
Reality Check: "If anyone says that with the loss of grace through sin faith is also lost with it, or that the faith which
remains is not a true faith, though it is not a living one, or that he who has faith without charity is not a Christian, let
him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 28)


Home About Us Novus Ordo Wire J ohn XXIII J ohn Paul II Benedict XVI Francis I Ecumenism Holy Mass
Resources Contact Quotes FAQs Search Twitter Feed Book Store Site Map/Index
More Heresy from Francis: Faith Without Works Not True Faith? | NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/heresy-francis-true-faith.htm[25/05/2014 19:44:35]
Francis was reportedly commenting on J ames 2:26: "For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith
without works is dead."
Now it is necessary to draw some distinctions here so we are clear about what we are saying: Faith without works,
that is, the virtue of Faith without the virtue of Charity, will not justify, will not lead to salvation. In this sense it is
therefore a dead Faith, as St. J ames says. However, it is nevertheless a true Faith, albeit dead, as the Council of
Trent defined infallibly.
How profoundly important this is can be seen when we consider the implications of Francis' heresy. If Faith without
works were not a true Faith, then this would mean that everytime a Catholic is in mortal sin, he is no longer a
Christian, no longer a Catholic. It would mean that any and all mortal sin would expel one from Church membership.
And this in turn would mean that, since we cannot know who is or isn't in the state of grace at any particular point in
time, we could never know who is actually a Catholic, who is a member of the Church. The visibility of the Church
would vanish, and it is no coincidence that Protestants deny precisely this visibility.
Even more so, since those who are not members of the Church logically also cannot hold a position of authority in
the Church, it would then follow that when a pastor, a bishop, or even a Pope commits a mortal sin and thus loses
the virtue of charity (sanctifying grace in the soul), he would at once cease being a valid pastor, local bishop, or
Pope. So one could never know who one's legitimate shepherds are who have the valid authority to rule, teach, and
sanctify them. Chaos would result, and the Church could not seriously claim to be the only Ark of Salvation, since
one would not even be so much as able to identify the Church.
By contrast to the Protestant heresy now endorsed by Bergoglio, Pope Pius XII taught in his beautiful encyclical on
the Church:
Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it
bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly
pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it
consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal
happiness. It is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is
allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He
did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it
may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of
the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose
charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of
supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast
to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are
spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary
fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23; underlining
added.)
Catholic teaching is very clear. It is necessary to have Faith as well as Charity ("works") to save one's soul, and it is
Charity that gives life to Faith. With every mortal sin, Charity is lost and so we no longer possess the supernatural life
of grace. However, Faith is not lost, unless, of course the sin was one against Faith itself, such as heresy or
apostasy.
The Council of Trent beautifully elaborated on this point:
CHAPTER XV
BY EVERY MORTAL SIN GRACE IS LOST, BUT NOT FAITH
Against the subtle wits of some also, who by pleasing speeches and
good words seduce the hearts of the innocent, it must be maintained
that the grace of justification once received is lost not only by
infidelity, whereby also faith itself is lost, but also by every other
mortal sin, though in this case faith is not lost; thus defending the
teaching of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God
not only unbelievers, but also the faithful [who are] fornicators,
More Heresy from Francis: Faith Without Works Not True Faith? | NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/heresy-francis-true-faith.htm[25/05/2014 19:44:35]
adulterers, effeminate, liars with mankind, thieves, covetous,
drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly
sins, from which with the help of divine grace they can refrain, and on
account of which they are cut off from the grace of Christ.
(Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 15; underlining
added.)
So we see that it is not simply an academic question of terminology, as in, "Oh well -- dead faith, false faith; what's
the difference?" The difference is enormous. It ultimately impacts whether or not we can know who is and isn't a
Catholic. That's particularly important in our day, when so many people claim to be Catholics but in fact are not.
How, then, do we determine who is a member of the Church? Pius XII addressed this question in the encyclical
already quoted, making the matter very easy to understand:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church
who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not
been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the
Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults
committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized
into one Body, whether J ews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 22; underlining
added.)
So, to be a member of the Church, to be a Catholic, you must (1) be validly baptized; (2) profess the true Catholic
Faith; (3) not be in schism; and (4) not be under excommunication (here canonists and moralists draw some more
distinctions, but these need not concern us now).
Note in particular point no. 2: You must profess the True Faith. Pius XII does not say you need only to believe it,
regardless of what you profess. This distinction, again, is crucial because it directly impacts the visibility of the
Church: While it is possible, through invincible ignorance, to mistakenly assent to a heresy and yet retain the virtue
of Faith, if you outwardly profess your adherence to this heresy, you cease to be a member of the Church.
For this reason, the Catholic Church cannot regard individual members of heretical sects as Catholics even if they
are not culpable with regard to their heresies and perhaps even possess the virtue of Faith. (The rejection of this all-
important consideration is one of the fundamental errors of the False Ecclesiology of Vatican II, which grants
"partial communion" to heretics on account of a valid baptism.)
For the same reason, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, compiled under Pope St. Pius X and solemnly promulgated by
His Holiness Pope Benedict XV, legislates that any public defection from the Faith results in an immediate and
automatic loss of office for all clerics, without the need for a declaration: "Any office becomes vacant upon the fact
and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: ... 4. Publicly defects from the
Catholic faith" (Canon 188.4). This loss of authority is not a punishment imposed by the Church but simply the
necessary and therefore automatic consequence of ceasing to be a member of the Church due to public profession
of heresy. (For our response to J ohn Salza on this topic, please see our exhaustive rebuttal, " The Chair Is Still
Empty" .)
Defection from the Faith -- heresy and apostasy -- are simply incompatible, by their very nature, with being a
member of the Catholic Church, which is essentially visible according to the divine constitution of her Founder, our
Blessed Lord J esus Christ. (The same goes for schism, which, however, is a sin against charity, not against Faith.)
So, if we take a good look at all of this, what do we conclude? We conclude that there is a delightful irony here:
Francis himself does not profess the True Faith but heresy, and he shows this, among many other things, in his
teaching about what constitutes true Faith! For this reason he is not a member of the Catholic Church and cannot
hold any position of authority in her. He is not the Pope and has no right to teach anyone, least of all Catholics, on
matters of religion. His "faith" is not only a "dead" faith, it is much worse: it is non-existent. He has no faith, none
whatsoever! For the Faith cannot be had in degrees but only as a whole or not at all:
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or
More Heresy from Francis: Faith Without Works Not True Faith? | NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/heresy-francis-true-faith.htm[25/05/2014 19:44:35]
less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the
Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he
cannot be saved" (Athanasian Creed).
(Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi , n. 24)
Now don't let yourself be deceived by the two or three "Catholic" things Francis says on occasion, and which the
Modernist "conservative" apologists love to harp on, for as Pope Leo XIII pointed out:
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who
admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as
with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our
Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition." The practice of the
Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous
teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic
communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the
least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative
Magisterium.
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 9)
Not looking too good for Bergoglio and his Modernist gang, huh?
But for all those Ratzinger fans who are now thinking, "Oh, if only Benedict XVI hadn't resigned! If only we still had
him! Benedict, Benedict!" -- we have a little nostalgia stopper: J ust a few years ago, Fr. Ratzinger uttered the exact
same Protestant heresy as Mr. Bergoglio: "[F]aith, if it is true, if it is real, becomes love, becomes charity, is
expressed in charity. A faith without charity, without this fruit, would not be true faith. It would be a dead faith"
(Benedict XVI, General Audience, Nov. 26, 2008). So says Benedict XVI. Who is right? Ratzinger, already under
suspicion of heresy in the 1950s, or the infallible Council of Trent?
"Hermeneutic of continuity," anyone?
Related Links:
Iam Vos Omnes: Pope Pius IX invites Protestants to return to the Catholic Church
Holy Office Letter Against Ecumenism (1865)
Response to an Objection: " Who are YOU to say who's a Heretic?!"
Debate: Did Vatican II Teach Heresy on the Church? (Video)
Response to Fr. Chazal on Sedevacantism
Response to Bp. Williamson on Sedevacantism
Heresy! Francis says Jews God's Chosen People, Old Covenant still Valid
Francis encourages Muslim in their " Faith"
Akin to the Rescue: Francis vs. Christ
Two-Faced Francis: A Flip For Every Flop!
Pope Pius VI condemns the Rhetorical Tactics of Heretics
Feb 21, 2014, 3:07 PM
Disclaimer:
We are not responsible for the content of externally-linked web pages. We do not necessarily endorse the content linked, unless this is explicitly stated. When linked
content is endorsed by Novus Ordo Watch, this endorsement does not necessarily extend to everything expressed by the organization, entity, editor, or author of said
content.
Fair Use Notice:
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The "Bad Popes" Argument | NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/the-bad-popes-argument.htm[25/05/2014 19:45:07]
Exposing the Modernist Vatican II Church
Francis Greets Protestant " Brother Bishop" Novus Ordo Wire Francis Interview No. 5
But haven't we always had "bad Popes"?
The " Bad Popes" Argument
A very common objection one hears when discussing Sedevacantism with those unfortunate souls who still believe
Jorge Bergoglio (" Francis" ) is the Pope of the Catholic Church, is, "But there have always been bad Popes!" They
are either not familiar with, or incapable of grasping, the difference between, on the one hand, Catholics who lead
immoral lives, and, on the other hand, heretics.
Francis isn't a bad Catholic. He's a Non-Catholic. That's the crux. Therefore, saying that we've had bad Popes in the
past and they were still valid Popes, is totally beside the point. A man who professes the Catholic Faith whole and
entire, no matter how wicked he may be, remains a member of the Catholic Church. Even if he hate God. Even if he
be an abortionist. Even if he be a sodomite. Even if he defile the Blessed Sacrament on a daily basis.
God forbid, of course! Such a man, if he does not repent, will have an eternity of suffering in hell. His Church
membership will have profited him nothing; his faith, entirely dead because without charity, will not save him in the
least. His knowledge of the True Faith will merely add to his misery in hell because he will have sinned with full
knowledge of the sinfulness of his deeds.
Yes, all this is true. But such a man, if elected to the papacy, would still be a valid Pope, because what keeps a man
from being validly elected to the papacy is not a lack of holiness but the profession of heresy (among other things). In
other words, what keeps him from being a valid Pope is not the commission of sins against morals (otherwise no one
could be Pope, since we are all sinners), no matter how many or how grievous, but the commission of sins against
Faith.


Home About Us Novus Ordo Wire J ohn XXIII J ohn Paul II Benedict XVI Francis I Ecumenism Holy Mass
Resources Contact Quotes FAQs Search Twitter Feed Book Store Site Map/Index
The "Bad Popes" Argument | NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/the-bad-popes-argument.htm[25/05/2014 19:45:07]
This is standard Catholic teaching and not controversial. Pope Pius XII put it best when he taught authoritatively in
his beautiful encyclical on the Church:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church
who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not
been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the
Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults
committed....
Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it
bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly
pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it
consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal
happiness. It is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is
allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He
did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it
may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of
the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose
charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of
supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast
to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are
spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary
fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, nn. 22-23; underlining
added.)
Note well, ladies and gentlemen: The only sins that by their very nature sever a man from the Church, the Mystical
Body of Christ, are the sins of schism, heresy, and apostasy. What this means is that these sins are such that
committing them renders you a non-Catholic. A heretic, after all, professes a different religion than a Catholic, and so
he cannot be a member of the Church, because one cannot be a Catholic and a Non-Catholic at the same time.
(The same goes, a fortiori, for an apostate. Schism is slightly different but this need not concern us here.)
Therefore, a schismatic, a heretic, or an apostate could not be a valid Pope, for this would mean that a man who is
not a member of the Mystical Body can nevertheless be the head of that Mystical Body, which is a contradiction.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, compiled during the reign of Pope St. Pius X, states very plainly: "Of course, the election
of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void" (s.v. " Papal Elections" ).
To appreciate how important and serious this difference is between bad Catholic and Non-Catholic, let us take a look
at one of the absolutely most immoral Catholic Popes in history: Pope J ohn XII (reigned 955-963). Prince Octavian
(his birth name) was only 16 years of age when elected, and he was a complete moral reprobate:
Nothing in his life marked him for this office, and everything should
have kept him from it. He was rarely seen in church. His days and
nights were spent in the company of young men and of disreputable
women, in the pleasures of the table and of amusements and of the
hunt, or in even more sinful sensual enjoyments. It is related that
sometimes, in the midst of dissolute revelry, the prince had been
seen to drink to the health of the devil. Raised to the papal office,
Octavian changed his name and took the name of J ohn XII. He was
the first pope thus to assume a new name. But his new dignity
brought about no change in his morals, and merely added the guilt of
sacrilege.
Divine providence, watching over the Church, miraculously preserved
the deposit of faith, of which this young voluptuary was the guardian.
This Pope's life was a monstrous scandal, but his bullarium is
faultless. We cannot sufficiently admire this prodigy. There is not a
heretic or a schismatic who has not endeavored to legitimate his own
The "Bad Popes" Argument | NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/the-bad-popes-argument.htm[25/05/2014 19:45:07]
conduct dogmatically: Photius tried to justify his pride, Luther his
sensual passions, Calvin his cold cruelty. Neither Sergius III nor J ohn
XII nor Benedict IX nor Alexander VI, supreme pontiffs, definers of
the faith, certain of being heard and obeyed by the whole Church,
uttered, from the height of their apostolic pulpit, a single word that
could be an approval of their disorders.
At times J ohn XII even became the defender of the threatened social
order, of offended canon law, and of the religious life exposed to
danger.
(Rev. Fernand Mourret, A History of the Catholic Church, Vol. 2 [St.
Louis, MO: Herder Book Co., 1946], pp. 510-511; underlining added.)
BAM! Did you get that?
Yes, there can be bad Popes, indeed. But in the exercise of their office they will be as orthodox and as Catholic as
any other. Christ promised as much: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18).
Unlike what so many prominent "traditionalists" have been spouting for decades, the Church is not guaranteed to
have a Pope at all times; but when she has one, she is guaranteed to have one who's Catholic. This is evident also
because the Pope is the principle of unity in the Church and the proximate rule of Faith; he is the guarantor of
orthodoxy and to him all must submit as a condition of their salvation (see Denz. 469). The idea that a heretic could
be Pope would throw all of this completely out of sync.
In light of all the foregoing, consider these beautiful quotes regarding the authority and guaranteed infallibility of the
Roman Pontificate:
"The vigilance and the pastoral solicitude of the Roman Pontiff ...
according to the duties of his office, are principally and above all
manifested in maintaining and conserving the unity and integrity of
the Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God. They
strive also to the end that the faithful of Christ, not being like irreso-
lute children, or carried about by every wind of doctrine by the
wickedness of men [Eph 4:14], may all come to the unity of faith
and to the knowledge of the Son of God to form the perfect man,
that they may not harm one another or offend against one another in
the community and the society of this present life, but that rather,
united in the bond of charity like members of a single body having
Christ for head, and under the authority of his Vicar on earth, the
Roman Pontiff, successor of the Blessed Peter, from whom is
derived the unity of the entire Church, they may increase in number
for the edification of the body, and with the assistance of divine
grace, they may so enjoy tranquility in this life as to enjoy future
beatitude."
(Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Pastoralis Romani
Pontificis, March 30, 1741; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The
Church, p. 31; underlining added.)
"The Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy in the
entire world. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of Blessed Peter,
the Prince of the Apostles, true Vicar of Christ, Head of the whole
Church, Father and Teacher of all Christians."
(Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Etsi Pastoralis, May 26,
1742; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 32; under-
The "Bad Popes" Argument | NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/the-bad-popes-argument.htm[25/05/2014 19:45:07]
lining added.)
"To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to
direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teach-
ing, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing
themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the
way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple
faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the
latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor."
(Pope Leo XIII, Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert, J une 17,
1885; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 263; under-
lining added.)
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is abso-
lutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject
to the Roman Pontiff."
(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302; under-
lining added.)
"Union with the Roman See of Peter is ... always the public criterion
of a Catholic.... 'You are not to be looked upon as holding the true
Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be
held.'" (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 13)
"...the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than
the Roman Pontificate." (Pope Leo XIII, Allocution of Feb. 20, 1903;
excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 353)
What? You haven't heard these things lately from your favorite Resistance-Traditionalist newspaper, blog, or
clergyman? You don't say. Try applying the above quotes to the Vatican II Sect and its "Popes", and you realize very
quickly that it's just not possible. Francis, even in his official acts, "the strong and effective instrument of salvation"?
Give me a break. If there's anything he's strong and effective in, it's causing damnation.
Take a good look also at the dogmatic teaching of the First Vatican Council on the connection between the Papacy
and the True Faith, a connection which is not merely incidental but essential and necessary:
To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors always gave tireless
attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the
peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that,
wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure.
Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now
gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and
the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those
dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there
especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith
cannot experience a failure. The Roman Pontiffs, moreover,
according as the condi-tion of the times and affairs advised,
sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or by examining the
opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by
particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine
Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held
The "Bad Popes" Argument | NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/the-bad-popes-argument.htm[25/05/2014 19:45:07]
which with God's help they have recognized as in agreement with
Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not
promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they
might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard
sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the
deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the
venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the
holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full
well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any
error, accord-ing to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made
to the chief of His disciples: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith
fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren"
[Luke 22:32].
(Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, n. 4;
Denz. 1836; underlining added.)
It's time to change the channel, folks. Time to stop imbibing the Semi -Traditionalist propaganda produced by The
Remnant and its cousins. Time to stop supporting " Fr." Zuhlsdorf . Time to stop reading the paid apologists of
the Modernist Vatican II Sect . Time to turn off Michael Voris.
Instead, tune in to some real Catholic information. Lent is a perfect time for that. "And no man putteth new wine
into old bottles: otherwise the new wine will break the bottles, and it will be spilled, and the bottles will be lost" (Lk
5:37).
As Catholics, we can take a debauched but Catholic Pope J ohn XII over a "nice" but heretical Francis any day. Pope
Pius IX reminds us of this once more:
Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion
have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this
Chair [of St. Peter]; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that
religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact,
the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell
cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity
of the Christian religion.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7)
But the supposed "Chair of St. Peter" in the Vatican II Sect has tottered and fallen; it therefore cannot be the true
and genuine Chair of St. Peter.
Where, then, is the true Pope? We do not know. For all we know, we do not have a Pope. The See of Peter has
been either vacant or impeded since 1958. It is most definitely not validly occupied by the impostors of the Vatican
II Church (J ohn XXIII, Paul VI, J ohn Paul I, J ohn Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis).
But keep in mind: Though the Church may not always have a Pope, she will always have the True Faith. And for this
reason alone we know that the Vatican II Sect cannot be the Catholic Church of our Lord J esus Christ.
More Information on this Topic and Related Issues:
HERESY: Francis claims Faith without Works " Not True Faith"
HERESY: Francis claims Old Covenant Still Valid
Why Sedevacantism? (Video)
Papal Impostors: Historical Precedents (Video)
Sedevacantism: Response to Bp. Williamson (1)
Sedevacantism: Bp. Sanborn's Response to Bp. Williamson
The " Rad Trads" Respond to Catholic Answers
The Absurdity of the " Recognize-and-Resist" Position Demonstrated
A Refutation of Various Common Objections to Sedevacantism
The "Bad Popes" Argument | NOVUS ORDO WATCH
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/the-bad-popes-argument.htm[25/05/2014 19:45:07]
Resistance and Indefectibility: Where is the Church?
The Impossible Crisis
Surely you don't believe in Conspiracies, do you?
And who are YOU to say who's a Heretic, anyway?
The " Canonization" of John Paul II: Decision Time for " Resistance" Traditionalists
The Chair Is Still Empty: A Response to John Salza on Sedevacantism
Unholy Orders: " Pope" Paul VI's New Ordination Rite is Invalid
50 Years of Vatican II: A Review of the Modernist Errors of the Second Vatican Council (audio)
Traditional Catholics and Devotion to the Pope: Can we " Recognize and Resist" ? (audio)
" The Ordinary Magisterium and Devotion to the Pope" (audio)
Eclipse of the Church: What happened after the death of Pope Pius XII?
Fr. Sylvester Berry in 1927: " Satan will set up a False Church"
When Death comes for you, how you will you choose?
Mar 4, 2014, 9:01 PM
Disclaimer:
We are not responsible for the content of externally-linked web pages. We do not necessarily endorse the content linked, unless this is explicitly stated. When linked
content is endorsed by Novus Ordo Watch, this endorsement does not necessarily extend to everything expressed by the organization, entity, editor, or author of said
content.
Fair Use Notice:
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Two Orthodox bishops accuse the Pope of heresy - Vatican Insider
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/ortodossi-ortodoxa-orthodox-francesco-francisco-francis-33491/[26/05/2014 10:11:01]
OTHER NEWS
Jerusalem awaits one last gesture
Italian newspaper La Stampas
correspondent in J erusalem, Maurizio
Molinari,...
Francis prays in silence before the Wall
of division
A significant unscheduled stop: he has the
popemobile stop and prays in silence...
Pope Francis puts peace at centre stage
on his first day in the Holy Land
Francis emphasized the urgent need to end
the war in Syria and to resolve the...
Peace cannot be bought, it is a gift to
be sought patiently
In his homily at the mass celebrated at the
international stadium in J ordans...
ALL NEWS
OTHERS SECTIONS
NEWS
Dear Francis, we are in love with a priest, please
review the celibacy law
WORLD NEWS
Bartholomew to visit the Pope with Coca Colas
CEO
INQUIRIES AND INTERVIEWS
A peace pact between all religions, with Francis
THE VATICAN
That impossible meeting between the two leaders in
the Holy Land
DOCUMENTS
Google Translate equates Francis to a better
world
REVIEWS
John XXIII in the midst of war: We could scream
louder but it would only bring more trouble
LANGUAGE: Italiano

English

Espaol www.vaticaninsider.com The Popes speeches
:: Monday 26 May 2014
:: Home :: News World News :: Inquiries and Interviews :: The Vatican :: Agenda :: About us
ORTHODOX PRIESTS
04/15/2014
Two Orthodox bishops accuse the Pope of heresy
Tweet
Two Greek Metropolitans, Andrew of Dryinoupolis, Pogoniani
and Konitsa and Seraphim of Piraeus and Faliro have written
a harsh 89-page letter to the Head of State of the Vatican
City , asking Rome to renounce its satanic pride
ANDREA TORNIELLI
VATICAN CITY
One of the signatories is new to these kinds of actions but this time the mile-
long letter (89 whole pages of it) sent to Pope Francis by two Metropolitans of
the Greek Orthodox Church - Andrew of Dryinoupolis, Pogoniani and Konitsa
and Seraphim of Piraeus and Faliro has been published in Greek and
English on a popular Greek religious website.

The two Greek Metropolitans address the Pope as His Excellency, Francis,
Head of State of the Vatican City, making no mention of his Bishop status. In
the opening line of their missive they state that their letter is addressed to him
with sincere love and motivated by the need to remind heretics of their holy obligation to return to the Orthodox Church
which the Pope (whose title appears in quotation marks throughout the text) decided to detach himself from. The authors of
the letter separate themselves (though they really need not have, it is obvious) from western and especially ecumenist
Christianity, branding Romes heresy and spiritual and ecclesiastical delusion as Papism. The two Greek bishops say
they unceasingly pray that our Lord J esus Christ gather together the deluded Pope and his followers, through repentance
and the renunciation of your delusion and heresy, into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church.

The pages about ecumenism which they describe as syncretistic are especially harsh: The letters authors do not recognize
the Catholic Church as a Church, neither do they see its sacramental celebrations as valid or recognize the Popes status as
Bishop. They define the Petrine primacy of power over all the Church as blasphemous as well as Scripturally and
Patristically groundless and non-existent. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility, meanwhile, is described as blasphemy against
the Holy Spirit which shows the satanic pride of which the Pope is possessed. Papism is not a Church but a religious
community, a parasynagogue, a heresy a total perversion of the Truth, the two Orthodox Metropolitans write in their long
letter.

The letter also gives a detailed description of what the two Metropolitans see as the most grave sins of the Catholic Church,
including accept[ing] the Devils proposal to make you almighty earthly rulers in return for your allegiance to him. They then
bring up the age-long issue of the Filioque in the Niceno - Constantinopolitan Creed, infallibility, jurisdiction, Baptism by
sprinkling and the separation of it from the mystery of Chrismation, the method of Eucharistic consecration, the depriving of
the Blood of Christ to the laity and of Holy Communion to children, the dogma of the immaculate conception and the bodily
assumption of the Mother of God, purgatory, indulgences, the mandatory celibacy of the clergy and the recognition so-called
Uniate communities.

More accusation-packed pages follow, with references from websites and newspapers, to try to prove that the Vatican is a
breeding ground for sin and obscenities. The letter mentions some romantic and pornographic films were allegedly
downloaded onto Vatican PCs and it recalls how Vladimir Luxuria was given Communion during the funeral held for Don
Gallo.

Francis is accused of everything under the sun, from blessing Harley Davidson motorbikes to the style of the World Youth Day
in Rio de J aneiro and the indulgences the Pope apparently gives on Twitter. The Metropolitans mention Ernst von Freybergs
nomination as President of the IOR following Benedict XVIs resignation and the ousting of the Institutes former chief, Ettore
Gotti Tedeschi. They even dredge up old allegations made against Francis collaboration with Argentinas military regime.

Many pages are also dedicated to the destruction of the Second Vatican Council and the openness towards interreligious
dialogue. A violent attack was launched against J udaism and the line taken by Benedict XVI, who is accused of
exonerate[ing] the J ewish people for the crucifixion of Christ, while J udaism now and throughout time with the satanic
Kabbalah and the demonic Talmud crucify daily the Savior of the world!

Neither is Francis forgiven for washing the feet of the young offenders at the Casal del Marmo prison in Rome last Holy
Thursday or for the upcoming canonizations of J ohn XXIII and J ohn Paul II.

The Orthodox Metropolitans also dedicate some pages to the issues of same-sex unions, Vatican finances and the Scarano
case. They conclude by saying that as Pope of the J ews, of the Rabbis, of the masons, of the dictators, of America, of
Ecumenism, of Pan-religion, of the New Age of Aquarius, and of the New World Order Francis has nothing to offer the
Orthodox Church. There can exist no form of compromise between Orthodoxy and Papism. They go on to say that Orthodox
1.6k Like
(Ansa)
(LaPresse)
(Afp)
search
Two Orthodox bishops accuse the Pope of heresy - Vatican Insider
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/ortodossi-ortodoxa-orthodox-francesco-francisco-francis-33491/[26/05/2014 10:11:01]
Christians can in no way take part in mixed marriages or enter into relations with those who are heretics and unbelievers.
1 2 Next >
LANGUAGE: Italiano

English

Espaol
HOME
NEWS
WORLD NEWS
INQUIRIES AND INTERVIEWS
THE VATICAN
AGENDA
ABOUT US
2011 La Stampa - LaStampa.it All rights reserved. Link | Contact
search
Two Orthodox bishops accuse the Pope of heresy - Vatican Insider
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/ortodossi-ortodoxa-orthodox-francesco-francisco-francis-33491//pag/1/[26/05/2014 10:12:41]
OTHER NEWS
Jerusalem awaits one last gesture
Italian newspaper La Stampas
correspondent in J erusalem, Maurizio
Molinari,...
Francis prays in silence before the Wall
of division
A significant unscheduled stop: he has the
popemobile stop and prays in silence...
Pope Francis puts peace at centre stage
on his first day in the Holy Land
Francis emphasized the urgent need to end
the war in Syria and to resolve the...
Peace cannot be bought, it is a gift to
be sought patiently
In his homily at the mass celebrated at the
international stadium in J ordans...
ALL NEWS
OTHERS SECTIONS
NEWS
Dear Francis, we are in love with a priest, please
review the celibacy law
WORLD NEWS
Bartholomew to visit the Pope with Coca Colas
CEO
INQUIRIES AND INTERVIEWS
A peace pact between all religions, with Francis
THE VATICAN
That impossible meeting between the two leaders in
the Holy Land
DOCUMENTS
Google Translate equates Francis to a better
world
REVIEWS
John XXIII in the midst of war: We could scream
louder but it would only bring more trouble
LANGUAGE: Italiano

English

Espaol www.vaticaninsider.com The Popes speeches
:: Monday 26 May 2014
:: Home :: News World News :: Inquiries and Interviews :: The Vatican :: Agenda :: About us
04/15/2014
Two Orthodox bishops accuse the Pope of heresy

Some of the beliefs expressed in the letter can be found on extreme right-wing Catholic websites and publications. What is
clear from this immense letter written by Andrew and Seraphim, is that the target is not so much Francis, but rather the entire
history of the Catholic Church and the Papacy after the schism with the Eastern Orthodox Church, especially the
developments which occurred after the Council.

In March 2012, Metropolitan Seraphim made a series of condemning statements, including one direct one against Benedict
XVI. The following month, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, sent a stern letter to Archbishop
Ieronimos of Greece, denouncing the actions of some hierarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church as unacceptable as they
opposed a decision taken by all Orthodox Churches to engage in dialogue with other Churches. The Orthodox world is well
aware of the unacceptable attitudes of these two bishops and they are not shared. In fact their attitude is seen as rather
Taleban-like. It is quite surprising therefore, that their comments are tolerated by the Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church.
< Previous 1 2
(Ansa)
(LaPresse)
(Afp)
LANGUAGE: Italiano

English

Espaol
HOME
NEWS
WORLD NEWS
INQUIRIES AND INTERVIEWS
THE VATICAN
AGENDA
ABOUT US
2011 La Stampa - LaStampa.it All rights reserved. Link | Contact
search
search