Catholic Patristics

Filioque

2010-10-07T08:13:00.045-04:00

Version 2.0.
*Denzinger 460, 14th Ecumenical Council (Lyons II in 1274), Declaration Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit: In faithful and devout profession we declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two beginnings, but from one beginning, not from two breathings but from one breathing. The most holy Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all the faithful, has up to this time professed, preached, and taught this; this she firmly holds, preaches, declares, and teaches; the unchangeable and true opinion of the orthodox Fathers and Doctors, Latin as well as Greek, holds this. But because some through ignorance of the irresistible aforesaid truth have slipped into various errors, we in our desire to close the way to errors of this kind, with the approval of the sacred Council, condemn and reject (those) who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son; as well as (those) who with rash boldness presume to declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two beginnings, and not as from one.
*Denzinger 463, 14th Ecumenical Council (Lyons II in 1274), Profession of Faith of Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus: He will come to judge the living and the dead, and will return to each one according to his works whether they were good or evil. We believe also that the Holy Spirit is complete and perfect and true God, proceeding from the Father and the Son, coequal and consubstantial, co-omnipotent, and coeternal through all things with the Father and the Son. We believe that this Holy Trinity is not three Gods but one God, omnipotent, eternal, invisible, and unchangeable.
*Denzinger 691, 17th Ecumenical Council (Florence in 1439), the 7/6/1439 Bull "Laetentur coeli" of Pope Eugene IV of Rome: In the Name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration; we declare that what the holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also. And since all that the Father has, the Father Himself, in begetting, has given to His Only-Begotten Son, with the exception of Fatherhood, the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son Himself has from the Father eternally, by Whom He was begotten also eternally. We define in addition that the explanation of words "Filioque" for the sake of declaring the truth and also because imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed.
*Denzinger 1084, Profession of Faith Prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII of Rome in 1575: I also believe, and I accept and profess all the things which the holy ecumenical Synod of Florence defined and declared concerning the union of the Western and Eastern Church, namely that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son; and that He has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father and from the Son together; and that He proceeds from both eternally, as from one principle and by a single procession, since what the holy Doctors and Fathers say comes to mean the same thing, that from the Father through the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds, and that the Son, according to the Greeks, is also the cause, and according to the Latins, indeed the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father. All things, however, which are of the Father, the Father Himself has given to His Only-Begotten Son in generation, outside of being the Father; the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son Himself eternally has from the Father, by Whom He has also been eternally begotten. And that the explanation of these words, "Filioque," for the sake of declaring the truth, and because of imminent necessity, has lawfully and reasonably been added to the Creed.

East: Archbishop St. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (190-265; November 17)
*On the Opinion of Dionysius 17 in PG 25B:504C: "I added the Holy Spirit, but at the same time I further added both whence and through Whom He proceeded."
WRH: The Father is the primordial source "whence" the Holy Spirit proceeds, and the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit occurs "through" the Son; see Fr. Jugie, p. 102.

*On the Opinion of Dionysius 17 in PG 25B:505A: "But in their hands is the Spirit, Who cannot be parted either from Him that sent or from Him that conveyed Him..."
WRH: This expression signifies that the Father and the Son are one principle of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit; see Fr. Jugie, p. 102: "Haec locutio significat communitatem possessionis et unitatem principii relate ad Spiritum Sanctum."

East: Archbishop St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (Doctor) (295-373; May 2)
*On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A: "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the Font of Life;' because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit." Greek: "Πατρὶ ὄντα τὸυ Υιὸν τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ ἀγίου Πνεὐματος."
WRH: The Holy Spirit has His existence from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

*Orations Against the Arians 3:25:24 in PG 26:376A: "For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word" Greek: "Αὐτὸς γἀρ, ὥσπερ εἵρηται, τῷ Πνεύματι δίδωσι, καὶ ὄσα ἓχει τὸ Πνεῦμα παρἀ τοῦ Λόγου ὲχει."
WRH: What else does God the Holy Spirit, being simple, have besides His perfect existence? This Athanasian statement means that the Spirit has His existence from the Word; see Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 82. This means that, pace Patriarch Gregory II the Cypriot of Constantinople, we say of the Holy Spirit not only "a Filio existere," but "a Filio existentiam habere," to use the words of Fr. Jugie, p. 195.

*Letter 3:1 to Serapion (Shapland 170) in PG 26:625B: "The Spirit has to the Son the same proper relationship as we have known the Son to have to the Father. And as the Son says, 'All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine' [Jn 16:15] so we shall find that through the Son all these things are in the Spirit also."
WRH: Just as the Son has a relationship of origin to the Father, the Holy Spirit has a relationship of origin to the Son, and not only to the Father. The Holy Spirit, therefore, has His divine existence, i.e., "all things," from the Father through the Son; see Fr. Jugie, p. 136. Cf. the following statement, qtd. in ibid.:
*Letter 3:5 to Serapion (Shapland 175) in PG 26:633A: "The Spirit is not outside the Word, but being in the Word, through Him is in God." Greek: "Οὐ γἁρ ἐκτὀσ ἐστι τοῦ Λὀγου τὁ Πνεῦμα, ἀλλἁ, ἐν τῷ Λόγω ὄν, ἐν τῷ Θεῷ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν."

*Letter 1:19 to Serapion (Shapland 111) in PG 26:573CD: "As the Father is the fountain and the Son is called river, we are said to drink of the Spirit."
WRH: Lest anyone object that this temporal mission has nothing to do with the eternal procession, I quote St. Athanasius as implying that the economy points to the inner life of the Trinity:
*Letter to Serapion 1:20 (Shapland 117) in PG 26:580A: the Holy Spirit "is said to proceed from the Father, because it is from the Word, Who is confessed to be from the Father, that it shines forth and is sent and is given".
WRH: We do not understand the Holy Spirit's eternal ekporeusis from the Father except in light of the temporal mission from the Son (Shapland p. 117 n. 16), and the other texts cited show that St. Athanasius has in mind also that the Father and the Son both eternally give existence to the Holy Spirit; see Fr. Jugie, p. 73.

Compare the following two statements to those of St. John of Damascus, qtd. in the section dedicated to that holy Doctor:
(1) Letter 1:20 to Serapion (Shapland 115) in PG 26:577B: "As the Son is in the Spirit as in His own image, so also the Father is in the Son."

(2) Letter 3:3 to Serapion (Shapland 172) in PG 26:628D-629A: "This unction [the Holy Spirit] is a breath of the Son, so that he who has the Spirit says, 'We are a sweet savor of Christ' [2 Cor 2:15]. … But if the Spirit is the sweet savor and the form of the Son, it is clear that the Spirit cannot be a creature; for the Son also, 'being in the form' [Phil 2:6] of the Father, is not a creature."

East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor) (329-379; January 1)

East: Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-394; January 10 East; March 9 West)
*Against Eunomius 1:22 in PG 45:464BC:

as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit's subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself.

WRH: The parallel means that the Holy Spirit derives His hypostatic existence from the Son and not the Father only (Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 158). The same applies to the below statement (Fr. Jugie, p. 158):
*Against Eunomius 1:22 in PG 45:464BC:

as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit's subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself.

WRH: The Son's mediation in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is necessary, since without a relation of origin (the only relations in the Trinity are relations of origin) between the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit would not be hypostatically distinct from the Son. Thus St. Gregory of Nyssa says the following in "To Ablabius on Not Three Gods" in PG 45:133BC:

While we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Hypostasis is distinguished from another; — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another through that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the mediation of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

WRH: The saint confesses the same truth in Sermon 3 on the Lord's Prayer in Johannes F. Callahan, ed. Gregorii Nysseni De oratione dominica; De beatitudinibus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p. 42, in which he expressly says that the Holy Spirit, qua hypostasis, is "from the Son" and not only the Father:

For both the Son came forth from the Father, as the Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the Father. But just as being without cause pertains to the Father alone, and cannot be made to agree with the Son and the Spirit, so also, conversely, being from a cause, which is peculiar to the Son and the Spirit, is not of such a nature as to be contemplated in the Father. Now, as it is common to the Son and the Spirit to exist in a not-ungenerated way, in order that no confusion arise as to the underlying subject, one must again seek out the unconfused difference in their properties, so that both what is common may be preserved, and what is proper to each may not be confused. For the one is called by Holy Scripture "the Only-Begotten Son of the Father," and the word leaves His property at that; but the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" [Romans 8:9]. Therefore the Spirit, Who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, Who is from God, neither is nor is said to be "of the Spirit," nor does this relative order become reversed.

WRH: The best manuscripts say "from the Son" and not "of the Son;" e.g., the seventh century Vatican 2066 discovered by Cardinal Angelo Mai, S.J. (†1854); see Fr. Jugie, pp. 160-161.

Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus
*Many learned authors believe that Theodoret denied Filioque. Fr. Jugie, pp. 171-172 lists Cardinal Hugo Etherianis (1115-1182), Manuel Calecas (†1410), Cardinal Basilios Bessarion (1403-1472), Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (Doctor) (1542-1621), Fr. Dionysius Petavius, S.J. (1583-1652), Leo Allatius (1586-1669), Fr. John Garnerius, S.J., and Cardinal Joseph Hergenröther (1824-1890). Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J. (1901-2006) of happy memory also says that "Theodoret ... accused Cyril of Alexandria of error in holding it" [NCE 5:719].

*Others argue that his expression in his counter-anathema to St. Cyril's ninth anathema "probably intend[s] to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son," against the Macedonians, in the words of Fr. Anthony John Maas, S.J. (1858-1927). Fr. Jugie, p. 171, lists Monk Michel Le Quien, O.S.B. (1661-1733), Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin, S.J. (1816-1886), and Fr. Theodore De Régnon, S.J. (1831-1893).

West: Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome (Doctor) (February 18 East/November 10 West)
West: Pope St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (Doctor) (March 12 East/September 3 West)
Mystagogy §84 in PG 102:368B,369B: "Gregory [the Dialogist] and Zacharias, bishops of [Old] Rome ... openly and clearly taught that the All-Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [i.e., alone]. … They added the following words a little later: 'The Paraclete--the Spirit--proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son,' Gregory in Latin and Zacharias by correct translation into Greek."

Pope St. Gregory the Great, however, affirms what St. Photius categorically denied. The holy pontiff states the following: "it is certain that the comforting Spirit always proceeds from the Father and the Son" [Dialogues 2:38 in PL 76:204; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 219]. This procession is eternal, because the pope says right afterward, "the Son says that He will depart that the Comforter may come, Who never is absent from the Son."

Is this an energetic manifestation or does the Holy Spirit derive His existence from the Son and not only from the Father? The latter is St. Gregory's view, since he teaches, "the Spirit, even in substance, flows from the Son" [Morals 2:92 in PL 75 ; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 218 & Siecienski, p. 70]. He might have been mindful of the nuance of the Greek term ekporeusis, which points to the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father before He does from the Son "according to authorship," since the Son receives the faculty of active spiration from the Father [St. Bonaventure, Commentary on the Sentences b. I, d. 12, art. 1, q. 1]. Wherefore he says, "The Spirit of the Father and the Son Who issues from both … proceeds ever from the Father" [Morals 30:17 in PL 76:534; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 218 & Siecienski, p. 70]. He also says that the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son in time corresponds to His eternal hypostatic procession from the Father and the Son [Homily 28 on John 20:21; qtd. in Siecienski, p. 70].

East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption) (676-749; December 4)
*An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:12 in PG 94:849B: "And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause."
WRH: It is one thing to say that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from the Son simply and absolutely, and another to say that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from the Son as from the προκαταρτικὴν αἰτία/αἰτίας ἀχρόνως/principium primordiale/principium originale/principium primum (Fr. Jugie, p. 190). A priori, it is highly likely that St. John writes in the latter sense, or else he would be at odds with the consensus of the saintly Fathers before him.

*An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:12 in PG 94:848D: The Father "is, ... through the Word, the Producer of the revealing Spirit."
WRH: What does this formula mean? "Producer" denotes the Father's causing, through the Son, the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. Three of the saint's other statements indicate that the Holy Spirit, qua hypostasis, indeed proceeds from the Son:

(1) An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:13 in PG 94:856B: "The Son is the Father's Image, and the Spirit the Son's, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him after His own Image."
WRH: There is a relationship of origin between an image and its prototype; see St. John of Damascus, Dialectics 6 in PG 94:548C; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 189.

(2) On Heresies in PG 94:780B; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 125: "The Father is the root, the Son is the branch, the Spirit is the fruit."

(3) An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:13 in PG 94:856B: "The Holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the Son."

*An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:8 in PG 94:832B: "And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son."
WRH: Thus when St. John of Damascus says that the Spirit does not proceed ἐκ (from) the Son, the great defender of icons is not rejecting Filioque, because εκπόρευσις (ekporeusis) can, in its general definition [cf. Rev 22:1], characterize only the relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Holy Trinity, viz., the Father; to say that το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον και του Υιου confuses the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Son is not the αἰτία because He receives His fecundity from the Father, to paraphrase Fr. Congar, p. 136. explanation is that of the most learned theologians and historians of dogma regarding St. John's statements like "non tamen ex ipso existentiam habens" from his Homily on Holy Saturday [Greek in PG 96:605B]. See Fr. Dionysius Petavius, S.J. Dogmata theologica, vol. II: De Trinitate, Book VII, Chapter 17, §8, p. 763 and Fr. Jugie, De Processione, p. 190. Basilios Cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472) says the following in his Refutation of the Syllogistic Chapters of Mark of Ephesus, Chapter 37 [PG 161:240AB], qtd. in A. Edward Siecienski, Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, p. 164: "That the Son is not the cause of the Spirit we can also say, for we understand the meaning of cause in the strictest sense, as used in the Greek idiom, whereby cause always is understood as the primordial first cause." In other words, several Eastern Fathers rightly say that the Son is not the cause because they use "cause" in the sense of προκαταρτικὴν αἰτία or αἰτίας ἀχρόνως, which can only be the Father; cf. Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 148.

West: Pope Adrian I of Rome (r. 772-795)

West: Pope St. Leo III of Rome (r. 795-816; June 12)

Papal Primacy & Infallibility

2010-09-09T17:17:00.105-04:00

This is the under-construction revised version of my March 2009 post on the same topic.

The Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils teach the following: (1) heterodoxy will never prevail over the Roman see; (2) the pope of Rome is the supreme pastor of the universal Church; (3) disobedience of Rome is unacceptable; (4) final doctrinal and canonical decisions rest with Rome; (5) the pope has the special authority to teach the entire Christian world; (6) St. Peter is the prince of Apostles who rules over them; (7) this authoritative primacy of Rome is permanent and non-transferable; (8) communion with Rome is necessary.

*Denzinger 694, 17th Ecumenical Council (Florence in 1439), the 7/6/1439 Bull "Laetentur coeli" of Pope Eugene IV of Rome: We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.
Lots of other witnesses coming, in addition to texts from the Ecumenical Councils:
East: Bishop St. Dionysius of Corinth to Pope St. Soter of Rome, Deacon St. Ephraim the Syrian (Doctor), Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor), Byzantine Emperor St. Theodosius I the Great (January 17 EO), Archbishop St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor), Archbishop St. Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation), Archbishop St. Flavian the Martyr of Constantinople, Patriarch St. Anatolius of Constantinople, Patriarch St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption), Patriarch St. Nicephorus of Constantinople
West: Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage, Pope St. Siricius of Rome, Hieromonk St. John Cassian the Roman, Bishop St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor of Grace), Pope St. Hormisdas of Rome, Pope St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (Doctor), St. Columba of Ireland, Pope St. Agatho the Wonderworker of Rome, Pope St. Nicholas I the Great of Rome

Eventually we will, God willing, address the alleged counter-examples to primacy and infallibility (St. Anicetus, St. Victor I [July 28], St. Marcellinus the Confessor, St. Liberius the Confessor, Vigilius, Honorius I, Gregory VI, John XXII, etc.)

The Eastern Orthodox commemorate the following popes as saints: Popes Sts. Peter (June 29), Linus (November 5), Clement I the Martyr (November 25), Alexander I (March 16), Telesphorus the Martyr (February 22), Urban I the Martyr (May 25), Anterus (August 5), Fabian the Martyr (August 5), Stephen I (August 2), Sixtus II the Martyr (August 10), Gaius (August 11), Marcellinus the Confessor (June 7), Marcellus I the Martyr (June 7), Sylvester I (January 2), Liberius the Confessor (August 27), Celestine I (April 8), Leo I the Great (February 18), Agapetus I (April 17), Gregory I the Great (March 12), Martin I the Martyr (April 14), and Agatho the Wonderworker (February 20).
1st century
West: Pope St. Clement I the Martyr of Rome (November 23) says in 95 [Letter to the Corinthians 59]: "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin."
2nd Century
East: Bishop St. Ignatius the Martyr of Antioch (December 20 East/October 17 West) says in 107 [Prologue to the Letter to the Romans in PG 5:685AB]:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

West: The Martyrs of Lyons entrusted St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who was a priest at the time, "with a special mission" [Fr. Bottala, S.J., p. 101] to visit Pope St. Eleutherius of Rome (May 26) to negotiate "for the peace of the churches," which were disturbed by "followers of Montanus, Alcibiades and Theodotus in Phrygia" [Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History 5:3:4]. Wherefore these same martyrs wrote to Pope St. Eleutherius [Church History 5:4:2]:

We pray, father Eleutherus, that you may rejoice in God in all things and always. We have requested our brother and comrade Irenaeus to carry this letter to you, and we ask you to hold him in esteem, as zealous for the covenant of Christ. For if we thought that office could confer righteousness upon any one, we should commend him among the first as a presbyter of the church, which is his position.

West: Bishop St. Irenaeus the Martyr of Lyons (August 23 East/June 28 West) says in 180 [Against Heresies 3:3:2 in PG 7A:847AB],

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [propter potentiorem principalitatem] – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.

WRH: (1) heterodoxy will never prevail over the Roman see; (2) the pope of Rome is the supreme pastor of the universal Church; (3) disobedience of Rome is unacceptable; (4) final doctrinal and canonical decisions rest with Rome; (5) the pope has the special authority to teach the entire Christian world; (6) St. Peter is the prince of Apostles who rules over them; (7) this authoritative primacy of Rome is permanent and non-transferable; (8) communion with Rome is necessary.
3rd Century

4th century
West: Pope St. Julius I of Rome (April 12). Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following:
Church History 2:8:

Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.

Church History 2:15:

Athanasius, meanwhile, after a lengthened journey, at last reached Italy. The western division of the empire was then under the sole power of Constans, the youngest of Constantine's sons, his brother Constantine having been slain by the soldiers, as was before stated. At the same time also Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, a city of the Lesser Galatia, and Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused on various charges, and expelled from their several churches arrived at the imperial city. There each laid his case before Julius, bishop of Rome. He on his part, by virtue of the Church of Rome's peculiar privilege, sent them back again into the East, fortifying them with commendatory letters; and at the same time restored to each his own place, and sharply rebuked those by whom they had been deposed. Relying on the signature of the bishop Julius, the bishops departed from Rome, and again took possession of their own churches, forwarding the letters to the parties to whom they were addressed.

Church History 2:17:

On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome: he then censured them with great severity for clandestinely attempting to pervert the faith; in addition, that their former proceedings at Tyre were fraudulent, because the investigation of what had taken place at Mareotes was on one side of the question only; not only this, but that the charge respecting Arsenius had plainly been proved a false charge. Such and similar sentiments did Julius write in his answer to the bishops convened at Antioch...

West: Bishop St. Optatus of Milevis (June 4) says in 367 [On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2 in PL 11:946A-947A]:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

The same saintly African bishop adds in the next chapter: "Damasus [was succeeded by] Siricius, who today is our colleague, with whom 'the whole world,' through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion. Now do you show the origin of your Chair, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!"
West: Pope St. Damasus I of Rome (December 11) says in 372 [Synodical Letter to the Eastern Bishops, qtd. in Ecclesiastical History 5:10 of Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus of happy memory, in PG 82:1220AB]:

"Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the Apostolic See, in the presence of Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honored sons.

West: Hieromonk St. Jerome the Great of Stridon (Doctor; June 15 East/September 30 West) says in 376 [Letter 15:1-2 to Pope St. Damasus I of Rome in PL 22:355],

I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul ... The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold ... My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.

WRH: (1) heterodoxy will never prevail over the Roman see; (2) the pope of Rome is the supreme pastor of the universal Church; (3) disobedience of Rome is unacceptable; (8) communion with Rome is necessary.

West: Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor; December 7) says in 378 [On the Death of Satyrus 1:47 in PL 16:1306], "But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?"

The same holy bishop says in Letter 11:4 to Roman Emperor Gratian in PL 16:946A: "Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church the head of the whole Roman world and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all [churches] the bonds of sacred communion."
5th century
West: Pope St. Innocent I of Rome (March 12) says in 417 [Letter 30:2 to the Council of Mileves in PL 20:590AB]:

It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office, that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches...Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office.

West: Pope St. Zosimus of Rome (December 26) says in 417 [Letter 12:1 to the Council of Carthage in PL 20:676AB]:

Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter... For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat... Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time...and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision.

West: Pope St. Boniface I of Rome (September 4) says in 422 [Letter 13 to Bishop Rufus of Thessalonica in PL 20:776A], "For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See."
WRH: (3) disobedience of Rome is unacceptable; (4) final doctrinal and canonical decisions rest with Rome; (5) the pope has the special authority to teach the entire Christian world.
West: Bishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna (Doctor of Homilies; July 30) says in 449 [Letter 25:2 to the Priest Eutyches in PL 54:742D-743A]:

We exhort you, honorable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.

East: Bl. Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus says in 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.

The same holy bishop says in his 449 Letter 113 to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome [PG 83:1312D-1313A]:

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges.

East: Byzantine Emperor St. Marcian (February 17 EO) says in 450 [Letter 73 to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome in Mansi VI:93AB]: "In all that concerns the Catholic religion and the faith of Christians, we have thought it right to approach in the first place Your Holiness who is overseer and guardian of the divine faith."
East: Byzantine Empress St. Pulcheria (September 10) says in 450 [Letter 77 to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome in Mansi VI:101D] that she is confident that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon "will define the Catholic belief by your authority, as Christian faith and piety require."
West: Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome (Doctor) (February 18 East/November 10 West) says in 450 [Letter 10:1 to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne in PL 54:629A]: "This mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles: and from him [St. Peter] as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery."

The same holy pontiff says after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 [Letter 105:3 to Empress St. Pulcheria in PL 54:1000BC]:

But the bishops' assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicaea in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter's authority we absolutely annul in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of all priests in such sort that even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.

The Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (July 16 EO) cry out in 451 [Session 2 in Mansi VI:972]:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo! So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril! Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e., at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

These same Holy Fathers say in Session 8 [Mansi VII:189C], "Long live Leo! Leo has judged with God!" West: Pope St. Gelasius I of Rome (November 21) says toward the end of the fifth century [Letter 5 to Bishop Honorius of Dalmatia in PL 59:30D-31A]:

For the government of the Apostolic See [Rome], engaged without ceasing in the care of the whole flock of the Lord, which care was delegated to the blessed Peter by the voice of our Savior Himself, "And thou, converted, confirm thy brethren," we [the Pope] neither can nor ought to dissemble such things as constrain our solicitude.

6th Century
West: Pope St. Agapetus I of Rome (April 17 East/September 20 West) says [Letter to Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem in Mansi VIII:923AB]:

We found the see of Constantinople usurped, contrary to all the canons, by Anthimus, Bishop of Trebizond. Our desire was to lead his soul back not only with regard to this point, but, what is more important, regarding the confession of the True Faith; but, attaching himself to the error of Eutyches, he despised the Truth. Wherefore, after having, according to apostolic charity, awaited his repentance of this belief, we decreed that he be deprived of the name of Catholic and of priest, until such time as he fully receive the doctrine of the Fathers who maintain the Faith and discipline of religion. You must reject likewise the others whom the Apostolic See has condemned.

East: Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:

Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic... we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.

West: Pope Vigilius of Rome wrote the following in 538 [Letter to Bishop Profuturus of Braga in Mansi IX:33]:

To no one well-or-ill-informed is it doubtful that the Roman Church is the foundation and the mold of the churches, from which no one of right belief is ignorant that all churches here derived their beginning. Since, though the election of the Apostles was equal, yea a preeminence over the rest was granted to Blessed Peter, when he is also called the Cephas, being the head and beginning of all the Apostles: and what has gone before in the head must follow in the members. Wherefore the holy Roman Church, through his merit consecrated by the Lord's voice, and established by the authority of the holy Fathers, holds the Primacy over all the churches, to which as well the highest concerns of bishops, their causes, and complaints, are ever to be referred, as to the head. For he who knows himself to be set over others should not object to one being placed over himself. For the Church itself, which is the first, has bestowed its authority on the rest of the churches with this condition, that they be called to a part of its solicitude, not to the fullness of its power. Whence the causes of all bishops who appeal to the Apostolic See, and the proceedings in all greater causes, are known to be reserved to that Holy See; especially as in all these its decisions must always be awaited: and if any bishops attempts to resist this course, let him know that he will give account to that Holy See, not without endangering his own rank.

WRH: (2) the pope of Rome is the supreme pastor of the universal Church; (3) disobedience of Rome is unacceptable; (4) final doctrinal and canonical decisions rest with Rome; (5) the pope has the special authority to teach the entire Christian world; (6) St. Peter is the prince of Apostles who rules over them; (7) this authoritative primacy of Rome is permanent and non-transferable; (8) communion with Rome is necessary.7th Century
East: Metropolitan Sergius of Cyprus says in 649, in a letter read in Session 2 of the Council of the Lateran [Letter to Pope Theodore I of Rome in Mansi X:914]: "O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed."
East: Monk St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (August 13) says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:

Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man ... but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.

The Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III (January 23 EO) say in 681 [Prosphoneticus to Byzantine Emperor Constantine IV from Session 18 in Mansi XI:665CD]:

But the highest prince of the Apostles fought with us: for we had on our side his imitator and the successor in his see, who also had set forth in his letter the mystery of the divine word [θεολογίας]. For the ancient city of Rome handed you a confession of divine character, and a chart from the sunsetting raised up the day of dogmas, and made the darkness manifest, and Peter spoke through Agatho...

The same Holy Fathers say in the Letter of the Sixth Council to Pope St. Agatho [Mansi XI:684B-D]:

Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed [father]; and therefore Christ our true God, Who is the Creator and governing power of all things, gave a wise physician, namely your God-honored sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. Therefore to you, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written [perscriptas] as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up...

These same fathers accept, in their entirety, the letters of Pope St. Agatho the Wonderworker that clearly set forth the doctrine of papal infallbility. Thus they say in their decree [Mansi XI:632], "This holy and Ecumenical Council has received with uplifted hands has greeted the letter of the most holy and blessed Pope of elder Rome, Agatho, to the Emperor."

8th Century
East: Patriarch St. Tarasius of Constantinople (February 18) says in 787 [Session II of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II in Mansi XII:1086AB]:

The divine Apostle Paul, who was filled with the light of Christ, and who hath begotten us through the gospel, in writing to the Romans, commending their zeal for the true faith which they had in Christ our true God, thus said: "Your faith is gone forth into all the world" [Rom 1:8]. It is necessary to follow out this witness, and he that would contradict it is without good sense. Wherefore Adrian, the ruler of Old Rome, since he was a sharer of these things, thus borne witness to, wrote expressly and truly to our religious Emperors, and to our humility, confirming admirably and beautifully the ancient tradition of the Catholic Church.

9th Century
East: Abbot St. Theodore of Studion (November 11) says in 816 [Letter II:129 to Sakellarios Leo in PG 99:1420A]:

Let him [Patriarch St. Nicephorus of Constantinople] assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch [the Roman Pope] to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.

The same holy abbot says in Letter II:86 to Byzantine Emperor Michael I Rangabe [PG 99:1332A]: "If there is anything in the patriarch's reply about which your Highness feels doubt or disbelief … you may ask the Elder Rome for clarification, as has been the past practice from the beginning, according to the inherited tradition."

He further says in Letter II:63 to Naucratius [PG 99:1281AB]:

I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of Hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie [Mt 16:18]. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.

East: Patriarch St. Ignatius of Constantinople (October 23) (qtd. in Likoudis 80) says in his letter read in the Third Session of the Eighth Council [Letter to Pope St. Nicholas I the Great of Rome in Mansi XVI:47E],

… saying to Peter, the greatest of the Apostles: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." And again, "I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be bound in Heaven." For such blessed words He did not circumscribe and define to the Prince [εξαρκος] of the Apostles alone by a kind of chance, but through him he transmitted them to all who, after him as his successors, were to be made chief pastors and divine and sacred pontiffs of elder Rome.

Eighth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople IV, 869-870), under the righteous Pope Adrian II of Rome (867-872), says in Canon 21 [Mansi XVI:174B-D]:

No secular authority shall treat disrespectfully or seek to depose any of the five patriarchs; rather are they to be highly honored, especially the pope of Old Rome, then the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Nor shall anyone direct against the pope of Old Rome any libelous and defamatory writings, as was done recently by Photius and earlier by Dioscorus. If a secular authority shall attempt to expel the pope or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema. And if an ambiguity or controversy concerning the Holy Church of the Romans be brought before a general council, the question should be examined and disposed of with becoming respect and reverence, and no sentence should be boldly pronounced against the supreme pontiff of the elder Rome.

WRH: Pope John VIII of Rome of pious memory (872-882) did not annul the Council of 869-870. Daniel Stiernon [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 180] points out that nowhere does Pope John VIII, in his genuine letters, abrogate the 869-870 Council, and he cites [n. 148] Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A., "Les letters de Jean VIII pour le rétablissement de Photius," in Echos d'Orient, XXXIX (1940), 138-156. Stiernon also stresses [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 176] that in the pope's genuine letter to Byzantine Emperor Basil I the Macedonian [MGH, Epist., VII, 169), Pope John VIII cites canon 68 of the 419 local Council of Carthage [Mansi III:771E], which reads:

not that the Council which met about this matter in foreign parts should be done away, but that it may remain in force with regard to those who so will to come over to the Catholic Church that there be procured by them no breaking of unity... there shall not be objected to them the decree contrary to their honor adopted by a foreign council, for salvation is shut off to no one, that is to say, that those ordained by the Donatist party, if having been corrected they have been willing to return to the Catholic Church, are not to be received in their grades, according to the foreign council; but they are to be excepted through whom they received the advice to return to Catholic unity."

WRH: Moreover, the letter of Pope Stephen V of pious memory (885-891) to Emperor Basil I in 885 or 886 proves that no pope annulled the 869-870 Council, since Photius, who nonetheless died in the odor of sanctity, was still, at the time, trying to have the former council abrogated. See Fr. Grumel's "La Lettre du Pape Étienne V a l'empereur Basile I^er" on pp. 129-136 of the 1953 edition of Revue de etudes byzantines; the letter, according to p. 137, is from the manuscript Sinaiticus gr. 1117, 326^v-328^v. Fr. Dvornik of pious memory did not address this in his monumental work, The Photian Schism.

10th Century

11th Century

Catholic Patristics

2009-08-10T11:50:00.017-04:00

Analysis (glosses on florigelia) and harmony/synthesis/consensus of the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church on the following issues, with a special focus on refuting Eastern Orthodox doctrines that are contrary to those of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church:
*Abortion
*Altar Girls
*Angels
*Anointing of the Sick
*Baptism
*Bible Canon
*Biblical Inerrancy
*Caesaropapism
*Confession
*Confirmation
*Contraception
*Creation
*Demons
*Divorce
*Dormition & Assumption of Mary
*Dyophysitism
*Epiklesis
*Essence-Energies Distinction
*Fasting
*Filioque
*Flood of Noah
*Head Coverings for Women
*Headship of Husband in Family
*Heaven
*Hell
*Heresy
*Homosexuality
*Icons
*Immaculate Conception of Mary
*Intercession of the Saints
*Judaism
*Kenosis
*Limbo
*Martyrdom
*Mary Mediatrix
*Mary Queen of Heaven
*Mary Spouse of the Holy Spirit
*Mary the Theotókos
*No Salvation Outside the Church
*Original Sin
*Papal Infallibility & Primacy
*Particular Judgment
*Perpetual Virginity of Mary
*Peter is the Rock
*Peter Went to Rome
*Prayer
*Predestination
*Priestly Celibacy
*Purgatory & Prayers for the Dead
*Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
*Relics
*Religious Liberty
*Schism
*Second Coming of Christ
*Sunday Worship
*Theophanies
*Theosis
*Toll-Houses
*Torture
*Transubstantiation
*Unleavened Bread in the Eucharist
*Usury
*Virginity
*Women Priests

Filioque

2009-08-04T09:28:00.091-04:00

Still to come:
*The controversy of St. Cyril of Alexandria with Bl. Theodoret of Cyrus
*The unilateral addition to the Creed

See also:
(1) my 12/17/2009 paper "The Cappadocian Fathers and Filioque" which addresses the statements of Sts. Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nyssa, in addition to why the Second Ecumenical Council did not define Filioque.
(2) my 1/6/2010 succinct nine-point post "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son"

1. This post is an answer to the following threefold question from Mystagogy §5 of St. Photios the Great [PG 102:284AB-285A]: "Who of our sacred and renowned Fathers said the Spirit proceeds from the Son? Did any synod, acknowledged as ecumenical, proclaim it? Which assembly of priests and bishops, inspired of God, affirmed this understanding of the Holy Spirit?St. Photios and the Tradition of the Fathers
2. The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, as Perry Robinson maintains,{1} restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints? The teaching of Catholic Church, unlike that of the Eastern Orthodox Church, does justice to the Greek and Latin Fathers. Should we expect any different of a Church that follows the teaching of St. Photios, who, despite his great virtues and learning,{2} misunderstood the West,{3} knew no Latin,{4} and failed express the truly Catholic tradition, for he did not include the Latins, St. John of Damascus, and ante-Nicene saints among the Church Fathers?{5} What we will refer to as Photian monopatrism{6} first appears, not in any orthodox writer, but in the work of the Nestorian Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia,{7} an arch-heretic of the Antiochene school whose writings and person were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II) in 553.

{1} Perry Robinson says, "The filioque is not patristic. What the majority of Latins held was an energetic procession and not a hypostatic procession, Augustine and Co being a later exception." See http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/saint-mark-of-ephesus-on-false-union-and-the-filioque/#comment-6314.
{2} This is not the place to discuss the sanctity of St. Photios the Great in light of the blots on his ecclesiastical career. It suffices to say that St. Photios is a Catholic saint; Fr. Francis Dvornik of pious memory says in The Photian Schism 389 that under Patriarch Sisinnios of Constantinople (996-998), who was in communion with Rome, the name of St. Photios was added to the list of saintly patriarchs (tomos tês Henôseôs). Fr. Dvornik cites Fr. Martin Jugie, "Le Culte de Photius dans l'Église Byzantine" in Revue de l'Orient Chrétien (1922-3), 3rd ser., tom. III, pp. 109 seq.
{3} His knee-jerk anti-Latin polemical treatise, the Mystagogy, is based on the strawman that Filioque destroys the μοναρχία of the Father.
{4} Malanczuk, V. "Byzantine Theology." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 818-829. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.
{5} Ibid.
{6} This is the terminology of the venerable Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J.
{7} "The doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit came into discussion early … Theodore of Mopsuestia denied it … None [of the Greek Fathers] ever wrote 'from the Father only'..." Gill, J., and B. L. Marthaler. "Filioque." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 719-720. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.

Making Sense of "Hypostatic Procession"
3. The Eastern Orthodox have not preserved the true understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, ever since what started as a dispute over misunderstood words became hardened into a theology incompatible with the sacred Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; now the Orthodox, at the very most, will grant, following Patriarch Gregory II the Cypriot of Constantinople [PG 142:1233-1245], that the υπόστασις (hypostasis) of the Spirit is eternally energetically manifested through the υπόστασις of the Son. The Orthodox maintain the Patristically impossible position that the Father and the Son do not, together, spirate the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. Filioque is necessary in order to fully explain the distinction between the person of the Son and the person of the Holy Spirit, to preserve the correct τάξις (order); the Trinity of Persons are distinguished by the relations of origin, as Patriarch St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople [PG 36:141C] and Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa [PG 45:133BC] teach. Since the Holy Spirit is a υπόστασις and given that He proceeds in some way from the Son, He must proceed as υπόστασις from the Son, which is to say His υπόστασις is from the Son. In other words, the υπόστασις of the Holy Spirit proceeds (is) from the Son eternally, but the primordial/unoriginate source of His divine hypostasis is the Father alone, for the Father alone is the (unoriginate) πηγή (source) and αἰτία (cause) of divinity. The Holy Spirit receives from the Son the being and oυσία (ousia = nature) of the Father, which the Son receives as Only-Begotten.

Different Senses of "Procession"
4. The Orthodox misinterpret the declarations of the μοναρχία (monarchy) of the Father, Who is the sole πηγαία Θεότης (Godhead-source), to exclude Filioque. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity stresses that Filioque deals not with the εκπόρευσις (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit from the Father as the sole ἀρχὴ-ἄναρχος (archê-anarchos = principle without principle) and πηγή (peghe = source) of the Godhead, but reveals the procession (Greek το προείναι = proienai; Latin processio) of the Holy Spirit in consubstantial communion from the Father and the Son, i.e., the communication of consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, διά (through) and σύν (with) the Son, to the Holy Spirit. Is not such a procession implied when the Greek Fathers, e.g., Bishop St. Gregory the Wonderworker of Neocaesarea [PG 10:985A] and Hieromonk St. John Mansūr Chrysorrhoas of Damascus, call the Holy Spirit the Image of the Son? How could a divine person share the essence of a divine person (A) Who does not have existence from Him or (B) Who is not one from Whom He has existence?

Complementary of the Greek and Latin Formulae
5. "From the Son" and "through the Son" are different ways to express the true doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. A few Fathers used the formulae interchangeably (e.g., Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers and Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria). According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church §248, the Greek formula directly expresses the order according to which the Father and Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit, and implies Their equality as principle. The Latin formula directly expresses the equality of the Father and Son as principle, and implies the order. The great Byzantine Fathers and Doctors had no reservations about being in communion with those great Latin Fathers and Doctors who openly and dogmatically professed Filioque. Therefore the formulae are complementary, not contradictory.

One Principle, Not Two Principles of the Holy Spirit
6. St. Photios thought that Filioque entails that the Holy Spirit proceeds from two principles, but because the Father and Son are one in everything in which they are not distinguished by the opposition of relation and they are not relatively opposed in their being the principle of the Holy Spirit, they are the one principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, as St. Thomas Aquinas, the prince of theologians, shows.{1} The term principle of the Holy Spirit is a substantive name (a substantive name is a form with an accompanying suppositum), but we do not say there are two principles because even though the Father and the Son are two supposita spirating, they are one form, God.{2} We use principle in an indeterminate sense when we confess that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit.{3}{1} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Angelic Doctor). Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 4, corp.
{2} Ibid., ad 7.
{3} Ibid., ad 4.

Whether the Equality of the Holy Spirit Demands that He Cause the Son Due to Filioque
7. The same Patriarch of Constantinople thought that if the Father and the Son both spirate the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit, in order to have the same equality and oneness with the Father as the Son possesses, should, with the Father, cause the Son [Mystagogy §4 in PG 102:284A]. On the contrary, we predicate likeness between the divine Persons on the oneness of the essence, not on the "relative properties."{1}

{1} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Angelic Doctor). Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 4, ad 3.

Does Filioque Confuse the Unique Personal Properties of the Father and the Son?
8. St. Photios echoes the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers that every real divine ιδιος is common to all three persons or proper to one person [Mystagogy §19 in PG 102:297B].{1} But he was mistaken when he thought that Filioque attributes to the Son a property distinctive of the Father and therefore confuses the hypostatic properties of the Father and the Son and destroying the μοναρχία of the Father [Mystagogy §10 in PG 102:289B,292A]. There are three personal properties, taking properties in the strict sense of a relation of origin constituting a divine person: the property of the Father--paternity--is γέννησις (generation), the property of the Son is filiation, and the property of the Holy Spirit is procession, i.e., passive spiration.{2} These are distinctive personal properties because they are instances of relative opposition (DS 1330): the Father to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son—for if the Holy Spirit had a relation of opposition to the Father only, He would not be distinguished from the Son, leading to a semi-Sabellian monster).{3} Active spiration is a relation, but not a property. It is not a personal property of the Father, pace St. Photios, because it is not relatively opposed to paternity or filiation; ergo active spiration is common to the Father and the Son.{4} Thus Filioque is no prejudice to the monarchy of the Father.

{1} Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor) says in Epistle 214:4 [PG 32:789], "In God, whatever appertains to nature is common … but the Person is known by the character of paternity, or filiation, or sanctifying power." Sts. Gregory the Wonderworker of Neocaesarea, Athanasios the Great of Alexander (Doctor), Gregory the Theologian, Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation), Eulogios, and John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption) teach the same truth. Bermejo, A. M. "Properties, Divine Personal." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 755. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.
{2} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Angelic Doctor). Summa Theologica I, q. 28, art. 3, ad 1.
{3} Ibid., corp.
{4} Ibid., ad 1.

Does Perfect Procession from the Father Render Filioque Superfluous?
9. What of the Photian objection that the Holy Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father, rendering His procession from the Son superfluous [Mystagogy §7 in PG 102:288C]? We have just seen that far from being superfluous, Filioque is necessary, since the power of the Father and the Son is numerically one and whatever is from the Father has to also be from the Son unless it is opposed to filiation, for the reason that the Son does not proceed from Himself but rather proceeds from the Father.{1}

{1} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Angelic Doctor). Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 2, ad 6.

He Shall Receive Of Mine
10. St. Photios said that "ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται" ("He shall receive of Mine") in Jn 16:14 does not mean that the Holy Spirit receives the divine substance from the Son [Mystagogy §29 in PG 102:309C], but that the Holy Spirit receives the divine substance from the Father alone (from Him that is Mine) [Mystagogy §22 in PG 102:301B]. However, as well shall see below, this is contrary to the exegesis of such illustrious hierarchs as St. Hilary of Poitiers (Doctor), St. Athanasios the Great of Alexandria (Doctor), St. Basil the Great of Alexandria (Doctor), St. Epiphanios of Salamis, and St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor of Grace), who interpreted John 16:14 to mean that the Holy Spirit receives the divine oυσία from the Son.

Now let us turn to what our God-bearing Fathers themselves have written.

1st Century
East: Bishop St. Dionysius the Areopagite Martyr of Athens (10/9)
11. St. Dionysios the Areopagite says in Divine Names 2:5 in PG 3:641D that "the sole fount of supersubstantial divinity is the Father." This is not antithetical to Filioque; see the explanations above.2nd Century
East: St. Justin Martyr the Philosopher of Caesarea (6/1)
12. In his 7/1440 Encyclical against the Uniates, Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus quotes St. Justin Martyr as stating, "As the Son is from the Father, so is the Spirit from the Father."{1} Mark chides the Uniates for saying that the Son proceeds from the Father immediately, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father mediately, which he contrasts with the position of St. Justin Martyr. We rightly confess with reference to "the persons themselves spirating" that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son," and that, with reference to the spirative power, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son immediately.{2}
{1} Robinson, Perry C. "Saint Mark of Ephesus on False Union and the Filioque." Energetic Procession. 16 Jan. 2008. 5 Aug. 2009 http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/saint-mark-of-ephesus-on-false-union-and-the-filioque/.
{2} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Angelic Doctor). Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 3, ad 1.

4th Century
East: Patriarch St. Athanasios I the Great of Alexandria (Doctor) 5/2
13. At the Ecumenical Council of Florence, Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus quoted St. Athanasios the Great in support of his theology.{1} St. Athanasios says [PG 28:97BC], "the sole unbegotten and sole fount of divinity, the Father." This, however, does not shut out the Son from participation in the procession of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit from God the Father. If it does, Mark would make St. Athanasios contradict himself, for the same saint says that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit [On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A]: "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit."

14. Moreover, the same great illuminator of the Church and pillar of faith says in 362 [Against the Arians 3:25:24 in PG 26:376A], "Everything the Spirit has, He has from the Word (para tou Logou)." Whatever the Spirit has includes His existence, i.e., it includes His essence and hypostasis. Ergo St. Athanasios explicitly taught that the Father, through and with the Son, communicates consubstantial divinity and thus gives existence to the Holy Spirit, without prejudice to the μοναρχία of the Father.
{1} Gill, Joseph, S.J. The Council of Florence, Chapter V: The Dogmatic Discussion.

East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor) 1/2
15. This great Cappadocian Father says in in 365 [Against Eunomius 3:1 in PG 29:655A]: "Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said."
16. Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus, struck by the unmistakable Filioquism of this passage, which is not compatible with his narrow Photian theology, was forced to maintain that it is not genuine.{1} However, he was wrong, according to the Rev. Reuben Parsons, D.D. of pious memory{2}:

the archbishop of Nicea tells us that out of six codices of St. Basel's works brought by his countrymen to Florence, five gave this passage in its entirety; while the one that wanted it "was defective in some parts, and had many additions, according to the pleasure of the corrupter." When he returned to Constantinople, Bessarion searched the libraries, and he found some new codices, written after the Council of Florence had terminated, and in which the above passage was wanting; whereas in other ancient MSS. which he consulted it was given.

17. And lest anyone think that the formula of St. Tarasios and Filioque are contradictory, the same great Doctor says the following in On the Holy Spirit 5:12 [PG 32:85AB] to show that "from" and "through" can be equivalent:

Whenever one of the terms "through" and "from" takes the meaning of the other, we find them frequently transferred from the one subject to the other. As, for instance, Adam says, "I have gotten a man through God" [Gen 4:1], meaning to say the same as from God; and in another passage, "all those things which Moses commanded Israel through the precept of the Lord" [Nu 36:5]. And again, "Is not the interpretation through God?" [Gen 40:8] Instead of saying from God, he said through God.

{1} Gill, Joseph, S.J. The Council of Florence, Chapter V: The Dogmatic Discussion.
{2} Parsons, Rev. Reuben, D.D. Studies in Church History: Volume III: Centuries XV-XVI. Second Edition. New York and Cincinnati: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1897. p. 139.

West: Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers (Doctor) 1/13
18. The saintly bishop of Poitiers says 357 [On the Trinity 2:29 in PL 10:69A], "Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son."

19. In 8:20 of the same work [PL 10:250C-251A], the holy Doctor clarifies,

For the present I forbear to expose their license of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus,-- "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and stroll declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you" [Jn 16:12-15]. Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing.

The saint here speaks of the temporal mission and the eternal derivation of the existence of the Spirit. He does not restrict Jn 16:12-15 to the temporal mission, but uses it to bolster his argument about vocabulary in terms of the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and Son. "Receiving from the Son" means "proceeding from the Father" and receiving from the Father. Thus "receiving from the Son" denotes the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit. This implies that the Son participates in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit as regards His being, or else the saint would not relate the Son to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Since the divine St. Hilary elsewhere affirms that the Spirit eternally proceeds, as regards His existence, from the Father and the Son, He regards proceeding from the Father and proceeding from the Son as one eternal act, or one spiration.

20. In 12:57 of this same work, St. Hilary confesses the equivalent Greek formula when he says to the Father [PL 10:471A], "May I receive your Spirit Who takes His being from You through Your only Son."
East: Bishop St. Epiphanios of Salamis (Doctor of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church) 5/12
21. In 374 [The Well-Anchored Man 71 in PG 43:148B, the great shepherd of the faithful of Salamis states,

But someone will say, "Therefore we are saying that there are two Sons. And how then is He the Only-begotten?" Well then. "Who art thou that repliest against God?" [Rom 9:20]. For if he calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) the Holy Spirit, which things we understand by faith alone, from the saints— full of light, givers of light, they have their operation full of light…

St. Epiphanios distinguishes the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who share the two-person description "from the Father," by adding that the Son is from the Father alone, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father and the Son.

22. He does the same thing in 73 of the same work [PG 43:153A], indicating that the Holy Spirit receives His being from the Father and the Son,

For just as "No one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father" [Mt 11:27], so I dare to say that no one knows the Spirit except the Father and the Son, that is, the one from Whom He proceeds and the one from Whom He receives, and that no one knows the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit, He Who truly glorifies, Who teaches all things, Who is from the Father and the Son.

St. Photios defied St. Epiphanios when he said that the Holy Spirit does not receive (being) from the Son. Eastern Orthodox apologist Thomas Ross Valentine tries to diminish the authority of the eminent heresiologist St. Epiphanios by falsely claiming he is not a Father of the Church.{1} How can that be, when the Greek Orthodox Kontakion in Tone Four says that he and St. Germanos "burned the tongues of the godless with the sacred teachings which they most wisely expounded to all those who in Orthodox belief"?{2} Fr. George Florovsky devotes the 10th chapter of The Eastern Fathers of the Fourth Century to St. Epiphanios.

{1} "Epiphanius of Salamis is regarded as an Orthodox saint primarily for his work as a pastor of his flock. He is not a 'Father' of the Church." Ross, Thomas Valentine. "An Eastern Orthodox Guide to Filioque: Third Edition."
{2} See http://www.oca.org/FStropars.asp?SID=13&ID=101356.

East: Patriarch St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople (Doctor) 1/2
23. St. Gregory the Theologian says in Oration 34:10 [PG 36:252A], "all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." This, however, is no prejudice to Filioque, because the Theologian uses causality to mean άγεινησία and paternity (γέννησις),{1} which, as we have seen above, is not compromised by the notional act of spiration common to the Father and the Son, which is the της προσ αλληλα σχεσεως διαϕορον [Oration 31:9 in PG 36:141C] that distinguishes the Holy Spirit from the Son.24. The Theologian says [Oration 31:8], "the Spirit is a μεσον (middle term) between the Unbegotten and the Begotten." But if the Holy Ghost is the unitive "middle term" of the Father and the Son, it must be the case that He proceeds (προείναι) from the Father and the Son. Even St. Gregory Palamas (2nd Sunday of Great Lent) admits that the Holy Spirit is like the unitive Love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in 150 Chapters 36 [PG 150:1144D-1145A]:

The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (χρηται) towards the Father: but insofar as He has the Spirit coming with Him (συνπροελθοντα) from the Father and reposing connaturally in Him.

But Palamas avoids the necessary conclusion that the Holy Spirit proceeds (προείναι) from both, and in the same chapter Palamas mimics the monopatrism of St. Photios by robbing the Son of a role in the eternal hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit [PG 150:1145B]: "Therefore, He is sent to the worthy from both, but in His coming to be He belongs to the Father alone and thus He also proceeds from Him alone in His manner of coming to be."{1} Petavius, Dionysius, S.J. Dogmata theologica Vol. II: De Trinitate, Book VII, Chapter 17, §9, p. 764.

East: Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa (Doctor of the Syro-Malabar and Chaldean Catholic Churches) 3/9
25. In Sermon 3 on the Lord's Prayer, the Cappadocian Father says,

For both the Son came forth from the Father, as the Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the Father. But just as being without cause pertains to the Father alone, and cannot be made to agree with the Son and the Spirit, so also, conversely, being from a cause, which is peculiar to the Son and the Spirit, is not of such a nature as to be contemplated in the Father. Now, as it is common to the Son and the Spirit to exist in a not-ungenerated way, in order that no confusion arise as to the underlying subject, one must again seek out the unconfused difference in their properties, so that both what is common may be preserved, and what is proper to each may not be confused. For the one is called by Holy Scripture "the Only-Begotten Son of the Father," and the word leaves His property at that; but the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" [Rom 8:9]. Therefore the Spirit, Who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, Who is from God, neither is nor is said to be "of the Spirit," nor does this relative order become reversed.

26. In To Ablabius On "Not Three Gods" [PG 45:133BC], the saint explains,

While we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another; — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another through that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the mediation of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from his relation by way of nature to the Father.

To be the αἰτία, the cause, is to exist in an ungenerated way.

27. In Against the Macedonians on the Holy Spirit 6 [PG 45:1308AB], St. Gregory says that the Son, with the Father, gives existence to the Holy Spirit:

Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution, or any variation with respect to nature. It is as if a man were to see a divided flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the cause of the third light is the first flame, kindling the end torch by transmission through the middle one), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?

West: Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor) 12/7
28. The great Spanish bishop says in 381 [On The Holy Spirit 1:11:120 in PL 16:739AB],

The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead.

29. In 1:15:172 of the same work the saint states, "Learn now that as the Father is the Fount of Life, so, too, many have stated that the Son is signified as the Fount of Life; so that, he says, with Thee, Almighty God, Thy Son is the Fount of Life. That is the Fount of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is Life, as the Lord says: 'The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life,' for where the Spirit is, there also is Life; and where Life is, is also the Holy Spirit."

30. Since "Almighty God" (the Father) and the Son are "the Fount of Life" and the Holy "Spirit is Life," the Father and Son are together the one principle of the subsistent person of the Holy Spirit. The great Bishop of Milan thus taught the sense of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son: Filioque expresses the communication of consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, διά (through) and σύν (with) the Son, to the Holy Spirit.
5th Century
West: Bishop St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor of Grace) 8/28
31. The prince of Latin Church Fathers says in 408 [On the Holy Trinity 4:20:29 in PL 42:908],

As, therefore, the Father begat, the Son is begotten; so the Father sent, the Son was sent. But in like manner as He who begat and He who was begotten, so both He who sent and He who was sent, are one, since the Father and the Son are one. So also the Holy Spirit is one with them, since these three are one. For as to be born, in respect to the Son, means to be from the Father; so to be sent, in respect to the Son, means to be known to be from the Father. And as to be the gift of God in respect to the Holy Spirit, means to proceed from the Father; so to be sent, is to be known to proceed from the Father. Neither can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son, for the same Spirit is not without reason said to be the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. Nor do I see what else He intended to signify, when He breathed on the face of the disciples, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost" [Jn 20:22]. For that bodily breathing, proceeding from the body with the feeling of bodily touching, was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a declaration by a fitting sign, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son.

32. In 416 the great bishop shows that Jn 15:26 is no prejudice to Filioque [Homilies on John 99:6,8]:

Someone may here inquire whether the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son. For the Son is Son of the Father alone, and the Father is Father of the Son alone; but the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of one of Them, but of both... If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, why said the Son, "He proceeds from the Father"? Why, do you think, but just because it is to Him He is wont to attribute even that which is His own, of Whom He Himself also is? Hence we have Him saying, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me." If, therefore, in such a passage we are to understand that as His doctrine, which nevertheless He declared not to be His own, but the Father's, how much more in that other passage are we to understand the Holy Spirit as proceeding from Himself, where His words, "He proceeds from the Father," were uttered so as not to imply, He proceeds not from Me? But from Him, of Whom the Son has it that He is God (for He is God of God), He certainly has it that from Him also the Holy Spirit proceeds: and in this way the Holy Spirit has it of the Father Himself, that He should also proceed from the Son, even as He proceeds from the Father.

33. 12 years later the great Doctor adds in Against Maximus 2:14 [PL 42:770]:

The Son comes from the Father; the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. The former is born; the latter proceeds. Hence, the former is the Son of the Father from Whom He is born, but the latter is the Spirit of both because He proceeds from both. When the Son spoke of the Spirit, He said, "He proceeds from the Father" [Jn 15:26], because the Father is the author of His procession. The Father begot a Son and, by begetting Him, gave it to Him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well. If He did not proceed from Him, He would not say to His disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit" [Jn 20:22], and give the Spirit by breathing on them. He signified that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him and showed outwardly by blowing what He was giving inwardly by breathing. If He were born, He would be born not from the Father alone or from the Son alone, but from both of Them; He would beyond any doubt be the son of both of Them. But because He is in no sense the son of both of Them, it was necessary that He not be born from both. He is, therefore, the Spirit of both, by proceeding from both.

East: Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation) 6/27
34. St. Gregory Palamas (Second Sunday of Great Lent) says that the energies of the Holy Spirit, not the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, proceed from the Father through the Son; this is how he explains the teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria.{1} But in many places, the great St. Cyril of Alexandria, who distinguished between the divine essence and the divine energy,{2} affirms the distinctively Catholic teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit, rather than just an energetic procession, meaning that the Palamite interpretation is inadequate. He accurately restricts εκπορευσθαι to the relation of origin of the Holy Spirit to the Father, the sole αἰτία, i.e., ἀρχὴ-ἄναρχος.

35. In 427 the holy Doctor of the Incarnation says in Commentary on the Prophet Joel 35 [PG 71:377D],

For, in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.

In 429 St. Cyril says in Thesaurus 34 [PG 75:576B], "Thus, Paul knows no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but because the Spirit exists from Him and in Him by nature, He calls Him by the name of Lordship."

36. In the same part of the same work [PG 75:600D], St. Cyril says, "Therefore, when Christ lays down the law, He lays it down that His Spirit naturally exists in Him and from Him."

37. Lest anyone think that, from the Son's sending of the Spirit in the economy, we cannot infer the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, the holy patriarch says in On the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten [PG 75:1241A], "Freeing from sin the one who adheres to Him, He anoints him, again, with His own Spirit, infusing Him Himself, since He is the Word from God the Father, and from His own nature He causes Him to fountain upon us." Since the Son sends the Holy Spirit [Jn 15:26], He must have some authority over the Holy Spirit. But it cannot be authority of dominion (e.g., King St. Vladimir I the Great rules Russia), superiority (e.g., John is holier than Jack), or seniority (e.g., a general is ranked higher than a colonel). Therefore the authority must be one of origin, so that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This is how St. Thomas Aquinas argues in Summa Contra Gentiles.

38. He also expresses the complementarity and equivalence of the Latin and Greek formulae when he says [On Worship and Adoration in Spirit and Truth 1 in PG 68:148A],

The Spirit is assuredly in no way changeable; or even if some think Him to be so infirm as to change, the disgrace will be traced back to the divine nature itself, if in fact the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son.

{1} Palamas says,

When you hear him (that is, Cyril of Alexandria) say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the two, because He comes essentially from the Father through the Son, you should understand his teaching in this sense: it is the powers and essential energies of God which pour out, not the divine hypostasis of the Spirit.

{2} St. Cyril says in Thesaurus 18 [PG 75:312C], "Essence (oυσία) and energy (ενέργεια) are not identical." According to Dr. Mike Liccione, the Eastern Fathers (e.g., St. Athanasios the Great of Alexandria, St. Basil the Great of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Maximos the Confessor, and St. John of Damascus) and later Byzantines like St. Gregory Palamas used essence differently from the Latins, to mean God-as-what-He-necessarily-is-irrespective-of-what-He-does-ad-extra.

West: Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome (Doctor) 11/10
39. In his 447 letter 15:2 to Bishop St. Turibius of Astorga [PL 54:680], the author of the Tome that defined the true doctrine of the two natures of Christ teaches the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son when he declares,

Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.

The Latin reads,

primo itaque capitulo demonstratur quam impie sentiant de Trinitate divina, qui et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam atque eandem asserunt esse personam, tamquam idem Deus nunc Pater nunc Filius nunc Spiritus Sanctus nominetur; nec alius sit qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque procedit.

40. St. Photios heaps lavish praise on the holy pillar of faith St. Leo the Great, but infers from the fact that St. Leo did not add Filioque to the Creed at the Council of Chalcedon, that the latter Doctor agreed with his monopatrism [Mystagogy §§79-80]. The dogmatic Leonine epistle quoted above falsifies the Photian historiography.
West: Bishop St. Eucherius of Lyons (11/16)
41. Before 454, St. Eucherius says [Spic. Rom. 5:93], "The Holy Spirit is neither generate nor ingenerate, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say, of Both."

6th Century
West: Bishop St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (1/1)
42. In Rule of Faith 11:52 [PL 65:696C], the great African bishop says that Filioque finds all the support it needs in the Sacred Deposit of Faith: "Believe most firmly, and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles."

43. Before 517 St. Fulgentius says [The Trinity 2], "The Father is begotten of none, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son." This clearly refers to the being of the Holy Spirit, which He receives from the Father and the Son.

44. Moreover, before 527 the God-bearing Fulgentius says [Epistle 14 To Ferrandus], "The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father's and wholly the Son's, because He is by nature the one Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, and so proceeds as to abide." Compare this to the statement of Pope St. Zachary below, who, when he confessed that the Holy Spirit abides in the Son, did not thereby deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

West: Pope St. Hormisdas of Rome (8/8)
45. Pope St. Hormisdas says the following in his 517 Profession of Faith [PL 63:514B],

Great and incomprehensible is the mystery of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, an undivided Trinity, and yet it is known because it is characteristic of the Father to generate the Son, characteristic of the Son of God to be born of the Father equal to the Father, characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity.

The Latin reads,

Magnum est sanctae et incomprehensibile mysterium Trinitatis, Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus sanctus, Trinitas indivisa: et tamen notum est quia proprium est Patris ut generaret Filium, proprium Filii Dei ut ex Patre Patri nasceretur aequalis, proprium Spiritus sancti ut de Patre et Filio procederet sub una substantia Deitatis.

The Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son in that the Son is from the Father only, while the hypostatic ιδιος (property) of the Holy Spirit is that He is from the Father and the Son. That is why we are able to distinguish between γέννησις (begetting) and προβολη (spiration).West: St. Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boethius the Philosopher-Martyr of Rome (10/23)
46. St. Boethius affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father and Son in How the Trinity Is One God and Not Three Gods 5 [PL 64:1254C], "Ac si meminimus omnium in prioribus de Deo sententiarum, ita cogitemus, processisse quidem ex Deo Patre Filium Deum, et ex utrisque Spiritum sanctum."

West: Pope St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (Doctor) 9/3
47. St. Photios claims Pope St. Gregory as a teacher of Photian monopatrism [Mystagogy §87 in PG 102:373C]. However, the great Dialogist says in 595 [Morals on the Book of Job 2:56:92 in PL 75:599A], "The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son." In the Latin from Fr. Jacques-Paul Migne, St. Gregory the Great refers to the Son and says, "quia et ex illo isdem Spiritus per substantiam profertur." It is not just a question of the οἰκονομία (temporal mission), or an eternal manifestation of ενέργεια à la the once-unionist{1} Patriarch Gregory II the Cypriot of Constantinople. Pope St. Gregory's teaching here is directly opposed to that of St. Photios.
{1} "Under the Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus (1259-82), [Gregory of Cyprus] strongly supported the movement for reunion with Rome. However, in 1283 he changed his position; he supported the Emperor Adronicus II, took part in the synod that condemned John Beccos, and wrote against Beccos." Chiovaro, F. "Gregory II Cyprius, Patriach of Constantinople." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 478. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 16 July 2009.

7th Century
West: Archbishop St. Isidore of Seville (Doctor) 4/4
48. This illustrious Spanish Doctor says in 636 [Etymologies 7:3 in PL 82:268A], "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence." The Latin reads "Spiritus sanctus ideo praedicatur Deus, quia ex Patre Filioque procedit, et substantiam eorum habet." The saint adds [PG 82:268C], "There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." The Latin reads, "Hoc autem interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentum Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur; Spiritus sanctus ex utroque procedit."

49. This, however, does not imply two principles of the Holy Spirit, according to St. Isidore, who says that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit [Three Books of Sentences 1:15:2 in PL 83:568C]: "One thing which is consubstantial with two could not at once proceed from them and be in them, unless the two from which it proceeds were one." The Latin reads "Non enim res una et duorum consubstantialis poterit simul ab eis procedere et simul inesse, nisi unum fuerit, a quibus procedit."

East: Monk St. Maximos the Confessor of Constantinople (8/13)
50. In his Letter to Priest Marinus of Cyprus, the great St. Maximos says [PG 91:134D-136C],

Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that "the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son."

The other has to do with the divine Incarnation, because he has written, "The Lord, as man, is without original sin."

With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit's coming-forth (προϊέναι) through Him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence…

The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them, whereas of the things of which the Byzantines have quite rightly been accused (viz., Monothelitism), they have, to date, made no self-defense, because neither have they gotten rid of the things introduced by them.

But, in accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. One should also keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.

51. Against the Monothelites, the wonderworking monk says that the Latins do not consider the Son to be the unoriginate source, i.e., αἰτία of divinity, and that the expression procedere in the synodal letter of the righteous Pope St. Martin I was translated inaccurately. It is the height of absurdity to claim that St. Maximus, who lived in the West for a time, was defending a Photian interpretation of the Latin Fathers rather than the unanimous Latin teaching of the eternal derivation of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.{1} Lest anyone think, from the above diction of the Constantinopolitan man of God, that he denies that the Son has any involvement and mediation in the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit, I quote the following words of the monk [Questions to Thalassios 63 in PG 90:672C]: "By nature (ϕυσει) the Holy Spirit in His being (κατ’ ουσιαν) takes substantially (ουσιοδως) His origin (εκπορευομενον) from the Father through the Son Who is begotten (δι’ Υιου γεννηθεντος)."
{1} Gilbert, Dr. Peter. "St. Maximus on the Filioque." De Unione Ecclesiarum. 21 Jan. 2008. 6 Aug. 2009 <http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/>.

8th Century
East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption; December 4)
52. The Syrian Doctor says in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:8 [PG 94:832B], "And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son." In 1:12 [PG 94:849B] St. John adds, "And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause."
53. When St. John of Damascus says that the Spirit does not proceed ἐκ (from) the Son, the great defender of icons is not rejecting Filioque, because εκπόρευσις (ekporeusis) can, by definition, characterize only the relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Holy Trinity, viz., the Father;{1} to say that το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον και του Υιου confuses the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Son is not the αἰτία because He receives His fecundity from the Father.

54. In 1:8 of the same work, the saint says [PG 94:833A],

And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit.

St. John preserves the τάξις when he says that the Spirit is δε (of) the Son, but not the other way around (the Son is not δε the Spirit or derived from the Spirit), and does not rule out that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son the oυσία of the Father, which the Son receives as Only-Begotten, lest anyone think that he restricts the involvement of the Son to the energetic manifestation, excluding involvement in the hypostatic procession. For he says in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:12 [PG 94:848D], "He Himself then is mind, the depth of reason, begetter of the Word, and through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit."

55. If that is not what St. John means, then, as we said above, how could he say in 1:13 [PG 94:856B], "The Son is the Father's image, and the Spirit the Son's, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him after His own image."
How could a divine person be the είκών of a person from Whom He does not proceed? And how could it be the case that [PG 94:856B] "The Holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the Son," being the unitive bond of the Father and the Son, unless He proceeds from the Father and the Son?
{1} Petavius, Dionysius, S.J. Dogmata theologica Vol. II: De Trinitate, Book VII, Chapter 17, §8, p. 763. This is the sense of "non tamen ex ipso existentiam habens" [Greek in PG 96:605B] that Steven Todd Kaster quotes.

West: Pope Adrian I of Rome
56. Adrian I affirmed Filioque in his answer to the Caroline Books.{1} He defended, against the misunderstanding of my ancestor Bl. Charlemagne (January 28), the formula and doctrine of Patriarch St. Tarasios of Constantinople [PL 98:1249-1252], who said at the Seventh Ecumenical Council that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son [Mansi XII:1121D].{2} He quoted Patristic statements to prove that omitting Filioque need not mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, i.e., that the Father alone spirates the Holy Spirit.{3}
{1} Maas, Anthony. "Filioque." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 3 Aug. 2009 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm>.
{2} Gill, J., and B. L. Marthaler "Filioque." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 719. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.
{3} Higgins, M. J., and F. Nicks. "Byzantine Church, History of." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 752. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.

West: Pope St. Zachary of Rome (3/5)
57. St. Photios claims Pope St. Zachary as a teacher of Photian monopatrism [Mystagogy §87 in PG 102:373C], even though no pope ever objected to the doctrine of Filioque.{1} The fact that the Holy Spirit abides in the Son does not entail that He does not proceed from the Son, because we also say that the Son abides in the Father, from Whom He proceeds as Only-Begotten.{2} The Holy Spirit abides in the Son as the love (Holy Spirit) of the lover (Father) abides in the beloved (Son).{3} The Holy Spirit abides in the Son with reference to the human nature of the latter, as it is written in Jn 1:33 (Douay Rheims): "He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."{4}{1} Scourtis, C. "Eastern Schism." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 24. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 12 Feb. 2009.
{2} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Angelic Doctor). Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 2, ad 4.
{3} Ibid.
{4} Ibid.

9th Century
West: Pope St. Leo III of Rome (June 12)
58. Eastern Orthodox apologists make much of the fact that Pope St. Leo III opposed the edition of Filioque to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 and had it engraved in its original form in Greek and Latin on two silver shields in front of St. Peter's,{1} but that is where the usefulness of their polemical weapon ceases. St. Leo III told Bl. Charlemagne (January 28) that he agreed with the doctrine of Filioque.{2} But Pope St. Leo III--who omitted Filioque from the Creed for the sake of Church unity{3} and was aware of the sensitivity of the Greeks about their Creed{4} and the nuances of ἐκπορευόμενον vs. προείναι{5}--openly confessed, in letter to all the Eastern Churches, his belief in "the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..."{6} This manifestly concerns the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.
{1} Malanczuk, V. "Byzantine Theology." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 822. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.
{2} Ibid.
{3} Ibid.
{4} Bonocore, Mark J. "Filioque: A Response to Eastern Orthodox Objections." The Catholic Legate. 12 Dec. 2006. 6 Aug. 2009 <http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html>. Mr. Bonocore says,

Not so in the Byzantine East, however, where Church and Empire (that is, secular civilization) fit neatly and fundamentally together. So, when the Western Church embraced Filioque and actually introduced it into its native recitation of the Creed, what it was doing--as the Byzantines saw it--was "rebelling" against the theocratic unity of the Byzantine Empire, to which Italy and certain other parts of the West at least nominally belonged. … Rome recognized that the Church was not formally bound or limited by any one, "official Creed"; and so amending its liturgical Creed to address real doctrinal challenges within its own Western experience was not a problem, but a valid defense of organic Christian orthodoxy. To the Byzantines, this was (and still is) a very uncomfortable approach, because it violates their view of the world and of the Church, where there was/is no separation whatsoever between Church and state (or secular Christian–that is, Byzantine–culture). Thus, when their fellow ethnic "Romans" in the West (who were now under Visigothic and Frankish rule) approved of an altered version of the Creed, it seemed to the Byzantines as if their Western brethren were being "unpatriotic" --that is, "unRoman" / "unByzantine" … and so "unOthodox." This was, of course, not the case. They were merely being "Catholic" –that is, possessing a sensitivity to Christian truth as it transcends cultural or nationalistic points of view (e.g. the limits of Byzantine culture and experience).

{5} St. Photios talks about the failure of Latin to capture Greek nuances in Mystagogy §87 [PG 102:376A]. However, Pope St. Leo III was not a Photian monopatrist, as we demonstrated above, so St. Photios could not claim him as a witness to his novel opposition to the doctrine of Filioque.
{6} Swete, H. B. On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Apostolic Age to the Death of Charlemagne. Cambridge and London, 1876. p. 230. The Latin reads, "Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequaliter procedentem, consubstantialem, coaeternum Patri et Filio. Pater plenus Deus in se, Filius plenus Deus a Patre genitus, Spiritus Sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens."

West: Pope John VIII of Rome
59. Pope John VIII of Rome, who reinstated Patriarch St. Photios the Great of Constantinople in 880 and remained in communion with him,{1} did not rebuke the doctrine of Filioque: not one pope disagreed with the doctrine that Filioque teaches.{2} St. Photios was thus wrong to claim him as "my John" in Mystagogy §89 [PG 102:380A], i.e., in the sense that John agreed with his novel teaching that the Father alone spirates the Holy Spirit. The so-called letter of Pope John VIII to St. Photios classing those who added Filioque to the Creed with Judas Iscariot is a 14th century forgery.{3}
{1} In The Photian Schism, Fr. Dvornik says that if John VIII had excommunicated St. Photios after learning what transpired at the 879-880 Reunion Council of Constantinople, Archbishop Stylianos would have mentioned it in his letter to Pope Stephen V of Rome [Mansi XVI:432], since that would have been immensely important for his purposes [Dvornik 219]. The anti-Photian compiler does not, as promised [Mansi XVI:448-449], produce the anti-Photian synodical letter of Pope John VIII, but should have if such a thing really existed [Dvornik 218].The anti-Photian compiler is untrustworthy for several reasons, one being his claim that John VIII, as Roman archdeacon, authoritatively condemned Photios at the Council of 869-870, whereas the seventh session Acts of the Council show that Bishop Gauderich of Velletri was the spokesman [218].
{2} Scourtis, C. "Eastern Schism." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 24. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 12 Feb. 2009.
{3} Dvornik, Francis. The Photian Schism: History and Legend. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. pp. 197-198.

4th Century
First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea I)
60. Although the Symbol of the First Ecumenical Council does not at all touch on the τρόπος ὑπάρξεως (mode of coming to be) of the Holy Spirit, Gelasios of Cyzicus testifies in History of the Council of Nicaea 2:22 [PG 85:1296C] that Bishop St. Leontios of Caesarea (1/13) declared on behalf of the Holy Fathers assembled there that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him." This statement can be found in Mansi II:868CD. Thus from antiquity the Church believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded in some manner from the Son, although Eastern Orthodox apologists would, through a Palamite lens, interpret "gushing forth" as referring to an energetic procession or manifestation, rather than a statement about the τρόπος ὑπάρξεως of the υπόστασις of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Son.
Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I) says in 381,
61. The Holy Fathers assembled at the Second Ecumenical Council wanted to affirm the ὁμοούσιος of the Holy Spirit with the Father, not the precise τρόπος ὑπάρξεως (mode of coming to be) of the Holy Spirit.{1} Thus they considered the εκπόρενσις of the Holy Spirit from the Father as the sole unoriginate πηγή (source) and αἰτία (cause) of divinity, and were not immediately concerned with the relation of origin between the Holy Spirit and the Son.

{1} Nichols, Aidan, O.P. Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992. p. 214.

5th Century
Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus)
62. In 431 Canon VII of Ephesus (DS 265) prohibits additions to the Creed "defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea," the creed composed in 325; it does not prohibit adding to the Creed that the holy fathers of Constantinople I composed in 381, which did not attain ecumenical status until Rome ratified Constantinople I later on. That is why St. Cyril recites the Nicene Creed of 325 in Epistle 17 [PG 77:117] and the holy fathers of Ephesus read the Nicene Creed of 325, not the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, at the 6/22/431 opening of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. If Canon VII means that no one can add explanatory notes that illumine, rather than upset, the substance of the faith, then the Council of Ephesus anathematized the Council of Constantinople I, which added explanatory notes to the Nicene Creed of 325. If we are to avoid absurdities, then "ἑτέραν" must mean "another" in the sense of contradictory, not "another" in the sense of having explanatory additions. Otherwise, the holy fathers of Constantinople II could not have considered the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to have lawfully expressed the same faith as the Nicene Creed [Labbe-Cossart V:455].

Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon)
63. This is all the more obvious when we consider the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 regarding the Nicene Creed of 325, to which several explanatory statements were added by the 381 Council of Constantinople I,

This wise and saving Symbol of Divine grace would have sufficed to the full knowledge and confirmation of the faith; for it teaches thoroughly the perfect truth of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and presents to those who receive it faithfully the Incarnation of the Lord.

It is clear, then, that the holy Fathers of the seven ecumenical councils considered expository clauses licit in cases of new heresies.

6th Century
Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II)
64. The Fifth Ecumenical Council says in 553 [Session 1], "We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John [Chrysostom] of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo, and their writings on the true faith."
The Fifth Ecumenical Council followed "in every way" the "writings on the true faith" of the aforementioned Holy Fathers, meaning that it endorsed the Triadology of each of these God-bearing Church Fathers. But we have seen that Sts. Athanasios the Great (Doctor), Hilary (Doctor), Basil the Great (Doctor), Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose the Great (Doctor), Cyril (Doctor of the Incarnation), Augustine the Great (Doctor of Grace), and Leo the Great (Doctor) taught that the Holy Spirit derives His existence from the Father and the Son.

7th Century
Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III)
65. This great Council follows the wording of the prohibition by Chalcedon, which, as we have seen, anathematizes a contradictory faith (hetera pistis), not an addition explaining the same faith in response to new heresies of the day.

8th Century
Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II)
66. Patriarch St. Tarasios of Constantinople (2/25) says at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 [Mansi XII:1122D], "το Πνευμα το αγιον, το κυριον και ζωοποιον, το εκ του Πατροσ δια του Υιου εκπορευομενον." He says, "And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God." It is not a question of the energetic procession, but the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit; i.e., what characterizes His hypostasis.

Papal Infallibility & Primacy

2009-03-08T12:12:00.007-04:00

Update 10/26/2010: See the new version of this post by clicking here.

3rd Century
West: Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage in 252 [Epistle 59:14 in PL ],

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the Apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.

The Latin reads:

Post ista adhuc insuper pseudopeiscopo sibi ab haereticis constituto nauigare audent et ad Petri cathedram adque ad ecclesiam prncipalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanos quorum fides apostolo praedicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum.

WRH: (1) heterodoxy will never prevail over the Roman see; (2) the pope of Rome is the supreme pastor of the universal Church; (3) disobedience of Rome is unacceptable; (4) final doctrinal decisions rest with Rome; (5) the pope has the special authority to teach the entire Christian world; (6) St. Peter is the prince of Apostles who rules over them; (7) this authoritative primacy of Rome is permanent and non-transferable; (8) communion with Rome is necessary.4th Century

East: Patriarch St. John I Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor & Holy Hierarch) says [Homilies on the Gospel of St. John 88:1 in PG 59:478],

He says to him, "Feed My Sheep." Why does He pass over the others and speak about these to him? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the other ... He entrusts him with the primacy of the brethren; and as He does not bring forward the denial, or reproach him with the past, but says: "If you love Me, rule the brethren." ... And if anyone would say "How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem," I would reply that He appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world...

The Greek reads:

Λέγει αυ̉τω̃· Βόσκε τά πρόβατά μου. Καί τί δήποτε, τούς ά̉λλους παραδραμών, τούτω περί τούτων διαλέγεται; ̉Έκκριτος η̉ν τω̃ν α̉ποστόλων, καί στόμα τω̃ν μαθητω̃ν, καί κορυφή του̃ χορου̃·διά του̃το καί Παυλος α̉νέβη τότε αυ̉τόν ιστορησαι παρά τους ά̉λλους … ̉Εγχειρίζεται τήν προστασίαν τω̃ν α̉δελφω̃ν. Καί την μέν ά̉ρνησιν ου̉ προφέρει, ου̉δέ ο̉νειδίζει το γεγονός· λέγει δέ ότι ̉Ει φιλεις με, προϊστασο τω̃ν α̉δελφω̃ν … ̉Ει δέ λέγοι τις πω̃ς ουν ο Ιάκωβος τόν θρόνον έ̉λαβε των Ιεροσολύμων;ε̉κει̃νο ά̉ν εί̉ποιμι, ότι τουτον ου̉ του̃ θρόνου, α̉λλά τη̃ς οι̉κουμένης.

WRH: In the absence of any reason to deny that St. John believed that the successors of St. Peter in the See of Rome inherited the Petrine power, we can deduce the following: (2) the pope of Rome is the supreme pastor of the universal Church; (5) the pope has the special authority to teach the entire Christian world; (6) St. Peter is the prince of Apostles who rules over them.

West: Bishop St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor) in 393 [Psalm Against the Party of Donatus 18 in PL 43:30], "Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of Hell do not prevail."
WRH: (1) heterodoxy will never prevail over the Roman see.
5th Century
East: Patriarch St. Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation) says in 430 [Epistle 11:7 to Pope St. Celestine I of Rome in PG 77:86],

I was unwilling to openly sever communion with him until I had laid all the facts before you. Deign therefore to ordain what seems right, whether we ought to communicate at all with him, or to tell him plainly that no one communicates with a person who holds and teaches what he does. Further the purpose of your holiness ought to be made known by letter to the most religious and God-loving bishops of Macedonia, and to all the bishops of the East, for we shall then give them, according to their desire, the opportunity of standing together in unity of soul and mind, and lead them to contend earnestly for the orthodox faith which is being attacked.

The Greek reads as follows:

Ού πρότερον δέ τη̃ς πρός αυ̉τον κοινωνίας ε̉κβάλομεν ε̉αυτους μετά παρρησίας, πρίν άν ταυ̃τα τη̃ ση̃ θεοσεβεία α̉νακοινωσώμεθα. Διό δή καταξίωσον τυπω̃σαι το δοκου̃ν, καί πότερόν ποτε χρή κοινωνειν αυ̉τω̃, ή̉ λοιπόν α̉πειπει̃ν μετά παρρησίας, ό̉τι τοιαυ̃τα φρονου̃ντι καί διδάσκοντι ου̉δείς κοινωνει̃. Τόν δέ ε̉πί τούτοις σκοπόν τη̃ς ση̃ς θεοσεβείας χρή γενέσθαι διά γραμμάτων καταφανη̃ καί τοι̃ς ευ̉σεβεστάτοις καί θεοφιλεστάτοις ε̉πισκόποις τοι̃ς κατά Μακεδονίαν, καί ά̉πασι τοι̃ς κατά την ̉Ανατολήν. ̉Επιθυμουσι γάρ αυ̉τοις δώσομεν α̉φορμάς του̃ πάντας μια̃ ψυχη̃ και μια̃ γνώμη στη̃ναι, καί ε̉παγωνίσασθαι τη̃ ο̉ρθη̃ πίστει πολεμουμένη.

WRH: (2) The pope of Rome is the supreme pastor of the universal Church; (4) final doctrinal decisions rest with Rome; (5) the pope has the special authority to teach the entire Christian world.

Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431), Council Decree:

As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines. We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to. Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter (αναγκαιως κατεπειξθεντες απο τε των κανονων, και εκ της επιστολης, κ. τ. η.) of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, Whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion.

The great and holy and universal Synod...in the metropolis of Chalcedon...to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo ... being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all ...and besides all this he [Dioscorus] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior, we mean of course your holiness ...

WRH: (2) the pope of Rome is the supreme pastor of the universal Church; (3) disobedience of Rome is unacceptable; (5) the pope has the special authority to teach the entire Christian world; (6) St. Peter is the prince of Apostles who rules over them.
WRH: In his winter 1964-1965 journal article, "St. Cyril's 'One Physis or Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate' and Chalcedon," the Eastern Orthodox Fr. John S. Romanides († 2001) wrongly infers Cyrillian primacy at the Council of Chalcedon, when the truth is Leonine primacy; i.e., Fr. John wrongly declared that the Tome of Leo was subordinate to the Cyrillian writings, i.e., was of lesser authority. The bishops intended to stress, against the Eutychians, that their acceptance of the Leonine definition did not put them at odds with the Christology of the most holy Cyril, and they would not have thought it possible that Leo could err in his ex cathedra definition and contradict the earlier ecumenically-approved writings (which derived their authority from the sanction of the Pope in the first place) of that soldier of Christ, St. Cyril the Great [Rivington 411]. The Council did not judge as a superior the two pillars of orthodoxy when it said that the two saints agree Christologically, just as I do not act superior to the great-martyrs Sts. James and Paul the Apostles when I truthfully proclaim that they agree soteriologically [411]. The Council did not, by mentioning the Roman and Alexandrian bulwarks together, put them on the same official level, just as no one puts St. Paul the Apostle and a Greek poet on the same level when he says that they are in accord [411]. Just because someone notices my agreement with my master St. Thomas Aquinas and says that we believe alike, that does not mean that he puts me on the same level as that great wonderworking doctor, for it is manifest that I am but a shadow while he is brilliant light invincibly defending, better than anyone else, the truths our Lord handed down through the Apostles. The bishops assumed from the outset the agreement between Leo and Cyril [414]. It was not that they could dissent from the Leonine definition and modify it, but that they wanted to see the agreement between the two illustrious Doctors and adhere to the definition with an enlightened faith, and not a blind faith [416].

East: Patriarch St. Flavian the Martyr of Constantinople in 449 [Epistle to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome in ],

Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ... Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference ... but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. ... Further to issue an authoritative instruction ... so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound.

WRH: (2) the pope of Rome is the supreme pastor of the universal Church; (3) disobedience of Rome is unacceptable; (4) final doctrinal decisions rest with Rome; (5) the pope has the special authority to teach the entire Christian world; (8) communion with Rome is necessary.West: Monk Bachiarius of Spain in 420 [Professio fidei 2 in PL 20:1023]: "...none of the heresies could gain hold of or move the Chair of Peter, that is the See of faith."
WRH: (1) heterodoxy will never prevail over the Roman see.

Likoudis, James. Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism. Benedictus Books: Catholics United for the Faith, 1992.
Rivington, Rev. Luke, M.A. The Primitive Church and the See of Peter. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1894. 25 Mar. 2009 <http://books.google.com/books?id=uiqOs8cftDcC>.

Real Presence of Christ in Eucharist

2009-03-06T12:11:00.013-05:00

2nd Century
East: Bishop St. Ignatius the Martyr of Antioch says in 110 [Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 7:1],

They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.

West: Bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyons says in 200 [Against Heresies 4:18:4-5],

But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives "first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear" [Mk 4:28]. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His Blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life?

Transubstantiation

2009-03-06T12:11:00.012-05:00

Originally posted 3/6/2009.

This post is a Patristic catena to provide the basis for CCC 1376:

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His Body that He was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204

204. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1642; cf. Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor 11:24 ff.

East: St. Justin Martyr the Philosopher of Alexandria says in 150 [First Apology 66 in PG 6:428C],

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made Flesh and Blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus Who was made Flesh.

West: Bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyons says [Against Heresies 5:2:2], "He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own Blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies."

East: Bishop St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Doctor) says in 350 [Catechetical Lectures 22:2], "He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into Blood?"

East: Patriarch St. Athanasius I the Great of Alexandria (Doctor) says before 373 [Sermon to the Newly Baptized in PG 26:1325C],

You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wondrous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the Body and the cup the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ... When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His Body.

West: Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor) says in 380 [On the Christian Faith 4, 10:125],

Then He added: "For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed]." Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord's death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones." Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, "do show the Lord's Death."

East: Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa (Cappadocian Father) says after 383 [The Great Catechism 37],

Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh [εν σαρκί]. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, "is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer;" not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the Body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the Body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, "This is My Body."

West: Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome (Doctor) says before 461 [Sermons 91:3 in PL 54:452AB],

Dearly beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, "unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His Blood, ye will not have life in you," [Jn 6:53] you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ's Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amen who dispute that which is taken.

East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus says in 743 [An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4:13 in PG 94:1144A-1145A],

The Body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth Body united with divinity, not that the Body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's Body and Blood. But if you inquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energizes and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same.

Dormition and Assumption of Mary

2009-03-06T12:10:00.072-05:00

1st Century
East: Bishop St. Dionysius the Areopagite Martyr of Athens says [On the Divine Names 3:2 in PG 3:681CD-683A],

For, amongst our inspired hierarchs (when both we, as you know, and yourself, and many of our holy brethren, were gathered together to the depositing of the Life-springing and God-receptive body, and when there were present also James, the brother of God, and Peter, the foremost and most honored pinnacle of the Theologians, when it was determined after the depositing, that every one of the hierarchs should celebrate, as each was capable, the Omnipotent Goodness of the supremely Divine Weakness), he, after the Theologians, surpassed, as you know, all the other divine instructors, being wholly entranced, wholly raised from himself, and experiencing the pain of his fellowship with the things celebrated, and was regarded as an inspired and divine Psalmist by all, by whom he was heard and seen and known, and not known.

WRH: This early witness, if you hold fast to tradition and are not persuaded by the anti-Dionysian sophistry springing from the poisonous well of agnosticism and rationalism, clearly refutes Marian immortalism. Indeed the Θεοτόκος, in conformity with her Son the Good Shepherd, underwent bodily death, but no decay [φθορά]. Though the Doctor St. Dionysius the Great of Athens does not mention the disappearance of her most pure and virginal body, this was common knowledge and it can only mean that our Lady was assumed bodily into Heaven.4th Century
East:

6th Century
West: Bishop St. Gregory of Tours says in 580 [Eight Books on Miracles 1:4 in PL 71:708C],

The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones.

East:

West:

8th Century
East: Patriarch St. Germanus of Constantinople says before 733 [Sermon 1 in PG 98:346B],

You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the Heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.

East:

Purgatory & Prayers for the Dead

2009-03-06T12:10:00.071-05:00

There are plenty of other Biblical passages which form a solid basis for the belief that those in Purgatory are tried by fire, and what reason is there to think that these are merely allegorical? Indeed, all senses of Scripture are based upon the literal:
Sir 2:5: For gold and silver are tried in the fire, but acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.
Zech 13:8-9: And there shall be in all the earth, saith the Lord, two parts in it shall be scattered, and shall perish: but the third part shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined: and I will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on My name, and I will hear them. I will say: Thou art My people: and they shall say: The Lord is my God.
1 Cor 3:11-17: For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus. Now, if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble. Every man's work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Know you not that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are.
Heb 12:29: For our God is a consuming fire.
Jude 1:23: But others save, pulling them out of the fire. And on others have mercy, in fear, hating also the spotted garment which is carnal.

1st Century
East: Bishop St. Dionysius the Areopagite Martyr of Athens says [Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7:3:7 in PG 3:561D-564AB,

For the Hierarch, the expounder of the supremely Divine Justice, would never seek things, which were not most pleasing to the Almighty God, and divinely promised to be given by Him [Ap. C. viii. 43]. Wherefore, he does not offer these prayers over the unholy fallen asleep, not only because in this he would deviate from his office of expounder, and would presumptuously arrogate, on his own authority, a function of the Hierarchy, without being moved by the Supreme Legislator, but because he would both fail to obtain his abominable prayer, and he, not unnaturally, would hear from the just Oracle, "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss" [Jam 4:3].

WRH: The divinely illuminated martyred bishop says that it is not only useless, but sinful, to pray that the damned should receive some respite. Therefore Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus was guilty of heresy when he said that prayers for the damned give them some respite.

3rd Century
West: Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage says in 253, [Epistle 51:20, To Antonianus],

For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigour of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord.

4th Century
West: Lactantius of North Africa says in 307 [The Divine Institutes 7:21 in PL 6:802AB],

The same divine fire, therefore, with one and the same force and power, will both burn the wicked and will form them again, and will replace as much as it shall consume of their bodies, and will supply itself with eternal nourishment: which the poets transferred to the vulture of Tityus. Thus, without any wasting of bodies, which regain their substance, it will only burn and affect them with a sense of pain. But when He shall have judged the righteous, He will also try them with fire. Then they whose sins shall exceed either in weight or in number, shall be scorched by the fire and burnt: but they whom full justice and maturity of virtue has imbued will not perceive that fire; for they have something of God in themselves which repels and rejects the violence of the flame.

East: Bishop St. Epiphanius of Salamis says in 375 [Panarion 75:8], "Useful too is the prayer fashioned on their [the dead's] behalf... it is useful, because in this world we often stumble either voluntarily or involuntarily."
WRH: The prayer would not be useful unless there were some obstacle, some impurity, preventing the dead from achieving the beatific vision immediately. The stumblings are venial sins, because mortal sins cannot be forgiven after death.

East: Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa says before 394 [Sermon on the Dead], "When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil."
WRH:

West: Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor) says in 395 [Funeral Oration for Emperor St. Theodosius I the Great in PL 16:1397], "Give, Oh Lord, rest to Thy servant Theodosius, that rest Thou hast prepared for Thy saints... I love him, therefore will I follow him to the land of the living; I will not leave him till by my prayers and lamentations he shall be admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord, to which his deserts call him."
WRH: The most holy bishop says that St. Theodosius might not yet have entered Heaven. The radiant Ambrose, though, will pray for him until his venial sins are completely wiped away so that he can enter Heaven.

East: Patriarch St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor) says [Homilies on First Corinithians 9:5-6 in PG 61:] with regard to 1 Cor 3:15,

And his meaning is, He himself shall not perish in the same way as his works, passing into nought, but he shall abide in the fire. And so here in saying, "he shall be saved," he has but darkly hinted at the intensity of the penalty: as if he had said, "But himself shall remain forever in punishment."

WRH: Clearly the great saint interprets the Pauline passage as discussing those who suffer the eternal punishment of the Hell of the lost, not those who suffer the temporary punishment of the hell of purgatory. Though our beloved father among the saints John Chrysostom is the greatest of preachers and one of the greatest Doctors, his individual authority does not trump the consensus of the Fathers that St. Paul was discussing Purgatory, just as his idiosyncratic Marian exegesis of St. Matthew does not diminish the fact that the consensus of the Fathers is that the Theotókos never sinned. The Purgatory consensus, according to Fr. Joseph Gill's The Council of Florence, is justified by meticulous study of the context, the contrast between the materials St. Paul enumerates, and the Pauline usage of the words in other passages.5th Century
West: Bishop St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor of Grace) says in 413 [Faith and Works 1:1 in PL 40:197-198],

If the baptized person fulfills the obligations demanded of a Christian, he does well. If he does not--provided he keeps the faith, without which he would perish forever--no matter in what sin or impurity remains, he will be saved, as it were, by fire; as one who has built on the foundation, which is Christ, not gold, silver, and precious stones, but wood, hay straw, that is, not just and chasted works but wicked and unchaste works.

Mary the Theotókos

2009-03-06T12:10:00.070-05:00

2nd Century
East: Bishop St. Ignatius the Martyr of Antioch says in 107 [Letter to the Ephesians 7 in PG 5:652A], "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible—even Jesus Christ our Lord." Mary gave birth to God.

West: Bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyons says in 189 [Against Heresies 5:19:1 in PG 7B:1175B], "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God." The Blessed Virgin Mary is thus the Θεοτόκος, which means the Bearer of God.

3rd Century
East: Bishop St. Gregory the Wonderworker of Neocaesarea says in 262 [Homily 1 On the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary in PG 10:1153B], "For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David." The same great bishop, to whom the Mother of God herself appeared, adds [Homily 2 On the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary in PG 10:1156B], "It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, 'Hail, full of grace!'"

4th Century
East: Bishop St. Methodius the Martyr of Olympus says in 305 [Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 in PG 18:364A], "While the old man [St. Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled." In n. 14 of the same oration [PG 18:382ABC], the illustrious martyr and great hierarch adds,

Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. ... Hail, you fount of the Son's love for man. ... Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away.

East: Patriarch St. Alexander of Alexandria says in 324 [Letter to Bishop Alexander of Constantinople 12 in PG 18:568CD],

After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the Mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: Who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead.

East: Patriarch St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Doctor) says in 350 [Catechetical Lectures 10:19 in PG 33:685A], "The Father bears witness from Heaven to His Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness."

East: Patriarch St. Athanasius I the Great of Alexandria (Doctor) says in 362 [Orations 3:14 in PG 26:349C], "And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord; as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary, bearer of God."

East: Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa says in 377 [On Virginity 13 in PG 46:377D], "Just as, in the age of Mary the Mother of God, He who had reigned from Adam to her time found..."

West: Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor) says in 377 [Concerning Virginity 2:2:7 in PL 16:209A], "The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?"

East: Patriarch St. Gregory I the Theologian of Nazianzus (Doctor) says in 382 [Epistle 101 To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius in PG 37:177C], "If anyone does not believe that holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead."

5th Century
West: Hieromonk St. Jerome the Great of Strido (Doctor) says in 401 [Apology Against Rufinus 2:10 in PL 23:452A], "As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born he knows nothing."

East: Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation) says in 427 [Letter 1 To the Monks of Egypt in PG 77:13B], "I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore Him not be the Mother of God?" The same great pillar of the faith explains this in greater detail in Letter 4, his second epistle to Nestorius [PG 77:48D-49A]:

This expression, however, "the Word was made flesh" [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that He partook of flesh and blood like to us; He made our body His own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off His existence as God, or His generation of God the Father, but even in taking to Himself flesh remaining what He was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin "the Mother of God," not as if the nature of the Word or His divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh.

West:

6th Century

7th Century

8th Century

Notes & References
The statement in Discourse on the End of the World 1 [PG 10:905A] calling our Lady "the spotless and God-bearing Mary" is from Pseudo-Hippolytus.

Mary Queen of Heaven

2009-03-06T12:10:00.069-05:00

4th Century
East: Deacon St. Ephrem the Syrian (Doctor) says [Prayer to the Holy Mother of God], "Majestic and Heavenly Maid, Lady, Queen, protect and keep me under your wing lest Satan the sower of destruction glory over me, lest my wicked foe be victorious against me."

7th Century
East: Patriarch St. Modestus of Jerusalem says before 634 [Encomium on the Dormition of the Holy Mother of God in PG 86B:3305B], "the Queen of mortal man, the most holy Mother of God."

West: St. Idelphonsus of Toledo says before 669 [On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in PL 96:58], "O my Lady, my Sovereign, You who rule over me, Mother of my Lord ... Lady among handmaids, Queen among sisters."

8th Century
East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor) [Homily 1 on the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin in PG 96:720A] calls the Theotókos "Queen, ruler, and lady" and [An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4:14 in PG 94:1157B] honors her with the title, "the Queen of every creature."

West: Pope St. Gregory II of Rome says [Letter to Patriarch St. Germanus of Constantinople in PL 89:508B] described our Lady as "the Queen of all, the true Mother of God" and "the Queen of all Christians." In 787 the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II) approved this letter.

East: Archbishop St. Andrew of Crete says [Homily 2 on the Dormition of the Holy Mother of God in PG 97:1080B], "Today He transports from her earthly dwelling, as Queen of the human race, His ever-Virgin Mother, from whose womb He, the living God, took on human form." In Homily 3 on the same subject [PG 97:1100A], the composer of the Great Canon refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary as "the Queen of the entire human race faithful to the exact meaning of her name, who is exalted above all things save only God Himself."

Confession

2009-03-06T12:09:00.041-05:00

3rd Century

4th Century
East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor) says in 374 [Rule Briefly Treated 288], "It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted."
WRH: Priests are entrusted with dispensing the Almighty's mysteries, so the great St. Basil says we must confess our sins to priests.

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

2009-03-06T12:09:00.040-05:00

East: Patriarch St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (Doctor) says in 362 [Against the Arians 2:70],

Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.

East: Bishop St. Epiphanius of Salamis says in 374 [The Well-Anchored Man 120], "The Son of God...was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit."

East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor & Holy Hierarch) says before 379 [Homily On the Holy Birth of Christ 5], "The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God [Θεοτόκος] ever ceased to be a Virgin [παρθένος]."

West: Pope St. Siricius of Rome says in 393 [Letter to Bishop Anysius],

You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if He had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord's body, that court of the eternal King.

West: Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor) says in 396 [Letter 63:111 to the Christians at Vercellæ in PL 16:1218D], "Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son."

West: Bishop St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor of Grace) says in 401 [On Holy Virginity 4:4],

Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.

East: Patriarch St. Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation) says after 431 [Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4], "The Word Himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for Himself His own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly He was true God. Therefore He kept His Mother a virgin even after her childbearing."

West: Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome (Doctor) says before 461 [Sermon 22:2 On the Feast of the Nativity in PL 54:195AB],

And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother's chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Savior of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance. For when God was born in the flesh, God Himself was the Father, as the archangel witnessed to the Blessed Virgin Mary: "because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God" [Lk 1:35]. The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained.

WRH: The great pontiff not only teaches the perpetual virginity of the Theotókos, but the fact of two nativities in Christ. There is one eternal nativity whereby Christ is ever-begotten of the Father, while there is one temporal nativity from the Blessed Virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit.

East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor) says in 743 [An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4:14 in PG 94:1161BC],

The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son," yet note that He who is first-begotten is first-born even if He is only-begotten. For the word "first-born" means that He was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word "till" signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, "And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world," not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, "And so shall we ever be with the Lord," meaning after the general resurrection.

WRH: Here the great Doctor corrects the fallacy of previous heretics and future Protestants that the diction of St. Matthew means that St. Mary had conjugal relations with St. Joseph after the birth of her Divine Son.

Immaculate Conception

2009-03-06T12:09:00.039-05:00

1. N.B.: This is the under-construction revised second edition of my July 2008 post: "Immaculate Conception of Ever-Virgin Mary Mother of God."

2. This will consider the witness of the following, in order to see which men justly can be said to have held (1) the freedom of the Blessed Virgin Mary from original sin or (2) the principles that are compatible with and lead to it. I will give special attention to those texts that the Eastern Orthodox such as Daniel Photios Jones, Perry Robinson, and Fr. Michael Azkoul, and such Anglicans as John Harvey Treat, look to in favor of their opposition to the dogma that the Blessed Virgin Mary never contracted original sin (esp. the Doctors Sts. John Chrysostom the Great, Basil the Great, Cyril, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Thomas Aquinas).

3. N.B. Many of these unequivocal texts come from the great Cardinal Luigi Lambruschini's 1855 outstanding Polemical Treatise on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Several others come from Edward D. O'Connor's The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception: History and Significance. See the "Works Cited" section at the end.

4. While many of these illustrious men speak of Christ alone as naturally without sin, these statements cannot exclude the Immaculate Conception as a privilege of grace in light of the other statements that they make. It is of no avail to quote Scripture against the Immaculate Conception, when it is implied by Gen 3:15 and Lk 1:28. For, as regards, e.g. Rom 3:23, we cannot exclude the Immaculate Conception because the Blessed Virgin was exempt from other general laws: She conceived and gave birth virginally and painlessly, she did not commit venial or mortal sins, her body did not undergo corruption, and she was resurrected before the General Judgment [Lambruschini 46-47]. Now we shall try to give an account of what numerous Fathers, some of whom are quoted as opponents, say with respect to the Blessed Virgin Mary and original sin.

1st Century
East: Patriarch St. Mark I the Apostle of Alexandria [Bryant 69] says before 60 [Liturgy of St. Mark the Evangelist], "Most holy, immaculate, and blessed Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary." Latin: "Sanctissima, immaculata, et benedicta, Deipara et semper virgine Maria."East: Bishop St. James the Just Apostle of Jerusalem [Bryant 68-69] says [Liturgy of St. James], "Most holy, most glorious, immaculate, Mother of God and ever Virgin," and that Mary is "in every respect out of the range of sinful men."
WRH: The holy St. James, brother of the Lord, taught that Mary was not a sinner, i.e., she never contracted original sin or committed venial or mortal sin.
East: Bishop St. Andrew the First-Called Apostle of Byzantium [Lambruschini 66-67] says in 62 [Acts of Andrew]: "And therefore, because the first man was created of immaculate earth, it was necessary that of an immaculate Virgin should be born a perfect man, that the Son of God should restore that eternal life which men had lost." Latin: "Et propterea, quod ex immaculatâ terrâ ereatus fuerat primus homo, necesse erat ut ex immaculatâ Virgine nasceretur perfectus homo, quo Filius Dei, qui antè condiderat hominem, vitam æternam quam perdiderant hominess, repararet."
WRH: The earth from which Adam was created had always been immaculate, and so the Blessed Virgin was always immaculate, or else we would make the glorious and all-praised St. Andrew guilty of a false analogy. Though the book The Acts of Andrew is not part of the Biblical Canon, it is historically accurate; one can see from the myriad lives of the saints published in the Eastern Orthodox Church (e.g., Nov. 30 entry in Bishop Nikolai Velimirovch's The Prologue from Ohrid) that that Church takes its historicity for granted.East: Bishop St. Dionysius the Areopagite Martyr of Athens says

2nd Century
East: St. Justin Martyr the Philosopher of Caesarea
West: St. Hippolytus the Martyr of Rome says in
West: Bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyons says

3rd Century
West: Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage [Lambruschini 162] says [Homily on Psalm 77], "Nor did justice endure that that vessel of election should be open to common injuries; for being far exalted above others, she partook of their nature, not of their sin." Latin: "Nec sustinebat justitia, ut illud vas electionis communibus lassaretur injuriis; quoniam plurimum a cæteris differens, natura communicabat, non culpa."

East: Patriarch St. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria says in
4th Century
East: Bishop St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Doctor)
West: Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers (Doctor)

East: Patriarch St. Athanasius I the Great of Alexandria (Doctor)

East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor, Cappadocian Father, & Holy Hierarch)

West: Marius Victorinus

East: Patriarch St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople (Doctor, Cappadocian Father, & Holy Hierarch)

East: Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa (Cappadocian Father)

East: Bishop St. Amphilochius of Iconium [Lambruschini 70] says [Discourse 4 in S. Deiparam], says that God formed Mary "without sin and without stain [sine macula et sine peccato]."
WRH: Mary was sinless at the moment of her formation, i.e., she did not contract original sin.

The saintly bishop [Lambruschini 162] adds [Orat. in S. Deip. et Simeon], "He who formed the first Virgin without deformity, also made the second one without spot or sin." Latin: "Qui antiquam illam virginem sine probro condidit; Ipse, et secundam, sine nota et crimine fabricatus est."
WRH: Since Mary, like Eve, was made without sin, Mary did not contract original sin. St. Amphilochius [On the Presentation 8 in PG 39:57C] interprets the sword of St. Simeon as a sadness from the brutal death of her Son, but does not indicate that she was an unbeliever or that she otherwise sinned.
West: Bishop St. Optatus of Mileve

West: Bishop St. Gregory of Elvira

East: Bishop St. Epiphanius of Salamis [Lambruschini 71] says [De Laudibus Virginis], "She was superior to all beings, God alone excepted; more beautiful by nature than the Cherubim, the Seraphim, and all the angelic host, … the immaculate sheep who brought forth Christ the Lamb." Latin: "Solo Deo excepto, eunctis superior extitit, naturâ formosior est ipsis Cherubim, Seraphim, et omni exercitu Angelorum, ... ovis immaculate, quæ peperit Agnum Christum."
WRH: Angels have no original sin, and the human nature of Mary, which is holier than the nature of the angels, never contracted original sin.

West: St. Zeno of Verona
East: Deacon St. Ephraim the Syrian (Doctor)
West: Hieromonk St. Jerome the Great of Strido (Doctor) [Lambruschini 71-72] says [Commentary on Psalm 77 in PL 26:1049BC],

Behold the Lord cometh into Egypt in a light cloud. The light cloud we must understand, either as properly signifying the body of the Savior, as being light and burdened with no sin: or we may certainly take the light cloud as signifying Holy Mary … Behold the Lord cometh into the Egypt of this world on a light cloud, which is the Virgin. "And He conducted them with a cloud by day." He said beautifully "by day," for that cloud was never in darkness, but always in light.

Latin:

Ecce Dominus venit Ægyptum in nebulâ levi. Nubem levem, aut propriè Salvatoris corpus debemus accipere, quia leve fuit, et nullo peccato prægravatm: aut certè nubem levem debemus sanctam Mariam accipere, nullo semine humano prægravatam. Ecce Dominus venit in Ægyptum sæculi istius super nubem levem, Virginem. "Et deduxit eos in nube diei." Pulchrè dixit diei; nubes eniem illa non fuit in tenebris, sed semper in luce.

WRH: Since Mary is the light cloud that was always in light and never in darkness, she did not contract original sin.

East: Patriarch St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor & Holy Hierarch) says

West: Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor) says in 388 [On Psalm 118 in PL 15:1521B]: St. Mary is "a virgin freed by grace from every stain of sin." Latin: "Virgo per gratiam ab omni integra labe peccati."

West: Bishop St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor of Grace) [Lambruschini 75] says [Sermon 12 On the Birth of the Lord], "The Church, like Mary, has perpetual integrity and incorrupt fruitfulness. For that which Mary merited in the flesh, the Church preserved in the spirit; the only difference is that the former bore one, the latter many." Latin: "Ecclesiæ, sicut Mariæ, perpetua integritas et incorrupta fœcunditas. Quod enim illa meruit in carne, hæc servavit in mente, nisi quod illa peperit unum, hæc parit multos.."
WRH: If we are to avoid accusing the great Doctor of a false analogy, we must say that, like the Church, Mary has always been perfectly pure.

Even more explicitly, the Doctor of Grace says [Against Julian in PL 45:1418]: "We do not transfer Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth, for this reason, that that condition is dissolved by the grace of her new birth." Latin: "Non transcribimus diabolo Mariam conditione nascendi; sed ideo, quia ipsa conditio solvitur gratia renascendi."
East: Patriarch St. Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation) [Lambruschini 78] says [In. Conc. Eph. N. 6], "Who ever heard of an architect, building a house for himself, and giving possession of it to his greatest enemy?" Latin: "Quis unquam audivit architectum, qui sibi domum ædificavit, ejus occupationem et possessionem primò suo inimico cessisse."
WRH: Mary was built at her conception, and neither then nor any time afterwards did Christ let sin touch His All-Holy Mother who was His temple.
East: Bishop St. Theodotus of Ancyra [Homily 6:11 on the Holy Mother of God in PG 77:1427A],

In the place of Eve, an instrument of death, is chosen a Virgin, most pleasing to God and full of His grace, as an instrument of life. A Virgin included in woman's sex, but without a share in woman's fault. A Virgin innocent; immaculate; free from all guilt; spotless; undefiled; holy in spirit and body; a lily among thorns.

East: Archbishop St. Proclus of Constantinople before 446 [Homily 1:3 in PG 65:683B]: "As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain."
WRH: Mary was formed without stain, meaning that she had no stain at the moment of her formation, meaning that she never contracted original sin.
West: Archbishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna (Doctor) says in 449 [Sermon 140 in PL 52:576A], "The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to Whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to Whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made."
WRH: Mary could not be pledged to Christ at the instant she was made if at that instant she was infected with original sin.
East: Hieromonk St. Hesychius of Jerusalem says

West: Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome (Doctor) says

West: Bishop St. Maximus of Turin [Lambruschini 78] says [Hom. V, ante Natale Domini in in PL 57:235D], "Mary was a fit dwelling for Christ, not because of the disposition of her body, but on account of original grace." Latin: "Idoneum plane Maria Christo habitaculum non pro habitu corporis, sed pro gratiâ originali."
WRH: Mary was originally in a state of grace, and so she did not contract original sin.

East: Bishop Basil of Seleucia

West: Pope St. Gelasius I of Rome

East: Bishop St. Jacob of Serugh says before 521, "The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary."
WRH: Since no stain ever disfigured her soul, Mary did not contract original sin.
West: Hieromonk St. Bede the Venerable of England (Doctor) says
West: Bishop St. Fulgentius of Ruspe [Lambruschini 161-162] says [Sermon 36 De laudibus Mariae ex partu Salvatoris in PL 65:899C], "By these words [Hail, full of grace], the angel shows that she [Mary] was altogether excluded from the wrath of the first sentence, and restored to the full grace of blessing." Latin: "Cum dixit, gratia plena, ostendit ex integro, iram exclusam primæ sententiæ, et plenam benedictionis gratiam restitutam."

West: Pope St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (Doctor)

West: Bishop St. Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus of Poitiers

East: Patriarch St. Anastasius I the Sinaite of Antioch before 598 [Oration 3:6 on the Incarnation in PG 89:1338].

East: Monk St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople

East: Patriarch St. Modestus of Jerusalem

East: Patriarch St. Sophronius of Jerusalem [Oration 2:25 on the Annunciation to the Holy Mother of God in PG 87:3248A]: "Many saints appeared before thee, but none was as filled with grace as thou… No one has been purified in advance as thou hast been… Thou dost surpass all that is most excellent in man, as well as all the gifts which have been bestowed by God upon all others."

8th Century
East: St. Andrew of Crete [Homily 1 on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in PG 97:809D-812]:

Today, Adam presents Mary to God as the first fruits of our nature… Today, humanity recovers the gift it had received when first formed by divine hands, and returns immaculate to its original nobility. The shame of sin had cast a shadow upon the splendor and charm of human nature; but when the Mother of Him Who is Beauty itself is born, this nature recovers in her person its ancient privileges, and is fashioned according to a perfect model, truly worthy of God. And this fashioning is a perfect restoration; this restoration is a divinization, and this divinization is an assimilation to the primitive state… In a word, the reformation of our nature begins today; the world, which had grown old, undergoes a transformation which is wholly divine, and receives the first fruits of its second creation.

East: Patriarch St. Germanus I of Constantinople [Homily 1 on the Presentation of the Holy Mother of God in PG 98:300D]: "Accept her whom you have chosen, predestined, and sanctified, … her whom you have chosen as a lily among the thorns of our unworthiness."

East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor) says [O'Connor 97] before 749 [Homily on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in PG 96:664AB]:

Nature was defeated by grace and stopped, trembling, not daring to take precedence over it [grace]. Since the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to precede the product of grace; but remained sterile until grace had produced its fruit. O happy loins of Joachim, which had produced a germ which is all immaculate. O wondrous womb of Anne in which an all-holy child slowly grew and took shape!

WRH: Mary was spotless as a zygote and was infused with grace before she could receive the wounds of nature; meaning she had no original sin at the moment of her conception.
The same John [Lambruschini 162], teacher beloved of God, says [Orat. 2 de Nat. B.V.M.], "the serpent never had any access to this paradise." Latin: "In hunc paradisum serpenti adytum non patuit."
WRH: The paradise is the person of Mary. Since the serpent never had access to Mary, Mary did not contract original sin.

Abbot St. Theodore of Studion [On the Nativity of the Blessed Mary 4 in PG 96:685A]:

Mary is the earth on which the thorns of sin did not grow. On the contrary, she brought forth a plant through which sin has been uprooted and taken away. She is an earth which was not cursed as was the first earth, fertile in thorns and thistles, but was blessed by the Lord; and her fruit is also blessed, as says the word of the Lord.

The same great saint adds [On the Nativity of the Blessed Mary 4 in PG 96:685D]: "She is the new dough that has been remade by God, the holy first-fruits of the human race, the root of that stem spoken of by the prophet."

East: Bishop John of Euboea

East: St. Joseph the Hymnographer [O'Connor 104] says before 883 [In pervigilio Dormit., Canon III in PG 105:1000C,1001D], "Thou art dying now in consequence of a law which was not made for thee, thou, who art the only pure one."
WRH:

East: Patriarch St. Photius the Great of Constantinople [O'Connor 102] says [Homily 2 On the Annunciation]: "Mayest thou rejoice, furnace forged by God, in which the Creator, having leavened anew our nature with the most pure and virginal dough, has cleansed us of that sour and distressing staleness, renovating man into a new creature."
East: Bishop George of Nicomedia

East: Patriarch St. Euthymius I Synkellos of Constantinople, In conceptionem Annae in PO 16 before 911: Mary was "fully sanctified (kathagiazei)" on "this very day (touto semerou)" of her creation.

East: Michael Psellos of Constantinople

West: St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Mellifluous Doctor) says
West: St. Bruno the Confessor of Cologne (Founder of the Carthusians) [Lambruschini 163] says [Homily on Psalm 101 in PL 152:1167D], "that Mary is that uncorrupted earth which God blessed, and was therefore free from all contagion of sin." Latin: "Hæc est … incorrupta terra illa, cui benedixit Dominus, ab omni propterea peccati contagione libera, per quam vitæ viam agnovimus, et promissam vertatem accepimus."
WRH: Mary was free of sin, not in the sense that she contracted sin that God wiped away, but that God made sure she was never corrupted by original sin.

East: Archbishop Theophylact of Ohrid [On the Presentation of the Blessed Mary 6 in PG 126:137A]: "She who surpassed all nature in purity and holiness, and who was justified from her mother’s womb, had to be exempt from a law made not for the just but for sinners."

East: John Phournes

East: Neophyte the Recluse of Cyprus before 1214 [Homily on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary 3 in PO 16:530,534].

East: Theodore Prodromus

West: Archbishop St. Anselm of Canterbury (Magnificent Doctor) [Lambruschini 80] says [Commentary on 1 Corinthians 12], "All have been dead in sin, whether original, or willfully incurred; no one has ever been excepted, save only the Mother of God." Latin: "Omnes mortui sunt in peccatis sive originalibus, sive voluntate additis, nemine prorsus excepto, demptâ Matre Dei."

West: Bishop-Monk St. Peter Damian of Ostia (Doctor) [Lambruschini 80] says [Sermon 40 On the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in PL 144:721C], "The flesh of the Virgin, received from Adam, admitted none of Adam's guilt." Latin: "Caro Virginis, ex Adam sumpta, maculas Adam non admisit."
WRH: The Virgin received her nature from Adam, but God graced her by preventing her from inheriting the concupiscence that everyone else contracts from Adam.

West: Richard of St. Victor

West: St. Dominic

West: St. Albert the Great (Universal Doctor) [Lambruschini 103] says [Book on Mary, On the Gospel of St. Luke], "The guilt of sin is threefold, to wit, original, mortal, and venial. Now, the most Blessed Virgin Mary was exempt from this triple woe." Latin: "Væ culpæ est triplex, scilicet originalis, mortalis et venialis: porro sine isto triplice væ fuit Beatissima Virgo Maria."
WRH: The great Doctor and teacher of the great St. Thomas Aquinas referred to original and actual sin in the same way, so he says that the Blessed Virgin never contracted original sin.
West: St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelic Doctor)
West: St. Bonaventure (Seraphic Doctor) [Lambruschini 81] says in 1275 [Sermon 2 on the Blessed Virgin in Peltier 14:111], "Our Lady was full of grace in her sanctification, a grace truly preservative against the defilement of original guilt." Latin: "Domina nostra fuit plena gratiâ in suâ sanctificatione, gratiâ, scilicet præservativâ contra fœditatem originalis culpæ."
WRH: The grace of Mary prevented her from contracting original sin.

The same radiant Doctor [Lambruschini 154] says in the same paragraph,

For it is to be believed that the Holy Ghost, as a very special favor, redeemed and preserved her from original sin by a new kind of sanctification, and this in the very moment of her conception; not that sin was in her, but that it otherwise would have been.

Latin:

Credendum est enim, quod novo sanctificationis genere, in ejus conceptionis primordio, Spiritus sanctus eam a peccato originali (non quod infuit, sed quod infuisset) redemit, atque singulari gratia præservavit.

West: Bl. John Duns Scotus
14th Century
East: Archbishop St. Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica [Homily 14 on the Annunciation in PG 151:172A-C]: "Mary escaped the malediction of Eve. Free from the old servitude, she became the source of deliverance of men from it."
East: Nicholas Cabasilas [Homily on the Annunciation 3 in PO 19:486]:

The wall of separation, the barrier of enmity, did not exist for her, and everything which kept the human race away from God was removed in her. She alone made her peace [with God] before the general reconciliation; or rather she never needed reconciliation of any sort, because from the beginning she occupied the first place in the choir of the friends [of God].

The same writer, whom the Orthodox venerate as a saint, adds [Homily on the Dormition of the Blessed Mary 4 in PO 19:498]: "Earth she is, because she is from the earth; but she is a new earth, since she derives in no way from her ancestors and has not inherited the old leaven. She is … a new dough and has originated a new race."

West: St. Bernardine of Siena (Apostle of Italy) [Lambruschini 110] says before 1380 [Sermon 49], "It is wholly incredible that the Son of God would Himself vouchsafe to be born and assume flesh of a virgin who had once been tainted with original sin." Latin: "Non enim credendum est quod ipse Filius Dei voluerit nasci ex virgine, et sumere ejus carnem, quæ esset maculata aliquo originali peccato."

15th Century
West: St. Vincent Ferrer of Valencia [Lambruschini 101-102] says in 1417 [Sermon 2 On The Nativity], "Think not that it was as with us, who are conceived in sin; for, as soon as her soul was created, it was sanctified, and immediately the angels in Heaven celebrated the Feast of the Conception." Latin: "Non credatis quia fuerit sicut in nobis, qui in peccatis concipimur; sed statim ac anima fuit creata, fuit sanctificata, et statim angeli in cœlo celebrarunt festum Conceptionis."

East: Archbishop Symeon of Thessalonica before 1429 [Response to Gabriel of Pentapolis 45 in PG 155:892C].

West: St. Lawrence Justinian [Lambruschini 163] says before 1456 [Sermon on the Annunciation], "that she was prevented in blessings, from her very conception." Latin: "Ab ipsa namque sui conceptione, in benedictionibus est præventa."
WRH: God blessed the conception of Mary by preventing her soul from contracting original sin.

West: Archbishop St. Thomas of Valencia [Lambruschini 110] says in 1530 [Conc. III de Nativit. Virg. Mariæ], "It became the Mother of God to be most pure, sinless, and unspotted. Wherefore, she was not only sanctified when she became a maid, but in the womb, and in her very conception, she was most holy." He adds [Lambruschini 111] that "the soul, when it was infused, had no stain of sin from the flesh, neither did it contract any."

West: Priest St. Peter Canisius (Doctor) says

West: Bishop St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori of Santa Agata dei Goti (Most Zealous Doctor) says

Works Cited

Bryant, John Delavau, M.D. The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God: A Dogma of the Catholic Church. Boston: Patrick Donahoe, 1855. 24 Mar. 2009 <http://books.google.com/books?id=MagsAAAAYAAJ>.
Lambruschini, Cardinal Luigi. A Polemical Treatise on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co., 1855. 24 Mar. 2009 <http://www.archive.org/details/polemicaltreatis00lambuoft>.
O'Connor, Edward D. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception: History and Significance. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1958.
Ullathorne, Archbishop William Bernard. The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God: An Exposition. London: Richardson & Son, 1855. 24 Mar. 2009 <http://www.archive.org/details/a611511500ullauoft>.

Divorce

2009-03-06T12:08:00.120-05:00

Nothing save death can dissolve the bond of a consummated valid sacramental marriage, and those are guilty of adultery who divorce and contract a second marriage while the spouse from the first marriage is alive.

Christ Himself teaches that divorce is forbidden. This means that the bond of a consummated sacramental marriage is not dissoluble except by the death of the spouse. The "porneia" exception clause does not mean one of the spouses cheating during the marriage (Christ did not say "moicheia"), but pertains to some irregularity prior to the marriage which would allow for an annulment.

2nd Century
West: Hermas says in 140 [Shepherd of Hermas 2:4:1:6], "And I said to him [the Angel of Repentance who appeared as a shepherd], 'What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?' And he said, 'The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery.'"
WRH: By "divorce," the holy brother of Pope St. Pius I means a separation of spouses, but not dissolution of the marriage bond. For if it were possible for the bond of a consummated sacramental marriage to be dissolved before the death of one of the spouses, it would not be adultery for one of the spouses to remarry.

East: St. Justin Martyr the Philosopher of Caesarea says [Apology 1:15 in PG 6:349AB],

And, "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, commits adultery." And, "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying [Matthew 19:12]." So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God.

East: Athenagoras of Athens says in 177 [A Plea for the Christians 33 in PG 6:965A],

For we bestow our attention, not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of actions,— that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. For whosoever puts away his wife, says He, and marries another, commits adultery [Matthew 19:9]; not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.

3rd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says Stromata 2:23 in PG 8:1096B-D,1097A:

Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law,You shall not put away your wife, except for the cause of fornication; and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion, while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. He that takes a woman that has been put away, it is said, commits adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress, that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband. What, then, is the law? [Lev 20:10; Dt 22:22] In order to check the impetuosity of the passions, it commands the adulteress to be put to death, on being convicted of this; and if of priestly family, to be committed to the flames [Lev 21:9]. And the adulterer also is stoned to death, but not in the same place, that not even their death may be in common. And the law is not at variance with the Gospel, but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the author of both? She who has committed fornication lives in sin, and is dead to the commandments; but she who has repented, being as it were born again by the change in her life, has a regeneration of life; the old harlot being dead, and she who has been regenerated by repentance having come back again to life. The Spirit testifies to what has been said by Ezekiel, declaring, I desire not the death of the sinner, but that he should turn [Ek 33:11]. Now they are stoned to death; as through hardness of heart dead to the law which they believed not. But in the case of a priestess the punishment is increased, because to whom much is given, from him shall more be required [Lk 12:48].

4th Century
East: Patriarch St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor): De libello repud. in PG 51:218:

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." See a teacher's wisdom. I mean, that being asked, Is it lawful? He did not at once say, It is not lawful, lest they should be disturbed and put in disorder, but before the decision by His argument He rendered this manifest, showing that it is itself too the commandment of His Father, and that not in opposition to Moses did He enjoin these things, but in full agreement with him. But mark Him arguing strongly not from the creation only, but also from His command. For He said not, that He made one man and one woman only, but that He also gave this command that the one man should be joined to the one woman. But if it had been His will that he should put this one away, and bring in another, when He had made one man, He would have formed many Women. But now both by the manner of the creation, and by the manner of lawgiving, He showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually, and never break off from her.

WRH: One of the greatest of the Eastern doctors clearly states that divorce and subsequent remarriage are contrary to the design of God Almighty.
5th Century
West: Pope St. Innocent I of Rome says in 408 [Epist. ad Exsuper n. 12 in PL 20:500]: "The practice is observed by all of regarding as an adulteress a woman who marries a second time while her husband yet lives, and permission to do penance is not granted her until one of them is dead."
WRH: This practice, according to the knowledgeable and saintly supreme pastor of the Church, is universal. This means that in the fifth century the undivided Church regarded the marriage bond to be indissoluble.

Peter is the Rock

2009-03-06T12:08:00.119-05:00

3rd Century

4th Century
West: Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers (Doctor) says in 359 [On the Trinity 6:20 in PL 10:172BC, "Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the Kingdom..."

East: Bishop St. Epiphanius of Salamis says in 374 [The Well Anchored Man 9:6 in PG], "The first of the Apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built."

East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor & Cappadocian Father) says in 375 [Commentary on Isaiah 2:66 in PG 30:223B], "Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised that He would build His Church."
East: Patriarch St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople (Doctor & Cappadocian Father) says in 380 [Oration 32:18 in PG 36:193C], "Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called Rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the Church."
East: Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa (Cappadocian Father) says before 394 [Panegyric on St. Stephen 3 in PG], "The memory of Peter, who is the head of the Apostles... he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the Savior built His Church."
5th Century
West: Bishop St. Maximus of Turin says in 408 [Homily 66 in PL 57:394A], "This Peter on whom Christ freely bestowed a sharing in his name. For just as Christ is the Rock, as the Apostle Paul taught, so through Christ Peter is made Rock, when the Lord says to him: 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church.'"

9th Century
East: Patriarch St. Photios the Great of Constantinople says [Epistle 99 to Nicephoras in PG 102:909A], "On Peter repose the foundations of the faith."
WRH: In other words, the Church is founded on St. Peter the Apostle.
14th Century
East: Archbishop St. Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica says [Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts 3:1:36 in PG ], "This is clearly shown by Peter, the leader of the apostles and foundation-stone of the Church."

Intercession of the Saints

2009-03-06T12:08:00.117-05:00

1st Century
East: Bishop St. Dionysius the Areopagite Martyr of Athens says

4th Century
East: Patriarch St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Doctor) says in 350 [Catechetical Lectures 23:9 in PG ],

Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth.

East: Patriarch St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople (Doctor, Cappadocian Father, & Holy Hierarch) says in 379 [Orations 24:11 in PG 35:1181A], "Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary to bring her [the Virgin Justina] assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on the ground."

East: Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa (Cappadocian Father) says in 380 [Against Eunomius 1:1 in PG 45:], "Only may that power come upon us which strengthens weakness, through the prayers of him [St. Paul the Apostle] who made his own strength perfect in bodily weakness."
WRH: St. Paul, pray to our Lord that He strengthens our weakness! Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

East: Patriarch St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor & Holy Hierarch) says in 387 [Homilies on the Statues 6:19 in PG ],

But God forbid that any in this fair assembly should appear there suffering such things! but by the prayers of the holy fathers, correcting all our offenses, and having shown forth the abundant fruit of virtue, may we depart hence with much confidence, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom, and with Whom, be glory to the Father together with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.

5th Century
East: Bishop Basil of Seleucia says before 459

6th Century
East: St. Romanus the Melodist says before 560
8th Century
East: Patriarch St. Germanus of Constantinople says before 733

11th Century
West: Bishop St. Anselm of Canterbury (Doctor) says

West: St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Mellifluous Doctor) says

Bible Canon

2009-03-06T12:08:00.116-05:00

The chief purpose of this post is to demonstrate that Protestants have greatly subtracted from the inspired word of God by excising the so-called Deuterocanon: Tobit, Judith, parts of Esther, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch (inc. Letter of Jeremiah), parts of Daniel (Song of the Three Children [Dan 3:24-90], Story of Susanna and the Elders [Dan 13], and Bel and the Dragon [Dan 14]), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees.

1st Century
The Didache

West:

2nd Century
East:

3rd Century
West: Bishop Tertullian of Carthage says in 200 [The Prescription Against Heretics 7 in PL 2:20B], "Our instruction comes from 'the porch of Solomon,' who had himself taught that 'the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart' [Wisdom 1:1]."
WRH: Tertullian, prior to succumbing to the heresy of Montanism, quoted the Book of Wisdom as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in 202 [The Stromata 2:23 in PG 8:1089A], "Those, then, will not escape the curse of yoking an ass with an ox, who, judging certain things not to suit them, command others to do them, or the reverse. This Scripture has briefly showed, when it says, 'What you hate you shall not do to another' [Tobit 4:15]."
WRH: St. Clement proves the Silver Rule from the Book of Tobit, which he quotes as inspired Scripture.

4th Century
West: Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor) says in 378 [Concerning Virginity 1:7:35 in PL 16:199A], "Nor do I allege any opinion of my own, but I repeat that which the Holy Spirit spake by the prophet: 'Blessed is the barren that is undefiled' [Wisdom 3:13]."
WRH: The illustrious Ambrose says that the Book of Wisdom is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Particular Judgment

2009-03-06T12:08:00.113-05:00

Questions to be answered:
(1) Do the damned suffer the punishment of fire before the Last Judgment?
(2) Do the just see God before the Last Judgment?

If the saints do not experience the beatific vision before the Last Judgment, then what was the point of Christ's descent into the Limbo of the Fathers? Though deprived of the vision of the Uncreated Light [Ἄκτιστον Φῶς], they were in a state of hope and knew that Christ would free them. What difference would Christ have made for these holy men and women if He had not let them into Heaven so they could forever after experience the vision of God? Surely the saints experience an accidental increase in happiness at the Last Judgment, when they are reunited with their bodies, but that is not when they first see God face to face [1 Cor 13:12]!

1st Century

6th Century
West: Pope St. Gregory I the Great of Rome says in 593 [Dialogues 4:28],

If, by the testimony of Holy Scripture, you believe that the souls of holy and perfect men be in Heaven: by the same reason ought you also to believe that the souls of the wicked be in Hell: for as just men do rejoice and be glad at the retribution of eternal justice, so necessary it is that the wicked at the same justice should be grieved and tormented: for as Heavenly felicity doth glad the elect, so we ought to believe that, from the day of their departure, fire doth afflict and burn the reprobate.

Homosexuality

2009-03-06T12:08:00.112-05:00

1st Century
The Didache from A.D. 90 says [Didache 2:2], "You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery [Ex 20:13-14], you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal [Ex 20:15], you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born."

East: Aristides the Philosopher of Athens says in 125 [Apology 8], "Some polluted themselves by lying with males. ... Thus, O King [Hadrian], have the Greeks put forward foulness, and absurdity, and folly about their gods and about themselves, in that they have called those that are of such a nature gods, who are no gods."

East: St. Justin Martyr the Philosopher of Caesarea says in 151 [First Apology 27 in PG 6:369B-372A],

We have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And any one who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods.

East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in 190 [Exhortation to the Greeks 2], "All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods ... condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians."

3rd Century
West: Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage says in 253 [Letter 1:9 to Donatus in PL 4:212A],

Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places--if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight--you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do--men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them.

4th Century
East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor, Cappadocian Father, & Holy Hierarch) says in 367 [Epistle 217:62 to Amphilochius in PG 32:800A], "He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers."

East: Patriarch St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor & Holy Hierarch) says in

5th Century
West: Bishop St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor of Grace) says in 400 [Confessions 3:18:8:15 in PL 32:689-690],

Therefore those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which has not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust.

Original Sin

2009-03-06T12:08:00.111-05:00

This post will also address the controversy over inherited "guilt."
Questions to be answered:

2nd Century
East: Bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyons says in 180 []

3rd Century
West: Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage says in 350 []

4th Century
East: St. Jacob Aphraates the Sage of Persia says before 345 [Treatise 7:1],

Moreover, among the sons of Adam there is none besides Him who might enter the race without being wounded or swallowed up. For sin has ruled from the time Adam transgressed the command. By one among the many was it swallowed up; many did it wound, and many did it kill; but none among the many killed it until our Savior came, Who took it on Himself and fixed it to His cross.

WRH:

East: Deacon St. Ephraim the Syrian (Doctor) says in 350 [Hymns on the Epiphany 10:1], "Adam sinned and earned all sorrows; likewise the world after His example, all guilt. And instead of considering how it should be restored--considered how its fall should be pleasant for it. Glory to Him Who came and restored it!"
WRH:

East: Patriarch St. Athanasius I the Great of Alexandria (Doctor) says in 360 [Discourses Against the Arians 1:12:51 in PG 12:117C], "For since the first man Adam altered, and through sin death came into the world... For as when Adam had transgressed, his sin reached unto all men..."
WRH:

East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor, Cappadocian Father, & Holy Hierarch) says in 379 []
WRH:

East: Patriarch St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople (Doctor, Cappadocian Father, & Holy Hierarch) says in the middle of 380 [Orations Against the Arians 33:9 in PG 36:225BC],

And further, above this, we have in common reason, the Law, the Prophets, the very Sufferings of Christ, by which we were all without exception created anew, who partake of the same Adam, and were led astray by the serpent and slain by sin, and are saved by the Heavenly Adam and brought back by the tree of shame to the tree of life from whence we had fallen.

East: Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor) says in 383 []

East: Patriarch St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor & Holy Hierarch) says in 391 []

West: Bishop St. Pacian of Barcelona says in 392 []

5th Century

6th Century

7th Century

11th Century
East: St. Symeon the New Theologian of Constantinople says [Homily 66 The Banishment and Repentance of Adam and Every Christian in PG 120], "We are all born sinners from our forefather Adam who sinned; we are all criminals from a criminal, slaves of sin from a slave of sin, subject to the curse and death from him who was subject to the curse and death."
WRH: The holy Hesychast taught that we inherit concupiscence from Adam.

Toll-Houses

2009-03-06T12:08:00.110-05:00

The toll-house theory popularized by Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov is that after death, all souls must go through a series of stations of accusing demons before making it to Heaven or being dragged down to Hell, is plainly false. A person who is damned does not pass through toll-houses before making it to a toll-house he cannot pass through on account of certain sins and thereupon being dragged to Hell. Rather, the damned (those who die in a state of mortal sin) immediately descend to Hell, as the Church teaches. On the constant teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church about eternal life and eternal punishment, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1035 points to DS 76; 409; 411; 801; 858; 1002; 1351; 1575; Paul VI, CPG [Solemn Profession of Faith: Credo of the People of God] # 12:
DS 76 (Athanasian Creed): He suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, on the third day arose again from the dead, ascended to Heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead; at His coming all men have to arise again with their bodies and will render an account of their own deeds: and those who have done good, will go into life everlasting, but those who have done evil, into eternal fire. This is the Catholic faith; unless every one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
DS 409 (Anathema 7 against Origen): If anyone says or holds that the Lord Christ in the future age will be crucified in behalf of the demons, just as (He was) for the sake of men, let him be anathema.
DS 411 (Anathema 9 against Origen): If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.
DS 801 (Definition of the 12th Ecumenical Council, Lateran IV): But He descended in soul, and He arose in the flesh, and He ascended equally in both, to come at the end of time, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works, to the wicked as well as to the elect, all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear, that they may receive according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil, the latter everlasting punishment with the devil, and the former everlasting glory with Christ.
DS 858 (Profession of Faith of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos at 14th Ecumenical Council, Lyons II): However, the souls of those who after having received holy baptism have incurred no stain of sin whatever, also those souls who, after contracting the stain of sin, either while remaining in their bodies or being divested of them, have been cleansed, as we have said above, are received immediately into Heaven. The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments. The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment "all" men will be brought together with their bodies "before the tribunal of Christ" "to render an account" of their own deeds [Rom 14:10].
DS 1002 (Pope Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus): Moreover, we declare that according to the common arrangement of God, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin immediately after their death descend to Hell where they are tortured by infernal punishments, and that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render an account of their own deeds before the tribunal of Christ, "so that everyone may receive the proper things of the body according as he has done whether it be good or evil" [2 Cor 5:10].
DS 1351 (Decree on Behalf of the Jacobites at 17th Ecumenical Council, Florence): It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Mt 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
DS 1575 (Canon 25 of the 19th Ecumenical Council, Trent): If anyone shall say that in every good work the just one sins at least venially, or (what is more intolerable) mortally, and therefore deserves eternal punishments, and that it is only because God does not impute those works unto damnation that he is not damned, let him be anathema.
The following history of dogma from the old Catholic Encyclopedia shows that the idea that all souls do not enter Heaven or Hell immediately but instead pass through aerial toll-houses before they meet their eternal fate was never a teaching of the Church:

It cannot, however, be inferred from these passages that all of the Fathers quoted believed that the vision of God is in most cases delayed till the day of judgment. Many of them in other parts of their works profess the Catholic doctrine either expressly or by implication through the acknowledgment of other dogmas in which it is contained, for instance, in that of the descent of Christ into Limbo, an article of the Creed which loses all significance unless it be admitted that the saints of the Old Testament were thereby liberated from this temporal penalty of loss and admitted to the vision of God. As to the passages which state that the supreme happiness of Heaven is not enjoyed till after the resurrection, they refer in many instances to an increase in the accidental joy of the blessed through the union of the soul with its glorified body, and do not signify that the essential happiness of heaven is not enjoyed till then. Notwithstanding the aberrations of some writers and the hesitation of others, the belief that since the death of Christ souls which are free from sin enter at once into the vision of God was always firmly held by the great body of Christians (cf. St. Cyprian, De exhort. mart.).

See McHugh, John. "Particular Judgment." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 13 Oct. 2009 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm>.

Now we turn to the Fathers, whose testimony was perversely interpreted by men like Ignatius Brianchaninov and Seraphim Rose of Platina.

East: St. Anthony the Great of Egypt says [Life of St. Anthony 28 in PG ],

For place is no hindrance to their plots, nor do they look on us as friends that they should spare us; nor are they lovers of good that they should amend. But on the contrary they are evil, and nothing is so much sought after by them as wounding them that love virtue and fear God. But since they have no power to effect anything, they do nought but threaten. But if they could, they would not hesitate, but immediately work evil (for all their desire is set on this), and especially against us. Behold now we are gathered together and speak against them, and they know when we advance they grow weak. If therefore they had power they would permit none of us Christians to live, for godliness is an abomination to a sinner [Sirach 1:25]. But since they can do nothing they inflict the greater wounds on themselves; for they can fulfill none of their threats. Next this ought to be considered, that we may be in no fear of them: that if they had the power they would not come in crowds, nor fashion displays, nor with change of form would they frame deceits. But it would suffice that one only should come and accomplish that which he was both able and willing to do: especially as every one who has the power neither slays with display nor strikes fear with tumult, but immediately makes full use of his authority as he wishes. But the demons as they have no power are like actors on the stage changing their shape and frightening children with tumultuous apparition and various forms: from which they ought rather to be despised as showing their weakness.

From the words of the wonderworking ascetic, it is clear that the demons do not have the power that the toll-house theory accords them.

East: St. Macarios the Great of Egypt says [Homily 22 in PG 34:660AB],

He adds, [Homily 43:9 in PG 45:777BC],

East: Patriarch St. Gregory the Theologian of Constantinople (Doctor) says [Oration 7:21 in PG 35:781BC],

I believe the words of the wise, that every fair and God-beloved soul, when set free from the bonds of the body, departs hence, and at once enjoys a sense and vision of good things to come, inasmuch as what was dark in it has been purged or laid aside ... and feels a wondrous pleasure and exultation, and rejoices in the Lord. Then, a little later, it will receive its flesh, which once shared in its pursuit of things above... And, as it shared the hardships of the body through a common life, so also is bestowed upon the body the joys of the soul hereafter, gathering it up into itself, and becoming with it one in spirit and mind in God... I await the voice of the Archangel, the last trumpet, the transformation of the heavens... Then shall I see Caesarius himself, no longer an exile, no longer spread on a bier, no longer the object of mourning and pity, but brilliant, glorious, Heavenly, such as in my dreams I have often beheld thee, dearest and most loving brother, in very truth if not by my desire.

According to the great Theologian of the Trinity, the holy (completely purified) departed do not run through stations of demons, but immediately enter Heaven.

East: Patriarch St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor) says

East: St. Diadochos of Photiki says [On Spiritual Knowledge 100],

If we do not confess our involuntary sins as we should, we shall discover an ill defined fear in ourselves at that hour of our death. We who love the Lord should pray that we may be without fear at that time; for if we are afraid then, we will not be able freely to pass the rulers of the lower world. They will have as their advocate to plead against us the fear which our soul experiences because of its own wickedness. But the soul which rejoices in the love of God, at the hour of its departure, is lifted with the angels of peace above all the hosts of darkness.

The souls of the righteous do not run through a gauntlet of demons, but are straightaway lifted to eternal bliss, according to the testimony of this God-bearing Father.

East: Priest St. Hesychios says,

East: St. John the Solitary says [Sixth Dialogue With Thomasios],

West: St. Columba of Ireland says before 597 [Life of St. Columba],

Now let us help by prayer the monks of the Abbot Comgell, drowning at this hour in the Lough of the Calf for behold, at this moment they are warring in the air against hostile powers who try to snatch away the soul of a stranger who is drowning along with them. Then after the prayer, he said, "Give thanks to Christ, for now the holy angels have met these holy souls, and have delivered that stranger and triumphantly rescued him from the warring demons."

The monks and the stranger were still alive, so this account provides no support for the toll-house theory, which concerns an alleged posthumous phenomenon. We wage war against the hostile powers of the air in this life.

West: Pope St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (Doctor) says [],

East: St. Isaac of Nineveh says,

Priestly Celibacy

2009-03-06T12:08:00.061-05:00

Sunday Worship

2009-03-06T12:07:00.054-05:00

1st Century
In A.D. 90 the Didache records, "On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure."
WRH: According to the Twelve Apostles themselves, we must go to Mass on Sunday, but we cannot partake of the broken bread [κλάσμα] if we have sins on our conscience.

4th Century
West: Bishop St. Victorinus of Pettau says in 300 [On the Creation of the World],

On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord's day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that 'His soul hateth;' [Is 1:13-14] which Sabbath He in His body abolished...

East: Patriarch St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (Doctor) says in 335 [Epistle 7:11 in PG 26:1396D], "Also that day which is holy and blessed in everything, which possesses the name of Christ, namely the Lord's day, having risen upon us on the fourth of Pharmuthi [March 30], let us afterwards keep the holy feast of Pentecost."

East: Patriarch St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Doctor) says in 350 [Catechetical Lectures 4:37 in PG 33:501AB], "Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans, or into Judaism: for Jesus Christ henceforth hath ransomed thee. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths, and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean."

East: Patriarch St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor) says in 388 [Homilies on Acts 18 in PG 60:147], "Then as one whom they must respect, there will be the presbyter among them and this will contribute to the security of the estate. There will be constant prayers there through thee hymns and Communions through thee; the Oblation on each Lord's Day."
WRH: The Eucharist is of necessity celebrated every Sunday without exception.

Contraception

2009-03-06T12:07:00.053-05:00

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."
WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."
WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.

3rd Century
West: Lactantius of North Africa says in 307 [The Divine Institutes 6:23:18 in PL 6:718AB], "God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring."

4th Century
East: Bishop St. Epiphanius of Salamis says in [Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2], "[certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption."
WRH:

West: Bishop St. Augustine the Hippo (Doctor of Grace) says in 388 [On the Morals of the Manicheans 18:65]:

This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.

WRH: It is a shame that some people seem to abhor unintentional pregnancy more than fornication, when children are a great blessing from God [Ps 127:3-5] and fornication is an abomination that we must avoid [Tob 4:13] in order to avoid eternal punishment [Gal 5:21].

East: Patriarch St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor & Holy Hierarch) says in 391 [Homilies on Matthew 28:5],

... in truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization].

6th Century
West: Bishop St. Caesarius of Arles says in 522 [Sermon 1:12],

Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in Hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman.

Abortion

2009-03-06T12:07:00.051-05:00

1st Century
Didache 2:2 in 90: "You shall not kill a child by abortion nor kill it after it is born."

It also says [5:1-2], "The Way of Death is filled with people who are ... murderers of children and abortionists of God's creatures."
WRH: This is the irreformable teaching of the Twelve Apostles.

2nd Century
West: Marcus Minucius Felix says in 170 [Octavius 30], "There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth."

East: St. Athenagoras of Athens says in 177 [A Plea for the Christians 35 in PG 6:969AB],

And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it. But we are in all things always alike and the same, submitting ourselves to reason, and not ruling over it.

West: Bishop Tertullian of Carthage says in 197 [Apology 9:8],

In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fœtus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.

WRH: In this most forceful passage, Tertullian is accurately representing the Apostolic Tradition; his witness is solid because it comes well before he became a Montanist heretic, which happened in 206.

East: St. Clement of Alexandria says [The Instructor 2],

Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, in order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the child completely dead, abort at the same time their own human feelings.

3rd Century
West: St. Hippolytus the Martyr of Rome says in 228 [Refutation of All Heresies 9:7],

Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church!

West: Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage says in 251 [Epistle 52, to Cornelius], "He [the schismatic Novatian] struck the womb of his wife with his heel and hurried an abortion, thereby causing parricide."

4th Century
East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor, Cappadocian Father, & Holy Hierarch) says in 375 [Epistle 188:2 in PG 36:672],

The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. With us there is no nice inquiry as to its being formed or unformed. In this case it is not only the being about to be born who is vindicated, but the woman in her attack upon herself; because in most cases women who make such attempts die. The destruction of the embryo is an additional crime, a second murder, at all events if we regard it as done with intent.

West: Hieromonk St. Jerome the Great of Strido (Doctor) says in 380 [Epistle 22:13 in PL 22:401],

Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.

West: Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor) says in 386 [On the Hexaemeron 5:18 in PL 14:231], "The rich women, to avoid dividing the inheritance among, many kill their own fetus in the womb and with murderous juices extinguish in the genital chamber their children."

East: Patriarch St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor & Holy Hierarch) says in 391 [Homilies on Romans 24 in PG 60:626-627]: Abortion "is something worse than murder," and an abortionist "does not take away life that has already been born, but prevents it from being born."

5th Century
West: Bishop St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor of Grace) says in 419 [On Marriage and Concupiscence 1:17 in PL 44:423-424],

Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by debauchery. But if the two are not alike in such sin, I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband's harlot; or the man the wife's adulterer.

6th Century
West: Bishop St. Caesarius of Arles says [Sermon 44:2 in PL],

No woman should take drugs for purposes of abortion, nor should she kill her children that have been conceived or are already born. If anyone does this, she should know that before Christ's tribunal she will have to plead her case in the presence of those she has killed. Moreover, women should not take diabolical draughts with the purpose of not being able to conceive children. A woman who does this ought to realize that she will be guilty of as many murders as the number of children she might have borne. I would like to know whether a woman of nobility who takes deadly drugs to prevent conception wants her maids or tenants to do so. Just as every woman wants slaves born for her so that they may serve her, so she herself should nurse all the children she conceives, or entrust them to others for rearing. Otherwise, she may refuse to conceive children or, what is more serious, be willing to kill souls which might have been good Christians. Now, with what kind of a conscience does she desire slaves to be born of her servants, when she herself refuses to bear children who might become Christians?

East: Emperor St. Justinian I the Great of Rome says [Digest 48:19:38:5],

Because the thing is a bad example, lower-class people who give a drink to cause an abortion or to excite passion (although they do not do it deceitfully), are to be condemned to the mines, and more distinguished persons to be relegated to an island and deprived of a part of their wealth. If by this drink a woman or a man has died, they are condemned to capital punishment.

9th Century
West: Pope Stephen V of Rome says on 9/14/887 [Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz], "If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old."

[UNDER CONSTRUCTION]