Transcript for:
Catholic Theology Debates

famously it was said by St john Henry Newman that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant this statement has frequently been misunderstood by many Catholics and Protestants alike as they claim that history so clearly shows forth each and every dogma of Roman Catholicism that anyone with even a basic acquaintance and a degree of honesty could not help but to become Catholic if St newman meant this he would be rightly criticized since history does not provide us with a neat and orderly presentation of dogma that we would like yet this is exactly the point that St newman intends to make in the messiness and disorder of history what is clear is that it is not the principles of Protestantism steering the ship rather it is only by Catholic principles that you are able to understand it st newman argues that the Protestants who wield history against Catholicism end up wielding a double-edged sword a sword which cuts them and leaves Catholicism unscathed among the arguments commonly employed in apologetical debates there are few as misunderstood as the idea of the consensus of the fathers yet this problem is not a new one it is a problem that Catholic theologians have been dealing with for quite some time even in the 1950s the sacred theologia Suma comments quote the authors often especially in the manuals argue only from the authority rather than from the consent of the fathers they quote some fragments of the fathers in which the same doctrine is asserted which they are defending but this is nothing other than to confirm a doctrine from the authority of the fathers who are cited end quote this of course is not to disparage the writing of the manuals but to point out certain habitual problems that had affected some of the manuals problems which were remedied throughout the early 1900s by the writing and citing of monographs and journal articles where the teaching of a particular father or the fathers as a whole were treated in great detail thus in the same vein Degrroot wrote in his suma apologetica in the year 1906 that quote "The water of wisdom will be purer if drawn directly from the sources themselves over many generations much has been transferred from one manual to another like a lifeless and entirely mute mass the mind of the holy fathers lives in their original writings where the connection of ideas and the very roots of their concepts are visible and if the works of more recent scholars are not neglected we will more easily discern what should be rejected as false what should be further investigated as doubtful and what should be adopted as new even in matters of greater importance with the critical tools of prology the monuments of the ancients will be as it were renewed and breathe life end quote it is with this flourishing of prology in secondary literature that in many cases true and proper demonstrations of the consensus of the holy fathers were made as the sacred theologia sumo points out quote "Surely this proof often can be presupposed completely or partially made already by the critical additions by petrology by the history of dogmas and by theology whether positive or historical." End quote yet this is not a problem that was only in the 20th century but a centuries old problem thus Pavius one of the greatest ecclesiastical historians and positive theologians that the church has ever produced wrote a series of warnings and guides in the introduction to his magnum opus the dogmata Theologica the problem with providing only a smattering of individual fathers rather than establishing a true and proper consensus is as St augustine points out in a number of places that we are not unhesitatingly and irrevocably to give our ascent to human writings and thus in the words of St thomas quote sacred doctrine makes use of natural authorities as extrinsic improbable arguments but properly uses the authority of the canonical scriptures as an incontrovertible proof and the authority of the doctors of the church as one that may properly be used yet merely as probable end quote an evident example of this is found in the Petristic era with the authority of St cyprien of Carthage who aired on the issue of rebaptism st augustine while maintaining proper reverence towards him states that he ought to hold the determination of the church over the determination of a particular author writing be in the church which it is well known Cyprien held and preached and then dare to name Cyprien as the author of your opinion i do not accept what the blessed Cyprian thought for the church does not accept this for which blessed Cyprian shed his blood end quote st thomas states this succinctly when he writes quote "The custom of the church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things since the very doctrine of Catholic doctors derives its authority from the church hence we ought to abide by the authority of the church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever end quote further as the 6th century North African ecclesiastical author Fakundus points out we ought to in their doubtful or unclear statements to read these authors piously and in accordance with the clearer statements of other fathers writing quote "Just as it is the characteristic of heretical slanderers to misinterpret what is certain and clear by using what is doubtful and obscure so it is customary for Catholic prudence and piety to use what is certain written and evident to clarify and confirm what is ambiguous and hidden therefore it is better for us to interpret the writings of learned men who died in the peace of the church in the best possible way end quote further as St thomas writes quote "If there are found some points in statements of the ancient fathers not expressed with the caution moderns find appropriate to observe their statements are not to be ridiculed or rejected on the other hand neither are they to be overextended but reverently interpreted end quote yet as St augustine demonstrates in his PMICS against Julian the Pelagium that unlike the positions of this or that father the common consensus of the fathers shows forth the determination of the church he writes that this consensus is greater than if a quote syninnod were gathered from the whole world thus he tells Julian that such agreement quote ought to move you since they represent the quote entire church of Christ as fathers sons and judges and therefore Julian is accused of departing from the Catholic faith in departing from their judgment so in summary it is clear that we cannot simply rely on the position of a single author or group of authors since these authors are themselves fallible on the other hand when there is a consensus among fathers the faith of the church is truly set forth in an infallible manner so in determining the weight of a certain demonstration of the fathers we ought to consider whether it is simply a smattering of individual authors and therefore gives some sort of probability to the doctrine or is it a true demonstration from consensus that renders the doctrine infallibly true in order to understand the meaning of this consensus there are three errors that we need to get out of the way in the beginning the first two are used to argue against the idea of the consensus of the fathers and the third error is used to overextend the concept of the consensus of the fathers the first error is the consensus of those who do not properly understand the matter of consensus which is often invoked by liberals and protestants they will often point out certain agreed upon scientific and historical errors and then reason that such consensus is not infallible and therefore any consensus is fallible yet this line of reasoning simply misunderstands the teaching we do not claim that the consensus on any matter is infallible rather we limit this charrorism to matters of faith and morals this is unlike scripture which is infallible due to divine revelation on all matters that are truly intended by the human author whether of faith or morals or of philosophy history or science thus according to the widely cited maxim from Melcano quote the authority of the saints whether of a few or of many when supplied to those fields governed by natural reason does not provide certain arguments it carries weight only to the extent that it aligns with natural reason end quote yet we must always keep in mind that we must restrict this to only those matters that do not have some sort of immediate connection with divine revelation as Pesh points out quote "A different case arises with philosophical conclusions that are so closely connected with revealed truths that their acceptance or rejection directly endangers the revealed dogma itself." What has been said about the infallibility of the church regarding theological conclusions must also be applied to the authority of the holy fathers in proposing such conclusions just as it is the church's role to judge whether a matter pertains to faith so too does the consensus of the fathers bring complete certainty when they teach that a particular matter pertains to faith end quote in summary the first error is the error of those who extend the matter of consensus beyond faith and morals to certain natural matters whether scientific historical or philosophical that are not immediately connected with the apostolic deposit the second error is the error of those who object that there are basically no matter where every father gives his opinion or that in many doctrines there are few fathers who disagree on a certain matter yet this completely misunderstands the nature of the consensus which is argued for rather than a quote physical consensus which involves every single individual in a certain group we require a moral consensus which is simply a representative number that far outweighs the contrary to where the contrary is simply an exception thus certain fathers like St vincent of Luren will use the language of quote nearly all in order to signify that there are rarely cases where we have a consensus from every single father thus also St vincent writes quote whatsoever a teacher holds other than all or contrary to all be he wholly and learned be he a bishop be he a confessor be he a martyr let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own end quote this also practically allows us to determine a consensus which we will go over below for it would be an impossible task to read through each and every single father to see whether they had a teaching on this or that doctrine the reason that we hold the consensus of the fathers or theologians or bishops to be infallible is not because the agreement of all these authors provide us with some sort of historical certainty about a question this is a common error and is often reflected in popular critiques of Catholicism by for example Gavin Ortland you know they might quote Newman to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant and just say look if so much becomes accidental rather than essential that's acrewing over time then you have a church that becomes unmed from history and you're just not tied down to like these fifth and sixth century on the ground realities but I think we kind of all have to wrestle with that in my book I distinguish between two different possibilities for what it means to be deep in history mainstream depth and historical depth so mainstream depth is just whatever happens to come about as the largest view eventually historical depth is what is earliest even John Henry Newman had to recognize that mainstream depth is not a reliable guide to truth the simple fact is church history is not the words of God church history is really messy there are lots of things that almost every Christian today regards as error that became big and dominant and had a kind of mainstream depth views on sex as only for procreation views of women as not equally constituting the image of God with men i talk about Augustine's doctrine of the damnation of unbaptized babies which essentially reigned between Augustine and the Reformation and then you look at the Old Testament and you see a similar dynamic of the way mainstream depth could be wielded against the true prophets of God caiaphas the high priest over and against the apostles could make this kind of appeal to mainstream depth so what a Protestant is trying to do is go back to what God has said the church never dies god's always at work rather the foundation for such an assertion is the Catholic conviction that the Holy Spirit guides the church by its influence in such a way as to preserve the faith in the church through the passing down of divine revelation that we call the quote living tradition thus while there may be certain individuals who through their human fault may heir on this or that doctrine the church as a whole will not spread error as the faith or heresy as truth thus there is also mention as well of certain authors who lived before versus after a controversy which is based on this consideration in summary the second error concerns those who misunderstand what is meant by consensus assuming that this requires some sort of agreement of each and every individual without any exception this is not the case rather such a consensus can arise later only in a certain period of time or with certain dissenting individuals the reason for this is that we are not seeking naturalistic historical certainty when we invoke the infallibility of the consensus of the fathers rather we are invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit who will guard the preaching of the apostolic deposit whether it be the interpretation of scripture or the interpretation of tradition the third error is one in which certain individuals will attempt to overextend the consensus of the fathers beyond the scope that we claim often enemies of the Catholic faith will attempt to discredit the teaching by pointing to certain topics where there was apparently consensus on and then drawing the conclusion that since we disagree on this topic we must then disagree with consensus as infallible for example Gavin Ortland recently pointed to a number of issues like this now obviously I can dispute with Gavin's correctness on each one of these points the fathers distinguish between a primary and a secondary sense of the image of God the fathers held that the marital use could also be done for the sake of concupisence and as a good toist I would disagree with the theologians following Gregory of Rini who argue that the fathers following St augustine or St augustine himself held to the developed position of the Augustinians on the penisensus for those dying with original sin alone yet there are other issues where there was agreement among certain generations of fathers or theologians on issues that we have for all practical purposes departed from but to invoke this fact as an argument against consensus simply shows the ignorance of those making such claims on what we actually teach concerning consensus in the Petristic era we see that such a consensus following St vincent of Lauren was often given a label like quote steadfast or some similar adjective showing that a position was strongly held this clearly shows that just not any consensus is needed but a solid consensus thus we distinguish between three species of consensus if you want to read more about this I wrote an article called different types of consensus of theologians that follows very closely the exposition of this problem by Father Shaban you can find that on my Patreon at patreon.com/milligantois anyways something can either be agreed upon as one a common opinion two a certain conclusion or three contained in revelation in the first case that is a common opinion there is an agreement that something is probable and the author may give certain probable arguments for it but it is not stated in such a way as to absolutely exclude all other positions or all doubts in the second case that is a certain conclusion there is an agreement that something is certain and follows on the basis of strong arguments yet it is not something that is immediately contained in divine revelation and thus not binding on faith in the third case that is contained in revelation there is an agreement that something is contained in divine revelation and thus is binding on faith in the third case that is contained in revelation there is an agreement that something is contained in divine revelation whether of sacred tradition or sacred scripture and thus is binding on faith it is only in the third case that we invoke infallibility as flowing from or indicated by consensus thus there can be many issues where many generations of theologians have opinions that are simply wrong and are reversed by a later age other times there are thesis which are common for many generations yet there are theologians in later generations who disagree with the former consensus an example of this is the thesis that sex and marriage when invoked for the purpose of remedying incontinence is never without venial sin in the one who requests this is something where it is rare to find one stating it so insistently as to rise to the level of a common sentence from this it is clear that it was simply the common opinion rather than the type of firmness of consent required for a true argument from consensus thus the church has tolerated the opposite opinion and both opinions exist in the church to this day in summary this error does not recognize that there are different degrees of ascent that leads to consensus it is only when the fathers stating insistently that a teaching is found in divine revelation whether of scripture or divine tradition that the infallibility of the consensus can be invoked all three of these common errors are errors that many of those who you speak to about the consensus of the fathers will have thus it is important that you clarify that one the consensus must be about matters of faith or morals two the consensus is not a physical consensus but a moral consensus and three the consensus must be about the fact that something is found in divine revelation rather than something is merely certain or probable now that we have went over a few common errors on the issue of consensus how do we practically determine whether there is a consensus or not first we must clarify what is meant by a father of the church the definition of father of the church commonly drawn from St vincent of Len is an ecclesiastical writer recognized by the church's orthodox who was outstanding in doctrine holiness and antiquity first they must be an ecclesiastical writer an ecclesiastical writer is simply a writer who wrote under the Christian profession thus even authors like Ucius Tutoian and origin would be considered ecclesiastical writers although they are not considered church fathers second they have to be recognized by the church it is not enough for an author to be in the church and to have written rather their works must be received as authentically expressing Catholic truth and in constant use for this purpose this can either be explicitly or implicitly explicitly there have been certain decrees that list approved authors implicitly the approval of certain authors come from their common use without any sort of restriction thus we need to clearly distinguish between certain early ecclesiastical authors for example Aristes Tatian Aanagoras Tertullian Origin Arnobius Lactanius Ucius Ditimus the Blind and Refinus and Trum proper fathers of the church on the other hand in summary a church father is an approved ecclesiastical author from the early church who is outstanding in doctrine and holiness this is important due to a principle we invoked above that is the consensus of the fathers isn't merely about a historical study of the history of belief rather it is based on the protection of the Holy Spirit thus there are many older authors who claim to be Christians that are not included including heretics and schismatics along with certain Catholic authors who are not outstanding in doctrine or approved by the church an easy way of determining whether someone is a father or not is to look at the reception of their doctrine and the explicit teaching concerning their usefulness and orthodoxy now to determine whether there is consensus between these fathers of the church there are two methods that we can follow first the direct method second the indirect method the direct method goes through each and every father from every era in order to attempt to establish universal agreement this method is very rarely used and is often impossible to ascertain yet when this is found to be the case as the SDS states quote "If it is discovered that they agree then it provides an invincible and full argument that their unanimous consensus as from a certain criterion of divine tradition." End quote therefore in most cases we use the indirect method the indirect method seeks to determine the consensus of the whole from some prominent part as an analogy we might only pull a certain representative part of a country if we were to wish to determine what the average is of that country for example in political poll there are a few methods of determining when these fathers agree and truly present a consensus first is the method of the principal fathers there are certain fathers who are eminent for their determination of a certain question and other fathers follow their judgment on this matter thus when there is agreement among these eminent fathers that a certain matter is divinely revealed and thus binding on faith and there is no perceptible disagreement in the church then this is an indication that there is a consensus on this matter according to St vincent of Luren this was actually the method followed at the council of Ephesus where certain of the most principal fathers were brought forward and this served as a representation of the other fathers who followed their doctrine on this matter this is especially fruitful when the eminent fathers in question are those fathers who are especially received by the church as opposing some particular heresy thus the SDS states quote by demonstrating some main article of doctrine from one or other father who is recognized by the church as a leader in the defense of this doctrine against the heretics as was Athanasius against the Aryans Augustine against the Pelagians Sir of Alexandria against the Ntorians and from that by concluding indirectly to the consent of the other fathers because as the history of dogma shows the other fathers together with the whole church applauded these outstanding ing men for their defense of dogma." End quote second we have the method of the era in certain eras before there was major disagreement about a certain doctrine or before an adequate solution to a certain problem was determined it can be quite difficult to determine consensus if there even was a consensus at that point thus for example in the antonyy church while there are clear indications of the truth of purgatory in the practices of the church yet it took as keen an intellect as St a custom to fully formulate the doctrine as a complete synthesis of divine revelation and the practice of the church so early in the church there are a number of errors from those attempting to properly teach what is taught by divine revelation on esquetology yet failing but when the more developed solution of St augustine is presented there is a clear consensus reached in the existence of such in its general outlines although there were particular questions that remain unanswered now the basis of the teaching on the consensus of the fathers is that the church is unfailing in its universal teaching thus where there is a universal teaching of a single era it is sufficient to demonstrate such a consensus even where there might be disagreement at another era over the teaching even in a later era yet the same does not apply for certain locations since while particular churches are fallible a particular era of the universal church is not fallible thus if I were to demonstrate that such and such a teaching was the teaching of North Africa it would not reach the conditions required for the consensus of the fathers but on the other hand if I demonstrated that such was the teaching in the sixth and seventh centuries that would be a consensus of the fathers although other authors will argue on the basis of the church of Rome's more proximate guardianship over the west that an argument from the western fathers can constitute an argument for consensus thus the STS states quote by demonstrating directly the consensus of the western fathers and from that by concluding indirectly to the consensus of the eastern fathers also because it cannot happen that in matters of faith and morals the fathers of the eastern church do not agree with the fathers of the western church which is under the immediate vigilance of the supreme pontiff end quote to summarize we can either demonstrate consensus directly or indirectly it is best to demonstrate consensus directly but often this is impossible therefore for practical purposes we demonstrate such consensus indirectly this takes a number of different forms including the method of the principal fathers the method of the era and the method of the western fathers lastly we must be especially careful when considering the question of the common interpretations of sacred scripture for when there is a consensus on a matter of scriptural interpretation it is something that is infallible yet in many cases where one would think that there is a consensus it is not properly speaking a consensus for such a consensus is quite rare as venerable pest the 12th states quote "Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the church there is a question of doctrine regarding faith and morals and that in the immense matter contained in the sacred books legislative historical siential and prophetical there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the church nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the holy fathers is unanimous." end quote this is actually relevant in a modern discussion that is the debate over the age of the earth often proponents of young earth creationism will argue that a certain teaching on the age of the earth was the interpretation of scripture given by the unanimous consent of the fathers and therefore such an interpretation is binding on all Catholics this is an understandable position and primmaaci seems quite probable yet the argument does not follow the reason it does not follow is not as some erroneously conclude that the interpretation of scripture does not fall under the consensus of the fathers due to it being simply and not merely formally a disciplinary decree of the council of Trent this is an error caught by many who concluding from the fact that the decree of Trent on the interpretation of scripture is formally disciplinary which they are correct about erroneously conclude that it is simply disciplinary which it is not in the language of the schoolmen it is formally disciplinary yet fundamentally doctrinal in so far as the principle which informs the law is doctrinal rather it has to do with what we said above about the various types of consensus that can be had the eminent 20th century theologian Christian Pesh describes three possible situations quote first they reject a certain interpretation as completely intolerable or propose another as the only Catholic interpretation for example consider how they explain the gospel narratives about the institution of the Eucharist end quote in this situation he writes quote "In the first case the interpretation must necessarily be accepted." End quote further at other times they propose multiple interpretations and use hermeneutical methods to seek the true meaning end quote in this situation he writes quote in the second case the interpretation remains open end quote further quote "Sometimes they simply provide an explanation without indicating whether it is the only possible interpretation or whether others may also be admitted." End quote in this situation he writes quote "In the third case the question arises." If a different interpretation were proposed to the Holy Father would he tolerate it as Catholic or not often this question is resolved by examining the reasoning the holy fathers use when they seek argue for or doubt the true meaning of a text frequently however this question can only be answered by consulting later Catholic commentators for if a particular interpretation is consistently and exclusively proposed as true by later fathers and Catholic writers it indicates that the earlier fathers regarded it as the only Catholic interpretation conversely if later Catholic exedites admit an alternative explanation despite contrary interpretations by earlier fathers it follows that the earlier interpretation was not considered obligatory end quote therefore we must be careful not only to note consensus but also the insistence of such consensus thus there can be certain texts of scripture that are interpreted in the same way by all the fathers yet they did not seek to propose this text as the only possible sense of the text as an example many theologians mention the interpretation of Hebrews 6 4-6 as referring to the impossibility of repeating baptism this interpretation has a moral consensus among the fathers yet later Catholic exedites often freely rejected this interpretation or proposed other interpretations the reason for this has to do with the degree of consensus this reading was not set forth in a definitive way and thus does not require our ascent thus the sacred theologia suma teaches quote in the interpretation of holy scripture in order to obtain an argument from the consent of the fathers that is a certain criterion of divine tradition it is required first of all that certainty is established not only that the fathers agree on this interpretation but also that they propose it as the meaning that for the sacred author is divinely inspired for often the holy fathers attribute to the sacred text a meeting that is fitting for the rhetorical or aesthetical effect which they have in mind but when this is the case the argument from the consent of the fathers in the interpretation of holy scripture in order for it to be a true criterion of divine tradition must assume the same conditions which we just mentioned above and therefore namely for a lack of some of the given conditions it is properly explained why contemporary exedites can depart from the consensus of the fathers in the interpretation of some texts of scripture for example Genesis 7 on the extent of the flood Isaiah 53:8 on the eternal generation of Christ Hebrews 6:4-6 on baptism end quote further as Bane says in his de magisterio vivo tradition quote "If the fathers even many of them speak as private teachers even in matters of faith whether inquiring opining or doubting they cannot be regarded as the certain and authentic voice of the church this often happens when they interpret scripture in such cases their interpretation must be considered human rather than dogmatic thus it happens that later interpreters even cautious and Catholic ones occasionally depart from the almost unanimous interpretation of the fathers this departure becomes even more likely when the subject moves further from matters of faith and morals to other topics further it often happens that the holy fathers aim to derive a quote word of exhortation from the books rather than to treat the matter exeetically end quote this distinction between interpreting as an expositor of the Catholic faith and interpreting as expressing certain matters of private opinion was well known in the preodern era and is not some sort of modern cope to get around common errors in biblical interpretation this can be proven by abundant citations of St thomas considering the ex Jesus of the book of Genesis where he always seeks to protect the authority of the holy fathers thus he writes that such interpretations were made quote not as asserting it but as using what they had learned in philosophy therefore their statements hold no greater authority than those of the philosophers they follow except in so far as they are all free from all suspicion of unbelief end quote thus the only effect of such an interpretation is something negative that is that such an interpretation while perhaps incorrect cannot be said to be against the faith that is heretical so uh first uh when it comes to a note on terminology uh this is definitely controversial uh there's this sort of uh common I it's a common myth uh there's really no truth behind this that the difference between the evolution of dogma and the development of doctrine is that the evolution of dogma is the evil modernist uh way of phrasing things and that the development of doctrine is the true in Catholic way of phrasing things and this isn't really uh true uh this isn't really true at all uh Catholic theologians actually use both phrases uh but evolution of dogma is the more popular phrase to use and this is actually seen in the life of Newman uh who is going to be a recurring theme because I think Newman while certainly groundbreaking on this issue and uh even continental Catholic theologians recognize uh that he is groundbreaking on this issue uh first uh he he does have a few um terminological issues uh he has a few uh minor mistakes uh throughout his uh essay and we can excuse this because throughout the rest of his life he he does clarify in other writings that people don't read that that's all to say uh when Newman did write uh the famous uh Peron letters uh he did actually use the phrasiology of the evolution of dogma because that's just in Catholic theology the more uh popular terminology to use so really we're weird uh when we use the phrase uh development of doctrine and then uh are scared of using the phrase of the evolution of dogma but the distinction uh that is present between the Catholic and then the modernist versions of the evolution of dogmas between what's known as the homogeneous and then a transistic uh evolution so if you think about uh a transformistic evolution that would be uh like and we're going to get this get into this uh later in a lot more detail but a transmistic evolution would be like uh kind of Darwinism uh at least how old Darwinism used to think like okay we got a monkey and then monkey become man uh that's that's a transformation right there they are completely different species they're completely different things where uh the type of evolution that we're talking about is a homogeneous evolution so that would be like the difference between uh Newman uses this uh phrase this imagery that we uh in Catholic theology uh generally use this imagery between the seed and the tree uh that is an example of a homogeneous uh evolution or maybe the history of a certain people um that that'd be another example of homogeneous uh evolution or uh we can think of a thinker who works out uh throughout his entire life um a a certain idea that he had when he was younger uh that's another example of a homogeneous evolution so again um the modernistic theory was condemned and this language of the evolution of dogma uh definitely was taken over by the modernists and uh seen as their sole uh property but uh either way we should take the advice of St augustine and Datrina Christiana where he says if they who are called philosophers particularly the platonists have said things that are true and in conformity with our faith not only are these not to be feared but they should be rested from them as from unjust possessors and turned to our advantage so there is some areas of truth that are present in some of uh some of what the modernists have said uh but again fundamentally they're heretical so what we ought to do is we ought to restore it uh in Christ and we ought to cleanse away all of the errors and to take it back uh for ourselves so we ought not to be scared of the terminology or even some of the ideas uh but we ought to recognize that every error really has its uh foundation in a corruption of truth so uh in in order to uh prove this because I can I can already hear uh the very aggressive uh Newman hater tread types saying that I am being utterly uh modernistic right now and using this language of the evolution of dogma or even the idea of evolution of dogma i just wanted to quote some principal uh theologians that are uh traditional and anti-modernistic so the first is Cardinal Bo in his decclesia Christi thesis 17 he says quote this law of evolution which rules all living organisms we see verified also in the church of Christ which while uh suously uh guarding the dogmas entrusted to her detracts nothing from them in treating faithfully and wisely the old doctrine she pursues with all diligence this one endeavor to determine and perfect that which previously was formless in inco Kate to consolidate and firm up that which is already expressly stated and explained to safeguard what which is that which is already firmly established and defined and then also uh manscior van nort in his de fontibus uh revelation he says in the first place it is certain that the increase of which we have spoken does not involve a change in the doctrine itself but an organic unfolding or evolution of the same preaching of the same faith just as the adult is not a different man from the child in spite of the fact that his bodily members have grown considerably in size and strength in like manner the preaching of the church remains always the same in reality even if with the passing of time it has evolved or become more developed and then uh father Berier which uh he was a Dominican theologian not many know him unfortunately but he was uh famous for his deois uh he says quote hence it is clear that for us the unfolding of the doctrine handed down is in no way a uh permutation but an evolution or progress of the same truth not with regard to its substance but with regard to its explication sometimes in the history of theology there are certain important figures that are more or less lost these individuals are authors of important theological works and play central roles in important controversies yet they are ignored for many generations thus it is important for each generation of theology to read carefully not only those authors that are widely referenced and studied but also those lesserknown figures that escape the notice of the masses seeking lost gems that can contribute to our understanding of divine revelation one of the most egregious examples of an important loss is the church father St optatus a North African saint and theological writer who has often been called the least known of the fathers of the church what is even more unfortunate is that St octatus is one of the most important sources that can be used against the Protestant understanding of the church and is a key to understanding St augustine's opposition to the Donatists little is known about St in Octatus's life but we do know a few important biographical details we know from St augustine that he was a convert to the faith before his conversion he was likely a pagan rhetoric which can be gathered from his excellent Latin from him only a single book has come down his magnum opus against the Donatist which he actually revised throughout his life resulting in multiple additions he actually provides us in an appendix to his work with invaluable primary source material on the Donatus schism and in the first book of his work our earliest historical narrative of the circumstances surrounding the Donatist schism the entire work against the Donatists answers a question that is perpetually relevant and especially relevant among many of you how do we distinguish the true church from the false churches before the 20th century there was only one vernacular translation of the work of St octatus against the Donatists a French translation in the year 1564 which was so rare that the English translator of the work in 1917 was not able to find a single copy in the 19th century there was an announcement that the Petristic collection called the Oxford Library of the Fathers would include an addition of the work yet the translation never came to pass neither did the shaft collection of the church fathers include a translation of St optatus even though he is one of the most important authors in the Donatist controversy it wasn't until the year 1702 that there was a Latin edition of the original text in print done by Dupin in Paris yet this text was nearly impossible to find outside of large research libraries and it wasn't until the year 1870 that the famous ecclesiastical historian Father Hugo voner remedied this and published the text of Dupin in short form with notes so that it would be accessible to a wider audience it wasn't until 1893 that there was a critical edition of the text with serious text critical notes the ignorance of St octatus was so bad that in the early 20th century the English translator of St optatus commented that quote "It is not too much to say that the very name of Octatus is barely known even to many students of theology and ecclesiastical history." End quote this is unfortunate since St octatus provides us with a systematic treatment of determining the true church by way of the marks of the church and also provides us with a sublime example of charity and pmics st optatus is clear in referring to the schismatic Donatus as brothers reflecting a pmical methodology common among the saints and especially emphasized by the magisterium of the church in recent years he writes quote lest anyone should say that without thought I call them brethren i would reply that such they are for we cannot escape from the words of the prophet Isaiah and although they would not deny as all men know well that they hold us in abhorance and ban us utterly and are unwilling to be called our brethren still we may not depart from the fear of God for the Holy Spirit exhorts us by Isaiah the prophet saying "You who fear the word of the Lord hear ye the word of the Lord to those who detest and curse you and are unwilling to be called your brethren say ye nevertheless you are our brethren they therefore are without doubt brothers though not good brothers wherefore let no one marvel that I term them brothers who are unable to escape being our brethren they and we have one spiritual birth that is baptism though widely differing in our conduct end quote he goes on later in the work to teach that the Donatus and Catholics are made brothers by baptism and retain some sort of partial communion saying quote you will not have peace with us that is with your brothers for you cannot escape being our brothers you whom together with us one mother church has borne from the same bowels of her sacraments and whom God the father has received in the same manner as sons of adoption accordingly if things which have been prescribed may not be changed you see that we have not been absolutely divided from one another whilst we willingly pray for you and you though unwillingly pray for us you perceive my brother Parmminian that the bonds of holy brotherhood between you and us do not admit of being absolutely broken." End quote this is also something that is witnessed to by St augustine who also was clear to call the Donatus brothers thus when St augustine was refuting Galdensius the Donatus quote "Come now brother Godius do not waste the opportunity the Lord has given you even through your own words or are you perhaps angered that I call you brother for you rejected this term in our conference showing that we are the ones to whom the Lord commanded through the prophet say you are our brothers to those who hate and detest you but you are among those who hate and detest those to whom the Lord speaks these words." End quote the charity of calling them brethren is even more striking we consider the long history of abuse that the Catholics had suffered at the hands of the Donatists these abuses ranged from desecration of the Eucharist to murder to the defiling of nuns as a few examples first he mentions how Donathus slaughtered Catholic deacons writing quote "So soon as they saw that the basilica notwithstanding their clamors was closed against them they commanded their followers to climb to the top strip the roof and throw down the tiles these orders were executed without delay in the defense of the altar a number of Catholic deacons were wounded with tiles of whom two were killed primus the son of Jenerius and Donathus the son of Nenus your fellow bishops whose names I have just given were present and urged them on end quote second the Donatus assaulted Catholics at random going so far as to slaughter infants and force pregnant women to misaryry saying quote "These men upset the minds of quiet people who were established in unity and aided by the favor and fury of certain officials and the very presence of Athenius the magistrate with colors flying broke up the Catholic assemblies with bloodshed catholics were driven out from their homes their men were wounded their women were dragged into captivity their infants were slain mothers miscarried end quote third they attempted to feed the Eucharist to dogs but were instead attacked by the dogs quote Moreover a hideous crime which seems to you something of little importance was committed in such a fashion that your above mentioned fellow bishops profaneed everything which is most holy they commanded the Eucharist to be cast to the dogs this did not pass without evidence of the divine judgment for these same dogs were inflamed with madness and tore their own masters in pieces as though they had been murderers and attacked with avenging teeth those guilty of the holy body as if they had been strangers and enemies they also threw a vial of crism out of a window in order to break it and although its fall was precipitated by violence an angel's hand was there to bring it down gently to earth with the support that is from heaven being thrown away it was not allowed to feel its fall but by the protection of God found its home unbroken amongst the rocks end quote fourth they also made a practice of seducing nuns quote "When the Donatus bishops came back they found that nuns whom they had seduced from their state of chastity had become mothers one of the Donatus bishops among his other crimes and horrible misdeeds teased a young maiden to whom he himself had given the veil by whom he had a short time before been called by the name father and did not hesitate in the least to be guilty of shameless incest." End quote further St optatus is clear to distinguish between those who are culpable for their schism and those who are inculpable for their schism which in modern theological terminology we call the distinction between formal and material schismatics he writes if you do not know this learn if you do know this blush Ignorance cannot be attributed to you it follows that you know for one who knows to heir is sin those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned end quote this distinction is especially employed when distinguishing the originators of a schism from those who have been born into a schism quote "If as I said your forefathers had come of their own accord to the Catholic Church perhaps our fathers would have hesitated about receiving them because they had been betrayers but we have caused for rejoicing that none guilty of betrayal have lived down to our times." So today we find quite a new state of affairs since we have to deal not with them but with you although it appears that a stain has passed from them to you by inheritance nevertheless you cannot on this ground be held guilty together with your fathers according to the judgment of God your fathers who are proven to have done these things in the days of unity have fallen away from the number of the living leaving you as it were an inherited stain which God has already washed away by his providence when he made a distinction as we have said above between fathers and their sons accordingly since betrayal is a sin your fathers must see to it as to what answer they may make in the judgment of God but your sin it cannot be since you are living in other times end quote although even with these points noted St.atus does not mince words against the Donatus or due to the possibility of ignorance in the presence of a common baptism pretend that such a schism is not a big deal in fact he points out that God treats schism with more severity than even murder or idolatry he writes quote "By the commandments of God three things are amongst others forbidden by him thou shalt not kill thou shalt not go after strange gods and thou shalt not commit schism let us see concerning these three what should be punished and what it may be lawful to pardon." Murder of Keith is the chief sin nevertheless God did not strike Cain dead in his guilt but declared that he would punish any man who might be his murderer in the city of Nineveh 120,000 inhabitants sacriiggiously followed after strange gods but when by the preaching of Jonah the prophet God had declared his anger a short period of fasting together with prayer obtained their pardon let us see whether any such forgiveness was granted to those who first of all ventured to divide the peoples of God god had placed over so many thousands of children of Israel from whose net his divine providence had cast away the yoke of servitude one priest holy Aaron but his ministers coveting and lawlessly usurping a priesthood to which they had no right and leading astray a part of the people imitated the sacred rights and placed more than 200 of their followers who were to perish with them centurers in hand before the people whom they had led astray god to whom schism is displeasing could not see this and let it pass they had after a certain fashion declared war against God as if there were a second God who could accept a second sacrifice therefore God was wrathful with a mighty wrath on account of the schism which had been made and what he had not done in punishment of the sacrilegious and the fracticide that he did do in punishment of schismatics the army of ministers stood array and the sacriiggious host that together with its forbidden sacrifices was to perish in an instant the opportunity for penance was denied them and withdrawn for this was not the kind of sin that should deserve pardon the earth was commanded to hunger after its food forth with it opened its jaws for those who had divided the people and with eager mouth swallowed them up that had despised the commandments of God within the space of one moment the earth opened to devour them seized her victims was shut once again and so that they might not appear to reap any benefit from the suddenness of their death it was not allowed these men who were unworthy to live even to die all of a sudden they were shut in the prison of hell and were buried there before they died what have you to say to this you who having usurped the name of the church both secretly foster and without shame defend the schism end quote yet there is an obvious difficulty that pops up here the Donatus claimed that they were the true church of Christ rather than the Catholic Church how were they to determine which group was schizmatic and which were not interestingly the Protestant option that they were both parts of the true church or that there was not properly a true church with unity of governance was not even on the table the option was so ridiculous as not even to be discussed between the two groups the method that St octatus follows is the same method that Catholic theologians follow to this day called the method of the notes the word notes comes from the Latin word note which has the idea of certain marks or essential attributes that would help you determine what type of thing some object is thus for example the notes of being a man is to have rationality and to have animality throughout the history of the church various theologians have listed different numbers of notes for determining the true church this is proper since there are many properties which flow from the primary essential notes and can be used to determine the nature of something further there are other attributes which may not technically be proper to some nature but is an accident that is likely to be present in the thing or in other cases might be a negative mark that simply excludes other options thus there are many marks of the church and some of these marks are possessed in some degree by heretical or schismatic groups but as noted by St octatus the marks stand or fall together if you lack one mark then you lack the full nature of the church thus he writes quote these endowments i.e marks are connected one with another and are distinct but in such a way that it may be understood that one cannot be separated from another for they are numerically distinct but with one act of the mind we see them joined in their body as are the fingers of the hand each of which we perceive to be removed by spaces from the others therefore he who possesses one must possess them all since not one of them can be apart from its fellows we may add that we possess in that in the strictest sense not one endowment alone but all end quote thus even while Adonitus possess the profession of the creed and the celebration of the sacraments which Protestants erroneously conclude is sufficient to be a visible church they still lack the marks for most of the marks St octatus is simply responding to a list given by the Donatus and showing how the Catholic Church is the true possessor of that mark yet the first mark is of particular interest for contemporaries this is the mark of what he calls the cathedral Petri or in English the chair of Peter he introduces the endowment stating quote you cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedral on which sat Peter the head of all the apostles for which reason he was called Cphus that in this one cathedral unity should be preserved by all lest the other apostles might claim each for himself separate cathedrals so that he who should set up a second cathedral against the unique cathedral would already be a schismatic and a sinner well then on the one cathedral which is the first of the endowments Peter was the first to sit." End quote then he goes on to identify this cathedral Petri with the then current bishop of Rome serakius writing to Peter succeeded Serakius 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 cathedral you who wish to claim the holy church for yourselves end quote yet the Donatus objected that they actually did have a presence within Rome of a few individuals of their sect but St optus mocked this as ridiculous due to the sparse presence of the Donatis in Rome which he calls quote a few wanderers from Africa and the fact that they do not possess the traditional churches in Rome besides this he points to the fact that they couldn't even muster up a single Roman citizen to be bishop and had to keep sending Africans and that they couldn't even find a meeting place among all the churches and shrines in Rome he writes quote but you allege that you two have some sort of party in the city of Rome it is a branch of your error growing out of a lie not from the root of truth in a word where your bishop to be asked where he sits in the city will he be able to say on Peter's cathedral i doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it and schismatic that he is he has not drawn nigh to Peter's shrine behold in Rome are the shrines of the two apostles will you tell me whether he has been able to approach them or has offered sacrifice in those places where as is certain are these shrines of the saints end quote what is interesting here is the revelation that the Donatus immediately after their schism sent someone to Rome to be an antipope which clearly demonstrates the common understanding of the necessity of having a bishop in Rome st optatus comments on this fact saying quote Victor that is the first Donatist antipope would not have been able had he been asked where he sat to show that anyone had been there before him nor could he have pointed out that he possessed any cathedral save the cathedra of pestilence for pestilence sent down its victims destroyed by diseases to the regions of hell which are known to have their gates gates against which we read that Peter received the saving keys peter that is to say the first of our line to whom it was said by Christ to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven and these keys the gates of hell shall not overcome how is it then that you strive to usurp for yourselves the keys of the kingdom of heaven you who with your arguments and audacious sacrilege war against the chair of Peter end quote the Donatus objected to this that even while they might not have the chair of Peter in Rome we see from scripture that St peter denied his Lord and therefore they could withdraw communion from him on the basis of his faults yet St optatus completely refutes this reading of scripture showing that despite his personal faults the apostles stayed in communion with Peter and therefore we too must remain in communion with the Cathedral Petri in Rome despite the faults present in the person of the pope he writes quote we see that this unity was preferred to punishment by Christ himself who chose that all his disciples should be in unity rather than punish a sin against himself for as he did not wish to be denied he declared that whosoever should deny him before men him would he deny before his father and though this has been thus written nevertheless for the sake of unity blessed Peter for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only both deserve to be placed over all the apostles and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven which he was to communicate to the rest so from this example it is given us to understand that for the sake of unity sin should be buried since the most blessed apostle Paul says that charity cover a multitude of sins end quote in fact this passage is so strong that many anti-atholics have sought to bastardize this both Gallicans and Anglicans as it says in the text quote "Blessed Peter both deserve to be placed over all the apostles and alone received the kingdom of heaven which he was to communicate to the rest." End quote evie Pusy and Edward Denny both Anglo Catholics following Basuet a Gallicanin all bastardized this text both adding Acristo or from Christ after the statement communicate to the rest so as to change the sense of the passage from Peter giving the keys to the other apostles to Christ giving the keys to the other apostles but after Peter evie Pusy attempts to quote the original version by Dupin mentioned above to show that there is a textual variant but no such note is found it is clear from this text as well as earlier in book 1 chapter 10 that St optatus means to say that Peter received the keys directly from Christ and the other apostles directly from Peter in the earlier passage he mentioned quote the keys which Peter alone received end quote further a second bastardization of this text would need to occur as well that is whereas St octatus says that Peter alone Solus received the keys from Christ the Anglican interpreters would need to interpret it as Peter first primus received from Christ this objective standard of schism is the one which is followed by Catholic authors to this day and provides us with a standard for determining where schismatics are to be found versus where those truly in communion with the church of Christ are to be found that a man can say such things as infallible statements this is not orthodox this is heterodox and that's the problem with the Catholic Church is it's really just a big humanist institution there was no western attendance it was presided over someone who was in schism with Rome who died out of communion with Rome and you know the Roman Catholic Church uses no salvation outside the church so how exactly does that work they were waiting for the pope's magic signature even though there was no western attendance you can also look at Trulo there's many examples of oh they weren't just waiting for the pope's signature to magically make it an ecumenical council you can also look a third ecumenical council where there is no western attendance they weren't like oh guys we need the bishop of Rome to sign if we need the bishop of Rome first off the first council of Constantinople was not the third ecumenical council was the second it's right there in the screenshot second the Wikipedia article says directly that the first council of Constantinople was not seen as an ecumenical council until Calcidon if one wants to see how devastating this is to Kyle's claims here's a fantastic video between two Catholics and an oriental orthodox who agree that Calcedon was a clear example of the Pope exercising papal supremacy finally Theodor who preserved a senotical letter from the council records that the council fathers in 381 did want to have the council in row but due to justified reasons they had to keep the council in Constantinople this at least shows they had some ascent from the Pope has its states though as we have already said we needs must labor all the longer since however you showed your brotherly love to us by inviting us as though we were your own members by the letters of our most religious emperor to the cinnid which you are gathering by divine permission at Rome however Carl isn't getting off this easy it's super clear that the events around thin noble and the Malaysian schism actually prove papal [Music] supremacy pope St thanosis the 37th pope in the line of St peter was elected as pope by a large majority in the month of October in 366 while Pope St dannysus was mostly known as the pope who presided over the council of Rome and the promulgation of the Bulgate he was actually quite instrumental in the weed up to Constantinople 1 between 376 and 377 St jerome wrote a letter to pope themesis on a request for the pope to pronounce some sort of decree or creed that would be universally binding on the church he states "If you think fit enact a decree and then I shall not hesitate to speak of three hypoases order a new creed to supersede the nyine and then whether we are Aryans or orthodox one confession will do for us all." The background to this request is interesting because it shows that contrary to Kyle's claims that I mean we can see again the bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction all these like the bishop of Rome the let the choice of the majority prevail they're not just appealing and the bishop of Rome is not a dictator of the faith like it is in the Roman Catholic system there absolutely is a case of universal jurisdiction let's give some context to this quote in 330 St eustaceius of Antioch a great friend of St ages and a defender of Nyian creed was deposed and exiled by a Ucibius of Mikamedia and Ninod and Antioch on a false charge of modalism or the doctrine that the three persons are actually just one person from that point onward Antioch was placed under the jurisdiction of multiple Aryan and semi-aran bishops in 358 a guy by the name of Midius was elected to be pope of Antioch as the church historian Socrates puts it they sent for Mletius and invested him with the bishop Rick of the church at Antioch now he at first avoided all doctrinal questions confining his discourses to moral subjects but subsequently he expounded to his auditors the nyine creed and asserted the doctrine of the homosian the emperor being informed of this ordered that he should be sent into exile now when Midius's exile was elected there was a man by the name of Palinus who has consecrated a bishop before his return and a sort of debate in between the different Nyian Christians erupted in this letter we read that Jerome believed the Malaysians to be Aryans for their usage of hypothesis as equating person at this time many Mistian Christians equated the term hypothesis with essence so the notion that there are three persons and three hypotheases sound like Aryanism as Jerome states just now I am sorry to say those aryens the campenses are trying to extort from me a Roman Christian their unheard of formula of three hypotheses i ask them what three hypotheses are supposed to mean they reply three persons subsisting i rejoin that this is my belief they are not satisfied with the meaning they demand the term in the whole range of secular learning hypothesis never means anything but essence it is also interesting to note that in this letter Jerome appeals to the pope's ineffectability as the basis by which the Micians would have to accept this correction evil children have squandered their patrimony you alone keep your heritage intact the fruitful soil of Rome when it receives the pure seed of the Lord bears fruit and hundfold but here the seed grain is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darn or oats and it gets better the following quote is a clear affirmation of the divine institution of the papacy and the necessity to be in communion with Rome 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 matthew 16:18 this is the house where alone the pascal lamb can be rightly eaten exodus 12:22 this is the ark of Noah and he who was not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails despite Jerome's cle Pope Dammesus rejects this request from Ambrose and does not produce a new creed which forbids the usage of the formula of three hypotheses jerome double texting Pope Damasus attempts again to make a decision on this controversy and states "I meantime keep crying he who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me." Melius Vitalis and Paulinus all professed to cleave to you and I could believe the assertion if it were made by one of them only only by looking at the first portion of the Malaysian schism we have already established the notion that the pope has the ability to one promula creed that surpasses my two can enforce its usage in Antioch three that the pope can do so on the basis of the indectability of the sea of Rome and four it can set the visible bounds of the church one name I mentioned but did not explain was by Talis of Antioch who is consecrated by Apollina of Leodysier apollerys believed that Christ had no human soul and thus had no complete human nature both the Malicians and the Polynous supporters immediately deemed him as a heretic as Father Clement Rob states a Roman cinnid held in the year 369 under Pope St damascus 366 384 declared that the father and the son ark of the one divine substance together with the Holy Ghost in another Roman cinnid held in 374 the pope rejected the teachings of Macedonius as heretical and here Nedonianism is referenced by St gerrian Nissa in his on the holy trinity which was originally said to us as but they reveal more clearly the aim of their argument as regards the father they admit the fact that he is God and that the son likewise is honored with the attribute of godhead but the spirit who is reckoned with the father and the son they cannot include in their conception of godhead in the year 379 kodosius I became the eastern Roman emperor this changed everything in 380 Theodosius contracted a deadly illness and began to take his fake a bit more seriously so he promugated the edict of Thessaloniker which stated that religion which a pious belief from Peter to the present declares the holy Peter delivered to the Romans and which it is evident the pontiff Damascus and Peter Bishop of Alexandria a man of apostolic sanctity follow that is that according to the apostolic discipline and evangelical doctrine we believe in the deity of the father and the son and the holy ghost of equal majesty in a holy trinity those who follow this law we command shall be comprised under the name of Catholic Christians now it is interesting that the edict directly cites the pope of Rome as a successor of St peter and specifically one who has delivered the faith in fact Franto Monren states "The edict of Thessalonica that was addressed to the people of Constantinople recognized officially for the first time and in the East the exemplary value of Roman communion and Roman primacy justified by apostolic tradition already recognized by the council of Antioch of 379 which subscribed to the tome of Damasus it indeed defined orthodoxy as communion with demisus now certain eastern orthodox apologists such as cried trullia make the claim that the malicians schism disproves the claim made above for the following reason ironically St mletius according to a letter from St jerome never broke communion with the pope yet that same pope recognized Paulinus and not Mletius it is clear via succession who broke the peace and was the schismatic Palinus his ilk and the popes of the late 4th century ironically being that St mlesius's line of succession eventually won out he was vindicated by history and this is a crystal clear example that Rome can indisputably go into shism and no magical mega chair powers can prevent it basically the argument being made is that since Pope Damsus supported Paulus who is effectively unconically misstated the fact that the Pope favored Paulus over Malius who is eventually reinstated as the bishop of Antioch in a council which was not overseen by the Pope is proof that the principle of unity with Rome is false but there's a missing piece of evidence that puts a lot of context to the situation in 379 AD there was a council held by 150 bishops which signed onto a statement of faith recognized by Rome which defended the Nyian fates in 377 it was reported as stating that this is the end of this letter or exposition of the faith of the sin held at Rome under Pope Damasus and sent into the east in which the entire Eastern church in a sin held at Antioch believed with a like faith and all so consenting confirmed this faith with their signatures i Malichius Bishop of Antioch consent to everything written above so believing and teaching and if anyone believes otherwise let him be Anathema so Malius actually did sign off to a Roman council under Pain of Ana proving his Orthodoxy he was never actually out of communion with Rome if you remember before it was only a year after that emperor Theodosius made it clear that anyone who held Benian faith was in communion with Rome so the signature of Malevia shows that with the absence of any explicit condemnation Mius for all intents and purposes was in full communion with [Music] Rome since the pope refused to make any clear statement on this matter the quarrel between Polinus and Midius continued "The supporters of both parties agreed to recognize either Malletus or Paulinus as the true bishop of Antioch given the death of one or the other." As Socrates writes "When this was done a great disturbance arose but afterwards the people were brought to unite on the following stipulations having assembled such of the clergy as might be considered worthy candidates for the bishopriick they found them six in number of whom Flavian was one all these they bound by an oath not to use any effort to get themselves ordained when either of the two bishops should die in a recent debate on the papacy hosted by Reason and Theology Live an Eastern Orthodox debater sums up what from their side they saw is going down during the aftermath of this decision made between Colonists and Malius's supporters what I would contrast that with is the Malaysian schism um where Rome was on the wrong side and it wasn't until um in fact they were the only ones that weren't in communion with the church uh after Constantinople won in 381 um the bishop that they had appointed Pollenius was not recognized as the true bishop the true patriarch of Antioch u instead it was uh St flavian who was recognized as the true bishop of Antioch um and so the council decides then Alexandria submits to the council's decision rome attempts to uh override this and I can actually if you'll let me I can read their response um uh back to it this is in the uh the synotical letter of Constantinople 1 this is their response to to Rome trying to assert this authority it says although with one voice of consent and respect the bishops of the province and of the eastern dascese have met together and canonically ordained this reverend and most religious Flavian as bishop over the most ancient and truly apostolic church in Syria where the first noble name Christian was given this rightful ordination was received the sanction of the general council so again the bishop of Rome tries to appoint his own bishop in Antioch who's Pollenius the council says "No it's Flavian." And this was their response when Rome tries to assert that authority it wasn't until several years later that Rome finally submits to the rest of the church they were out of communion with the true patriarch of Antioch but Antioch was still in communion with the true church so this idea that you have to be in communion with Rome to be in communion with the true church is is not found in history it contradicts history as we have demonstrated above this recollection of history is quite inaccurate first Malidius and Colonus were both seen as in communion with Rome second Politis was not formally installed by the Pope rather the Pope simply preferred his nomination without ever responding to the requests to close the case in Antioch third the Alexandrians had no love for Flavian originally due to Mius's rescension of the original deal with Polidus but both the patriarch of Alexandria and Pope Themesis reconciled with Flavvenian at the same time nevertheless those who disliked Flavian on account of his having violated his oath held their assemblies apart meanwhile Flavian left no stone unturned as the phrase is to bring these also under his control and this he soon after affected when he appeased the anger of Theophilus then bishop of Alexandria by whose mediation he consiliated Damasus Bishop of Rome also for both these had been greatly displeased with Flavian as well for the perjury of which he had been guilty as for the schism he had occasioned among the previously united people fourth the fact that the insulation was even seen as problematic and Evidarius was being propped up by certain parties due to the breaking of the oak showed that the council did nothing to solve the issue at hand in fact in sources nearly four decades later Rome was seen as solving the issue under Pope St circus finally choosing Flavvenian as the rightful bishop of Antioch as Pope bought this rights when the church of Antioch had been in trouble a long time so that there was continual passing to and fro for this first under Malletus afterwards under Flavian it is notorious that the apostolic sea was consulted by whose authority after many things done by our church everyone knows that Flavian received the grace of communion which he would have forfeited forever had not writings gone from hence respecting it so today we've learned a couple of things about the Malaysian schism the old adage Roma luta ka panas is quite useful when looking into history contrary to eastern orthodox claims but first sea is often times the arbiters of these decisions and two people stretch the evidence a lot of the case of the militian schism as being an issue for Roman Catholics is really built out of the inferences from silence and three the Medians gives them cannot be used as a defeater for papal supremacist comments in fact if anything it proves our case i want to close this video with a neat concession I found by Truglia on this topic our modern debate is always east versus west Orthodox versus Roman Catholic i don't think we're actually seeing the bigger point now I think if I were in your your seat right now you can say well this is consistent with the Vatican one view of the papacy and you can certainly make that argument i'm just making the historical point that this was the relevant point at issue had to do with unity coming from singular whether the the pope can be a heretic and whether he can be judged a heretic but really you know how does that work and that's where the Dominican and Jesuit opinions as Robert Cisco and I called it in in our book come come into play because remember uh this is a delicate question because we also know that the pope has no judge But Christ uh he doesn't have any earthly authority that can coercively judge him on earth and so the struggle with all these opinions but most especially uh the fourth and the fifth deal with that very question the third opinion simply kind of throws in the towel that says "Hey since the pope can't be judged even if he is a heretic we got to wait for him to die because there's nothing we can do about it." Well that fails to recognize the distinction which Bellereman and Kadetin and Jonath St thomas and Suarez in Lori and Bo and all the great minds that have addressed this make which is uh the church because of the power of the keys and this is I don't know if this is something I've I've mentioned before or not but the the power of the keys give the church the right uh to make judgments um you know concerning uh knowledge and and power or authority or jurisdiction the clavis uh shenseier which is the keys of knowledge versus the the clavis potencier which is the keys of of power or jurisdiction the the the the keys of of knowledge allow the church without judging the pope to make a judgment as to whether uh the material and formal uh elements of the canonical crime of heresy exist and Bellererman is crystal clear about this he calls it a discretionary judgment and even s John uh John St thomas even St thomas himself refers to these two um elements of the keys of knowledge and power in terms of the key of knowledge the church because the church has a right to provide for her head uh and because scripture reveals that the church is supposed to uh avoid a heretic that means the church would necessarily have the right under divine law to determine whether the pope is a heretic she does that without coercively judging the pope by exercising the power of the keys which the college of bishops share in this case in in determining whether the pope is guilty of the canonical crime of heresy again I want to emphasize this this is not consiliarism this is not elevating the bishops over the pope it's not the pope being judged directly but as John St thomas says the pope is actually being judged indirectly because the church has a right to determine in a judgment whether the matter and form of heresy exist it's a factual judgment okay are the canonical crime elements of the crime of heresy present the church has every right to do that you know Bellereman says one of the um reasons why the college of bishops could convoke a council even against the pope's will is to provide for the head to determine whether the pope is a heretic this is uh a divine right that Christ has given to the college of of bishops and this is very consistent among all the commentators and so you distinguish that discretionary judgment and by the way you know the state of Aantis are are keen to quote de Romano Potifiche uh on the Roman pontiff but I don't know if they've read his other works on the councils and on the church militant and on the marks of the church because Bellererman actually gets into more detail about uh when you can uh determine that a pope is a manifest heretic and it's through the discretionary judgment which Bellereman says then leads to a conviction of heresy bellererman specifically says and we have an article Cisco and I on our our website on this Bellereman says that the church can invoke an imperfect council if it's against the Pope's will and make a judgment discretionarily that the pope is guilty of heresy that is a conviction now still Christian this is not a coercive judgment this is only the exercise of the church's right to exercise the keys of of knowledge to determine whether this man is a heretic it's non-coercive they're not uh judging the pope but because the church has a right to provide for the head once it makes this determination um both Bellereman and the Jesuits and uh the Dominicans recognize that Christ is the one who severs the bond okay now under the Jesuit opinion we're not I know we're not quite there yet but in the Jesuit opinion uh this would happen when the discretionary judgment is made and the pope is convicted of heresy then in the in the Jesuit opinion Christ would sever the bond and then the church because he's no longer the pope can make a coercive judgment over him you see by excommunicating and dep and and deposing him uh overseeing his deposition and and removal so um that's kind of a long- winded answer but I wanted to tee that up because it's important as we discuss the fourth and the fifth opinion to recognize this distinction between a discretionary judgment which is a judgment of the facts which is non-coercive and then uh and and results in a conviction and the coercive judgment which then oversees the punishment and deposition of the former pope so uh that if if I'm getting this correct okay so we have the the pope i I'll use a random pope from history i don't want to use Pope Francis and I know that'll get clipped or something i don't know uh Pope Pas I 7th uh let's say so I don't know i I've never read anything about Pope Pius the 7th so nothing personal against him uh Pope Pius the 7th he's he's you know he's an occult heretic and he starts you know preaching different heretical things yeah and then at at this point in order to go from a cult and publicly expressing that to notorious by law you would need somehow the intervention of the church and the um and this process is through a sort of investigative process this would be like analogous to the way in which um various investigators of a crime function and then bring it to prosecution versus like the actual you know um judgment of guilt in court like is that is that kind of a a good distinction to make between the two yeah al although in the civil context we have to remember that you know the courts do have a course of authority over the defendant although it's right to say that it's it's similar in that the jury doesn't right the jury is nothing more than a finder of fact and doesn't have a course of authority but after they render the judgment the judge then renders the sentence so there is a similarity there is a similarity there but just stepping back a bit again I want to emphasize that the church has these are opinions we're talking about and I think the fourth and the fifth opinion are the are one of them is correct and I and I tend to think the Dominicans got it right as usual but um the process is actually rooted even though this hasn't been dogmatized the process is rooted in scripture in divine law and revelation titus 3:10 St paul's letter to Titus where uh he says after you know two admonitions uh warn uh warnings you know avoid the heretic and so the opinions which hold that the church has a right to judge whether the pope is a heretic and and and then oversee his removal from office both those opinions even though they differ in actually how the process is is completed they all agree that the process has to start with ecclesiastical warnings because that's the only way to establish the matter in the form which are the elements of the canonical crime of heresy and so as you know Cardinal Burke called it a formal correction well I think he was referring to uh a a a warning in the context of the holy father these would be warnings that are issued in fraternal correction again they would not be jeritically coercive over the pope as and St thomas Aquinas talks about this as as being warnings of fraternal correction because inferiors have a right to and even a duty to warn their superiors when their salvation is at stake so the church would issue ecclesiastical warnings which would constitute warnings of fraternal correction hopefully to get the pope to repent if if uh if the pope would refuse then the church has a right and Bellereman and and John St thomas are very clear about this they would have a right uh to invoke what they call an imperfect council john St thomas goes into a lot of detail about this imperfect it could be perfect if the pope calls the council and agrees to it it's imperfect if it's you know called against his will but the but the church has a right to do that uh after the warnings were not heeded then the church has the right to issue this discretionary judgment whereby it would in Bellereman's words not my words in Bellereman's words it would convict the pope of heresy and then the question becomes what happens next but my point Christian there is in these two predominant opinions they all agree that there is a process of warnings ecclesiastic warnings from proper authority that would lead to either the pope's repentance um or conviction and we have an example of this with Pope Marcelinus uh in uh around 30 304 AD where Marcelinus and and the circumstances are often debated but the bottom line is he engaged in an act of false public worship he offered incense to pagan deity Jupiter okay um putting the circumstances aside um he was called a heretic for that and the uh the bishops got together uh and summoned him to confront him about you know this external act of heresy and when you read this this is a long time ago this goes all the way back you know you know into the 300s but uh even back then the church knew that they didn't have any jeritical or course of force over the pope so they told Marcelinus "We do not judge you judge yourself judge yourself." And Marcelinus did judge himself and did resign in shame but guess what happened he repented he was reelected to the throne of Peter and died a martyr St marcelina so this is a beautiful example of where the process of ecclesiastical warnings and this imperfect council uh resulted in uh his his repentance um but that's the that's the process that all the theologians agree to you know warnings based on revelation to establish the actual fact uh that the uh the pope is a heretic okay so at once we get to the fact level so Pas the 7th let's say he's preaching something crazy about some dogma and then there's the so at at this point right when we get to the preaching to the ecclesiastical factf finding mission is there any dispute that's going to go on with who who finds the facts is it the cardinals ecumenical council a local council who are the factf finders because I can I can imagine that this um this question of uh whether this or that council or this or that body of uh individuals are allowed to have the authority i can I can assume that this is going to be something which is contentious yeah that's a great that's a great question i mean it would some theologians have held that it would be the elector cardinals but I think uh the more uh likely and predominant opinion is it would have to be an imperfect council because an imperfect council will actually represent the universal church okay and and so that would be um that would be the distinction that I would make uh there and I would say that because um both Bellererman and um and Jonath St thomas you know said it and they were kind of the you know the the two predominant theologians of their respective you know groups you know that address the question so uh again it's an opinion but the opinion would be would have to be a representation of the universal church because the pope is the universal shepherd you know and teacher of the the entire church and so uh an imperfect council again an opinion but an imperfect council u meaning the pope wouldn't be heading that council would be required yeah I can imagine that this would uh um because I'm aware of Suarez's opinion that a even a local council could do this but I can imagine the the difficulty that this would pose because uh we we could think about you know a group of 20 bishops and five cardinals could they come out and then anmatize the pope and you know how how do we go here it would seem like it would need to be some sort of council like Vatican 2 that has basically every bishop in the world there um participating in this council a vast vast moral majority of the bishops um supporting this and all the cardinals and everything like that i I could imagine that it would have to be something like that even for it to be feasible i agree and that and that's why I think you know Bellereman held held that position along with uh Janna St thomas a representation of of the universal church mhm so we have at this point uh we have the ecclesiastical find factf finding mission and they they go in and they um judge that um there is this issue so how do we get from that to now pope is no longer pope where where this is this is where unfortunately um our our two great doctors uh St robert Bellereamine and John of St thomas depart from one another is is kind of this these steps although to clarify as we've clarified before the practical steps are basically the same it's kind of a question of uh of a more speculative matter of what happens between those two points correct so we've established that and and Cisco and I kind of came up with this um distinction between Jesuit and Dominican opinion to our knowledge that was wasn't out there we just thought that was kind of a a useful way to do it and actually I want to mention when I wrote an article on sativantism going on 10 years as I was studying this for a very long time i actually noticed Christian that while the sativantists were saying that Bellereman disagreed with Suarez on this I didn't see that in the writings and I I had written an article on s of a contantist and I put a footnote in that article saying that they only held seemingly in opposite opinions but they actually agreed with each other even though not only all say just all say of a contantist but other theologians like wors and bal and even uh uh des Salvera held that they differed in their opinion they didn't understand Suarez's opinion and in in Bellereman's opinion at least on the question of the heretical pope and when he loses his office they were in complete agreement uh they held that uh after the warnings and after the conviction um at that point Christ would then depose the pope and Suarez is clear that after the conviction there has to be a declaration to the church and the state of Aantis have said well Bellereman never required a declaration Suarez did so Bellereman disagrees with Suarez president were going to side with with Bellereman that's not the case uh Jorre even says and actually Jonath St thomas even says that both Bellereman and Suarez held that after the conviction the church would have to declare that the pope is encouraable okay so Bellereman did hold that there has to be a declaration after all how would the church know about it if it wasn't declared and when Bellererman says that the pope loses his office ipsso facto without a you know judicial sentence here's where we get into the misunderstanding that the state of econ bellererman wasn't saying he loses his office without an antecedent judgment of the church all of this is based upon the uh process of canonical warnings and a canonical conviction okay which is an antecedent judgment of the church that then results in Christ deposing the pope at that point Bellereman and Suarez and the Jesuits held that that's all that needed to happen once the conviction and declaration were rendered uh Christ then as the efficient cause would come in and sever the bond at that point the Dominicans were much more careful uh and much more nuanced and I I love how Cardinal Joure says "The Dominicans um were more uh their their opinion is more penetrating they were very careful about dealing with this delicate question of of not wanting to to judge the pope." And so the Dominicans agree with the Jesuits cadetin and Jon St thomas agree with Bellereman and Suarez uh regarding the process of ecclesiastical warnings because after all that's part of divine revelation avoid the heretic after the warnings and the the absolute requirement of the church to convict uh or to establish the fact of the crime and conviction of heresy but whereas the uh the Jesuits said at that point Christ comes and severs and he therefore by the fact if facto by the fact of what by the fact of the church's anticcedent judgment which is a condition for the losses office by the fact of the conviction he loses his office without a further uh judicial sentence or jeritical act bellereman was arguing against Kagetin who actually required an additional jeritical act um by the church and what Kagetin and and John St thomas in in great clarity and lucidity said is because we want to be careful here about the church actually judging the pope we are not going to hold the the the Jesuit opinion which says that the church judges uh um or separates from from the pope let me put it that way we hold the position that the pope is actually separating on his own from the church and they held Christian because after the conviction they didn't believe Christ automatically severed the bond at that point they believe that there was an extra step a ministerial yet jeritical step whereby the church now has to communicate to the faithful that this man is a heretic and he must be avoided and they base it on revelation i mean it's beautiful how the Dominicans have tied their opinion specifically to the plain meaning of the revealed scriptures how does the church avoid uh the heretic pope if it's not commanded to do so right so the church has to have an ability to understand if he's a heretic and that he must be avoided so in the Dominican opinion there's this extra step where the church issues a what's called a vitandus declaration it's a jeritical act not over the pope but it's a jeritical act over the faithful telling the faithful you must avoid the pope as a heretic and you know the way John St thomas you know explains it and you beautiful uh Dominican theology he says here's where the church acts upon uh uh directly upon the matter uh but not the form the matter is the man and the form is the pontificate uh what what John St thomas says is by declaring to the church that this man must be avoided we're not coercively judging this man we're telling you to avoid the pope the the the fallen pope it's by that declaration of avoiding him that renders the man impotent to govern the church so the the declaration renders him impotent or unable to carry the form of the pontificate and that's under the Dominican opinion where Christ then severs the bond and the Dominican theologians often use you know procreation and death as an example where you know the generative act of of procreation that doesn't create the form right of man it doesn't create the soul and neither does death directly touch the form or the soul the matter is is simply incapable of sustaining the form and so the vitandus declaration of the Dominican opinion renders the matter incapable of sustaining the form it renders the pope incapable of of um governing as pope of the pont pontificate and so you see that subtle but most beautiful distinction there where the church's conviction is only the dispositive cause of the pope's falling just like the cardinal electors and the pope's consent of accepting the pontificate is the dispositive cause of his election it's Christ who joins the matter in the form and it's Christ who severs the matter in the form so sorry for the long- winded discussion but it's important to note that there are subtle distinctions here but none of this helps santis because all of this is done under the authority of the Catholic Church often you'll hear Protestants set of a contests and other enemies of the church quote a certain passage from St paul's epistle to the Galatians and this passage in St paul's epistle they will use as a foundation for their approach to reading the documents of the current magisterium they'll read them and they'll judge whether this is in accordance with previous teaching and if they judge this is in accordance with previous teaching then they'll accept it but if they judge that this is contrary to previous teaching then they will reject it and they think that this supposed right is based on what St paul says in Galatians 1:es 8 and 9 there St paul renders anathema the teaching of even apostles or angels if they contradict the previous teaching therefore these authors will reason that it is perfectly within their right to look at the contemporary teaching and see that the modern Catholic Church has departed from the teaching of the previous Catholic Church or if you're a Protestant they'll say that the church of Trent the trident church the church of the post-reformation the medieval church has departed from the early church and they will feel free to give all of these anathemas of the teaching of the magisterium because according to this teaching from St paul it's even possible for apostles to depart from the teaching of Christ from the original divine revelation then obviously it's also possible for the magisterium so therefore we should be able to depart as much as we can as much as we wish as much as we're able to discern that they are out of line with the previous teaching but is this exactly what the passage means does this passage provide any sort of justification for considering the possibility of the contemporary magisterium of departing from the previous magisterium is this present in the text or is this not present in the text obviously since I'm doing this video and since I'm stating in this way and since I'm defending the magisterium of the church obviously I don't think this is possible but it is easy to see how this is possible when we look at the context of the text when we look at what is meant to be accomplished by the text and finally when we look at the historic interpretation of this text both from the fathers and the medievals and also even the post-reformation theologians but first let's read this text it states quote "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached you let him be accursed." As we have said before so now I say again if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received let him be accursed." End quote in order to read this text properly we need to know what was the occasion for the text why did St paul even write this epistle to the Galatians in the first place well we see that the reason for him writing the epistle which we can see both in this epistle in the acts of the apostles and then also from the other epistles was to oppose a certain heretical group and this heretical group was known as the Judaizers the Judaizers basically thought that in order to receive the grace of Christ in order to be justified to pass from a state of sin to a state of righteousness or a state of justice that you needed to somehow practice the old law and this practice the old law primarily took the form of circumcision circumcision was what grafted people into the old covenant so therefore in order to become a member of the new covenant according to these individuals you would need to first become a member of the old covenant gentiles couldn't just become Christians gentiles for them had to first become Jews when it comes to this epistle in particular we see some of the most heated rhetoric from the other Paul and for good reason i mean he goes so far as to tell the Judaizers to castrate themselves if they think that we need the old law in order to be justified in fact in this epistle he goes so far as not only to say that the old law does not currently justify but that the old law never justified rather he argues that justice righteousness is not found in the works of the law whether they be ceremonial works or moral works rather we can't change ourselves we can't bring ourselves into a state of justice rather what's needed is the grace of Christ to transform us to work within us both to will and to work and to infuse within us by grace in virtue of the merits of Christ faith which works by love and this is true justice not the works of the law st thomas in his commentary on Galatians explains this well he says quote "Works are not the cause making one to be just before God rather they are the carrying out and manifestation of justice for no one is made just before God by works but by the habit of faith not acquired but infused and therefore as many as seek to be justified by works or under a curse because sin is not removed nor anyone justified in the sight of God by them but by the habit of faith vivified by charity." End quote and this is substantially simply the teaching of the council of Trent which can be read in session six and also what is helpful is the explanations given by the trident father Domingo deto who is explicitly explaining the teachings of Trent in responding to the teachings of the Protestants anyways chapters 1 through 4 of this epistle are meant to refute these teachers st paul brings forth many arguments both from authority and from reason in order to refute the Judaizers now he splits this into two sections in chapters 3-4 he refutes on the basis of the old law especially on the basis of the example of Abraham to prove that it was never works that justified it was always faith that justified but in the first two chapters he does something interesting and these first two chapters since obviously the quoted hand is from the first chapter are going to provide the immediate context of the interpretation of the passage in the first two chapters he doesn't argue from the Old Testament he argues from the apostolic witness verses 8-9 actually function as the beginning of this section after the greeting that you get in the first five verses so this right here is the introduction that you get to the section where he proves from the apostolic teaching that we are not justified by works of the law but by grace through faith he says quote but even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you let him be accursed as we have said before so say so now I say again if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received let him be accursed end quote now as I said before this is a passage which is the preface to an argument from apostolic authority so obviously to interpret this as somehow questioning authority since he includes the apostles in the anathema if they teach against the gospel then they are to be anathema he's including these apostles before he goes on to prove this teaching by apostolic authority so obviously it is from the beginning quite silly to use this in the way that the Protestants or the set of accountantists use this because if they were to be consistent they would actually have to admit the possibility of the apostles themselves going against the teaching of the apostles or angels themselves going against the teaching of angels really it is quite obvious that this is a hypothetical statement as we'll get to in a second so from the beginning it's obvious that it would completely overturn the entire argument of St paul if we were to interpret it in the way in which the set of accountantis and the Protestants interpret this rather there's a much simpler way of reading this that not only is in accordance with the placement of the passage in the entire epistle and the purpose of prefacing it to a discussion of apostolic authority it also is the reading that was traditionally taken by Catholic exed so it's the traditional position of the church fathers what we have to realize is that these false teachers as is reported by St johnum were quoting the authority of the apostles in order to bolster their claims they were saying that they had heard St james or St john support this teaching they quoted them in support of Judaizing now St paul had two options of how he would respond to this he could either go through and refute them one by one he could get the testimony of St james get the testimony of St john and he could also refute the individual statements and that's how he could write this epistle he could do that which would be obviously impossible due to the limits of the ancient world and communication or on the other hand he could head off the objection and rather than choosing the former he chose the latter he headed off the objection which was given from these figures he said that really you quote as many quotes from the apostles as you want you could appeal to the authority of all of the apostles you could appeal to the authority of me you could have a quote from me disagreeing with myself you could have quotes from angels you could appeal to anybody's authority it doesn't matter because if these authorities notice the if there if these authorities happen to disagree with the gospel once preached let them be anathema i don't care what they say because they're disagreeing with what was once preached now obviously this doesn't somehow imply that it's possible for an angel or that it's possible for an apostle to disagree with the teaching once preached rather it's simply heading off all of these objections and saying "Hey we can all agree that this is what we once preached." So it doesn't matter if they quote this author or that author even if it's real which it isn't real but even if it's real who cares it doesn't really matter because we already have the preaching that we once laid down at the beginning this is the argument that St paul is bringing forward in this passage it's quite a brilliant argument but I wanted to go over three devices in particular that he is using in these two verses first he's using a conditional statement what is a conditional statement a conditional statement is an if then statement for example if I said if pigs fly then they have wings that would be a conditional statement it doesn't mean that it's possible it simply means that if one happens to be true then the other happens to be true both of those could be false and both of those could be impossible rather it's simply looking at the linking between what's called the antecedent and the consequent second the teaching is hypothetical what is hypothetical hypothetical means that you posit some sort of hypothesis that if I were to concede that the condition is true in the conditional if I were to concede that the angels themselves were teaching against the gospel then let them be anathema that's the hypothetical right there if I were to concede that pigs were flying then I would equally concede that they had wings that's what a hypothetical is a hypothetical is never meant to state what is uh absolutely possible it's never meant to state that it's even true rather it's meant to simply posit a hypothesis third you have hyperbole hyperbole is very important hyperbole is really meant to overexaggerate oral effect and actually here it's placed next to what's called an aforori argument an afori argument is basically an argument where you argue from the stronger to the less so if I said for example I am above 6 ft therefore I am above 5 ft that would be an afori argument i'm arguing since I meet the higher condition therefore the lower condition is obviously true and there's something very interesting going on here because he's connecting the hypothetical the conditional and the hyperbolic in order to make a very strong afor argument he's stating that if an angel which obviously angel higher than apostle which is higher than false teacher if an angel says this if even an angel comes down from heaven in fact Cornelius Alaped takes us further and he even says if God himself said this if God himself contradicted the previous teaching then obviously we go with the previous teaching if the angel himself comes down from heaven and contradicts the former teaching we keep with the previous teaching we offer anathema to anything and anybody who wants to go against the previous teaching so this completely neuters all of the arguments that are being brought forward by the Judaizers the Judaizers could bring forth any authority they felt like it wouldn't matter because the apostle Paul in a very intelligent in a very brilliant move has cut off all of them right from the beginning so that's the purpose of this passage but what does this imply about the argument that the Protestants and the set of accountants bring forward what this implies is that it's a very stupid argument because really what their argument is is since there is this conditional hyperbolic hypothetical statement made by St paul therefore as a practice we should expect this obviously this is a completely ridiculous argument to make it's not like St paul was telling the Galatians "Hey u I'm giving you this conditional hyperbolic hypothetical statement and therefore you should routinely expect the apostles to possibly contradict the previous teaching and therefore you should just stop listening to the apostolic authority." This is ridiculous we see throughout the entirety of the New Testament that the apostles are binding authentic authoritative sources of divine revelation that hold the highest place of authority in the New Testament church so obviously this does not at all imply that the ecclesiastical magisterium is defectable and therefore the ecclesiastical magisterium we always need to keep in our minds this possibility that it'll defect from the truth we always need to be prepared to lay anathema against the ecclesiastical magisterium and we can't uh ever trust it it's obviously a ridiculous implication because this is merely a condition this is merely hypothetical this is merely hyperbolic this is obvious to anybody who is reading this in the context of the epistle to the Galatians in accordance with the reading of the holy fathers of the theologians and of our best exites as a bit of a side note this argument from St paul actually could be quite helpful for arguing against certain individuals especially theological liberals who want to overturn the previous teaching of the church the previous teaching of tradition with some sort of appeal to contemporary magisterial statements or contemporary theologians let's use for an example something like homosexuality or female priests or female deacons or whatever it may be let's say they appeal to contemporary trends in theology or contemporary statements from the magisterium in order to say that it's actually lawful to hold these beliefs or it's lawful to do this or that action now you could go into each one of these statements and you could show that they're quoting as bogus uh usually they don't quote any of these contemporary documents fairly you could do that uh but that's a lot of work so what you could also do is you could do what St paul does you could say well actually it doesn't really matter uh what you say this is the traditional teaching of the church and it doesn't matter because if I were to concede let's pretend hypothetically that the contemporary magisterium was stating these things against the historic teaching of the church then it would be condemned by the historic teaching of the church it would be overruled and overran of course if it's a lesser weight teaching by the traditional teaching of the church so it doesn't matter how many of these documents you quote you could quote documents all day it doesn't really matter because if somebody is going to go against the tradition of the church if a contemporary figure is going to try to overturn a higher weight teaching that has been traditionally taught in the church then it doesn't matter let him be anathema it really doesn't matter so this type of argument actually interestingly enough could be a quite effective argument against individuals who are attempting to do the same thing that the Judaizers were doing not only is this reading the most sensible one but this is also the reading held by the fathers the medievals and the exedites first I'm going to go through a few from the fathers then I'm going to go through a few early medieval authors then a few medieval authors and then a few modern authors technically modern just means postreformation so I'm going to go through a few post-reformation authors as well and show how this is just the traditional reading that has always been given to this passage first we have St john Christom he states quote as they betook themselves to authority that of James and John he mentions angels also saying tell me not of James and John if one of the most exalted angels of heaven corrupt the gospel let him be anathema commentary saint John Chrissum here St john clearly agrees with us on two points first he shows that this is an afori argument and then second he also shows that this is meant to head off an objection which is given from an appeal to the apostles authority second we have St jerome he states quote "This could be understood as hyperbole and not to mean that an apostle or angel could preach otherwise than they had already spoken but even if this were possible it would not justify the Galatians straying from what they had received all the more so be cause because the apostle demonstrates in another passage that his own faith is stable." These are not the words of one who can ever deviate from his faith in and love for Christ commentary St jerome the logic that St jerome brings here is clearly in line with everything that I've been saying it's meant to be conditional it's meant to be hyperbolic it's not meant to assume somehow that this condition is even possible and it's not meant to be some sort of precept for continual distrust of the ecclesiastical magisterium third we have St vincent of Luren he states quote "Not that the holy and heavenly angels can sin but supposing it were possible that they should if any one of them were to attempt to change the faith once delivered let him be accursed." Commanatorium lived on now if you read the surrounding context it's very interesting how St vincent actually applies this because St vincent holds that this isn't about a possible departure of the ecclesiastical magisterium from the teaching of the apostles he actually says the way that this applies is to have certain teachers certain individuals who are theologians departing from the teaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium so actually St vincent interprets the departing to be departing from ecclesiastical teaching this is the exact opposite of the way in which the set of accountantis and the Protestants attempt to apply this and interestingly enough this is also something that St thomas frequently brings up as well in order to support the adherence to the contemporary magisterium of the church now that we have these fathers out of the way let's get into the early medievals first we have Claudius of Turin who is a very popular author that many Protestants will often quote because he was an iconoclast anyways he says quote "Thus if Paul declares that even the apostles of Christ who were so well known for performing signs and wonders and even an angel from heaven whose spiritual status might commend him would be anathematized for teaching otherwise than what Paul had taught how much more would those be anathematized who have no such testimony to commend them and attempt to deceive?" This could also be understood hyperbolically not that the apostle or an angel could actually preach differently than what they had already said but even if it were possible for the apostles and angels to change they should still not turn away from what was once received claudius of Turin second we have Robenus Morris who is one of the greatest figures of the Carolinian Renaissance he with blessed Aquin basically saved the Latin heritage of the church and passed it on to future generations and on top of that they were absolutely brilliant theologians who laid much of the groundwork for medieval scholasticism he says quote "This can also be understood hyperbolically not that the apostle or an angel could preach something different than what they had once said but that even if it were possible for both the apostles and angels to change they the Galatians should not turn away from what they had once received." Commentary St rabanis Morris third is Otto of Vchelli who is a great reforming bishop of 10th century Italy he states quote "This passage is understood hyperbolically." The apostle was not saying this because he or an angel could actually be changed or preach something different but he speaks by exaggeration as if saying "If it were possible for me or an angel from heaven to preach something different than what I preached even though this cannot happen you should not have departed from what you had once received." He also calls down a curse on the angel so that Peter's and the other apostles preaching would not be esteemed too highly if they preached otherwise for if an angel who holds greater authority were to preach differently and fall under anathema how much more would the apostles atau of Verelli after the early medievals all of the high medievals basically speak in the same vein we can see this in the three great glosses on scripture the gloss ordinaria the gloss of media and the gloss of magna all three of these were basically study Bible notes of the medieval church the glosso ordinaria agrees that this is merely an a42i argument it states quote since I would excommunicate even myself or an angel how much more should the false apostles be excommunicated glossa ordinaria the gloss media is very clear about the hypothetical nature of this argument it states quote Ambrose comments that though we or an angel from heaven should be understood as an impossible event this is also to show that one should not easily submit to the false authority imputed to Peter and James by the pseudo apostles since even I who taught them before and not even an angel who is greater than the apostles would be permitted to preach otherwise glossa media the gloss of Magna which is the most interesting to me because it comes from the master of the sentences Peter Lombard it states quote note that he does not say this because it could actually happen but he is so certain of the truth of his gospel that even if an angel were to announce something different he would not believe it but would curse the angel a Foriori we could say that if I would excommunicate you or an angel much more should the false apostles be excommunicated glossa Magna besides the three great glosses we also have an excellent excellent exedite of the medieval church Nicholas of Lyra who is a Franciscan who actually dabbled a bit into rabbitic interpretation of scripture he states quote "Concerning this we should know that a conditional proposition can be true even if each part of it is nevertheless false or impossible as in this example if man flies man has wings this is true and yet it is false that man flies and has wings so it is with what the apostle proposes for the true apostles were confirmed in grace and still more were the holy angels on account of which it is false and impossible concerning each part both that they would preach against the truth of the gospel and that they would be anathematized and yet the conditional proposition is true namely that if they were to do this they would be anathematized nicholas of Lyra now after the medieval age we have the modern age and here we see three excellent exedites who basically say the same thing that I'm saying first we have the Dominican cardinal and hammer of the Protestants Thomas Deio Kagetim he states quote "The conditional statement is true even though both the antecedent and consequent are impossible if an angel from heaven were to preach a gospel besides the gospel of Christ he would be anathema Thomas Devioan." He's basically arguing along the same lines of Nicholas of Lyra and also the points that I made above second we have the Dominican historian Noel Alexandre he states quote "This is an impossible and hyperbolic supposition for it is impossible that a holy angel sent by God would announce a different gospel than that which the Apostle Paul preached Noel Alexander lastly we have the king of the exedites Cornelius Laped he proves in very much detail many of the same points that I went over above and he provides a very good synthesis of the ecclesiastical tradition in interpreting this passage first he follows what I said above about saints Vincent and Thomas when it comes to the departing from the teaching being the departing of contemporary ecclesiastical teaching he quotes St augustine to support this who says quote I do not accept what the blessed Cyprien held on the baptism of heretics because the church for whom Cyprien shed his blood does not accept it contra cresconium liver secundis capitulum trigenta duo sanctus augustine second he interprets the statements about the apostles to be hypothetical impossibilities he states as a matter of fact it is impossible for the angels are established as in bliss so in all truth it is an hyperbole to state an impossibility if God were to reveal a faith contrary to that which we have received and which he originally revealed himself we should be bound to believe the first and not the second for if he should reveal one contrary he would be changed and would cease to be God and the first and infallible truth but since this is impossible it follows that God cannot give a contrary revelation and hence that those who teach contrary doctrine get it not from God but from their own heads or else by revelation from devils cornelius aled in conclusion there are many many many other authors that I read to prepare this video i could have quoted double or triple the authorities who are basically saying the same thing over and over and over again but what's clear about this is that this text in no way is going to uphold any sort of anti-atholic principle of magisteriology or even some sort of argument that the set of aontists make about consistently questioning the teaching of the magisterium in order to discern whether it has fallen away or even indicating a possibility of this falling away it indicates none of that and it gives no groundwork for any sort of principle but anyways as always God bless if you've been in internet theology circles for any time you've probably heard the name James White mr white has been attempting to refute the teachings of the Catholic Church for the better part of 30 years having debated such figures as Jimmy Aken Trent Horn and many others going all the way back to the '90s anyone who's familiar with his works knows that one of Mr white's favorite defenses of his own authority is that he quote teaches church history some of you may know that uh the first the first class I ever taught after I graduated from seminary at uh Grand Canyon back then and was it university yet or was it still just Grand Canyon College i can't remember at that point in time was church history this appeal is brought forward to guard his lackluster historical arguments from relevant criticism brought forth from a rigorous study of primary source materials one of these claims that Mr white defends in this way are the terrible calumnies he levels against Pope St zimmus it was Roman pontiff from 417 to 418 mr white claims that Pope St zazmus fell into the heresy of Pelagianism when he had supposedly exonerated his follower Kalistius in the year 417 as I point out Augustine not only never said but the entire context of that was in the context of demonstrating that the uh church in North Africa stood firmly against Pope Zosimus who claimed I have fully examined this pelagius and Celestius they're they're fine they I I restore them and the church in North Africa said no further than this he claims that the great doctor of grace St augustine of Hippo accused the pope of heresy convincing him eventually to change his mind the next year through the work of the Senade of Carthage in the year 418 contrary to these calumnies from Mr white the doctor of grace always was the greatest defender of Pope St osmus recognizing that Calacius was a liar who had a history of purposefully misrepresenting his own views in order to try to be exonerated which according to Marius Marcato an early ecclesiastical writer he tried this in Carthage Ephesus Constantinople Jerusalem and finally in Rome anyone who reads the primary sources the documentation from St augustine Pope St zazmus the Senate of Carthage and early historians who wrote on this matter would know this yet unfortunately Mr white does not read any of these primary sources but only a smattering of anti-atholic pmical works which blind him to the simple truth present in the historical narrative but first let's get some background information about the situation for a fuller treatment of this era of church history you can view my video called quote "The downfall of the blinds." But here I will outline the basics many have heard the name Pelagius who was a Hezi that opposed the traditional teaching of the church on justification grace and original sin but less have heard the name Clesius klesius was basically the propagandist for Pelagius who went throughout the Roman Empire defending him yet after years of being subject to the scrutiny of many senods and the skillful pen of St augustine things began to crack in the year 415 in 4:15 Pelagius had been caught in a trap pstius was far more explicit about the implications of the teaching of Pelagius whereas Pelagius was more reserved about being able to state things in such a way as not to be condemned pelagius had been called to a syninnod at Diaspoolis where he did his normal act of equivocation yet the bishops at Diaspoolis had a way around this rather than presenting the more reserved statements of Pelagius they presented to him the more explicit words of his friend Callesius in response to this Pelagius was caught between a rock and a hard place he could either condemn his friend and save his own skin vainly claiming that Calacius's teaching was different than his own or on the other hand he could stand behind his friend and himself be condemned pelagius took the coward's way out and condemned his friend before the Senade and in a letter to the pope and so was exonerated by the Senade news of this reached St augustine and he recognized the trickery at hand and sent to St john of Jerusalem the head of the Senade a Greek copy of his own work against Pelagius on nature and grace and a copy of the acts of an earlier Senade at Carthage which condemned Pelagius so that they could make a more informed decision on the matter along with this he asked for the acts of the sinod from St john of Jerusalem so he could confirm his suspicions upon receiving the acts from St john of Jerusalem he wrote a work called on the proceedings of plagius where he confirmed these suspicions by the very text of the acts beyond this sinods were called in Carthage in Malay to renew this condemnation of Pelagius and St augustine personally wrote a letter to Pope St innocent the first begging him to formally condemn Pelagius with his apostolic authority in order to finally stamp out Pelagianism for good recognizing the supreme authority of the pope to judge in these matters in January 417 the condemnation would come from Rome where Pope St innocent I would condemn Pelagius and Calstius as heretics and excommunicated them unless they recant their errors famously upon hearing the news St augustine preached a sermon sermon 131 where he stated quote "About this case two councils were sent to the apostolic sea whence also responses came the case is finished if only the error were at some point finished therefore we warn that they may turn we teach that they may be instructed let us pray that they may be changed." End quote a more extensive treatment of this is found in his epistles now that Calacius had basically been left out to dry he had one last attempt to clear his name in March of 417 Pope St innocent I had died and Pope St zimmus was elected as his successor so Callesius traveled to Rome and told Pope St zimmus that he agreed with the letters recently issued by Pope St innocent so upon hearing this Pope St zimus sent letters to Africa telling them that he saw no reason why Callesius couldn't be reinstated if he claimed to agree with Pope St innocent so Pope St zazmus asked for them to send material showing that Classius was lying or else he would be reinstated the North Africans obeyed and there was a Senotic Carthage called in 418 once the material from the Senade was sent to Pope St zasmus he clearly saw that Calacius was a liar and revoked the agreement to reinstate him beyond this he actually promulgated a document that showed the broad extent of papal authority during the time the epistol tractor which was promulgated to the entire world with the help of the emperor emperor Hanorius and signed by bishops throughout the entire world those refusing such as Julian of Eclanu were condemned so rather than being some sort of argument against the papacy as we will see the situations of Pope St innocent and Pope St zazmus show the eminent authority accorded to the pope so here we see that there are three central lies that uphold Mr white's reading one Mr white claims that Calacius presented Pelagian doctrine to Pope St zimmus and that Pope St zasmus became a Pelagian he did not rather he presented the teaching of Pope St innocent and lied about agreeing with it which is evident from the primary sources from Pope St zmus's own words the recollection of St augustine the recollection of Marius Marcato and the letter of Pollinus the deacon to Pope St zasmus two Mr white claims that Pope St zasmus supported the teaching of Clelesius he did not rather he conditionally agreed to reinstate him if the evidence given from the African sinods did not definitively show that he was lying about his position and truly did agree with what Pope St innocent wrote due to the lack of standing that was in the original Senade in Palestine three Mr white claims that St augustine in the Senate of Carthage condemned Pope St zazmus for heresy rather they recognized the tricks of Calstius and just as St augustine had done a few years before with St john of Jerusalem St augustine presented the evidence in obedience to the Pope as a bonus point to expose his utterly absurd reading of church history Mr white also claims following Eric Svenson that Pope St exosmus only condemned Pelagianism when he quote found out that his predecessor Pope St innocent had condemned them about a year earlier and eventually once the civil authority got involved and we can theorize as to how that is um he did a full turnaround there have been many times the bishop of Rome has said this okay later on not this this reading is completely absurd as the condemnation of Calius and Pelagius by Pope St innocent was widely known when it was issued not some sort of private matter it is absurd to pretend that Pope St zazmus who was a priest in Rome before his election would not have known about it further the entire discussion was predicated on the fact that Calacius lied about his affirmation of Pope St innocent's letters now that we have the background information out of the way let's get into the actual comments that St augustine himself make about this controversy he comments on the situation both during the controversy and at the end of his life in his work against Julian showing that he kept a consistent view of the situation throughout his entire life which is reflected in other primary sources during the time he summarizes the situation well in his work against Julian where he states quote why do you accuse Osmus of blessed memory bishop of the apostolic sea of proverication to protect your own baseness he was in accord with his predecessor Innocent whom you feared to mention you preferred Zazmus because he dealt more leniently with Calacius at first when Calstius promised to correct any of his statements that were unacceptable and agreed to abide by the judgment of innocence letters end quote notice there are two important clarifications that St augustine makes first he clarifies that the decision was not doctrinal since he affirms that Pope St zasmus was quote in accord with his predecessor innocent end quote second he clarifies that Calstius had presented himself as agreeing with Pope St innocent he comments on this issue at length in his on the grace of Christ in original sin book two first he introduces the topic stating quote "The Bishop Zazmus however who presided over the sea upon seeing him hurrying headlong and so great presumption like a madman chosen his great compassion with a view to the man's repentance if it might be rather to bind him tightly by eliciting from him answers to questions proposed by himself then by the stroke of severe condemnation to drive him over the precipice down which he seemed to be even now ready to fall i say advisedly down which he seemed to be ready to fall rather than over which he had actually fallen because he already in the same book of his forecast the subject with an intended reference to questions of this sort in the following words if it should so happen that any air of ignorance has stolen over us human beings let it be corrected by your decisive sentence end quote here he states the original interaction between Pope St osmus and Callesius which we'll see more about later in the letter of Pinus the deacon callesius wrote an overview of his statements and was dociled a correction so Pope St zazimmus hoped to heal him from his error there is absolutely no sense of some sort of condemnation of Pope St zazmus here in fact St augustine is very clearly defending him in this passage this agreement along with other details which I presented above are clear in the next chapter where St augustine writes quote "The venerable Pope Zazmus keeping in view this deprecatory preamble dealt with the man puffed up as he was with the blast of false doctrine so as that he should condemn all the objectionable points which had been alleged against him by the deacon Polinus and that he should yield his ascent to the rescript of the apostolic sea which had been issued by its predecessor of sacred memory." The accused man however refused to condemn the objections raised by the deacon yet he did not dare to hold out against the letter of the blessed pope innocent indeed he went so far as to promise that he would condemn all the points which the apostolic sea condemned thus the man was treated with gentle remedies as a delirious patient who required rest but at the same time he was not regarded as being ready to be released from the restraints of excommunication the interval of two months being granted him until communications could be received from Africa a place for recovery was conceded to him under the mild restorative of the sentence which had been pronounced for in truth if he would have laid aside his vain obstinency and be now willing to carry out which he had undertaken and would carefully read the very letter to which he had replied by promising submission he would yet come to a better mind but after the rescripts were duly issued from the council of the African bishops there were very good reasons why the sentence should be carried out against him in strictest accordance with equity what these reasons were you may read for yourselves for we have sent to you all the particulars end quote he actually adds interesting details in the next chapter going on to describe Pelagius's attempts to trick Pope St zazimus st and Augustine writes in the next chapter quote "Wherefore Pelagius still if he will only reflect candidly on his own position in writings has no reason for saying that he ought not to have been banned with such a sentence for although he deceived the council in Palestine seemingly clearing himself before it he entirely failed in imposing on the church at Rome where as you well know he is by no means a stranger although he went so far as to make the attempt if he might somehow succeed but as I have just said he entirely failed for the most blessed Pope Zasmus recollected what his predecessor who had set him so worthy an example had thought of these very proceedings nor did he omit to observe what opinion was entertained about this man by the trusty Romans whose faith deserved to be spoken of in the Lord and whose consistent zeal in defense of Catholic truth against heresy esau saw prevailing among them with warmth and at the same time most perfect harmony end quote st augustine always indicates that this move by Pope St zazmus was one of prudent consultation not some sort of error since the church in Carthage had dealt with the issue more extensively he writes quote "But I would have you carefully observe the way in which Pelagius endeavored by deception to overreach even the judgment of the bishop of the apostolic sea on this very question of the baptism of infants he sent a letter to Rome to Pope Innocent of Blessed Memory and when it was found him not in the flesh it was handed to the Holy Pope Zazmus and by him directed to us." End quote in his work against two epistles of the Plagians addressed to Pope St bonafice St augustine exposes the lie that Pope St zasmus supported Calacius as a Pelagian error quote "Moreover they accused the Roman clergy the Pelagians had conceived with a false hope that the new and detestable dogma of Pelagius or Calstius could be made acceptable to the Catholic intelligences of certain Romans when those crafty spirits however perverted by a wicked error yet not contemptable since they appeared rather to be deserving of considerable correction than of easy condemnation were treated with somewhat more of leniency than the strict discipline of the church required for while so many and such important ecclesiastical documents were passing and repassing between the apostolic sea and the African bishops and moreover when the proceedings in this matter in that sea were completed with Klesius present and making answer what sort of a letter what decree is found of Pope Zazmus a venerable memory wherein he prescribed that it must be believed that man is born without any taint of original sin absolutely he never said this never wrote it at all but since Calstius had written this in his pamphlet among these matters merely on which he confessed that he was still in doubt and desired to be instructed the desire of amendment in a man of so acute an intellect who if he could be put right would assuredly be of advantage to many and not the falsehood of the doctrine was approved he Callesius replied that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent of Blessed Memory in which all doubt about this matter was removed and in order that this might be made fuller more manifest in him matters were delayed until letters should come from Africa in which province his craftiness had in some sort become more evidently known and afterwards these letters came to Rome containing this that it was not sufficient for men of more sluggish and anxious minds that he confessed his general consent to the letters of Bishop Innocent but that he ought openly to anatize the mischievous statements which he had made in his pamphlet lest if he did not do so many people of better intelligence should rather believe that in his pamphlet those poisons of the faith had been approved by the Catholic Sea that is Rome when his presence was demanded in order that by certain and clear answers either the craft of the man or his correction might plainly appear and remain doubtful to no one he withdrew himself and refused the examination neither would the delay which had already been made for the advantage of others have taken place if it could not be of advantage to the pertinacity and madness of those who were excessively perverse but if which be far from the case it had been so judged in the Roman church concerning Callesius or Pelagius that those dogmas of theirs which in themselves and with themselves Pope Innocent had condemned should be pronounced worthy of approval and maintenance the mark of proarication would rather have to be branded on the Roman clergy for this but now when the first letters of the most blessed pope innocent in reply to the letters of the African bishops would have equally condemned this error which these men are endeavoring to commend to us and his successor the holy pope Zazmus would never have said never have written that this dogma which these men think concerning infants is to be held nay would even have bound Calasius by repeated sentence when he endeavored to clear himself to a consent to the abovementioned letters of the apostolic sea assuredly whatever in the meanwhile was done more leniently concerning Clesius provided the stability of the most ancient robust faith were maintained was the most merciful persuasion of correction not the most pernitious approval of wickedness and then afterwards by the same priesthood Calstius and Pelagius were condemned by repeated authority was the proof of a severity for a little while intermittent at length of necessity to be carried out not a denial of a previously known truth or a new acknowledgement of truth end quote there are quite a few important notes to note here besides what we already have gone over above first and foremost St augustine clearly notes a level of agreement with Pope St zazmus there isn't a hint of critique in this overview rather he notes that the senot of Carthage simply encouraged Pope St zazmus to include additional condemnations of what Calius had said previously what was stated above about the letters to Carthage being one of consultation becomes evident as well since those in Carthage had more experience with Calstius since they were the ones who had originally condemned him a few years prior whereas Rome had more experience with Pelagius since he had resided there for many years he mentions letters going back and forth of consultation not some rebuke from the North Africans to Pope St zazmus he continues in the next chapter quote "Who does not see in what degree Calstius was bound by the interrogations of your holy predecessor Zazmus and by the answers of Calstius whereby he professed that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent and fastened by a most wholesome chain so as not to dare any further to maintain that the original sin of infants is not put away in baptism because these are the words of the venerable innocent concerning this matter to the Carthaginian Council what could be more clear or more manifest than that judgment of the apostolic sea to this Calius professed that he asented when it was said to him by your holy predecessor Zosmus "Do you condemn all those things that are bandied about under your name?" And he himself replied "I condemn them in accordance with the judgment of your predecessor innocent of blessed memory." But he showed that he had answered deceitfully by the final event when he withdrew himself from the examination lest he should be compelled according to the African rescripts absolutely to mention and anmatize the very words themselves concerning this question which he wrote in his trackctate end quote so it is completely dishonest to even speak of a quote disagreement rather the sonat of Carthage gave a helpful suggestion so that the genuiness of Calacius's orthodoxy could be more particularly tested this suggestion has been passed down as the cannons of the council of Carthage 418 which can be read in Denzinger or a number of places online now that we have went over St augustine's recounting of the events which is the claim given by Mr white we can look at the actual epistles which support this reading but before we get into these particular letters we need to know more details about the Senade that had condemned Calstius in Palestine in the year 408 Emperor Constantine III had usurped the throne of the Western Roman Empire in 411 this usurppation was put down by Constantius III as a result many of the bishops appointed by Constantine III were exiled including two very important figures Lazarus of A and Heroes of Ars both of these bishops were exiled to the east in the year 415 St john of Jerusalem called a senade in order to resolve the Pelagian crisis this sonade was spurred on by letters written by these two exiled bishops yet for unknown reasons they did not show up to the Senade when summoned st augustine had heard that this was due to illness but there are other reports given in the historical literature either way this led to an odd situation where Pelagius and Calstius had to be examined by 14 bishops under St john of Jerusalem without the accusers present which is known as an accusation done in absencia which to a Roman was thought of as a terrible violation of due justice where one had a right to face their accusers the entire situation was a complete mess with accusations done in absencia by foreign bishops who were considered suspect due to their exiled status deceptive behavior from both Calacius and Plagius and the rejection of Calacius's doctrine by Pelagius as mentioned before rather than condemning St john of Jerusalem and the Senade St augustine recognized the difficulty in chapter 39 of his proceedings of Pelagius understanding how shady the entire situation sounded writing quote "They Lazarus and Hero might perhaps have reminded him St john of Jerusalem of something he had forgotten or something in which he might have been deceived by the Latin interpreter not to be sure for the purpose of misleading him by untruth but at least owing to some difficult the occasion by a foreign language only imperfectly understood end quote st and Augustine even admits in chapter 41 that he concedes that in such difficult circumstances he himself might have also exonerated them stating quote the same feeling might have occurred to ourselves also if we had sat with them at the trial end quote now 2 years after this entire messius decided to travel to Rome and a letter was sent by St john's successor Prolus speaking well of Pelagius along with a confession given by Pelagius in order to decide this whole matter which to this point suffered from lack of due process St zamus decided that there needed to be a long and deliberate process of investigation so he sent two letters mainly focusing on the case of Calacius besides this he was informed of Lazarus and Hero in very negative terms pointing to certain moral faults this was made even worse by their involvement in the cases of St bryce of Tors and Bishop Proclusi st bryce of Tors the spiritual son of St martin of Tors had been accused by Lazarus and others of various crimes upon traveling to Rome the case was investigated and St bryce was found innocent bishop Proclusia committed various canonical crimes and was very resistant to the authority of the Roman pontiff while St augustine calls them our quote holy brethren he had only heard of them from report the first letter was written before September 21st 417 and the second on September 21st 417 both of which were sent to St aurelius of Carthage who was responsible for the North African church in these letters St zosimus rebukes the shenanigans that took place at Diaspoolis especially the behavior of Lazarus and Hero and requests that Africa send documentation so that he can make a right judgment he begins the first letter letter 45 by first recognizing the great responsibility and prudence he must show to his great authority as pope writing quote "A great responsibility and judgment requires great preparation so that the balance of judgment may not fall short of the matters themselves that are under consideration." To this is added the authority of the apostolic sea which in honor of the most blessed Peter the decrees of the fathers have established with particular reverence." End quote he then introduces the topic which was the improper condemnation that took place in the synogloss quote "Calstius a presbyter presented himself for our examination seeking to clear matters concerning himself that had been presented to the apostolic sea in an improper manner." End quote after this he tells them that he had examined the circumstances surrounding the hospitals and found it wanting being content for the time being with the confession of Caliius who as we will see had sworn to uphold the previous definition of Pope St innocent and subjected himself to the correction of the Apostolic Sea quote "We examined all that had been previously done as you will learn from the records attached to this letter callesius presented his petition which he had given us and we had read it aloud not content with this we repeatedly investigated whether what he had written he truly believed in his heart or merely spoke with his lips end quote the last phrase of quote whether he truly believed in his heart or merely spoke with his lips is important since it indicates that Pope St zazmus considered plagianism to be heretical and it was merely a factf finding mission that he was on which was already evident from the witness of St august although we will see the same from the witness of Polinus the deacon this is evident when he continues to describe his chief complaint which is the lack of due process considering the inabsencia accusations of Hero and Lazarus who according to Calacius had never even met him except in passing he was even told that Hero and Lazarus had withdrawn their accusations which explained this absence he writes quote Callesius asserted that he had never had any discussions with the affforementioned persons regarding such matters and claimed not to have known them before they wrote against him he said that he met Lazarus only in passing and reconciled with heroes who acknowledged through the explanation that he had judged him wrongly as someone unknown and absent heroes even added a gesture of satisfaction withdrawing any prior misunderstanding end quote further he notes the incredible difficulty present with an absencia accusations quote "It is enough to note that the accusations against an absent person made by such individuals through letters should be met with skepticism when the accused is present explaining his faith in challenging his accuser." End quote rather than the mess which happened at Diaspools St zamus wants to hold a proper investigation which are in line with the careful consideration necessary for such an important matter which of course is understandable quote "Rarely does prolonged and carefully considered deliberation fail to arrive at the truth it is a sign of the best mind to be slow in believing what is evil for often when trust is denied to a good confession individuals are driven into despair and harm becomes irreparable." In the present case we deem nothing premature or rash but wish your holiness to know the outcome of our examination regarding Calacius's faith." End quote in order to have a proper investigation he needed a proper accuser present now due to the fact that the main combat against Pelagianism had taken place in North Africa it was obvious that he needed to have documentation from North Africa and namely from the original accuser that is Palinus so he wrote to them that he needed such documentation within 2 months writing quote a prior petition from him within Africa should have been available as testimony before us therefore within two months let those who accuse him come forward and demonstrate that he holds beliefs contrary to what he has declared in his petitions and profession otherwise after such open and manifest declarations your holiness may know that doubts have been resolved." End quote he also adds a note that he had chastised Classius for his silly behavior now this wasn't the only letter that was written an update was sent on September 21st 417 where he wrote about the case of Plagius who had recently been supported in his cause by the bishop of Jerusalem and sent a libelus outlining his views pope St zazmus states that the libellus expressed orthodoxy which is probably true or at least had enough of an appearance of orthodoxy the idea that this contained Pelagian doctrine is an absurd notion both from what Pinus the deacon says from what was said in the previous letter from the ordinary behavior of Pelagius and from the interpretation of St john of Jerusalem's behavior given by St augustine when he wrote his work on the proceedings of Pelagius he goes on to state more about what he had heard about heroes in Lazarus now whether these statements are true or not is up to debate although it should be noted that after these letters were sent there was no defense of Heros and Lazarus given by the North Africans or anyone else rather the only defense comes from a brief statement in on the proceedings of Pelagius written before the letters of Pope St zazmus had been sent while the original epistles are written on or before September 21st 417 the response did not come until November 8th 417 via the libellus written by Paulinus the Deacon friend of St augustine and former scribe of Ambrose who wrote an early heography of the saint the reason that Polinus the deacon in particular was the one who responded in the name of the African church was as Marcus Marcato notes the fact that he was the one who had originally accused him in the African senade years before so Pope St zimmus was particularly asking for the accuser to witness which had failed to happen in the case of Lazarus and Heroes now were Mr white's description of the situation correct we should see some rebuke of Palinus the deacon of Pope St zazmus for supporting Pelagianism well what we actually see is the opposite he begins the epistle with a powerful acknowledgement of the Pope's authority to judge this matter quote "The true faith is never disturbed especially in the apostolic church where the teachers of false faith are quickly and truthfully punished they are made to put to death within themselves whatever they have conceived wrongly and brought forth worse so that the true faith taught by the apostles and held by the Roman church along with all the teachers of the Catholic faith may live in them if like other authors of heresies who have already been judged by the apostolic sea or the fathers and cast out of the embrace of the Catholic Church to perish in eternal death these individuals now detected or being detected persist in their perity let them be handed over to the spiritual sword for destruction end quote he then goes on to recall the condemnation given by Pope St innocent and actually affirms what St augustine would later record that is that Pope St zasmus only agreed to exonerate them if they were to ascend to the judgment previously given by Pope St innocent which they agreed to quote following this judgment of Pope St innocent your blessedness that is Pope St osmus when hearing Calstius at the Apostolic Sea commanded with these words among others do you therefore condemn all these things contained in Polinus's petition regarding the issues and elsewhere have you understood what letters the sea has sent to our brothers and co-bishops of the African province it was added do you condemn all we have condemned and hold to what we hold and again do you condemn all those things raising concerning your name and further what about the matters exposed in Polinus's petition end quote here he is describing the process in which Klesius was investigated by Pope St zazamus which St augustine noted earlier a rigorous process that involved a fullthroated condemnation of Pelagianism going on he writes quote "When you declared through the authority of the Holy Spirit that I could be approved as orthodox while rejecting and suppressing the insane and slanderous words of one raving you gave a decision which could heal him Calstius if you wished your judgment that is Pope St zimmus was as follows i do not want you to evade the issue condemn all these things attributed to you by Polinus or spread through rumor who would not be satisfied with such a judgment who would reject the wholesome agreeable and pious decision that is the decision of Pope St zimmus except one who had deviated from the faith end quote in fact rather than interpreting this as a support of plagianism he interprets this as a second condemnation of plagiianism writing quote "I give thanks to God and to Christ our Lord who has willed that the cause of his church be conducted so that the apostolic sea through the voice of two of its pontiffs has condemned heresy and commanded the condemnation of these things." I'd accused Calius of "I have always and still desire not his condemnation but his correction." end quote this is something supported by Marius Mecatur the great historian of the plagian controversy who defended St augustine in both Greek and Latin and was commended by the council of Ephesus in his commandum he writes quote Callesius after being excelled from there as well went in haste to the city of Rome during the pontificate of holy zasmus of blessed memory there in proceedings of which we possess copies he was interrogated though somewhat intimidated by the examiner his repeated responses and explanations gave the impression that he intended to condemn the propositions for which he had been accused at Carthage this was something he was firmly urged to do and for this reason he was treated with great degree of leniency by the holy priest and obtained a letter of goodwill addressed to the African bishops however he abused and perhaps continues to abuse this letter to deceive many ignorant people." End quote he then goes on to describe the remedying of the judicial impediment by his own appearance to accuse Calstius in person yet Calstius did not show up so he was not able to have a proper hearing of the case which Palina states as evidence of his deceptive behavior quote "At that time I could do nothing because the one who had appealed to the apostolic sea failed to appear he should have substantiated the merits of his appeal especially since even by human law the superior party is always the one who prevails when the appalent fails to act what further concern did I have to support his false doctrine before your reverence when I could instead rejoice if he had merited absolution by condemning what I had accused him of as the judgment of the apostolic sea has confirmed but he has always been a cunning fox intent on fraud he cannot change his nature believing he cannot be detected because he always places his confidence in his hiding places where he tries to conceal his guilty conscience but he can no longer remain hidden his deeds are now manifest and are being cut off by the spiritual sword of your blessedness so that the Lord's flock divided by his ravenous teeth may no longer be torn apart." End quote in order to better deal with the situation a syninnod was called by St a of Carthage various different letters and other information was collected together by the North African bishops who at this point had been dealing with this controversy for over 5 years these were sent to the apostolic sea and in March of 418 St zazmus sends a letter back this letter begins with a restatement of his supreme authority to judge in this matter yet his prudence in consulting the bishops of North Africa he writes quote Although the tradition of the fathers has granted such authority to the apostolic sea that no one dares to dispute its judgment and this has always been upheld by canons and rules the ecclesiastical discipline that continues to function under its own laws pays the due reverence to the name of Peter from whom it also descends canonical antiquity through the judgments of all willed that this apostle should have such great power rooted in the promise of Christ our God that he might bind what is loosed and loose what was bound equal power was granted to those who with his consent merited the inheritance of his sea indeed he has care not only for all churches but especially for this one where he sat he does not allow the privileges he established to waver or the judgments he fixed to falter having laid the firm foundation of his name which remains unshaken by any storms with Peter as the head of such authority and the rulings of all the great ones following him it was established by human and divine law that the Roman church which occupies his place should retain the power of his name end quote he goes on to assure the Africans that he is taking into consideration all the information that is being sent from them and that he wasn't uncritically believing everything that Callesia said writing quote "After receiving the letters sent through your subdeacon Marcelinos we examine the entire volume upon reading it thoroughly you seem to interpret the entirety of the correspondence as if we had granted uncritical faith to Calstius in all things agreeing to his every word without examining it down to the last syllable." End quote he then encourages them to patience since such examinations if done prudently take a long time as he noted earlier although if you recall from the letter of Pinus the deacon the foundations were already crumbling for Clastius since he had refused to face his accusers when sent on April 29th 418 the letter from Zmus is received finally Carthage was able to issue its cannons sending them a few days later to Rome in order to help with the examination of Clastius yet during this time something significant happened the emperor Hanorius condemned Pelagius and Calstius and ordered that they be placed under house arrest not being permitted to leave Rome pelagius who presumably was in Rome at this time stays while Calstius flees Rome as St pacidius in his life of Augustine witnesses this was something that was in response to a judgment made by Pope St zimmus therefore presumably the judgment was already made by the time the final examination took place via the cannons of the council of Carthage he writes quote when they perversely tried to their flattery to persuade the apostolic sea of their false doctrine it was most positively resolved by successive African councils of holy bishops first to convince the venerable innocent the holy pope of the city and his successor the holy Zimmus when the most pious emperor Hanorius heard of this judgment which had been passed upon them by the Catholic Church of God influenced by it he in turn decreed that they should be condemned by his laws and should be regarded as heretics accordingly some of them returned to the bosom of the Holy Mother Church which they had withdrawn from end quote marius Marcato also described this in his commandatorum stating quote when the African bishops wrote back explaining the entire case that had taken place before them and sending the relevant records that had been drawn up regarding himas was summoned to a fuller hearing he was asked to fulfill his promises by condemning the affformentioned propositions so that he might be absolved from the sentence of the African bishops by which he had been excluded from communion not only did he fail to appear but he also fled from the city of Rome for this reason he was condemned in the most extensive and severe writings of the affformentioned Zasmus of blessed memory which included the very propositions of which he was accused and narrated the entire case concerning both Kstius and his even more corrupt teacher Pelagius we have copies of these writings in our possession and similar writings were sent to the bishops of the eastern churches the dascese of Egypt Constantinople Thessalonica and Jerusalem end quote now when the cannons were received from Rome St zamus attempted to call Calstius to answer whether he asented to these accusations or not but he as I mentioned had already fled and did not come back further Pelagius refused to ascent therefore in order to resolve this whole controversy St exosimus wrote his famous tractoia sent to the bishops of the entire world that they might sign on to Austinian doctrine now there are other topics related to the papacy that are quite interesting to discuss such as the mission which was given by Pope Zazmus to St augustine in 418 or the other comments made about papal authority after the condemnation given by Pope St innocent the first or the nature of the tracia but I will save those for a later video as always God bless and when it comes to the first and foremost big difference it is the doctrine of the filioquay this is the addition to the creed which occurred over actually over many centuries in the west there's a um there's a clear way to distinguish the persons in the trinity and for us that's called hypothatic properties and as we said in the other video on the councils the Capidosians their theology is confirmed at Constantinople one right this ecumenical council that follows Nika explicitly lays down in what sense we understand the father to be the cause and all of those capid capidosians are explicit that it's the father as the sole cause right they're uh unambiguous on this question if you read Sashinsk's book uh on the filioquay the modern academic treatment from a uniate at the time Sashinsky is very clear that the capidosians absolutely believe that the father alone is the cause of the son and the spirit uh therefore there's no secondary causal role there's no additional causal role that the son participates in or shares in with the father of the spirit's personal origin wow that's a lot of words too bad I'm not reading them so first will be St gregory of Nissa so who was St gregory of Nissa he was one of the Capidosian fathers and uh he really brought about the Capidosian fathers uh really brought about the fundamental uh formulation of the trinity uh they're very very important they were between Nika and Constantinople one so Constantinople one which kind of um dealt with all of the weird uh trinitarian beliefs that they were already dealing with at Nika except they decided all to like go into hyperdrive and you had like 500 different heretical offshoots of 500 different ones and so he's had all of these weird uh beliefs on the trinity and the capidosians had to kind of deal with them all and defend what would eventually become um nice constant constant I can never say that word orthodoxy so he's actually the younger brother of St basil so St basil and St gregory of Nissa were brothers and then St gregory Nazanzus was a friend so St gregory of Nissa actually uh was at the second ecu ecumenical council so he was actually at uh the first council of Constantinople where the nying creed uh was completed or probably where a version of the ning creed that was kind of in use was uh had this had a stamp placed on it uh for the whole church so the seventh ecumenical council which is the seven uh second council of Nika calls him the father of fathers so St gregor of Nissa he is very important so the first place uh which he talks about this talks about this um is uh in his uh first book of against enomium so he states there that the persons of the trinity only differ from one another in terms of origin principle or cause which as we'll see is going to result in a obviously a belief in the fioquay and I think he actually states this directly here which uh I have I have the Greek text uh right up there I put in parenthesis because there are some special words uh that some of the east online Eastern Orthodox think uh just absolutely obliterates the Latin sentence say "Oh well the fathers say this but they never say that the fathers say this but they never say that." But actually you know if you read the fathers um and you look at the underlying Greek texts they they do use these terms occasionally um the there there's some later Byzantine conventions that come up so uh I actually uh and this is this is my brief rant but I actually uh was defending Florence's um use of cause in the Greek sense so for those who don't know the council of Florence it says that the uh father and the son together form one cause and it says well it says one principle and then it says or cause in the Greek sense and a lot of orthodox will get upset about this uh because they say well the later Greeks like Maximus or John Damosine uh that they will use cause only for the father they'll say only the father is cause but actually as languages do uh they develop so the Latins during the time were actually reading guys like uh Gregory of Nissa Basil Basil sorry they they were reading uh these earlier Greek fathers they weren't really reading any later Greek father except Damosine um that he was really the only one so from the from the fathers they were reading yeah these uh cause or principle uh to refer to the uh song as we see in this text right here uh which we'll see uh so yeah it's language is developed uh it's not really a a huge deal uh but just make a note of that uh that this is a common sort of misconception within online orthodox circles that the Greek fathers uh never use this special magic term idea to refer to the sun that that's just that's just wrong so um St gregory says on account our account of the Holy Spirit is the same with the difference only of order as the son is joined to the father and having his being from him does not come afterward in existence so in turn the holy spirit holds close also to the only begotten so notice what he's saying right here going to stop right here he's saying as the son is joined to the father so we can kind of put this in like a little bit of a proportional uh thing as the son is to the father so the spirit is to the son in regards to existence how is this not already the filioquay but it it gets even worse for the orthodox who only in terms of causation so only in terms of causation so katon itas logon again my Greek pronunciation is terrible but but bear with me so according to the u the logon of idea according to the uh rationale or ratio is probably like a Latin term according to the idea of cause so who only in terms of causation is thought of as prior to the existence of the spirit so the uh then this existence is actually just hypostasis which I uh highlighted as well in the text so the son is only prior to the spirit in what way what way does he say according to the idea of idea is he prior to the hypostasis of the spirit so again the son prior to the spirit and causation again right in the context he's talking about the beginning of the sun uh from the father which he's comparing to the procession of the spirit from the son so this again very clearly is talking about the filioquay in our sense and he continues and then uh this this is actually even funnier this is like literally if I had one quote for the filioquay this would be it because it's it's so funny that like as he goes on and on it just gets worse for the orthodox he finishes temporal measurements have no place in pre-eternal life so temporal measurements have no place in pre-eternal life well I I guess that's talking about a temporal procession right no of course not of course that's not who he's talking about he's explicitly um denying that this has to do uh with a temporal measurement so with the exception of the idea of cause the Holy Trinity has no variance within itself at all and then this last sentence again just gets even uh even more brutal so with the exception of the idea of cause the holy trinity has no variance within itself at all so could the spirit and the sun have variance uh from one another according to something else but cause no no of course not only uh the relative opposition which uh that's more of a Latin scholastic term but the relative opposition that comes from procession is going to be able to distinguish persons as proceeding and then as the one who um uh actively is going to generate or spirate that's the only way uh that we're going to be able to distinguish the persons So um what we see here is we see four points so first it states that the holy spirit differs from the other two persons solely in order and this order is none other than that of origin and procession second it shows that just as the son is united to the father so that although he has existence from him he does not exist later similarly the Holy Spirit adheres to the only begotten and then it notes that the Greek text used here is ex okay that's excess thi excess thi hard for English speakers to say excess thigh which signifies to have uh therefore just as the son is united to the father not by any other reason than that he receives existence from him so the holy spirit is united to the son for that same reason and then third this is also explained further when he clearly affirms that the son is considered prior to the Holy Spirit in term of the principle or cause using the phrase katonio and then fourth he declares that without the notion of principle there is no difference in the trinity for which it follows that if one is not the principle of another there will be no distinction between the son and the holy spirit so again those four points that I already kind of went over uh go over the text so uh there's a second one um this is from the famous text uh not three gods says if however anyone cavails uh cavails cavls cavls at our argument on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to ad mixture and confusion of the persons we shall make to such a charge this answer that 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 again he says the same thing here and he's going to explain further actually here by our belief that is that one is the cause so that's obviously the father another is of the cause that is obviously the sun and again in that which is of the cause we recognize another distinction okay what is what is the what is the distinction what is the distinction between um those of the cause what is the distinction hm what could be the distinction with procession well let's find out for one is directly from the first cause wow one is directly from the first cause so this is talking about the son right and another is by that which is directly from the first okay so we have uh so we have the cause that's father we have um that which is from the cause and then we have a third one which is that by which that by which is directly from the first cause so it it seems here that we're going to have one who directly proceeds okay and then uh we're going to have one which proceeds from the cause but also proceeds from uh that which is from the cause hm what could this be in reference to well obviously it's in reference to the foquay right so that the attribute of being only begotten abides without doubt in the son and the interposition of the son uh while it go okay then look interposition of the song 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 does not shut out the spirit from his relation by way of nature again by way of nature to the father but in speaking of cause and of the cause we do not by these words denote nature for no one would give the same definition of cause and of nature but we indicate the difference in the manner of existence or the manner of hypostasis so again this is something which is obviously the existence of the spirit is from that which is directly from the cause that is the song fell very very clear here very clear what's going on and then uh in another place uh in the same uh work he says so in the other case when we learn that he is unbegotten we are taught in what mode he exists and how it is fit that we should conceive him as existing but what he is we do not hear in that phrase when therefore we acknowledge such a distinction in the case of the Holy Trinity as to believe that one person is the cause and another is of the cause okay again father son we can no longer be accused of confounding the definition of the persons by the community of natures thus since on the one hand the idea of cause differentiates the persons of the Holy Trinity declaring that one exists without a cause another is of the cause and since on the other hand the divine nature is apprehended by every conception as unchangeable and undivided so these reasons we properly declare the godhead to be one and god to be one and employ in the singular all of the of the all of the other names which express divine attributes notice the idea of cause that's what differentiates okay now uh um I actually had some bonus quotes uh for us that are fun that actually uh Pavius didn't include uh but I had from my preparation with my debate with Ubetus this is from the uh on the Holy Spirit he's going to say basically the same thing he uh gives a great analogy it is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on the three torches and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle and then kindling the end torch that's fioquay right here what you have is father is a communication to the son and then the father spirates the spirit through that uh through the son so they form one cause okay so this is clearly uh you can say oh whoa bro that doesn't make sense how you can have one cause you can have two supposito well we can talk about that later um we can talk about that later for sure but don't say that Greg Nissa isn't teaching this because he is he is he thinks the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle then kindling the end torch that's what he thinks he thinks exactly what we think okay so and then this one this one's so fun and I know I I posted so much text on here this is great this one's fun uh because there's actually a bit of a lore to this so if you look at some additions uh this is from like an academic edition to it this is from a popular edition i just wanted to make sure I looked at all of the you know all of the critical notes and whatever just to make sure I wasn't uh doing my forgery because I know I'll get hit with that oh bro it's a forgery um but here we have the third homaly um in the Lord's Prayer by St greg Mesa now why is this an interesting why why is this an interesting text to bring up well what's interesting is the fact that Eastern Orthodox actually when they print this text remove these sections uh if you look at some of the uh popular Orthodox editions of the homalies on the Lord's Prayer by St gregory of Nissa you're not going to see this section this is so I'm I'm giving you guys some forbidden knowledge right now because you know the Orthodox realize he's teaching the filioquay here way too clearly so we got to remove it which is ironically uh they will accuse us of doing this sometime so yeah their their version is um is bastardized really they remove remove from this so uh I will read it proper to the father is to exist from no cause one cannot perceive the same in the case of the son and the spirit the son comes from the father as the scriptures say in the spirit from god and proceeds from the father but just as since it belongs to the father alone to exist without a cause it cannot be applied to the son of the spirit so too existing from a cause which is proper to the son of the spirit can naturally not be observed in the father so uh we're good right now now the father obviously is not from a cause now since not being unbegotten is common to the son and spirit okay so not being unbegotten so he's not going to say being begotten obviously but not being unbegotten not having an ash ability something which is common to the son of the spirit now that I think of this this actually uh kind of um debunks goas's position on something which I need to write a note about but uh now since not being unbegotten common to the son and the spirit lest some confusion of subject be seen it is once again possible to discover an unmixed difference in their properties okay so how how are we going to distinguish between these properties since they're both unbegotten such that the commonality is preserved and what is proper is not confused okay how how do we do this how do we do this please please let us know st gregory of Nissa for the only begotten is named son from the father okay so only begotten is from the father thank you St gregory by the holy scripture and up to this point the text confirms his property okay so we just got from the father from the son now what's for the holy spirit how do we distinguish him from the son how could we ever distinguish the holy spirit from the son you know I've been wondering this too it seems like you know it doesn't make sense uh since you know both the spirit and the son are unbegotten so how or are are not unbegotten how do you distinguish the two well he's going to tell us but the holy spirit too is said to be from the father what else okay he's also said to be of the father okay the son's also of the father the spirit's also of the father so how does the spirit distinguish from the son then and testimony is given to its being from the sun wow yeah this is talking about energetic procession guys totally real not fake at all look at the context i gave you all the context so you know context talking about what is distinguishing uh the persons and their properties and how we are able to uh distinguish causality um so this is this is just referring to hypatic procession so uh I'll read a bit quicker the only begotten is named son from the father by the holy scriptures and up to this point the text confirms his property but the holy spirit too is said to be from the father and testimony is given to its being from the son and so the spirit that is called god is also the spirit of Christ and yet although the son is from God it is not also true that he is and is called of the spirit so the son is not of the spirit nor does this relational in uh inference notice relational inference oprah but the uh the relations they're uh that that's western relational inference reciprocate so that by implication one can turn the statement around in the equivalent manner named Christ of the spirit in the same way that we affirm the spirit to be of Christ and so since this distinctive feature clearly and without confusion distinguishes the one from the other while the identity in activity testifies to the commonality of nature the pious idea of divine is strengthened through both claims since the trinity is counted in the hypostasis and not severed into heterogeneous fragments welcome back thinking about becoming Eastern Orthodox already Eastern Orthodox believe in the trinity take this into [Music] account the year is 1264 pope Urban IV former patriarch of Jerusalem is anxious to reunite the Greek and Latin churches however there's an obstacle to the reunion of the churches this comes in the form of the filioquay in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches to this day the Nying creed is the primary form of the profession of the Catholic faith yet there's actually a major difference between these two creeds in the Greek version of the creed it says "We believe in the Holy Spirit the Lord the giver of life." On the other hand in the Latin version of the creed used in the West it says "We believe in the Holy Spirit the Lord the giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son." The difference is found in the last three words and the song this in Latin is the [Music] filioquay lord I want to know [Music] this was the major doctrinal difference between the east and the west these debates stretching centuries before the great schism in the 11th century all the way back to the 8th century even causing a schism in the 9th century these were the issues discussed in the 13th and the 15th century in the great reunion councils because of this Pope Urban IV as the vicer of Christ decided to consult the greatest theologian of his day St thomas Aquinas in response to this call from Pope Urban IV St thomas Aquinus wrote the work against the error of the Greeks although this title as we will see is a bit of a misnomer although not entirely inaccurate and this misnomer has actually caused a great deal of orthodox objections to this work by the great angelic doctor it is especially absurd considering the skills of prology that St thomas Aquinas was at that time and even to this day famous for St thomas unlike other scholastics always made sure to go to original sources when he could in order to verify the veracity of certain quotes and if he even suspected that they were forged he would never use them thus St thomas Aquinas more than any other theologian east or west was able to use mostly genuine sources but like any other medieval theologian both east and west certain inauthentic works of course would creep in yet when we look at this work against the error of the Greeks it is impossible to impute any wrongdoing to St thomas for when we look at the reason why Pope Urban IV asked St thomas Aquinas in the first place write this work it was meant to be in response to the work of a bishop named Nicholas of Croaton he was a Latin representative to Constantinople he wrote a work called the Lebellus in the Lebellus nicholas of Croaton argued that many of the differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology in his day were purely nominal obviously Pope Urban IV was not convinced of this so he sent the work to St thomas Aquinas and asked for him to comment on it what St thomas did is he showed the genuine sense of the sources that Nicholas of Croaton quoted in that work in the second book of the work he actually largely argues against Nicholas of Croaton's thesis arguing that the formulations that the Latins have given represent genuine apostolic doctrine and are contradictory to the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox so it is completely dishonest to say that St thomas Aquinas used forgeries rather he commented on the forged works of a different theologian now what is quite interesting and quite ironic is that actually since Nicholas of Croaton was the papal leate to Constantinople it was from Constantinople that he got these forgeries so all of these forgeries that were used by Nicholas of Croaton were simply Greek forgeries that he had translated into Latin yet it is my personal opinion that St thomas Aquinas knew that Nicholas of Croaton's quotes were forgeries to begin with and we can know this by looking throughout all of the sections where St thomas Aquinas discussed these matters st thomas Aquinas was known for being a very consistent thinker he would often treat certain issues multiple times during his life and in each of these times he would quote basically the same authors and give more or less detailed arguments depending on the audience now he treated the filioquay eight times in his life and for those forged documents that Nicholas of Crowone used St thomas never quotes those again but enough of that this video is not meant to be some sort of argument from tradition or scripture dwong and I have produced many videos to that effect rather this video I wanted to bring forward what is the most famous of St thomas' theological arguments for the filioquay [Music] daddy now that we've gotten that out of the way what is St thomas's theological argument for the filioquay well he has a few some from the psychological analogy some from the nature of the power of spiration some from the nature of the order of persons but his most famous one is called the argument from relative opposition so what does relative opposition mean relative opposition is meant to designate a certain relation that excludes the identity of the subjects of the relation for example the relationship of fatherhood and the relationship of sunship have relative opposition because if you're a father you can't also be in that same relation to son these must posit two different subjects but on the other hand we can have other relations that don't have this so if you have the relationship of brotherhood and friendship that may exist in the same subject without positing two really distinct subjects so what St thomas argues is that if there is not relative opposition between the son and the spirit then like our relation of brotherhood and friendship one will simply posit two relations in the same subject rather than a relation that necessarily designates two subjects that are really distinct further he's going to argue that this relative opposition that we must posit between the sun and the spirit must include a relation of procession relation of principle and thing principle but let's slow down for a second and work out this argument a bit more carefully first we have to realize that there are two ways of properly predicating something to God first you can predicate something relatively to God second you can predicate something absolutely to God for something to be absolute it has to be essential to the trinity for example if we said that God is loving just wise these would be absolute predications of God on the other hand when it comes to relative predications it means that there is some sort of order to another and this comes from procession for example if we use terms like father son spirit these would be relative terms because the father is the father of the son the son is the son of the spirit the spirit is the spirit of the son and so on and despite what some Eastern Orthodox apologists say this distinction of names into absolute and relative is a distinction that is agreed upon by all of the fathers both east and west as representing the eastern fathers St sirill states quote "The relative names as they are applied are signified by both conveying the mutual knowledge of each therefore it is easier if one learns the right hand to know the left throw it and certainly that the opposite is also true as anyone would agree so the name father belongs to the relational names and similarly the name son he who denies the father denies the son and he who denies the son does not have the father either and this is very fitting and true for if there is no father since by nature he has begotten one would not grant the existence of the son for a son is because he is begotten and if there is no son is begotten neither would there be a father according to the fitting and consequent reasoning of concepts a father because he has begotten end quote this is more clearly affirmed by St augustine in day trinitate he states quote in God nothing is said to be according to accident because in him nothing is changeable yet everything that is said is not said according to substance for it is said in relation to something as the father in relation to the son and the son in relation to the father which is not accident because both the one is always father and the other is always son end quote now you are forced to ask yourself a question when it comes to the distinction between the sun and the spirit is this distinction something which is absolute or is it something which is relative it can't be something which is absolute because if it was absolute we would have some sort of distinction of the absolute attributes that is you would have a distinction of what is essential what is substantial to the persons which we obviously have to deny since the persons are consubstantial and this is recognized by each one of the fathers who discuss this problem so obviously the persons are going to have to be distinguished by that which is relative now it is easy to see how the father and the son are distinguished by that which is relative since the father is the father of the son son's the son of the father is also to see how the father and the spirit are distinguished by that which is relative the spirit is the spirit of the father but how are the son and the spirit distinguished by relation someone might say that the son and the spirit are distinguished by relation because they have different relations to the father but this obviously doesn't work as we mentioned above relation does not simply distinguish two persons rather only relational opposition to make this clear of why this is the case we could simply ask the question again what distinguishes those two relations from each other is it something absolute or is it something relative if it is something which is absolute now would obviously distinguish the essence if it was something which is relative then you would simply ask the question again and again and again and again and you would have an infinite regress and this infinite regress would result in no foundation for the distinction between the sun and the spirit this is why we have to go one step further and not simply state that there is a distinction of relation but that there is a true relative opposition between the two persons an instance of this is actually found when we look at the father the father has two relations the father is related as the father of the son and the father is related as the active spirator of the spirit yet are there two fathers since there are two relations no there's one father what is the reason for there only being one father well the reason is between these two relations there's no relative opposition so in what foundation do you have a relation of the spirit to the father and a relation of the son to the father and have two persons the spirit and the son clearly without relative opposition the persons would collapse merely being related to the same subject is not sufficient for distinguishing the persons rather you need true relative opposition between them at this point the distinction between the two persons is clear the son is the son because he's begotten of the father the spirit is the spirit because he proceeds from the father and the son so from this there is true relative opposition between the son and the spirit because the spirit proceeds from the son yet somebody may have a different objection they would state that the fathers say that we cannot know the distinction between the spirit and the son yet this response is ineffective first when these fathers say that we cannot know the distinction they're clearly not saying that we can't know anything about the distinction we obviously know that procession results in the Holy Spirit the getting results in the sun that's some sort of distinction rather what they're saying is that we cannot know the intimate character or the fullness of what distinguishes them just like we can't know the infinite character exhaustively of anything about God this is especially seen in the fact that these fathers actually do account for the distinction between the two they account for it the way that the Latins account for the distinction between the two that is that the spirit proceeds from the father and the son and the son is begotten of the father there are two quotes from St gregory of Nissa to this effect first in or not through gods he writes quote "While we confess the invariable character of the nature we do not deny the difference in respect of cause 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 that is the father and another is of the cause the son and the spirit and again in that which is of the cause that is the son and the spirit we require another distinction for one is directly from the first cause that is the son and another that is a spirit by that which is directly from the first cause that is the son so that the attribute of being only begotten abides without doubt in the Son and the interposition 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 end quote further in his homaly on the Lord's prayer he states quote "It is common to the Son and the Holy Spirit that they do not exist as unbegotten lest any confusion arise on this matter again we can find an incommunicable difference in their properties so that what is common may be preserved and what is proper may not be confused for the only begotten Son is said by scripture to be from the Father." And in this way the word defines what is proper to him but the Holy Spirit is said to be from the father and is also testified to be from the son son who is of God is not and is not said to be the son of the spirit the terms of the relationship cannot be reversed end quote second because intrinsically this response makes no sense as we already went over above there are two possibilities either it is absolute or it is relative if it is not absolute then it is relative one cannot appeal to mystery in this case without falling into contradiction in order to better understand the sequence of this argument we can actually put this in a little bit more formal terms by reverse engineering the way it works and then putting it in a group of syllogisms first if the son and spirit are really distinct then there is relative opposition since in God everything is one except there be relation of opposition as is seen from the case of the person of the father the son and the spirit are really distinct as all must concede therefore there is relative opposition further second if there is relative opposition between the son and the spirit then there's relation between the son and the spirit since relative opposition implies relation as the name indicates there is relative opposition as established above therefore there is a relation between the son and the spirit further third there is relation between the son and the spirit there must be procession for relation in God follows upon procession there is relation between the son and the spirit as established above therefore there is procession further four there is procession then either the son is the principle of the spirit or the spirit is the principle of the sun since there is a terminus aquo and terminus adqu of every procession there is procession as established above therefore either the son is the principle of the spirit or the spirit is the principle of the son further fifth either the son is the principle of the spirit or the spirit is a principle of the sun as established above the spirit is not the principle of the son as admitted by all therefore the sun is the principle of the spirit which is the doctrine of the filioquay this relies on the fact that the sequence from procession to real distinction is that procession leads to relation which leads to relative opposition which leads to real distinction thus if we posit distinction as everyone has to then we posit procession and if there is procession the procession is the procession of the spirit from the sun and not the other way around this argument is found throughout the works of St thomas to greater or lesser complexity from the time that he was a bachelor student to the time that he almost died as in apologetic works and also in catechetical works and also in simple theological works and is even found throughout his disputed questions so there are a lot of places where St thomas discusses this there are actually eight places each of which I'm going to list so if you want to read on your own go ahead and read it you actually should read it on your own because they're really good first book of sentences distinction 11 question one article one in the question whether the holy spirit proceeds from the son or only from the father second sumac constant tilles book 4 chapters 24 to2 which are titled that the holy spirit proceeds from the sun and arguments of those who would prove that the holy spirit proceeds not from the sun and their solution third de potentia question 10 articles fourth and five which are titled whether the holy spirit proceeds from the son and whether the holy spirit would still be distinct from the son if he did not proceed from him fourth compendium theologia book 1 chapter 49 which is titled that the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son fifth dation busi chapter 4 which is titled how the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son sixth commentary on the gospel according to St john chapter 15 lecture 5 and chapter 16 lecture 4 7th suma theologia primma pars question 36 article 2 which is titled whether the holy spirit proceeds from the sun lastly as we mentioned in the introduction against the errors of the greeks book two and there's a lot of different chapters where he discusses a lot of different issues so definitely read the whole thing in conclusion it is easy to see how the foundational principles of trinitarian theology necessarily lead to the filioquet Without the filioquay there is no trinity because it immediately follows from the principles of our theology these principles are not merely Latin principles these are principles admitted by the holy fathers of both the east and the west this is not simply an argument that was made up in Latin scholasticism this was not simply an argument that St thomas came up with this is an argument that necessarily and immediately flows from the very terminology defined at the councils and held by the fathers these principles are foundational to our theology they're foundational to the very trinity itself the filioquay immediately and necessarily follows obviously upon all of these principles so for the Orthodox out there and for any of those questioning the filioquay whether it makes sense theologically you simply have to ask yourself how do I distinguish the sun from the spirit [Music] through my window conversation and the feelings that we make kind of love the eyes that tell me don't go the kiss I get from living is the same with [Music] you heat heat [Music] n heat heat [Music] n heat heat n [Music] [Music] so what the analogies show right at least for Gregor as I understand him suggest that there are two produced divine persons the son and spirit but he ignores one part of the analogy right that rep is required for a word right i'm speaking to you I got to have air coming out of my mouth more words um right right so he ignores this part of the analogy right the breath that breath is required for a spoken word um but um but a word is not required breath can breathe out without saying anything um but this would suggest the father first virates the Holy Spirit and then generates the sun just as breath is prior to it doesn't dude's writing a book this dude's writing a book on no he's writing a book on Henry of Gent a scholastic he supposedly studied like guys like St maximus they all they all come he doesn't know that when it talks about a word it isn't talking about a spoken word it's talking about a word in the intellect and the breath is talking about a spoken word he doesn't know he doesn't know he doesn't know yeah he doesn't he doesn't that's scholarship this dude Scott Scott W williams i think this dude got his training like Oxford he doesn't know yeah can I can I share my screen to show that the distinction is present in all the Greek fathers and St john somewhere yeah are you gonna go to St maximus where St maximus talks about you can share St maximus i'm going to share St john he said Gregory of Nissa aired because he said the breath spirit is required for breath so that would mean that spirit is prior to the sun but that's not what St nissa means that's an external word and St john Damosy who summarizes the Greek tradition talks about that and this is it it's right here is exposition of the orthodox faith book one chapter 12 right here uh let me just find it okay here chapter 13 okay so word is that which is essentially present with the father again word is also the natural movement of mind according to that which it uh according to that to which it is moved and thinks and considers being being as it were its own light and radiance again a word is a thought that is only spoken within the heart and again the word is the utterance is the messenger of the thought what is this here can you read this am I blind it's right here what is this can you read it one more time okay let's see um and again word is the utterance that is the messenger of thought so there's a word which is natural but then there's word which is the utterance of that thought so this is called the external word so Greg Fnissa did not error it's Oh man and I can't I can't believe guys guys like this like I I look at this and I'm like guys like this get 10th gear and they get like all all of like I was just looking at his publications and like what the heck what the heck is this publication by the way um disability ableism and anti-abbleism and medieval Latin philosophy what critical history of the middle ages and I don't know that one yeah what is that do you know what's unique about online plymics with the Orthodox they will actually remove basic doctrines taught by fathers east and west in order just to own the Latins i'm sure a few of you have heard the phrases relative opposition or relations of opposition dyer Erhan and the online Orthodox crowd have told you that relations of opposition is a Latin thing it's a western thing the Eastern fathers didn't teach relations of opposition in the Roman Catholic view in in how he's trying to defend it he's basing this on relations of opposition right begotten unbegotten but St louis theologian says that God transcends the diet right he surpasses the diet well this is completely novel but why do they do this well like most novelties from this crowd the reason is because if they affirm this doctrine then they would have to concede something that they don't want to or like so many other issues whether it be actis purists or divine simplicity it's simply easier for pmics for them so they decide to get rid of basic Christian doctrines in this case denying relations of opposition makes attacking the filioquay easier now why is this well first in order to understand this we need to understand what a relation of opposition even is a relation of opposition is simply a relation between two subjects that makes it impossible for these two subjects to be identified with one another So for example father and son have relative opposition father produces a son and the son and father cannot be identified with one another but on the other hand brother and friend are not relatively opposed two people can be both brothers and friends so what does this have to do with the filioquay well in the trinity we either predicate things absolutely or relatively things that are absolute are like wisdom justice love goodness and the like and things that are relative are like father of the son son of the father spirit of the father and so on so when we ask the question what distinguishes the son from the spirit is it something which is absolute well if it was absolute then they would be two gods so it must be something which is relative we further argue that this relation must be a relation that follows from origination can't simply be different modes of relation if you want the full spiel behind why this is the case a video is coming out soon on my other channel Distinguo once Mr unionist initiative is done editing but in the meantime you can look at Suma Theologia Prima's question 36 article 2 which I'll link below anyways because relation of opposition so naturally leads to the idea of the filioquay rather than doing like some theologians do and weirdly arguing that relations of opposition are not necessary in order to distinguish the persons looking at you Scotas they simply deny this basic doctrine taught by the fathers east and west so what I wanted to do here is I wanted to employ some help from a very famous theologian that you guys have probably not heard of and who more of you should read that is Diego Ruez de Mononttoya diego Ruez de Mononttoya or just Mononttoya as I'll be calling him was a Jesuit scholastic in the late 16th and early 17th centuries he died in 1632 and did most of his writings in the 1620s he was known for being in the generation immediately succeeding another famous scholastic Francisco Suarez mononttoya was known for one thing writing a lot he actually wrote nearly 5,000 pages just on doctrine of God what makes this even more crazy is that he didn't even write on the existence and attributes of God he just wrote on the will of God the intellect of God predestination the trinity and divine naming so he skipped out on the first 12 questions of the suma and he still got 5,000 pages by the time he got to question 42 so why did he write so much well he wrote a lot because he wanted to do one thing he wanted to take the scholastic teaching of the theologians of the medieval era and the Baroque era before him and he wanted to take that and compare them to the teaching of the fathers this was a task done by other theologians during his era all Jesuits by the way Vasquez Suarez and Pavius for example but nothing was so extensive as Ruez de Mononttoya's treatment on the trinity which became classic in the field so what I wanted to do here is I wanted to take his treatment of relations of opposition and ask the question do the fathers east and west teach relations of opposition before we begin I would appreciate if you would consider becoming a patron at patreon.com/militintoist as a patron you have direct access to me in order to ask questions and have access to additional content including notes on the suma and additional weekly videos thank you and God bless to begin we need to get a lot more specific about what we mean by relation and how relation was actually understood in the petristic era so Aristotle listed 10 predicamentals one of these predicamentals was relation you may have heard about the term substance and the term accident well substance is one of the predicamentals and accident represents nine of the predicamentals one of which is relation this was written about in Aristotle's categories now in the Petristic era the categories was actually unique because it had been translated into Latin and was used in the education of basically every single father east and west so the fathers knew exactly what they meant when they used a term like relation or relative further with a lot of these fathers not only did they merely study the categories of Aristotle but they were educated by a group of philosophers called the paripotetics the parapotetics specifically commented on the works of Aristotle and standardized a lot of the definitions terminology and divisions throughout the works of Aristotle including when discussing relation a good example of this in the east is St john of Damascus who in his philosophical chapters explicitly draws from a commenter named Ammonius in the west a good example of this is St botheus due to the fact that he was bilingual he was able to draw from a lot of the Greek paripotetic commentators when he commented on Aristotle's works these authors there are three notes to a relation which are found in the category section 7 first relations are naturally simultaneous second relations are simultaneous in knowledge third relations are reciprocal interestingly when discussing the trinity these three notes are actually explicitly brought out by some fathers for example when you look at St siriel of Alexandria in his thesaurus when he writes against Eunomius he says quote "Those which are towards something are naturally and logically simultaneous and one implies the other those which are towards something as one is posited the other is posited as one is removed the other is removed." End quote now you may be confused by this language of towards something well this is actually the type of language in Greek that Aristotle uses in order to describe a relation we're actually going to see this later in other Greek fathers who simply use the language of that which is towards something now this witness of explicit quotations of Aristotle throughout the fathers should really be enough in order to settle this dispute because really what the Latins are doing in taking from Aristotle when it comes to relative and absolute names when it comes to relation and substance is exactly the same thing that the Greeks are doing from the exact same work since these fathers are explicitly drawing from Aristotle they are doing the same exact thing that the medieval Latins are doing when they talk about the relative versus the absolute in the trinity or relational versus substantive in the trinity the same exact texts are being used the same exact tradition of commentators are being drawn from so obviously the same exact doctrine is being professed in highly technical language none of this is colloquial but I actually wanted to go a step further from this because I think this would detract from the truly massive witness of the fathers east and west to simply point to the places where this is explicitly spoken of so what we can actually do is we can split these witnesses into two categories first there are those fathers who explicitly say that the personal idioms are relative and that the persons are only distinguished by relation this is especially seen in saints Augustine and Botheus second there are those fathers who do so a little bit less explicitly whether by simply using the language of Aristotle or by using one of those notes that we went over above and speaking about the relationship between the persons of the Trinity in this way so for example if a father said that the names were reciprocal they would obviously be pointing to the third note of relation to begin I wanted to go over the second groups of text in brief although be aware that I'm only giving a few examples there are hundreds if not thousands of examples that I could have used that I didn't first there are fathers who speak of the persons as naturally simultaneous an example of this can be found in St sirill's dialogue on the Trinity book four the relative name or towards something is the father just as that is the son for the son who is begotten and if the son who is begotten does not exist neither would the father exist according to the proper reason for the father indeed because he begott therefore both must exist simultaneously and both are removed simultaneously and each exists entirely in one existence and therefore it is said and is what it is this natural simultaneity is actually a frequent proof that the fathers bring up against the Aryans because if you prove that the persons are relations then the existence of them must be naturally simultaneous therefore if the father exists so must the son exist also second there are fathers who speak of the persons as simultaneous in knowledge which is the second note of relation an example of this can be found in St basil's contraomian book two where he combines the first and second notes proving the first from the second quote from the moment the father exists the son also exists and as soon as one grasps the concept of the father the son also arises for the father is indeed the father of the son this is even repeated by magisterial documents the council of Sardica repeats the first and second notes when it writes quote indubitably believing that the father was never without the son nor the son without the father for it is absurd to say that the father was not always the father for the father without the son cannot be named or exist another example is given by St basil who states the term father means the same thing as unbegotten yet it has the additional advantage of implying a relation therefore introducing the notion of a son end quote further quote father and son are mutually conceived of in accordance with the relationship subsisting between them st siriel actually goes even further for us and states that this simultaneity and knowledge is not only a simultaneity of human knowledge but also of divine knowledge such as in book one of the thesaurus quote if the father knows he always has knowledge of his son in himself for the fathers referred to the son and is called the father end quote further St gregory of Nissa in his great catechism chapter 2 states that the name word is relative quote in as much as the father of the word must needs be thought of with the word for it would not be word were it not word of someone end quote we see the same thing in the western fathers St hillary in book seven on the trinity says quote the name of the father includes the name of the son for the father is not except through the son and the signification of the son is the demonstration of the father because the son is only from the father end quote Ambrose in book one on faith degration chapter 5 says quote the father is known in the son and the son is known in the father but when you say father you also designate his son because no one is a father to himself when you name the son you also name his father because no one is son to himself." End quote i could bring up many many many other examples of saints both east and west saying basically the same thing but this should suffice third there are fathers who speak of the persons as reciprocal son of the father father of the son but I didn't bring forth any examples of this but now that we've gotten that out of the way we can begin to treat individual fathers and what they say on this exper i have selected eight saints most of them eastern in order to demonstrate this first St basil st basil is a saint that is venerated in both the east and the west he along with St gregory of Nazanzus and St gregory of Nissa are known as the Capidosian fathers and are highly regarded to this day these fathers were known for fighting various trinitarian heretics especially the Yunomians now we've already briefly discussed a few passages from St basil and from his frequent recourse to the notes of relation we can be sure that he teaches what we teach on this matter now it's clear that St basil already affirms relation from the various quotations that we gave above but he goes further than this and actually treats the issue ex-professo against the Unomians the most clear treatment of this is found in book two of against Unomius here he distinguishes very well between substance and relation mirroring a lot of what St augustine says in book five of Dinitate earlier in book one he introduces the notion of relation stating that the term of father adds to the notion of unbegotten the idea of relation to the son and he actually argues against simply speaking of the father's unbegotten as the eomians ordinarily did then in section 20 of book one he goes into further detail of what kind of relation this is quote why then does he refuse to accept that there is order in God he thinks that if he had demonstrated that priority in God is conceivable in no other way then he is demonstrating that the only remaining option is that God has preeeminence according to the substance itself but we say that the father is ranked prior to the sun in terms of the relation that causes have with what comes from them not in terms of a difference of nature or a preeminence based on time otherwise we will deny even the very fact that God is the father since difference in substance precludes their natural connection here his entire purpose is to refute the Unomian claim that if there is difference or order within God this must be a substantial difference or a substantial order rather he says that we predicate things of God in two ways on the one hand there are certain absolute terms which are substantial predicates on the other hand there are certain relative terms that are predications of relations so one cannot understand the Catholic response to the eomians unless they have this presupposition then in book two he goes a little bit further and not only speaks in terms of relation and substance but absolute terms in relative terms drawing from the same exact distinction that St augustine gives that some Eastern Orthodox critique he writes quote "Who does not know that some names are expressed absolutely and in respect of themselves signifying the things which are their reference but other names are said relative to others expressing only the relation to the other names relative to which they are said for example human being and horse and ox each communicate the very thing that is named but son and slave and friend reveal only the connection with the associated name so when anyone hears something begotten he is not brought in his mind to a certain substance but rather he understands that it is connected with another for that which is something else begotten is said to be something begotten of someone else so how is it not the peak of insanity to decree that that which does not introduce a notion of any subsistence but only signifies the relation to another is the substance in addition we indicated little before that even if absolute names seem most of all to reveal some reference they too do not communicate the substance itself but delineate certain distinguishing marks in connection with it it's important to note a few things in this quote first this last mention of the distinguishing marks this is translating idiom so an idiom is a certain property that distinguishes the persons hypothetically so really what St basil is saying here is quite technical he's stating that relations indicate the personal properties it's also important to note that in the Greek text he used a very technical phrase prostipos now this phrase is the same phrase that's used by Aristotle in his categories so he's explicitly drawing from the technical language of philosophy the same technical language of philosophy that a St thomas or a St augustine is going to be drawing from in order to state the notion of relation it's also interesting to see that later in the same work he notes that relations do not designate perfections which is uh a toistic W over the Suarezians by the way he further goes on to repeat the same thing later quote indeed it is clear to anyone who examines these names I mean father and son that they do not in their proper and primary sense naturally give rise to the notion of corporeal passions on the contrary when they are said by themselves they indicate only their relation to one another the father is he who provides to another the beginning of being in a nature similar to his own whereas the son is he who has the beginning of his being from another in a begotten way end quote and to crown this fantastic book St basil actually goes on not only to say relation he also goes on to say opposition that it's the contriity that results the distinction of the persons he covers this in a very lengthy section from sections 25 to 28 and what makes this even better is that actually in this section he gives a reference to Aristotle by name and he states that this opposition cannot be of substance because Aristotle said that was impossible but must be of relation he says quote upon hearing unbegotten light we think of the father whereas upon hearing begotten light we receive the notion of the son in so far as they are light and light no contriity exists between them but in so far as they are begotten and unbegotten one observes the opposition between them this is something that he frequently brings up against Unomius throughout the entire work for example in 118 he rebukes for quote transferring this opposition to the very substance of the father and the son end quote he also does this later in book two section 16 second St gregory of Nissa and there's a lot here if you want to look through his contraomian uh be my guest i just gave a few examples first in book one he actually distinguishes clearly between absolute relative names stating that the goodness strength wisdom etc of the trinity is quote not such owing to any relation whatever but considered in itself escapes limitation end quote that is it's an absolute name it goes on further to say quote "The reason for this invention of new words I take to be manifest to everyone namely that everyone when the words father and son are spoken at once recognizes the proper and natural relationship to one another which they imply this relationship is conveyed at once by the appellations themselves to prevent it being understood of the father and the only begotten he robs us of this idea of relationship which enters the ear along with the words and abandoning the inspired terms expounds the faith by means of others devised to enter the truth end quote what St gregor of Nissa is referring to is actually what St basil was implicitly referring to earlier is that Unomius has changed the entire trinitarian grammar that we have in order to strip it of relative terms so really it's a Unomian error to say that there's no relations in God and only predicates are absolute and substantive this is why they didn't like speaking of father and son but really spoke only in terms of the unbegotten this is not an insignificant point in book one but rather his entire argument rests on the idea of the distinction between absolute and relative terms that the persons are united by the absolute and distinguished by the relative quote "Having heard of father and son from the truth we are taught in these two subjects the oneness of their nature their natural relations to each other expressed by those names indicates that nature." End quote he goes on further to explicitly employ the same distinction as St basel in section 38 saying quote it is one that all must be familiar with even mere children who are being introduced under a grammar tutor to the study of words who I say does not know that some nouns are absolute and out of all relation others express some relation this of course is exactly what we see in St augustine but what's more important here is that as I said before there's actually some sort of technical thing that is being expressed when they're using terms like absolute and relative it is something that they all learned when they were in school it is something that would be so obvious to any of these fathers who are writing yet apparently this is just a Latin innovation now this was just book one there are 11 other books so if any of you want to go through these books and to cite similar instances be my guest but I do not want this video to go on forever anyways the third author is St gregory of Nazanzus he was one of the capidosians and most of his work was done in orations there's an important moment in his third oration when he is given a objection and this objection is the question of what kind of name father is is it a name of essence or is a name of action and this is a dichotomy because if he chooses essence or if he chooses action he is going to deny the orthodox doctrine of the trinity so rather than accept either one of the horns of the dilemma he proposes a tertium quit he says quote "We may dispense with both alternatives and state a third and truer one father is not a name which designates either an essence or an action oh mighty sages it is a name of the relation in which the father stands to the son and the son to the father for just as with us humans these names father and son make known a genuine and intimate relation so in the case before us now they designate an identity of nature between the one who is begun and the one who begets this idea that father is a relative name and that son is a relative name is just simply the universal teaching of the fathers anytime they treat this question they say it's relative it signifies the relation further if you look into the fourth theological oration section 18 he goes over the distinction between absolute and relative names as a grammatical point just as was brought up by St gregory of Nissa then in the fifth theological arration he says that these relations are what distinguish the persons he says quote the difference of their mutual relations to each other has caused the difference of their names end quote and he makes the same point in other errations ination 20 he says that causal relations distinguish the persons and then ination 23 he defines the trinity in terms of relation saying quote trinity is a comprehensive relationship between equals who are held in equal honor the term unites in one word members that are one by nature and does not allow things that are indivisible to suffer fragmentation when their number is divided end quote next we have St epipanius who employed relation in order to refute the semi-arens he states quote but besides the phrase father and son denotes a relation to something thus even if we name only a father we have the notion of son included in the term father for father means father of a son and even though we only name a son we have the notion of the father for son means a son of a father each is linked with the other and the connection cannot be broken indeed either of them mentioned alone implies the notion of the other and not only the name but with the name the natural relationship in understanding God to be father we understand him to be father of God and in understanding a son of God to be God we understand the said son of God to be of like nature with him whose son he is understood to be so notice now that we're familiar with the notes of relation these notes are being explicitly employed when they're writing in trinitarian theology next we have another important author St sierel of Alexandria who frequently employed this notion of relation against his opponents in his commentary on John his thesaurus and his dialogues on the trinity unfortunately I can only give a few citations from his works he lays the groundwork for this early in his theological career in writing on the gospel of John book one he states quote "If the son is also the father what reason is there for the distinction of names for if he did not generate at all why is he called father and how can he be son at all if he was not begotten by the father for the names necessarily imply such an understanding upon themselves but since the divine scriptures declare the son is begotten and the truth is indeed so he therefore subsists by himself and again the father is uniquely the father if indeed one is recognized from the other that which is begotten in relation to that which begets end quote so again notes of relation are being employed and is explicitly stating relation further in book three he begins to discourse on the personal idioms contemplating how the persons can be distinct even while being one in essence he states that this is possible quote through an inseparable relation the place where he begins to discuss this in more detail is in his thesaurus first he uses the natural simultaneity of their relations in order to establish the eternity of the son quote "If the Christ fighters think that they are doing a great favor to God by not acknowledging him as father from the beginning but granting him to be God let them hear that they are greatly insulting him depriving the divine nature of something more valuable for God has a relation to his servants and to those whose essence is created but he is father in relation to the son therefore by saying that he was God from the beginning but not yet father they tribute to God a relation to his servants depriving him of the greater title for it is better to be the father of a begotten son and as much as the son differs from a creation end quote he expands on this quote the relational nature of the names signifies each other through the other bearing mutual knowledge thus if someone knows the right hand through it they would also know the left and vice versa therefore the name father is relational and likewise the name son he who denies the father denies the son and he who denies the son does not have the father rightly and truly so for if there were no father who by nature has begotten one would not acknowledge the existence of the son for the son exists because he is begotten and if there is no son as one who is begotten there would not be a father according to the proper and consequent understanding the father exists because he has begotten end quote back to the thesaurus he makes the same distinction between the absolute relative names mentioned above quote we see many names attributed to God but each of them does not signify what God is in essence rather it either indicates what he is not or signifies some relation to something distinct for example incorruptible and immortal indicate what he is not father or unbegotten signifies that he is the begetter in relation to the son who is distinguished from him and that he was not begotten but each of these does not signify the essence as we've already mentioned but signifies something concerning the essence there's also a lot from St maximus the confessor but I left this out next is St john of Damascus what is interesting about St john of Damascus is that he has a work called the philosophical chapters so in the philosophical chapters he does something very unique it's kind of a systematic treatment of philosophy but it's a systematic treatment of philosophy for theology so he's really meant to explain philosophy in order to understand a lot of the debates that were happening so when he's discussing relation he's explicitly discussing relation as it is used by the previous fathers and in order to understand something like the trinity in chapter 50 is quite clear to note that the relationship between a father and the son is between that which causes and that which is caused but he goes on further to detail this quote proper to relatives is the fact that they may be affirmed convertibly thus a friend is a friend of a friend and the second is a friend of the first a teacher is a teacher of a pupil and a pupil is a pupil of a teacher it is also proper to relatives that they go naturally together going naturally together means positing and being posited together removing and being removed together thus when there is a father there will definitely be a son and when there is no father there will be no son for of whom would a son be if there was no father he who does not have a son will not be a father and so the son is taken away when the father is and the father is taken away when the son is end quote this is going to be important for his explicit treatment of trinitarian names since he will refer back to the same principle thus in on the orthodox faith book 1 chapter 8 he states quote the father never was when the son was not but the father and the son begotten of him exist together simultaneously because the father cannot be so called without a son now if he was not father when he did not have the son and then later became father without having been father before then he was changed from not being father to being father which is the worst of all blasphemies later in book 3 chapter 7 he states that quote we say then that the divine person of God the word exists before all things timelessly and eternally simple and uncompounded uncreated and incorporeal invisible intangible and uncircumscribed and we say that it has all things that the father has since it is consubstantial with him and that it differs from the person of the father by the manner of its begetting and by relation that it is perfect never leaves the person of the father end quote further in chapter 21 he states quote one must furthermore know that we can by no means call him surviile because the name servitude and mastery are not indicative of nature but of relationships just as paternity and affiliation are these lasts do not belong to the essence but are indications of relation end quote in another work called the exposition and declaration of the faith he states quote with regard to the Holy Trinity the matter does not stand so for the essences are not divided neither by place nor by time nor by will nor by efficiency nor by anything that denotes in us a distinction of persons in a multiplication of created things but this only happens by relation of one to another and according to the mode of existence as we said above for the father is without beginning the son is from the father by affiliation the holy spirit is from the father through the son not by affiliation but by procession end quote now that we have everything from the Greek fathers we can move on to the Latin fathers i already mentioned saints Hillary and Ambrose above so I will be starting with St augustine due to his power of synthesis on this question the main place where he discusses this is Dronitate book 5 now Desernitate book 5 is literally an entire book that would take me over an hour to read that is simply treating the idea of relation the entire book is just about relative names in the trinity so if you want to read where he discussed this question in full you can just go there i'm not going to read the whole thing but what is interesting to note is that a lot of the points that he makes he shares with the Capidosian fathers and their works against the Unomians he also discusses this ex-p profofessor in another place in on the city of God he writes quote "There is accordingly a good which alone is simple and therefore alone unchangeable this is God by this good have all others been created but not simple and therefore not unchangeable created I say that is made not begotten from that which is begotten of the simple good is simple in itself and the same as itself these two we call the father and the son and both together with the holy spirit are one god this trinity is one god and nonetheless simple because a trinity for we do not say that the nature of the good is simple because the father alone possesses it or the son alone or the holy ghost alone nor do we say with the seellian heretics that it is only nominally a trinity and has no real distinction of persons we say that it is simple because it is what it has with the exception of the relation of the persons one to another for in regard to this relation it is true that the father has a son and yet is not himself the son and the son has a father and is not himself the father but as regards himself irrespective of relation to the other each is what he has thus he is in himself living for he has life and is himself the life which he has end quote next we see this also in the many works of St fentius against the Aryans he explains this at length in epistle 14 quote "Whoever attempts to assert this as an objection if his belief conforms to what he is saying and holds in his conscience what he expresses with his tongue he is not paying enough attention to the fact that these names are without a doubt relative in any such relative name it is certain that one person is meant in itself in such a way that henceforward it is referred to another person not only in those things which are the same just as brother is spoken of in relation to brother friend to friend neighbor to neighbor but also in those things which are different just as father is spoken of in relation to the son son to father beg to begotten begotten to be with any of these names two persons are normally to be understood and as a quick note he is actually explicitly discussing relations of opposition here but let's continue for in these names one person is not spoken of in the singular in such a way that by its very name it is not referred to another for by relative name any person is spoken of in itself in such a way that it is not spoken of in relation to itself only therefore to declare the evidence of inseparability that one in the true divinity willed to be named in an incommunicable fashion in the individual persons in such a way that one person could not be understood without the other for when the fathers referred to the son or the son to the father even though the individual names can fit only individual persons and what is proper to the persons altogether refuses the communion of those two names still the father is not recognized without the son nor is the son without the father for that relation of a personal name forbids that the persons be separated which even when it does not name them at the same time it makes them known at the same time no one could hear any one of these names without being forced to understand the other as well end quote yet it wasn't until our next father St botheus that this doctrine gets developed even further for St botheus was as I mentioned above bilingual he knew Latin and Greek and he was a philosopher by trade so he read a lot of the peripotic commentators especially on the categories which he himself commented on so he has a very specific notion of relation which he employs when dealing with the trinity in his work on the trinity the whole purpose is to discuss how god can be three in one and he explicitly invokes the difference between substantial and relative predicates in order to determine this question i would suggest reading the whole work for yourself but I'll give the conclusion quote trinity is secured through the category of relation and unity is maintained through the fact there's no difference of substance or operation or generally of any substantial predicate so then the divine substance preserves the unity the divine relations bring about the trinity end quote yet just like St augustine this work is much more extensive so I would recommend that you read this on your own next we have the capstone of the Latin fathers St isidor he writes quote for this trinity some names are appelative and some are proper the proper ones name the essence such as God lord almighty immutable immortal these are proper because they signify the very substance by which the three are one but appelative names are father and son and holy spirit unbegotten and begotten and preceding these names are also relational or relative because they have reference to one another when one says God that is the essence because he is being named with respect to himself when one says father and son and holy spirit these names are spoken of relationally because they have reference to one another we say father not with respect to himself with respect to his relation to the son because he has a son likewise we speak of son relationally because he has a father and so holy spirit because it is the spirit of the father and the son the relationship is signified by these appelative names because they have reference to one another for the substance itself in which the three are one is not thus signified hence the trinity exists in the relational names of persons deity is not tripled but exists in singleness for if it were tripled we would introduce a plurality of gods end quote and to conclude this entire survey I actually wanted to bring forth a magisterial document from the petristic era the 11th council of Toledo which was received into the West and Papy approved quote "Although we profess three persons we do not profess three substances but one substance in three persons for the Father is father not with respect to himself but to the Son and the Son is Son not to himself but in relation to the Father and likewise the Holy Spirit is not referred to himself but is referred to the father and the son in as much as he is called spirit of the father and the son so when we say God this does not express a relationship to another as of the father to the son or of the son to the father or of the holy spirit to the father and the son but God refers to himself only this holy trinity which is the one true God is not without number yet it is not comprised by number because in the relationships of the persons there appears number but in the substance of the godhead nothing is comprised that could be counted therefore they imply number only in so far as they are mutually related and they lack number in so far as they are by themselves at say for this holy trinity has so much one name referring to its nature that it cannot be used in the plural with relation to the three persons end quote anyways I hope all of you enjoyed this video remember to like subscribe comment your thoughts and if you really like this video become a patron at patreon.com/millitis anyways God bless when it comes to the history of theology we basically been told one entire big fat lie about 19th century Catholic theology what the newbell theology have told us is that before the second Vatican council there was ahistorical scholasticism that didn't really care about the fathers and cared more so about logic chopping this just isn't the case we actually look into 19th century theology we actually see that the opposite is the case in this video I wanted to introduce to you one of the greatest theologians of the 19th century Joseph Matias Shaban shaban was part of a group of theologians called the Collegio Romano theologians these theologians were known for combining together the history of scholastic theology in the medieval and Baroque eras and the historical research of the 19th century this is what makes this era of theology probably one of the most fruitful in the entire era of the church other famous representatives of the school include Cardinal Giovani Peron and Cardinal Johannes Baptist Franelin but in this video we're going to focus on Sheban because Sheban wrote a famous handbook of dogmatic theology in this handbook he draws very much from the Eastern fathers so his section on the filioquay is one of the best that I've ever read in it after going through the history of the controversy and the various different arguments that are classically given such as by Pavius he goes on to give nine different ways in which denying the filioquay actually destroys and tears apart the trinity grouping these into three different categories first that denying it tears apart and splits the trinity second that denying it confuses and destroys the unity of the Trinity third that denying it mutilates the Trinity he describes the first category as quote "The heresy of the schism tears apart and splits the Trinity one by one." The first way under this that he gives is quote it tears apart the unity of the immediate and direct union of the Holy Ghost with the Son since this can lie only in the relation of origin and at the same time makes the holy ghost no longer spirit of the son in particular not the son's own spirit in Catholic theology since the spirit proceeds from the sun there is an immediate relationship between the spirit and the sun not merely by essence but also by origination on the other hand for the fodians they do not have this immediate connection between the sun and the spirit thus replacing the union by origin and by procession that the Catholics posit that reposited by the church fathers with a lesser unity whether merely by essence or also by communication of energies the second way that he gives is quote it breaks up the unity of the perfect communion between father and son by dent of which the son must have everything in common with the father except fatherhood not only does this tear apart the union between the son and the spirit it also tears apart the union between the father and the son because in Catholic theology the father and the son are united in the fact that they are one principle of the spirit because by the beginning of the son the father has communicated the power of spiration to the son but for the fodians there is not this aspect of unity between the father and the son but only unity that follows from the beginning of the sun the third way he gives is that quote it splits the indivisible unity of the father in himself in that his character of spirator or probleas no longer appears to be contained in his fatherhood and founded their own but rather suddenly standing alongside his fatherhood must constitute a person just like the latter does and therefore two persons are made out of the father for the fodians the father's role as father and the father's role as spyrator of the spirit are completely disconnected from one another one is not founded upon the other or contained in the other the only relation that they have to one another is that they happen to be possessed by the same person on the other hand for Catholics there's an intimate relationship between these two processions in the father for the father gives the power of spiration to the son in the beginning of the son thus retaining a full unity between these two processions in the person of the father therefore the fodians not only split the son and the spirit but also the son and the father and even the father himself now she describes the second category as quote the heresy of the schism confuses and destroys the unity of the trinity as a whole end quote the first way he gives is quote it annihilates the fixed order in sequence by virtue of which the three persons form a continuous golden chain for Catholics the trinity forms a continuous golden chain the father begetting the son and then the father and the son spirating the spirit and this golden chain is actually something frequently reflected in petristic analogies an example of this can be the classical analogy between the root the branch and the fruit under this aspect we can see that the Catholic view not only has immediate union and order between the persons individually but also the trinity as a whole has a complete order between the first second and third persons on the other hand the Fodian view really only has one first person then two second persons without any sort of order between the second and the third person in the processions thus the Fodian view can be viewed as forming some sort of right angle with the father on top than the two processions down the side next to each other without any sort of order between them the second way that he gives is quote it destroys the organic union of the two trinitarian processions as it was so strongly emphasized precisely by the Greek fathers whereby they are interdependent in mesh one proceeding from the other and one aimed at the other in the Catholic view there is a mutual dependence between the two processions the beginning of the sun contains spiration of the spirit since the power to spirate is given to the sun in the beginning of the sun and then the beginning of the sun is for the sake of the spiration of the spirit on the other hand in the fodium view there is no interdependence between the two processions rather they simply stand next to each other not forming that golden chain that we see in Catholic trinitarian theology the third way he gives is quote above all it destroys the comprehensive concentation of the divine persons by virtue of which every single one being immediately related to the two others each in a particular way forms a connecting link for the two others thus the Greek fathers emphasize the middle position of the son between the father and the holy ghost in that the son by proceeding from the father causes the holy ghost to proceed from himself and thus through him the father enters into relation to the holy ghost and the holy ghost is united with the father through him the latin fathers in contrast emphasize chiefly that the holy ghost as the outpouring of their mutual love is the connecting link or the formal bond kiss or embrace between the father and the son end quote this one is a bit harder to understand so I will make it easy as I can the point is that in the Catholic view there is both union and there is also immediate relation for Catholics there's immediate relation between the father and the son and then the father and the spirit and also the son and the father and the son and the spirit and the spirit and the father and the spirit and the son and also the son is the union between the father and the spirit the spirit is the union between the father and the son in order to make this easier I will split this into a number of propositions first the father is immediately related to the son and that he beggets him and the spirit in that he spirates him second the son is immediately related to the father and that he is begotten of him and the spirit in that he spirates him third the spirit is immediately related to the father and that he proceeds from him and the son in that he proceeds from him yet we already went over these three points above rather the important part is that the father is the union of the son and the spirit the son the union of the father and the spirit and the spirit the union of the father and the son first the father is the unity of the spirit and the son since he is their ultimate f source and principle what the Greek fathers call the ita or cause second the son is the unity of the father and the spirit and that it is by or through the son that the father spirates the spirit in giving him the spirit of power this is why the Greek fathers refer to the son as the medium or means whereby the father spirates the spirit this is also why they generally use the language of through third the spirit is the unity of the father and the son and that they come together to spirate him and he is the fruit of their union this is something more emphasized in the augustinian tradition for the Fodians while the father certainly can be said to be the union of the spirit and the son the son certainly can't be the union of the father and the spirit nor the spirit the union of the father and the son he describes the third category as quote the heresy of the schism mutilates the trinity one by one and as a whole the first way in relation to the father is that quote the father is perfect father only when he can and does give the son through begetting everything that he himself possesses and consequently gives him also all the fruitfulness that is compatible with the hypothatic character of the son in the Catholic view the father is a most perfect father because he gives everything that he can to the son now obviously paternity is something that he can't give since something cannot be get itself but in the fodium view the father holds something back from the son that he could give to the son that is the power to spirate the spirit the second way in relation to the son is that quote the son is a perfect son only when he is similar and equal to the father and the spiration also and when in particular the spirit of the father is his spirit too precisely by dent of his generation from the father and is not communicated to him only through the second act of the father end quote this follows naturally from the relationship between a father and the son a son is like his father and has some sort of similarity to his father now the father is father because he is the principle of the son therefore if the son is like the father the son also will be principle of another person on the other hand in the fodium view the son is like the father only because the son shares the same essence as the father thus there is no more reason why the son is called the son than the spirit is called the son since they both share the same essence with the father the third way in relation to the spirit is that quote the holy ghost however is conceivable not only as perfect spirit but also generally as a particular person only because the son is related to him as his principle for one it is an axiom already adopted by the church fathers that all personal distinctions in God are only established through origins and also can be asserted only between principle and product two in God no distinction is conceivable that did not at the same time include the most intimate most immediate union of those who are distinguished and three indeed since according to the Greek fathers the father brings forth the holy ghost only through the son not alongside the son the holy ghost would not emerge from the son but rather would remain one with him if the son did not cause him to proceed from him." End quote let's unpack this last reason one by one first personal distinction in the godhead flows from origin thus without a relationship of origin between the spirit and the son there would be no personal distinction to read more about this check out St thomas's suma primapar's question 36 article 2 on the other hand in the orthodox view there would have to be a personal distinction between the son and the spirit that does not depend upon origin upon their procession but upon something completely different second in God anytime there is distinction there's also united it's this distinction a most intimate union thus it is only by a procession which unites father and son that there is a distinction between father and son yet in the fodium view there is a distinction that occurs that is a distinction between the son and spirit which does not follow this pattern of maximal unity since there is no immediate union between the son and the spirit third on the other hand since personal distinction flows from origin where one tries to make it without such origination the distinction completely collapses there's actually an analogy in the godhead for what would happen the father has two relations one to the son and the other to the spirit yet due to the fact that there is no opposition between these relations by procession there's still only one person of the father if the son and the spirit were both related to the father and not opposed to each other they would collapse into one person just as the father is one person i hope you guys enjoyed this video if you really enjoyed it and would like to support me please go to patreon.com/millingtonist and become a patron each week I have a bonus stream where I talk about a random topic that I usually wouldn't cover in public anyways as always God bless let's be honest you probably have a very difficult time understanding the doctrine of the trinity much of the discourse about the Trinity that has taken place in online communities have basically amounted to different types of debates between trinitarians and anti-trinitarians most of it is centered around refuting specific arguments or maybe showing that the Trinity is actually from scripture but this discourse is completely impoverished and one of the areas that are most vital to understanding the trinity never even gets spoken about in this area is the question of what a relation is ever since the Aryan crisis the idea of a relation has always been invoked by the defenders of the Trinity yet it seems like nobody talks about what a relation is today and for some figures even speaking about relations are anathema while in the past I've done videos on certain figures like St augustine St sirill St basil and St botheus and how they used relation in order to defeat the heretics of their day and I also did a video on relation and how it proves the Trinity i've never actually done a standalone video on relation what relation is and actually how relation is the key to understanding the Trinity and I thought it was time for me to do a standalone video on relation in order to understand what relation is let's go all the way back to the beginning of discourse on this topic which is found in Aristotle aristotle's comments on relation which are found in categories 7 is actually one of the texts that the fathers very frequently go to when they're discussing the trinity whether explicitly or implicitly the reason that this text becomes so important is because this was actually one of the few texts along with on interpretation that were widely available to fathers both east and west for example St augustine writes about reading the categories when he was a young man quote "When scarce 20 years old a book of Aristotle entitled the 10 categories fell into my hands on whose very name I hung as on something great and divine when my rhetoric master of Carthage and others who were esteemed learned referred to it with cheeks swelling with pride I read it alone and understood it and on my conferring with others who said that with the assistance of very able masters who not only explained it orally but drew many things in the dust they scarcely understood it and could tell me no more about it than I had acquired in reading it by myself alone and the book appeared to me to speak plainly enough of substances such as man is and of their qualities such as the figure of man of what kind it is and his stature how many feet high and his relationship whose brother he is or where placed or where born or where he stands or sits or is shaw or armed or does or suffers anything and whatever innumerable things might be classed under these nine categories of which I've given some examples or under the chief category of substance end quote in this work Aristotle intends to lay out the 10 different categories which encompass everything that we could say about something and therefore everything that is true so for example if I say this is a dog I'm signifying the category of substance but there are actually many other things I could predicate of this dog such as the dog is white the dog is large the dog is small and so on and so forth and these others constitute nine other categories which are commonly known as the nine accidents let's say I say the dog is brown by predicating brown to the dog I'm predicating a certain quality or if I say the dog is 25 lb by predicating 25 lb to the dog I'm predicating a certain quantity and so on and so forth now I could keep going on but you get the idea so what distinguishes this category of substance from the nine categories of accidents while substances are apt to exist in themselves but on the other hand accidents are apt to exist in another so the brownness is the brownness of a dog or the 25 lbness is the 25 lbness of a dog these are things which exist in something else you can't speak abstractly of brownness except obviously as an idea in the intellect and the same thing with a certain size like 25 lb when it comes to an accident an accident is always predicated of a substance this actually indicates that there is a two-fold nature to an accident on the one hand there is what's called the in essay of an accident the fact that it exists in another thing and then there's also the ratio of an accident which basically indicates the formal aspect so what makes it an accident which is its in essay and then what makes it a certain type of accident which is draatopropria it is important to note that these are not two separate parts of an accident but rather they're two different aspects of the same accident you can think about it like two sides of the same coin so when we think about something like quality and we think about something like quantity they both have an essay they both exist in something and therefore are accidents but on the other hand their properio are different let's take something like quantity the fact that quantity exists in something else does not make it quantity rather the fact that it exists in something else makes it an accident but the very way in which it modifies substance by extending it in space that's what makes it quantity so that's the ratio of quantity but the in essay merely makes it an accident so here we have the two-fold aspect of accident so I told you guys that this was a video about relation i keep yapping about substance and accident and quantity and quality in an essay and all of this stuff but you guys just want to know about relation so what is a relation well first relation is one of the 10 categories obviously it's not substance so it's one of the nine accidents so relation is one of the nine categories that has an essay now what distinguishes it from the others what is its ratio well rachioropria is the fact that it indicates some sort of order to another here we're able to distinguish the two-fold aspect of a relation in so far as it has an essay or we usually say essay in it is an accident but in so far as it has some sort of order to another we can say that it is relation so when we look at other accidents like quantity quality action and the like all of these have essay in this is completely correct but none of those have essay odd because essay odd is the ratio of an accident now as I said before I need to emphasize again essay in and essay odd are not two different separate parts to an accident or anything like that these are two different aspects of an accident it's like two sides of the same coin this is going to be extremely important later so you guys need to remember this okay but in the meantime let's make this a little bit less abstract and look at some concrete examples a mother is the mother of a son and a son is the son of a mother the mother has the relationship of maternity to the son the son has the relation of affiliation to the mother or we could look at relations of quantity the 50 lb dog is twice the size of the 25lb dog and the 25 lb dog is half the size of the 50 lb dog both of these are relations now there's something important to notice when I'm giving these examples when it comes to both of these examples the relation isn't between two things usually we think of relation as we would relationship so when we think about a marriage the relationship between the two is a single relationship but this is not how the ancients thought of relation rather relation exists in a certain subject towards another so if we thought about a married couple there would be two relations the relation of the husband to the wife and the relation of the wife to the husband and this would form what we would call marriage so relation exists in one subject not in two subjects that's very important but since relations are co-relative in most cases when you have the relationship in one you have the relationship in the other so you can't have the husband of a wife without the wife of a husband but it's very important to remember that this isn't one relation this is two relations okay from this we're actually able to indicate what all of the different aspects to a relation are first there is the subject of a relation obviously since relation is an accident relation is going to be predicated of something so when we think about the father being the father of the son father is the subject of the relation father has the relation remember it's not between two it's of one to another second we have the foundation for the relation there needs to be some sort of action which is going to establish the relation or in some cases like we saw above technically we could have quantity which establishes the relation so the dog which is 50 lb and double the size of the 25-lb dog quantity establishes this relation but for our purposes we're going to think about action so when we have the father of a son the beginning of the son is the foundation which establishes the relation of father to son and third we have the terminus of the relation so the terminus of the relation is going to be what the subject is related to so in our example father of the son father is subject beginning is action or foundation and son is the terminus of the relation so now that we have all of the natural philosophy stuff out of the way we're thinking about what relation is what are the different aspects of relation what is the formal aspect the raopropria of relation what are the other categories everything like that now that we have all of this out of the way we can finally look at how relation could possibly be predicated of God the 13th century Dominican and common doctor of the Catholic Church St thomas Aquinus was able to outline this problem extremely well in Isuma theologia so it's going to be that very order that I'm going to follow in the remainder of this video now I want to make something clear before I begin i am not trying to demonstrate the existence of the Trinity from reason to demonstrate the existence of the Trinity from reason is heretical it has been condemned by the church on numerous occasions so I'm not trying to do that rather what I am doing is on the supposition that there is revelation I'm showing that what is revealed is coherent amongst itself i am merely explaining what the teaching of revelation is what is a teaching of scripture as interpreted by the tradition and handed down by the church that is all that I'm doing here okay none of you guys should try to use what I'm about to say as a demonstrative argument for the trinity st thomas says don't do this catholic churches don't do this now I did a video on this and I wrote an academia paper on this so if you want to know more about why we can't prove the trinity from natural reason you can read those but here I am merely providing an explanation and some sort of natural congruence for the teaching on the trinity now let's get back to seeing how relation can be predicated of God because as we went over above there are three aspects to a relation there is the subject there's the terminus and there's the foundation so obviously if we wanted to discuss the persons and the persons are based on the relations we're going to want to start out with the foundation so we're going to start with foundation and then we're going to go to relation and then we're going to go to persons this is exactly what St thomas does in question 27 he looks at the foundation and the foundation is some sort of act which is procession question 28 he looks at real relations and in question 29 and following he looks at personhood this is very important starting with the foundation as we covered above there are two possible foundations for a real relation on the one hand it can be quantity and on the other hand it can be a certain action now we know that God obviously does not have quantity because quantity is necessarily going to be in reference to some sort of extension and obviously God isn't somehow extended further quantity follows upon the material aspect of something and there is no material aspect of God so obviously we're not going to be able to found relation on that but can we found it on action so in order to consider whether it can be found on action we need to look at the two types of action that an agent can have on the one hand action can be transient transient action is action that goes outside of the agent so for example if I pick up a ball and throw it that is transient action now obviously transient action cannot be what we're looking for because nothing that is outside of God can be God that would be ridiculous but on the other hand we can actually look at imminent action so imminent action is action that happens within the agent and its terminus does not pass outside of the agent so for example thinking and willing when I think and I will and I keep it within myself that is an imminent action so possibly when we're thinking about a relation in God if there were such a relation we should be looking not at quantity that's impossible not at transient action that's impossible but only at imminent action we've considered all of the possibilities so the only one left is going to be imminent action now we're able to narrow the question down a lot rather than simply asking is there relation in God or is there some sort of foundation for relation we're able to ask the particular question is there something in God which could provide the foundation for relation in being an imminent act now does God have imminent acts it's a great question well God has two faculties which are capable for imminent acts god has an intellect and God has a will so he has these two faculties which are able to produce its termini or its product if you want to put it like that inside the agent rather than outside of the agent so we can ask the question does the intellect and does the will produce such a thing now when it comes to these actions we actually see something very interesting when we consider intellects we see that intellects are very fruitful intellects actually in understanding something produce a concept or we sometimes call it an interior word so for example if I'm looking at a cup and I'm considering cupness a little cup is produced by my intellect so I can know the cup through that thing this is called an intentional image or concept or word any one of those uh ideas can be used to describe this but whatever it is we know that our intellect is fruitful our intellect produces things within us now we can actually go even further than this when we consider not something outside of us but we consider our very selves we actually produce an intentional image of our self within us we produce a concept or word of oursel within us we actually produce a little accidental self within our intellects yet as I said this is accidental my intellect is imperfect my intellect is limited so anything that my intellect produces is merely going to be an image or shadow of the reality it's obviously not going to be the reality itself i can't just think of a cup and then produce a real cup in my intellect it's not how it works but things work slightly differently when we consider God god doesn't need to produce these concepts in his intellect in order to understand things god in his eminence in his perfection contains all things within himself in a more perfect mode by the perfection of the divinity so God merely needs to gaze at himself and in knowing himself he can know all things but we ask that second question just like I can know the cup and produce the intentional image of the cup in my intellect and further I can know myself and produce the intentional image of myself in the intellect i can produce a little me in the intellect what would happen if God rather than simply considering created things in his own divinity he actually considered himself could there be a fruitful production of a word could there be this fruitful production of a concept could there be this infinite communication not merely of intentional being not merely of a word like in my intellect not merely of a shadow an image of the reality but God in his perfection rather than being limited like my intellect is could in the consideration of himself he actually communicate his divinity this communication wouldn't be like my intellect my intellect when I consider myself it's something limited it's something accidental something fleeting this is the divine intellect the divine intellect would not produce something accidental shadowy fleeing or anything like that it wouldn't merely communicate ate intentional being it would communicate the entirety of the deity it would produce a word that is not merely a representation of God it would produce a word that is God this according to Christian theology is the foundation for the relation this is the action that forms that foundation of the father to the word and of the word to the father for those who don't know word is another name for God the son yet there's not only one faculty in God god does not only have an intellect god also has a will and this will as in us produces love so if we go through the same process to where we consider something and we have this impulse of love within us and we consider this on the part of God there would be just as there is a word there would also be a spirit and this is what we refer to as the Holy Spirit so these two are the two actions that we found the divine relations on yet does this stay a mere action within God or does this actually produce a relationship between a subject and its terminus it would seem of course quite fitting that we think of this as actually producing some sort of terminus as actually including the production of a word and the production of a spirit but there are obviously some difficulties at hand it seems absolutely and utterly possible it actually might even seem absurd that we have this communication of the divinity this entire incomplete communication of the divinity and it result in real distinction we look at certain created examples for example a father who has the action of begetting which founds the relationship with a son it's very easy to think of these two as having relations one to the other why well because they're really distinct this one is really distinct by its matter and that one's really distinct by its matter they both have human nature but they have two different individualizations or particularizations of human nature so it's very easy for us to think about relations one to another but in God we don't have this material distinction or numerical distinction between two divinities rather we have the one same simple united divinity so how can we even speak of these two as distinct one to the other it makes no sense how can we even speak of this relation the solution to this problem is actually quite simple and it relies on what we discussed before concerning relation because if you remember there are two aspects to relation there's the essay in of relation and there's the essay odd of relation the essay odd is what forms the proper ratio of relation so in order for there to be a relation there simply needs to be this order to another well every accident has this two-fold aspect of the essay in in the properio relation is unique because when we look at all of the accidents besides relation not only does imperfection enter into its essay in but imperfection enters into its proper ratio so let's take for example quantity quantity involves the idea of materiality as we went over above or if we think about quality quality is going to somehow change the subject but relation's unique why is relation unique well relation doesn't somehow modify the subject rather relation involves simply an order to another so when it comes to all of the other accidents all of the other accidents are merely metaphorically applied to God but when it comes to relation while relation isn't predicated as an accident still its proper ratio can be retained so if we're able to show some sort of foundation such as the imminent acts above then it's perfectly rational to retain the essay odd of the relation and therefore its proper ratio this is why for the fathers there were only two proper predicates of god either terms were absolute or terms were relative anything else was somehow metaphorical or not said to be in God this is all going to become very very important in 1 second and we're going to completely resolve the objection but first in order for clarity sake let's go over what the first procession is and how the first procession has these two relations the first procession that we went over is the procession of intellect what does the procession of intellect involve because as we went over before unlike our modern use of the term relationship for these actions these actions found two relations the relation of the subject to its terminus and we can think of the terminus being related to the subject so when it comes to this action which is intellectual generation we're going to have the relation of paternity which is the relation of the father to the word and the relationship of affiliation which is the relation of the word to the father these are going to be the two relations which are brought forward but there's a difficulty because we said that there's numerically one divinity how can the father and the word be the self-same god be the self-same divinity have numerically the same attributes one holiness one goodness one love and so on and so forth how can we predicate this well it comes down to what we said above there is a two-fold aspect to relation the essay in and the essay odd we say that the father and the son share the same essay in which is going to cover things like existence love goodness ness divinity so on and so forth on the other hand we say that they are distinct in their essay odd this is where we're going to hit our intellectual limits because there never has been nor will there ever be an argument that this is impossible there is no argument which can conclude that this is impossible the essay in of two relations can be the same so the divinity can be the same and all that distinguishes these two are going to be by the essay odd there's no argument which can disprove this we've tried we've answered every objection that there is there is no argument against this now the issue that many of you are going to have is it's really hard to wrap your head around it's actually impossible to wrap your head around this you can't imagine it because you're so used to thinking in material and individual ways it's very hard to abstract but what you need to do is you can't follow your emotions or your feelings or your first impressions about something you have to do the hard intellectual work if you cannot see a contradiction then you cannot somehow exclude this necessarily so what is the contradiction guys what is the so-called impossibility for these two relations to have distinct essay odd but to share the same essay in where's the argument we've been trying for a very long time to give good arguments against our own positions it's actually what scholasticism is famous for but we've never been able to give an argument showing that this is impossible the fact that you can't wrap your mind around it or the fact that you can't visualize it does not mean that it's somehow untrue rather we need to be men we need to think with our minds think with our intellects we need to determine things on the basis of argumentation not on the basis of feelings and not on the basis of whether you can imagine something in your minds rather we can declare with confidence that there is no contradiction when it comes to this declaration of Catholic theology so this is going to be the peak right here of this entire video is that this distinction when it comes to relation the nature of relation in general is going to vindicate what we claim about the unity and the distinction of the persons as we went over above relation is special it does not somehow modify a subject rather it indicates the order of a subject to its terminus this is why we're allowed to say relative things of God in a proper way on the other hand when it comes to the other accidents they don't simply modify its order but they modify the subject itself and therefore this would be somehow repugnant to the divine simplicity and perfection so as weird as it sounds that the subject and the terminus of a relation have the same sa in it is actually not impossible and there never has been and there never will be an argument to show that this is impossible we need to be careful to remember that we ought not to follow our own limitations and our imagination or our passions or our prejudices when we do this type of theology this type of theology is hard it's difficult it's abstract it takes a lot of mental toil so we ought not to follow these passions or prejudices or they will always lead us down a bad path rather we need to purely follow where reason and revelation lead us and when you follow reason you see that there is no possible way to say that what we declare about relation it's two-fold aspect and its relation to the one single simple divinity is impossible we see that there is no way and there never has been an argument which declares this to be impossible this same of course is going to apply to the second procession the second procession which we call the procession of valition or the procession of love so we're going to have the father and the son as the subject of active spiration and the holy spirit of as the terminus and when it comes to passive spiration the spirit is going to be the subject and the father and the son are going to be the terminus of this relation and of course the relation on both sides has its foundation in the action which is the action of spiration finally we can invoke something called the relative opposition when it comes to any relation that we could ever give there's going to be a real distinction between the subject and the terminus if it is a real relation so by positing a real relation with a real foundation we are necessarily going to posit a real distinction so when it comes to the procession of the word and the procession of the spirit one which flows upon intellection and the other which flows upon distinction so when we look at the two processions we're going to see that if there is a real act which is present a real act of intellection or a real act of valition and these truly produce termini the one produces the word and the other produces the spirit and from this there is a real relation we're going to see that this real relation is necessarily going to lead to relative opposition and when you have this relative opposition which is the lack of identity between the subject and the terminus of a relation then necessarily we're going to posit distinction real distinction between the subject and the terminus therefore we can say that the father is really distinct from the son and the father and the son are really distinct from the spirit and this happens by way of relative opposition and this actually clarifies something for us because a lot of you might be thinking well there's two processions so from these two processions there must be four persons since as I said above when it comes to each one of these acts there's going to be relations on either side but what we see is that when it comes to active spiration the active spiration that is present in the father and the son there is no relative opposition between paternity and active spiration there is no relative opposition between phiation and active spiration therefore paternity in active aspiration and affiliation in active aspiration can exist in the same subject in the same way that you might have a teacher who teaches two students and therefore has these two relations yet it's not like he somehow doubles his teaching he only has one teaching in a similar way we can think about how intellection and valition produce really distinct termini because it would seem that since intellect and will are not really distinct in God due to divine simplicity that therefore they could not produce really distinct termini now this would actually be true if there was no relative opposition if there was no relative opposition between the terminus of intellection and the terminus of valition they would collapse into one now what does this prove well this proves that the terminus of intellection that is the sun or the word somehow is also the subject of active spiration because unless this was the case there would be no relative opposition between the word and the spirit it's only by this relative opposition that you're able to distinguish the termini of both processions and therefore this proves the Latin teaching on the filioquay but I did another video on this argument in particular so I would encourage if you want to know more about that to watch that video thus far we've established quite a few things let's go over them before we move on first we've established that a relation is one of the categories second we have established that relation has two aspects essay in and essay odd the latter of which is the proper ratio of a relation third we have established that due to the nature of essay odd that unlike the other categories relation can be properly predicated of God fourth we have established that there are three aspects of relation subject foundation and terminus fifth we have established that the only foundation for relation that could be predicated to God is action sixth we have established that there are two faculties that can act in such a way intellect and will seventh we have established that each of these processions will result in two relations thus there are four in God paternity affiliation active spiration and quasi passive spiration eighth we have established that there is nothing contrary for these four relations mentioned above to share the same essay in but to be distinct as to essay odd which properly constitutes relation ninth we have established that real relation necessarily leads us to concede real distinction but what else is there left for us to demonstrate it seems that we've went over everything well we actually just still need to demonstrate that the subject and the terminus of each one of these relations is going to be a person there's actually very much confusion on what it means to be a person what does it mean when we say that the trinity is one nature three persons what does this word person mean some heretics like William Lane Craig or others would like to pretend that person somehow indicates some sort of self-mastery of intellect and will and therefore when he posits three persons he's going to posit three intellects three wills he's going to posit three everything uh when it comes to the trinity and then kind of post hawk still claim that there is one God as I say the biblical data teach that there are exactly three persons father son and holy spirit who are properly called god and so those of us who are social trinitarians uh take this very seriously and literally that there are three centers of self-consciousness ah pain pain to my Latin soul my Latin blood courses hot through my [Music] veins pain it's pain it's such pain centers of consciousness who came up with that nonsense who came up with it who came up with that nonsense in essence anything that holds to threeness in God besides the threeness of relation is going to somehow multiply the essay in and if you multiply the SA you're going to multiply not what's relative in God and therefore multiply the persons but you're going to multiply what is absolute in God and therefore multiply the divinity so any other multiplication besides relation is going to lead to multiple gods it's going to lead to very bad things so how are we defining personhood well when the ancients defined personhood rather than thinking about something as to personal dignity or something as to personal awareness or something as to individually possessing an intellect or individually possessing a will rather than thinking about something like that they thought of something very different the intention of the ancients when considering personhood was to consider how there is an individual iteration of something so if we think about something like humanity humanity is going to refer to the universal it's going to refer to the communicable humanity is abstract so humanity is communicable to multiple different individuals there could be multiple different individuals that are contained in the category of humanity but when it comes to Peter or Paul or Thomas or whoever these individual iterations are incommunicable so we see that the foundation isn't necessarily that there is some sort of individual iteration numerically individual iteration of humanity in Peter or a numerically individual iteration of humanity in Paul these are merely accidental to whether there is actually a person or not rather what's important is whether there is communicability so when it comes to the trinity are the subject and the terminus by the real relation they have with one another is this communicable or is it incommunicable could paternity be communicated no of course not could affiliation be communicated of course not could passive spiration be communicated of course not so because these can't be communicated then by definition because we have an incommunicable possession we have personhood because we're talking about something which is intellectual and not merely a rock or a stick or a stone we actually do have personhood in this case thus definitionally if you are going to concede processions you need to concede relations and if you're going to concede relations you're going to need to concede relative opposition and if you're going to concede relative opposition you're going to concede real distinction and if you concede real distinction you're going to concede persons so we have completely and utterly verified the teaching of the Catholic Church there are four relations the four relations are paternity affiliation active spiration passive spiration there are three persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and there are two processions the procession of intellection the procession of valition and we hold all of this but we also hold that there is one God and we are able to do this by the key which unlocks everything else which is relation but that's all that I have for you guys as always God bless eastern Orthodox this is for Astra by the way researchers Orthodox object that seeing the divine essence yet not comprehending it doesn't make sense and that we Catholics if we don't have the intermediary of energies have no touch with God why that's that's my response i don't know what else I can say like why why is it not like necessary like why do you need to have these intermediary energies to have a true connection with God what necessitates that if the objection is well God cannot reach us through created mediums well then did the the wine bird unite himself to a to an uncreated human nature or created one if it's created then it's possible for a created medium and for God to reach us uh through that and as for the energies themselves which they deem to be uncreated well they have to explain what kind of distinction there exists between the essence and energy because if it's a real distinction then that's going to imply composition because um they are either united or not united of course they're going to say united from eternity but that means composition because composition is basically the union of two distinct extremes one is the essence the other is energies besides if they're really distinct that means that divine essence in itself lacks the perfections and is only perfect if you posit eternal and separate energies besides from all eternity so an example of this would be like this there exists a divine essence without the divine energy of knowledge the divine essence wouldn't be said to be knowing so God's essence cannot have knowledge if there's no energy of knowledge eternally and inseparably united to it so that means if you consider the divine essence in itself it's not knowing it's not knowledgeable so it's deficient so that means if energies and essence are really distinct the divine essence is deficient and perfected by something other than itself which means God's essence stands in relation to his energies as potency to act but that's impossible basically uh it doesn't matter if you hold to energies because we hold to energies too what ma what matters is that what kind of distinction exists between it and if it's real then it's just not awesome sorry I just uh I just decided to do the worst thing ever and check Twitter and there's people complaining about the hijab game over no but actually I I I had to think about this when it came to justification because people were asking me this question when it came to you know participation like how do we participate or have union with God unless there's the energies and the question is really easy is what do you mean by participate well participate just means communicated likeness it's not really that you know it's not that that difficult like yeah some people think that like my child participates in my likeness you know steel participates in the heat of fire all the means of participated likeness so with the infusion of sanctifying grace sanctifying grace the formal and physical yet accidental and analogous participation in the divine nature so sanctifying grace is a participation of the divine nature so we have the participation of the divine nature uh right there by a participated likeness and a union is the same thing is uh union occurs by uh a bunch of different modes i'm united to my wife in matrimony i am united to Astro and that we're both humans and that we're both Catholics as well i well technically um I'm united I'm united to my viewers um in that they're hearing and uh in listening and understanding what I'm saying right now there's multiple ways in which you can be united to something but the the orthodox very often in order to bring forward their palomite novelties what they'll attempt to do is they'll attempt to use these words of participation and union as like Hindu magic terms and really it's not it's not like that and if they actually took 5 seconds to think about how participation and union happen in their day-to-day life they would realize that the standard that they're holding uh us to is just ridiculous yeah they they think like participation is basically a swimming water pool where you can swim there and that's how you participate like that's not how it works yeah when it comes to chasming the capid ocean fathers no they don't deny the pic vision a lot of times what fathers are denying and it's kind of weird that people will use these texts is they're denying either on the one hand the comprehension of the divine nature yeah which obviously on the other hand they're denying the view the vision of the divine nature with bodily eyes which we we don't think that the beatific vision happens by vision of of the bodily eyes like duh St many times will say explicitly that million times that the divine is incomprehensible so true yeah go read first sentence of Suma controgent book four [Music] the aspect of the divine essence it was an activity of God whether created or uncre how can how can an how can something be uncreated and be material yeah yeah how like you're telling me I can just put my hand into the into the uncreated and just take it out yeah some eels just with the uh with the uh the holy fire it's the It's the holy fire is uncreated yeah yeah you can put water and extinguish something that's uncreated is that right yeah i mean this is worse than like I mean at least the pagans thought that the gods were you know a fish or you know a a cow or something like that you guys think he's literally just like a little material flame like it's terrible that's I don't know how you can't understand the blasphemy of saying that God that the little sparks of fire are uncreated it's terrible yeah like you can say that energy by which God created that burning bush is uncreative because God's energy is uncreated eternal it's in fact but to say that the effect itself you're seeing there is uncreated is just crazy any Catholic who's been on the internet for a while has probably heard the accusation that the sacred heart is notorium this is actually quite an old accusation it isn't something which is unique with the Orthodox this is an accusation that actually was first given by the Jansenists 18th century Italian Jansenist Giovani Batista wrote "Quote the devotion to the heart of Jesus is contrary to the spirit of the church childish superstitious and tends toward notorianism and Pelagianism." End quote like many of the accusations that internet orthodox have against Catholics this was an accusation which was revived from Jansenism by 20th century Orthodox who were living in the west moreover this was popularized as many of these narratives were by Father Saraphim Rose about 2 weeks ago Pope Francis released an encyclical on the sacred heart and actually in this encyclical he gives insight into this controversy he gives insight on two points one what the theologians call the distinction between the material versus formal object of the devotion and two the idea of a natural image both of these points are very important to understanding what the devotion to the sacred heart is and why it is important i'll give you an example when one prays the litany of the sacred heart at one point in the prayer we say "He heart of Jesus pierced by a lance have mercy on us." Now here we are obviously speaking about the physical organ that is located in the chest of our Lord yet at other points we pray something like part of Jesus a flame with love for us have mercy on us or part of Jesus wellspring of all virtue have mercy on us here as in most other instances we're using heart in a wider sense to refer to the affections of Christ or even the effects that Christ has on us yet at other times we even refer to the divinity itself such as when we say a heart of Jesus infinite in majesty have mercy on us but at other times we clearly speak of the humanity such as when we say heart of Jesus formed by the holy spirit in the womb of the virgin mother have mercy on us so what's going on here theologians make a distinction between the material and formal objects of the devotion but Pope Francis states it a much simpler way writing quote everything finds its unity in the heart which can be the dwelling place of love in all its spiritual psychic and even physical dimensions end quote further in another place he writes quote universal human experience has made the image of the heart something unique the language of poetry reflects the power of these experiences in the course of history the heart has taken on unique symbolic value that is more than merely conventional end quote therefore when we refer to the devotion to the sacred heart we do not merely refer to the corporeal organ even to the soul that is the origin of Christ's love but to the source and origin of each and every level of Christ's love both divine and human this is what Pope Francis refers to as the quote effective center of the human being end quote in this Pope Francis distinguishes between a three-fold love one the infinite divine love of Christ two the spiritual love of Christ humanity and three the sensible love of Christ humanity in this Pope Francis distinguishes between a three-fold love one the infinite divine love of Christ two the spiritual love of Christ humanity and three the sensible love of Christ humanity you may ask what the distinction between the spiritual love and sensible love of Christ humanity is it is actually quite simple traditionally we distinguish between two levels of the soul the higher level which has the intellect and will and the lower level which has the appetites from which flow the passions so all Pope Francis means to say is that the devotion of the sacred heart encompasses both these parts of man now it is important to realize that in Christ there is what's called a moral union of these three loves the church has always rejected the heresy of the Apollinarians who attempted to remove the reality of Christ's human soul and the heresy of the Julianists who attempted to remove the reality of Christ's passions yet the church also recognizes that these three levels always work in unison with one another but there's a practical issue here we have these three loves which work in unison with one another but it can be difficult to ground their union and some sort of image or symbol in order to ground this union we look to the symbol that many cultures in sacred scripture itself uses as the point of unity for these affections which is the heart the physical heart becomes the symbol of the united work of these three loves therefore Pope Francis writes quote "We cannot attain our fulfillment as human beings unless we open our hearts to others only through love do we become fully ourselves the deepest part of us created for love will fulfill God's plan only if we learn to love and the heart is the symbol of that love the eternal son of God in his utter transcendence chose to love each of us with a human heart his human emotions became the sacrament of that infinite and endless love his heart then is not merely a symbol for some disembodied spiritual truth in gazing upon the Lord's heart we contemplate a physical reality his human flesh which enables him to possess genuine human emotions and feelings like ourselves albeit fully transformed by his divine love our devotion must ascend to the infinite love of the person of the son of God yet we must keep in mind that his divine love is inseparable from his human love the image of his heart of flesh helps us to do precisely this since the heart continues to be seen in the popular mind as the affective center of each human being it remains the best means of signifying the divine love of Christ united forever and inseparably to his holy human love pest I 12th observed that the gospel in referring to the love of Christ's heart speaks not only of divine charity but also of human affection indeed the heart of Jesus Christ hypothically united to the divine person of the word beyond doubt throbbed with love in every other tender affection end quote so to summarize the first part there are three levels of love that Christ has divine spiritual and sensible these three levels of love are united together to work in unison with one another now traditionally the center or unity of affection is seen as the physical heart therefore the union of these three the true object of our worship is adored as symbolized by the physical heart of Christ yet we can go further than this how does this object relate to the whole Christ pope Francis drawing from pest I 12th teaches that the united love of Christ symbolized by the physical heart is an image of the entire person of Christ and only worshiped in so far as it is united to the whole Christ quote "It is understandable then that the church has chosen the image of the heart to represent the human and divine love of Jesus Christ in the inmost core of his person yet while the depiction of a heart of fire may be an eloquent symbol of the burning love of Jesus Christ it is important that this heart be not represented apart from him the heart too has the advantage of being immediately recognizable as the profound unifying center of the body an expression of the totality of the person unlike other individual organs as a part that stands for the whole we could easily misinterpret it were we to contemplate it apart from the Lord himself the image of the heart should lead us to contemplate Christ in all the beauty and richness of his humanity and divinity end quote this is vital to understand the notorians divided the humanity of Christ from his divinity and sought to give a separate worship to the humanity of Christ we can easily become notorians if we think of the sacred heart as the veneration of a distinct object of worship rather than as a symbol for what is most noble in Christ his divine and human love yet there is something strange in this section pope Francis mentions certain aesthetic concerns about how we image the sacred heart in order to combat any misunderstanding about the object of our worship in our devotion to the sacred heart he cites two responses from the congregation of the sacred rights that in Pope Francis's words quote forbid placing on the altar representations of the heart of Jesus or Mary alone to avoid the risk of taking the heart as an object of adoration or spiritual dialogue apart from the person of Christ end quote thus in order to avoid the possible notorianizing of the devotion of the sacred heart we ought to remember that the physical heart which we venerate is not a distinct object that is separate from the person of Christ but the part of Christ which best exemplifies the whole Christ according to Pope Francis this is best symbolized by images where Christ holds his heart out to us and points to it as a point of conclusion it is actually by way of the devotion of the sacred heart that we are able to offer a remedy for notorianizing in our worship for the sacred heart allows us to worship both natures with a single act of worship in considering the united way in which both the divine and human love work for our redemption and thereby ascending from the human as the quote sacrament of the divine thus Pope Francis states quote "Entering into the heart of Christ we feel loved by a human heart filled with affections and emotions like our own." Jesus's human will freely chooses to love us and that spiritual love is flooded with grace and charity when we plunge into the depths of his heart we find ourselves overwhelmed by the immense glory of his infinite love as the eternal son which we can no longer separate from his human love it is precisely in his human love and not apart from it that we encounter his divine love we discover the infinite in the finite it is the constant and unequivocal teaching of the church that our worship of Christ's person is undivided inseparably embracing both his divine and his human natures from ancient times the church has taught that we are to adore one in the same Christ the son of God and man consisting of and in two inseparable and undivided natures and we do so with one act of adoration in as much as the word became flesh christ is in no way worshiped in two natures whereby two acts of worship are introduced instead we venerate by one act of worship the word made flesh together with his own flesh end quote one of the first things you learn about when you get into the internet Catholic versus Protestant apologetic sphere is that Luther presumably took the epistle of St james out of the Bible and called it an epistle of straw ir of goes that Luther invented his doctrine of justification by faith alone yet due to the difficulties found in James chapter 2 where St james says that we are quote justified by works and not by faith alone luther decided to remove this book so that he could continue to teach his erroneous view of justification yet is this narrative true some Lutheran have responded to this criticism by denying that Luther removed James from the Bible by pointing to an alternative ex Jesus of James 2 um but I want to just address James 2 because this comes up in in a lot of these conversations now there is uh it it's difficult and it is recognized I think by many and many of the church fathers say this as well that it is difficult to reconcile Romans chapter 4 with James chapter 2 stating that by justify and faith St james meant something completely different than St paul this controversy is actually an ancient one st augustine witnesses to the fact that when St peter said that in the epistles of St paul quote "There are some things in them hard to understand." He was specifically referring to his statements on faith and works which some misunderstood as being against the role of works in justification due to this threat St augustine witnesses that saints Jude James John and Peter wrote their epistles he states this in his work called on faith and works where he writes quote this opinion originated in the time of the apostles and that is why we find some of them for example Peter John James and Jude writing against it in their epistles and asserting very strongly that faith is no good without works end quote he further states in another place quote Unomius is said to have been hostile to good morals to such an extent that he asserted that the commission of and perseverance in any sins whatever were no obstacle to anyone if he shared the faith which you know stated end quote this is also witnessed to by St epipanius who writes quote the Unomians say it is nothing if someone falls through fornication or some other sin for they say that God only asks that one remain in their faith alone end quote but in the interest of honesty the ancient heretics that St augustine refuted are quite distinct from the errors of the Lutheran in which in that they defined faith as Catholics defined faith whereas the definitions used by the Protestants is different as Billowart admits quote "Those ancient heretics understood the faith by which they said was sufficient for salvation to be that faith by which we believe all the articles of faith but the new heretics understand it to be that special faith by which each one believes or trusts that his sins are forgiven end quote continuing the spirit of honesty the record must be corrected on two points which the Protestants bring forward truthfully first it is not true that Luther removed the book of James from the Bible the first edition of the Luther Bible was printed in 1522 and did contain St james's epistle in it from the beginning while the Lutheran apologists are correct to point this out this is not the entire story as we will see later in the video second it is not completely honest to use this as some sort of gotcha against the Lutheran it is quite true that sometimes words are used in different senses it is perfectly possible that the words faith and justify are being used in a different sense from how they are used in Luther's phrase justification by faith alone this is clear from what Billowart pointed out against those who would too quickly identify the heresy of the Lutheran with the heresy of the Unomians the Lutheran and Unomians use the word faith in different senses so it would be dishonest and equivocal to call Lutheran Yunomians for using the same phrase rather it is important to take their ex Jesus seriously and respond to it likewise demonstrating from the text that these terms take the Catholic sense the Catholic ex Jesus is simply presented by St augustine in on faith and works where he writes quote when St paul says therefore that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more what he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith even though he has not previously performed any works of the law for the works of the law are meritorious not before but after justification as regards Paul himself he does not say that any faith in God is good but he says clearly that that faith is good and in conformity with the teaching of the gospel which results in works of love and faith he says that workketh by charity as for that faith which some think is sufficient for salvation he says that it profits nothing if I should have all faith so that I could remove mountains and not have charity I am nothing on the other hand where faith is joined to charity there without doubt you will find a good life for charity is the fulfillment of the law end quote this is simply presented by Pope Benedict the 16th when he writes quote Luther's phrase faith alone is true if it is not opposed to faith in charity in love end quote as St augustine states "If one wants to read more about this they can read his work on the spirit in the letter." Beside these points it is important to remember that Luther as an individual for Protestants does not hold some sort of magisterial role luther could and did make mistakes in their mind and it is frequently admitted that he was less than clear on certain points whereas theological successors needed to clarify Lutheranism so it would be much more helpful and honest on this point to in some way for Catholic apologists to abandon Luther as a place to attempt to clearly draw forth the Lutheran doctrine on justification just as it would be helpful and honest for Catholic apologists to abandon Calvin as a place to attempt to clearly draw forth the reformed doctrine on predestination now on the other hand the Lutheran narrative cannot but strike one as evasive if not dishonest when one actually looks at the history on this point this is clear from two points first we can look at Luther's own words second we can look at early Lutheran rejections first and foremost while certain books were printed in the Lutheran Bible these were relegated to an appendix which explains the interesting order that the New Testament takes in the Lutheran Bible since it was not only James but also Hebrews Jude and Revelation that he was not a fan of this is evident from his prefaces on the books of the New Testament which I will link below and give page numbers for for your own reference in the general preface of the New Testament besides other confusing strange and at times profane statements that he gives about the New Testament books he writes his famous epistle of straw comment on page 88 he writes quote St james epistle is really an epistle of straw compared to them for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it end quote in order to understand how he determines the canonicity of Hebrews James Jude and Revelation we need to understand the principle whereby he determines canonicity luther is clear that the criterion of canonicity for him is how a certain book relates to what he believes to be the substance of the New Testament teaching that is justification by faith alone on page 127 he begins to treat the four books that he does not believe are canonical quote "Hitherto we have had the right certain chief books of the New Testament the four following had in ancient times a different reputation." End quote the first book he treats is Hebrews he gives a number of different arguments against the canonicity of the epistle one that it wasn't written by St paul two he cannot reconcile chapters 6 and 10 with his view of repentance three that it is intrinsically incoherent thus he writes quote "My opinion is that it is an epistle of many pieces put together and it does not deal with any one subject in an orderly way." End quote thus he uses the image of St paul of gold mixed with straw since he states that some parts are good other parts are not good writing quote "We should not be hindered even though wood straw or hay be mixed in with them but accept this fine teaching on the priesthood of Christ with all honor though to be sure we cannot put it on the same level with the Apostolic epistles." End quote the second book he treats is the Epistle of St james which though he famously stated that it was an epistle of straw he mixes praise and condemnation in his treatment he states quote "Though this epistle of St james was rejected by the ancients i praise it and hold it a good book because it sets up no doctrine of men and lays great stress upon God's law but to state my own opinion about it though without injury to anyone I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle end quote the first and chief reason he gives is about the doctrine of faith alone writing flatly against St paul and all the rest of the scriptures it ascribed righteousness to works and says that Abraham was justified by his works though St paul on the contrary teaches that Abraham was justified without works by faith alone." End quote yet to be fair to Luther he does provide a gloss on how this might be read in accordance with his teaching yet he still states that it makes an exogetical mistake writing quote "Now although this epistle might be helped and a gloss be found for this word righteousness it cannot be defended against applying to works the saying of Moses in Genesis 15:6 which speaks only of Abraham's faith and not of his works." As St paul shows in Romans 4 this fault therefore leads to the conclusion that it is not the work of any apostle end quote he also critiques it because it does not mention the work of Christ writing quote that is the true test by which to judge all books when we see whether they deal with Christ or not since all the scriptures show us Christ and St paul will know nothing but Christ what does not teach Christ is not apostolic even though St peter or Paul taught it even though Judas Annis Pilate and Herod did it end quote he then goes on to critique what St james says about the law writing quote "This James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works." And he mixes the two up in such disorderly fashion that it seems to me he must have been some good pious man who took some sayings of the apostles disciples and threw them thus on paper or perhaps they were written down by someone else from his preaching he calls the law a law of liberty though St paul calls it a law of slavery of wrath of death and of sin in a word he wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works and is unequal to the task in spirit thought and word and rend the scriptures and thereby resists Paul in all scripture and would accomplish by insisting on the law and what the apostles accomplish by inciting men to love therefore I cannot put him among the chief books though I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases in estimating him as he pleases for there are many good sayings in him." End quote now after he finishes his treatment of James which is more complicated than is usually presented by both Catholics and Protestants he goes on to treat the epistle of St jude his problem with St jude's epistle is not so much doctrinal but more so historical he writes that St jude quote speaks of the apostles as a disciple coming long after them and quotes sayings and stories that are found nowhere in the scriptures this moved the ancient fathers to throw this epistle out of the main body of the scriptures although I praise the book it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are to lay the foundation of faith end quote lastly Luther treats the book of Revelation and it is a bit odd to say the least with a massive explanation of the book culminating in how it talks about the Catholics but despite this he denies its canonicity he writes quote "About this book of the revelation of John I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas and would bind no man in my opinion or judgment i say what I feel i miss more than one thing in this book and this makes me hold that it is neither apostolic nor prophetic." End quote he makes some strange arguments to support his position including arguing that it is not part of the apostolic office to write a prophetic book and critiquing it for speaking so highly of itself when Luther personally thinks other books of the Bible are better then he makes the strange claim that Christ is not preached in this book writing quote "Let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think my spirit cannot fit itself into this book there's one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it christ is not taught or known in it therefore I stick to the books which gave me Christ clearly and purely." End quote although it is to be remembered that this is from his original preface some of these comments were removed edited or softened in later editions now that we have went over the internal evidence there is also external evidence that makes this fact clearer for it wasn't just Luther who made these statements but also early Protestants following his lead for example Thomas Manton a 17th century Puritan author in Westminster Divine stated in harsh terms quote this was the error and failing of this holy and eminent servant of God and therein he is followed by others of his profession oander Camario etc and Aomearius whose blasphemies are recorded by Gratius however Luther is here in deserted by the modern Lutheran who allow this epistle in the canon as is plain by the writings of Hunus Gearhard Walther etc end quote yet it must be admitted that the view of Luther as we saw from abundant quotations above is not as simple as rejection or acceptance yes he believed that they were not canonical but he still conceded that others may disagree with him and still conceded a certain usefulness to these books this is something that later Lutheran authors would defend with a distinction between two types of books the homolumina which are books that are universally received and therefore completely certain on the one hand and on the other hand the antilagumina which have been disputed in the church and therefore they are less certain of them from this distinction which was first given by Ucius he states that doctrine should only be proven from the certain books and not from the uncertain books when Trent defined both that the Old Testament dudar canonicals and that the New Testament and the Lagumina were canonical the Lutheran went so far as to call this quote insulent presumption and quote trident arrogance while also referring to us as quote papist parasites in the words of keen all of this for simply holding to the canonical status of all 27 books of the New Testament agitius Hunus who died in6003 and was a signer of the formula of concord writes quote the epistle to the Hebrews second and third John second Peter the epistles of James and Jude and the Apocalypse are outside the canon and are judged apocryphal end quote yet he concedes that he is of greater authority than those of the Old Testament and can be profitably read andreas Oander the Younger who died in 1617 stated quote there are certain books which are spoken against because there does not exist sufficient testimony of the early church concerning their authors such as the epistles of James Jude etc these are called haggio they are also called ecclesiastical they do not have in themselves value for establishing doctrine end quote although as stated above by Manton there was a diversity among the Lutheran in conclusion Lutheran will often want to whitewash this early history lasting over a century where the label apocrypha was frequently thrown at seven books of the New Testament this whitewashing is something that goes all the way back to the 17th century but it is just that whitewashing it does not reveal the true and honest history of the strong opposition that the 16th century Lutheran had to the canonization of all 27 books of the New Testament [Music] for most of the heretics of the early church we might view them as being a little stupid you know small intelligence maybe a bit dishonest maybe prideful maybe just straight up evil but there was one heretic in the early church that the fathers simply labeled as viscerally disgusting st thomas Aquinas called him an idiot and a blasphemer st ambrose accused him of sacrilege st jerome accused him of impiiety and St epipanius accused him of quote a rashness exceeding all bounds who was this heretic this heretic was a Roman layman named Helvidius among his many errors and his most serious error was the denial of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary an impiiety that had been unheard of at that point interestingly enough Helvidius was actually the student of a certain Aryan bishop named Oxentius of Milan st athanasius actually comments on the character in person of this bishop and he said that Oxentius was quote ignorant of the Latin language and unskillful in everything except impiiety end quote this of course would be something that his student Helvidius would follow him in when one looks to the works of Helvidius or rather the works responding to Helvidius he gives the same stock arguments that we are familiar with today he points to our Lord being called firstborn he points to the usage of the word until he points to the brethren of our lord and so on but he actually makes a very interesting argument for historical pedigree for his position and this argument would be the claim to be supported by a very important early Christian writer Tertullian of Carthage now St jerome actually responds to this by simply stating that Tertullan of Carthage was not a church father since he died outside of communion with the church now this is true since he ended up accepting the heresy of the Montinists but the unfortunate part of this is that St jerome actually didn't directly deal with the claim that Tertullian taught this therefore to this day heretics will simply reference Tertullian as a gotcha against the perpetual virginity of our blessed mother we see a development there's a development from the view of Tertullian who's before Nika we and uh to a view that becomes widespread and in the fourth uh end of the 4th century gets challenged by by Helvidius who challenges Jerome and that is sort of the real first real argument on the subject and Helvidius ends up losing that and we can't even find his writings they've all been destroyed so it's hard to say whether he was actually a heretic or not by judging his own writings early Christian writers of various abilities and levels of knowledge while clearly affirming the virgin birth of Christ did not speak of this later concept as part of the gospel indeed one such writer Tertullian spoke of Mary's other children with an ease that demonstrates it was not at the time a point of contention or argument now Tertullian became a Montinist and so his testimony is often dismissed without ever explaining to us why it is that he could make the statements he did and no one even batted an eyebrow yet the idea that Tertullian taught the Helvidian view against the perpetual virginity of the blessed virgin Mary is completely ridiculous and lacking all foundation there are a few texts which are simply quoted in order to support this thesis so what I wanted to do is with a critical eye go through all of these texts and ask the question do these texts actually substantiate the position that Tertullan denied the perpetual virginity of our blessed mother from this we'll see the complete opposite and actually some of these texts support and teach the perpetual virginity of our blessed mother the first text is from Tertullians on monogamy now in the early church there was a certain debate that went on and this debate was over the status of digamy now digamy is different than bigamy digamy is the idea of having a second spouse after your first spouse dies bigamy is the idea of having two spouses at the same time now obviously bigamy has always been rejected within the church but digamy was hotly disputed within the early church and this work is tot's take on the matter some took the position that digamy was immoral and unlawful others took the position that digamy was basically less ideal here tool weighs in on the matter and references a few biblical characters and their monogamy the text in question is found in chapter 8 it states quote "Who is more worthy to initiate the body of the Lord than flesh of the same kind as that flesh which conceived and gave birth to him christ was indeed born of a virgin who would marry once for all after her childbearing so that Christ might have on his birth certificate a double title of holiness since his mother was both a virgin and married only to one man." End quote here what Tolene is doing is simply pointing to the supremacy of monogamy over digamy by using the example of our lady who was only married to one man St joseph now the Helvidians seek to use this text and argue that since it mentions her marrying St joseph that therefore they must have engaged in marital relations but obviously this simply doesn't follow in fact when we look at the context this text teaches the exact opposite first we can actually refute the supposition that marriage necessarily means engaging in the marital use for Tertullian tertullian taught against certain authors like St clement that only St peter the Apostle was married and that the other apostles were not married but he also taught that St peter after ascending to the aposttoate did not engage in marital relations and was continent if you want to read more about this there's a very good book by Stefan Hyde called Celibacy in the early church clearly Tertulli did not assume that being married means engaging in the marital use but the more important consideration is actually when we compare the few sentences before this text with the text itself it states quote "Behold there immediately present themselves to us on the threshold as it were the two priestesses of Christian sanctity monogamy and countenance one modest in Zachchariah the priest one absolute in John the forerunner one appeasing God one preaching Christ one proclaiming a perfect priest one exhibiting more than a prophet him namely who has not only preached or personally pointed out but even baptized Christ end quote we see something very interesting here tertullian states that there are two forms of perfection monogamy as Zachariah which means having one spouse and countenance as St john the Baptist which means to be a virgin when Teroleian speaks of Mary he actually compares Mary to St john the Baptist which is to actually state that she is a perpetual virgin just like St john the Baptist was he then goes on to confirm this by speaking of a quote double title of holiness that Mary had what is this double title of holiness well this double title of holiness is both being a virgin and being the wife of a single husband that is being monogamous and thus she fulfills the perfections found in both St zachariah and St john the Baptist the heretics are so blinded when they read this passage that rather than realizing that this text is a text which explicitly teaches the perpetual virginity of our lady they twist it to the opposite sense and say that this denies the perpetual virginity of our lady here he exalts her dignity as both chasteed in being a perpetual virgin and monogamous in being married to one husband that is St joseph so here Mary can actually be a model for both those who are celibate in the church and those who are married in the church a second series of texts comes from Tertullians on the flesh of Christ in this text he is actually following a litany of fathers who responded to a heresy called dosatism dosatism denied that Christ had a real body because they were gnostics and thought that flesh was evil and rather thought that he only had a phantom body or an appearance of a body so the purpose of this text is to simply prove that Christ had real flesh in the seventh chapter of the work he deals with a particular exogetical argument from the dosatists that is the famous question from the gospel according to St matthew who is my mother and who are my brethren they reasoned from this passage that our lord here was implying that he didn't actually have a mother and that he didn't actually have blood relations and from this they implied that our lord didn't actually have flesh so Teroleian what he is intending to do here is to show that when he asks who is my mother and who are my brethren that the is and the are in that passage does not mean to imply some sort of denial but rather is a true affirmation so the entire scope and purpose is to simply affirm that the is and the are indicating true blood relations which are in line with Christ's true body so the argument from the Helvidians simply boils down to he says that they're brethren therefore he must mean that they are sons of our lady now this of course doesn't follow both Catholic and Protestants reading this passage of all sorts and kinds are going to affirm that these are true blood relations that these are true brethren another interesting point to consider is that this actually would be the most obvious place to bring up the Helvidian view if he happened to hold to the Helvidian view since it would make a very strong argument that our Lord had a true body if Tertullian simply pointed to all of those individuals throughout history that we know who are also children of the Blessed Virgin Mary but he doesn't do this why doesn't he do this well he already told us why he doesn't do this because he believes that our lady was a perpetual virgin so this argument from the Helvidians simply makes an assumption an assumption that they also make in the New Testament text it is not at all any sort of explicit or implicit proof of the Helvidian thesis now certain Protestants will also point to the 23rd chapter of the same work but in the 23rd chapter brethren of our Lord aren't even mentioned the only thing mentioned in this chapter is that our lord had a true birth from the blessed virgin Mary it really doesn't have anything to do with the perpetual virginity the last text that gets brought up is against Marcian book 4 chapter 7 in this work Marcian is basically giving the same argument as the dosatists earlier the who is my mother and who are my brethren yet again Tertullian does not give the obvious Helvidian argument that all of these figures throughout the early church that we all know of these were blood brothers of our Lord so obviously he was born in a true body he doesn't state that at all he merely states that these brothers are quote true relations or quote blood relations that's all he says he says that they're relatives which everybody agrees with in the first place but this all of course rests on the assumptions of the Protestants the clear teaching of Tertullian is that our lady was both wife and virgin throughout her entire life and I think this teaches us something important often times in theology there are common historical lies that are passed down from generation to generation and a lot of time the apologists like Gavin Ortland or Mike Winger or James White they simply restate a lot of these old tropes without actually going into the primary sources some of these read secondary sources and some of them even only interact with tertiary sources like videos or debates what's very important is to not assume that they're representing the primary sources correctly and actually in each case to question what is taught that's all that I have for you and as always God bless st augustine taught purgatory this is a plain fact now throughout the history of Protestant theology there's been a number of ways of coping about this first some will say that St augustine was simply inconsistent that when he taught purgatory he was not teaching in line with his other views on things like justification some on the other hand will argue that in his handbook he happened to change his view change the view that he had held for decades at that point in which he teaches in the same exact book lastly we actually have a uh based mark of Ephesus moment and some claim that the texts where he teaches purgatory were simply forged such as Jean Dele a 17th century reformed historical theologian who actually wrote one of the most important foundational works in reformed prology classically there's been a number of texts which Catholic theologians appeal to in explaining St augustine's teaching on purgatory but interestingly enough there's actually been a new one which has been found in the year 1980 there were a group of different Augustinian epistles which were discovered in France and in one of these there was actually a letter which St augustine penned to St siril of Alexandria and in this letter he discusses his teaching on purgatory and how denying purgatory is a Pelagian fiction now as an aside this just shows us how silly the narrative is that the Easterners were not involved in the Pelagian crisis i did a whole video on it you should watch it but anyways let's get into it before we go into the newest discovered text from St augustine commenting on purgatory I wanted to go over his older texts so we can look at all of his corpus in order to better interpret what he says in that letter but before that we need to know a little bit about the theological underpinnings for St augustine when it comes to the doctrine of purgatory and if you want to know more about this you want to see all the details about his teaching on justification which is really the foundation for his teaching on purgatory I did a whole 2-hour video on that you should watch it but anyways we need to understand is that for St augustine justice true justice supernatural justice is the proper order of the soul and the proper order of the soul is the higher faculties ordered to God and the lower faculties ordered to the higher faculties now what happened with the fall of Adam is that there was a disorder of soul and this disorder of soul is passed down through cubisence where you have the flesh overtaking the lower faculties overtaking the higher faculties and ordering them away from God due to the fact that we're not ordered towards God we are cut off from the life of the soul and therefore we are dead in our sins and trespasses but Christ in justification gives us a share in his own justice and in being given a share in his own justice we are properly ordered to God but obviously there is still concupisence which remains this concupisence doesn't kill the soul because it doesn't disorder the soul but it still remains for us to fight against it for us to purify ourselves now from this imperfection that we have due to concupisence there's a few different implications first during this life we need to pray that God forgive us our debts because we commit many of these venial sins and these venial sins incur some sort of debt so we need to pray to God to forgive them and we also give alms we receive the eukarist and we do many other good works in order to get rid of the debt that is incurred through venial sin second obviously when we die we will have not completely extinguished this debt we'll still have plenty of the temporal debt from venial sin so what does this mean well St augustine infers properly that this means that there's not only a type of purggation or cleansing that happens in this life but there's also a type of purggation or cleansing that happens in the next life in purgatory the rest of the punishment which is due to that temporal debt is carried out now obviously the plagians didn't like this because the plagians thought that there was basically two options either on the one hand you are sinless and in being sinless you have eternal life or on the other hand you commit a sin and if you commit a sin then you are cut off from eternal life and therefore when you die you are damned through everlasting fires so the pelagians did not distinguish between mortal sins and venial sins between what St augustine calls grave crimes on the one hand and what he calls light sins or daily sins on the other hand they didn't make this distinction so since they didn't make a distinction in the type of debt they didn't make a distinction in the type of punishment and therefore they said if you happen to be sinful when you die you'll go to everlasting punishment but St augustine in many ways opposed this teaching teaching on things like the universality of those daily sins the necessity of the Lord's prayer and of almsgiving and so on and so forth and therefore since he established these two types of debts he established two types of punishment that occur after life on the one hand eternal punishment which is damnation and on the other hand temporal punishment for those who have simply fallen into venial sins and have not extinguished the debt which is due to them on the one hand and on the other hand those who have fallen into mortal sins who are given eternal punishment so there's two types of debt and therefore two types of punishment to summarize St augustine believed that the sin of Adam plunged us into a type of disorder of soul which is referred to as concubisence yet Christ gives us a share of his justice which properly orders our soul yet there is some motions of concupisence which remain although they don't overtake the soul now if they overtake the soul this is mortal sin and mortal sin leads to eternal punishment yet if we war against them and we are merely wounded in the fight this is called venial sin and venial sin is something which is punished in purgatory also the Pelagians denied this distinction between mortal and venial sin and therefore they denied the distinction between the two types of punishment and two types of debt which is to be incurred now that we went over his teaching on justification his teaching on purgatory is going to be much easier as I mentioned above the Plaggians taught that man can be sinless in this life and more than that not only can they be sinless but they must be sinless in order to reach heaven st and Augustine opposed this teaching by distinguishing between mortal sins on the one hand and venial sins on the other hand this distinction was reflected in the penitential system of the time on the one hand you had mortal sins and these mortal sins had to be released due to the keys of the church by the bishop and on the other hand you had venial sins and these venial and daily sins were forgiven through the daily prayer forgive us our debts and through almsgiving st augustine preached a sermon to catechumans where he stated quote "I do not tell you that you will live here without sin but they are venal without which this life is not for the sake of all sins was baptism provided for the sake of light that is venial sins prayer was provided once for all we have washing and baptism every day we have washing in prayer only do not commit those things for which you must need to be separated from Christ's body that is mortal sins which be far from you for those whom you have seen doing penance have committed heinous things either adulteries or some enormous crimes for these they do penance because if theirs had been light that is venial sins to blot out these daily prayers would suffice." End quote now obviously there are many who do not do sufficient penance throughout their lives but on the other hand in on the perfection of righteousness St augustine is very clear that those who avoid mortal sins are said to be blameless so logically while they wouldn't go to hell since they are quote blameless since they are without mortal sin they also wouldn't go to heaven since they still have punishment which is due to their venial sin to those daily faults which are not a faced completely and totally through prayer it is important to keep this in mind those two types of purgatorial punishment that I mentioned on the one hand the purgatorial punishment in this life which is prayer almsgiving and other types of suffering that we endure for the sake of Christ and on the other hand the purgatorial punishment of the next life which is what we more usually refer to as purgatory once we go over a few other texts this will become much clearer but before we go into these individual texts I want to point out something and what I want to point out is that the teaching on purgatory in St augustine isn't merely us going to individual side comments or maybe some obscure passages it isn't anything like that rather there are entire chapters and entire books of different works which are ordered towards treating purgatory this isn't something which is merely given a side treatment in the thought of St augustine this is something which is constantly and consistently preached throughout large portions of his works for example a large portion of book 21 of City of God by St augustine is taken up with explaining purgatory on the other hand not only is there large portions of different works where St augustine treats purgatory this is something which is treated throughout his career this isn't something that merely comes up as a later reflection like some claim rather this is something which is spoken of over a span of 40 years the first mention of it is found in on Genesis against the manans which was written in 388 AD and the last mention is made in city of god which was written in 426 AD this is something which is consistently spoken of throughout his entire career this isn't some sort of late development that he wrote about in the city of god or something ridiculous like that as I mentioned the first work is on Genesis against the manans he states quote "One who cultivates this field interiorly and gains his bread albeit with toil can suffer this toil up to the end of this life but after this life he need not suffer one who did not cultivate his field and allowed it to be overcome with thorns has in this life the curse of his earth in all his works and after this life he will have either the fire of purggation or eternal punishment thus no one escapes this sentence but we should act so that we feel its punishment only in this life." End quote in this text there's a lot of important things going on first St augustine distinguishes the type of punishment that comes from the curse there's the type of punishment that happens in this life there's the type of punishment which happens through the fire of purggation and there's the type of punishment which happens in eternal punishment and interestingly enough this is actually a very common three-fold distinction which is made by Catholic authors most famously it's a distinction which is made by St thomas in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 3 which we'll get into later this will be very important for how we interpret St augustine because St augustine is going to interpret these punishments in very many different ways yet it's going to be in a cohesive way he divides people into two different types first those who toil in this life and cultivate perfection these individuals do not suffer any sort of punishment afterlife but are immediately brought to perfection second there are those who did not cultivate perfection in this life and these are of two types first those who suffer the fire of purggation and second those who suffer eternal punishment this is obviously a teaching which very clearly lays out mortal sin venal sin and purgatory those who cultivate perfection are those who have completely aaced all venial fault those who go to the fire of purggation are those with venial fault and those who go to hell are those with mortal sin this is very close to something else he wrote a few years later while commenting on Psalm 1 when commenting on Psalm 1 he distinguishes between the wicked and sinners all the wicked are sinners yet not all sinners are wicked only the wicked are those who suffer eternal punishment next he takes the same angle when he's commenting on Psalm 37 about a decade decade and a half later rather than distinguishing between those who toil and don't toil he distinguishes on the part of the punishment first you have the chastening and second you have the rebuke those who are rebuked and as a result are chastened are those who suffer from the purgatorial fires and this purgatorial fire can occur either in this life or it can occur in the life to come and interestingly enough when it comes to this commentary on Psalm 37 there's actually a connection with another saint St fgentius st fgentius when he was reading the sermon on Psalm 37 was actually convinced to enter the monastic life anyways St augustine writes quote "Certain people are destined to be chasened by God's anger in the future and rebuked in his wrath it may be that not all those who are rebuked will be chastened as a result but some at least will be saved through the chastening which is to come this will certainly happen because otherwise it would not be called a chastening but it would take place as though through fire others there will be who are rebuked but not chasened for Christ will certainly rebuke those to whom he is to say I was hungry and you did not feed me i was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink and he will continue with the rest of the tale chiding the wicked on the left for their inhumity and sterile lives to them it will be said "Depart from me you a cursed into the eternal hell into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels." End quote yet there are others who actually do not need this chastening fire he continues stating quote by pleading "Do not chasten me in your anger." The psalmist asks "Purify me in this life and make me such that I will not need that chastening fire." This prayer he makes with an eye to those who will be saved but only as through fire and why because here on earth they have built on a foundation of wood or hay or straw they ought to have built on gold or silver or precious stones and then they would have been safe from both kinds of fire not only the eternal fire which will torture the impas forever but even that which will chasen those who have been saved through it scripture says of the shoddy builder he himself will be saved indeed though it be through fire end quote he goes on to speculate about the nature of the purgatorial fires stating that these purgatorial fires will be a chastening more painful than any of the sufferings which we could possibly endure on earth he states quote "Perhaps some people may trivialize this fire because scripture says he will be saved yet even though it will be for some the means of salvation that fire will nevertheless be harder to bear than anything we can endure in this life think about it how grievously the wicked have suffered and can suffer here yet for all that they suffer no more grievously than good people do what has any criminal any thief adulterer villain or sacriiggious rascal ever suffered under the law which a martyr has not also suffered for confessing Christ the evils that threaten us here are far more tolerable yet look how people will do whatever you order them in order to escape such pains how much better advised would they be to do what God orders them to escape far more severe penalties end quote the major text in which St augustine discusses purgatory is in City of God book 21 remember as I stated above we'll see it again in this section for Catholic theology purgatorial punishments are not merely punishments which occur after death rather there are purgatorial punishments which occur in this life and there are purgatorial punishments which will occur after death those who suffer purgatorial punishments in this life especially the martyrs will not suffer purgatorial punishments after death this is what St augustine meant to reference when he referenced those who toil up to the end of this life and also to those who avoid the purgatorial punishments and this is why he praised God in that commentary on Psalm 37 that we just read that he deliver him from those purgatorial punishments from the fire which chasens we actually see this in St augustine's own life before St augustine died while he was in his final illness on his deathbed he sat for 10 days not having his friends visit so he could sit and pray the penitential psalms over and over and over again why did he do this well he did this to chasen himself he did this to suffer purgatorial pains in this life and not the next because as he says in his commentary the pains of the purgatorial fire in the next life will be worse than any pain any man could suffer on earth now does this seem like somebody who doubts purgatory does this seem like somebody who thought purgatory was a mere opinion of course not st augustine held very firmly to this teaching on purgatory throughout his early life but now let's get into city of god book 21 as I mentioned in order to understand city of god book 21 we need to understand as I briefly mentioned above the three stages of pgation in Catholic theology there are three stages of pgation first there is the pgation which occurs in this life second there is the pgation which occurs afterlife which is normally called purgatory and third there is the purggation of forgiveness which occurs at the final judgment or on the other hand there is the fire which burns the damned at the final judgment this is actually how St augustine interprets 1 Corinthians 3 many may look at one or two different texts where St augustine discusses 1 Corinthians 3 and may be convinced that he didn't have a sure reading on this or he may be convinced that he simply read this as referring to the purggations which come in this life but when one reads the entirety of the works of St augustine when one reads all of the different sections where he discusses it he frequently goes between the three readings he felt that 1 Corinthians 3 was talking about the purgatorial fire in an extensive sense so that it could refer either to those pgations which happened in this life or to the purggations which happened after this life or the purggations which happened at the final judgment it could refer to either of the three and depending on who he was arguing against or which pastoral point or theological point he was making he would refer to one or the other reading on the other hand there actually was a text that St augustine strictly only referred to as what we call purgatory with and this is Matthew 12:32 now he begins his discussion on purggation back at the end of book 20 where he promises to discuss it more extensively in book 21 he references a certain purifying which occurs in the book of Malachi so this is another text in which he referred to purgatory from and while executing this text he said quote the prophet Malachi predicts the last judgment saying he is like a refining fire and like the fooler's herb and he shall sit refining and cleansing the silver and he shall purify the sons of Levi and shall refine them as gold and as silver and they shall offer sacrifices to the Lord in justice and the sacrifice of Judah and of Jerusalem shall please the Lord from these words it more evidently appears that some shall in the last judgment suffer some kind of purgatorial punishments similarly Isaiah says quote "The Lord shall wash the filthiness of the sons and daughters of Zion and shall cleanse away the blood from their midst by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning." When he says quote "And he shall purify the sons of Levi etc." He declares that those who shall be purified shall then please the Lord with the sacrifices of righteousness and consequently they themselves shall be purified from their own unrighteousness which made them displeasing to God now they themselves when they shall be purified shall be sacrifices of complete and perfect righteousness for what more acceptable offerings can such persons make to God than themselves but this question of purgatorial punishments we must defer to someone but this question of purgatorial punishments we must defer to another time give it a more adequate treatment by the sons of Levi and Judah in Jerusalem we ought to understand the church herself gathered not from the Hebrews only but from the other nations as well end quote now while book 20 is meant to discuss the final judgment books 20 and 22 are meant to discuss hell and heaven respectively so book 21 is where he more extensively treats the purgatorial fires now the beginning of book 21 is really concerned with the fires of hell whether fire corporeal fire in hell could somehow burn a soul or a demon uh that's what it's concerned with it's not really concerned with the question of purgatorial fires but anyways after this point he has to get into the question of the kind of punishment and the duration of punishment because there were many errors floating around on the duration of punishment now because he had to discuss the duration of punishment and he obviously had to discuss whether there could be or whether there was temporal punishment because many of those who were justifying some type of orinism or some type of other heretical belief were going to bring forward arguments which relied upon a bastardized version of purgatory some of these taught that all punishments from God were purgatorial punishments and other of these have a bastardized reading of 1 Corinthians 3 when it talks about the foundation being Christ they read that the foundation being Christ might mean that they were baptized or that they had membership in the church or maybe they simply had faith and they committed mortal sins or they schism from the church or were heretics or many other cases yet they would be saved by fire they interpreted the purgatorial fire as somehow burning away mortal sin so St augustine had to deal with both of these problems he had to deal with the first problem by saying that the purgatorial fire was only temporal and that the punishing fire was eternal and he had to deal with the other argument by saying that it was only venial sins which were remitted in purgatory not mortal sins which were punished with eternal hellfire now what's interesting is he deals with this question a lot more in his work on faith and works where he refuts this false reading of the foundation being Christ he obvious he argues that the foundation being Christ means that one has faith which works by love not that that's not that one simply has faith alone or baptism or membership in the church or anything like that and that the wood hay and stubble are all of those things which are venal faults which are temporal attachments and so on and so forth and these have to be purged by fire the fire as we went over above either on this earth in the life to come or at the final judgment now when he deals with the first group the originist who argued that the first punishment would be purgatorial he says quote "For our part we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only by others after death by others both now and then but all of them before the last in strictest judgment but of all those who suffer temporary punishments after death all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment for to some as we have already said what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next that is they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come end quote how much clearer could this get really how much clearer could this get but anyways let's continue there's very clearly some sort of purgatorial punishment which is temporary which is after death which follows the temporary purgatorial punishments which are suffered in this life is a completely coherent reading of St augustine and as we'll see this is simply what he says in his other writings as well in chapter 14 he excludes anybody from suffering temporal punishments in this life he points out infants who even while infants have not committed any personal sins and even if they are baptized they still suffer from things like sickness disease and even death in chapters 15 and 16 he sets the theological groundwork for considering who those are which suffer the purgatorial pains he first considers baptized infants he says that baptized infants like the martyrs we mentioned above do not suffer from any of the purgatorial pains in the next life because the sanctifying grace which they have in their soul the impartation of the justice of Christ is sufficient to deliver them from any sort of punishment he writes quote "Although the present life be immediately brought to an end the child having been translated from the power of darkness to the kingdom of Christ shall not only be saved from eternal punishments but shall not even suffer purgatorial torments after death for spiritual regeneration of itself suffices to prevent any evil consequences resulting after death from the connection with death which carnal generation forms." End quote now when it comes to adults he begins by a discussion of the incarnation and the effects of incarnation in giving grace to us he writes quote "There is but one son of God by nature who in his compassion became son of man for our sakes that we by nature sons of men might by grace become through him sons of God for he abiding unchangeable took upon him our nature and thereby he might take us to himself and holding fast his own divinity he became partaker of our infirmity that we being changed into some better thing might by participating in his righteousness in immortality lose our own properties of sin immortality and preserve whatever good quality he had implanted in our nature perfected now by sharing in the goodness of his nature for as by the sin of one man we have fallen into a misery so deplorable so by the righteousness of one man who also is God shall we come to a blessedness inconceivably exalted." End quote now as I mentioned above this righteousness which is given to us is sufficient of itself to prevent both temporal and eternal punishments yet this righteousness does not drive away all of the concupisence which we have remaining in the flesh so therefore the effect of concubisence in bringing about venial sins in us us committing venial sins brings about a need for punishment a need for cleansing us from this unrighteousness thus we need to extinguish this guilt by penance in this life and we need to fight against the flesh in order not to incur more of this debt he writes quote "Nor ought anyone to trust that he has passed from the one man to the other until he shall have reached that place where there is no temptation and have entered into the peace which shall seek in the many and various conflicts of this war in which the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh in its misery human nature makes war upon itself because in its blessedness it would not continue at peace with God and this though it be a miserable calamity is better than the earlier stages of this life which do not recognize that a war is to be maintained for better it is to contend with vices than without conflict to be subdued by them better I say is war with the hope of peace everlasting than captivity without any thought of deliverance we long indeed for the sessation of this war and kindled by the flame of divine love we burn for entrance on that well-ordered peace in which whatever is inferior is forever subordinated to what is above it." End quote now that he set these principles he goes into concretely how this looks for those who have surpassed the age of reason he mentioned above that sanctifying grace something which is sufficient of itself to eliminate both the temporal and eternal punishments due to sin yet we incur more of these temporal punishments when we commit venial sins after we grow past the age of reason so we need to have that toil in this life and the purgatorial fires in the life to come he writes quote "When we reach that age which can now comprehend the commandment and submit to the domain of law we must declare war upon vices and wage this war keenly lest we landed in damnable mortal sins." And if vices have not gathered strength by habitual victory they are more easily overcome and subdued but if they have been used to conquer and rule it is only with difficulty and labor they are mastered and indeed this victory cannot be sincerely and truly gained but by delighting in true righteousness and it is faith in Christ that gives this for if the law be present with its command and the spirit be absent with his help the presence of the prohibition serves only to increase the desire to sin and adds the guilt of transgression few indeed are those who are so happy as to have passed their youth without committing any damnable sins either by dissolute or violent conduct or by following some godless and unlawful opinions but have subdued by their greatness of soul everything in them which could make them the slaves of carnal pleasures the greater number having first become transgressors of the law that they have received and having allowed vice to have the ascendancy in them then flee to grace for help and so by a penitence more bitter and a struggle more violent than it would have otherwise have been they subdue the soul to God and thus give it its lawful authority over the flesh and become victors whoever therefore desires to escape eternal punishment let him not only be baptized but also justified in Christ and so let him in truth pass from the devil to Christ and let him not fancy that there are any purgatorial pains except before that final and dreadful judgment end quote here he gives us those who will actually suffer the purgatorial fire as I mentioned above for St augustine as we see in this text as well there is a triple harmony of soul there is the higher faculty to God and there's the lower faculties to the higher faculties of the soul the flesh to the soul the soul to God so when the flesh overtakes the soul and submits it to itself this is mortal sin and this is punished by eternal fire but as we see in this text when there is a fight and war against the flesh and the flesh does not overtake the soul there is only purgatorial fires unless through this life there is an extraordinary expedation of all of these punishments at this point he refutes five different positions one those who believe that all souls are going to go through a purgatorial fire two those who believe that the saints will pray for those damned at the final judgment and save them three those who believe that purgatory is a get into heaven free card for those who have been baptized four that purgatory is a get into heavenree card for those who have been a member of the Catholic Church five those who think that almsgiving and praying the Lord's Prayer will be enough to heal mortal sins now in the midst of refuting these points St augustine gives us a few more points on purgatory first when he writes against the third and the fourth heresies St augustine gives us some more information about what it means to have foundation in Christ that the foundation of Christ in 1 Corinthians 3 is referring to sanctifying grace in another place in his commentary on Psalm 118 he explains this very vividly he states quote "One who builds upon this foundation with wood or hay or straw will be saved through fire he does not however reject the foundation or abandon it after receiving it he values the foundation above all his carnal desires which he is captivated by and succumbs to when he reaches that critical point where he must choose to either abandon those desires or Christ if Christ is not preferred then Christ is not his foundation for the foundation is placed before all other parts of the structure end quote he explains in basically the same way in this book book 21 of City of God in sermon 362 and in his commentaries on Psalm 29 and 80 so if you want to read more about this you can check those out for yourself but basically he describes it at length especially in his work on faith and works as returning to faith and not merely faith but faith which works by love and is fruitful and fights against the flesh and is not subdued by the flesh that is not one that falls into mortal sin second when he is contradicting the fifth heresy he actually goes into much more detail about the distinction between venial sin and mortal sin mortal sin are those sins which destroy Christ as the foundation of the soul and venial sins are those which merely build upon it certain hay wood stubble etc and this hay wood and stubble is burned away either in this life in the purggation which occurs in this life by penance or in the life to come through purgatory third when he contradicts the second heresy he actually goes into a bit of detail about praying for the dead praying and sacrificing and giving alms for the dead are said to be beneficial for the dead and St augustine constantly defends this practice throughout his works and this for St augustine while the exegetical foundation is found in 1 Corinthians 3 and Matthew 12 and the theological foundation is founded as opposition to the plagians this praying for the dead serves as the traditional foundation for St augustine it's something which has been done everywhere since the beginning of the church was established as a custom by the apostles and founds the belief that there can be benefits for the dead he writes quote "For some of the dead indeed the prayer of the church or of pious individuals is heard but it is for those who having been regenerated in Christ did not spend their life so wickedly that they can be judged unworthy of such compassion nor so well that they can be considered to have no need for it as also after the resurrection there will be some of the dead to whom after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead that is purgatory mercy shall be accorded and a quiddle from the punishment of the eternal fire for were there not some whose sins though not remitted in this life shall be remitted in that which is to come it could not truly be said they shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in that which is to come matthew 12:32 end quote this is a theme which we see throughout all of the writings of St augustine for example in sermon 172 he says quote "It is not to be doubted though that the dead can be helped by the prayers of holy church and the eucharistic sacrifice and alms distributed for the repose of their spirits so that God may deal with them more mercifully than their sins have deserved." The whole church I mean observes this tradition received from the fathers that prayer should be offered for those who have died in the communion of the body and the blood of Christ whenever their names are mentioned at the sacrifice in the usual place and that it shall be announced that the sacrifice is offered for them when however works of mercy are performed for their sakes who can doubt that this benefits those for whom the prayers are not sent up to God in vain there can be no doubt at all that these things are of value to the departed but to such of them as lived in such a way before they died as would enable them to profit from those things after death for those you see who have departed from their bodies without the faith which works through love and its sacraments acts of piety of this sort are performed in vain while they were still here they lacked the guarantee of this faith either because they did not receive God's grace at all or received it in vain and so stored up for themselves not mercy but wrath so no new merits are won for the dead when their good Christian friends do any work on their behalf but these things are credited to them as a consequence of their preceding merits it was only while they lived here that they could ensure that such things would be of help to them after they ceased to live here end quote these themes in this sermon are common throughout the works of St augustine we actually see them in one place go so far as to state that it doesn't matter the prayers for the dead are not explicitly mentioned in canonical scripture outside of Mcabes he says that even in Mcabes if Mcabes wasn't there that we would still have the universal custom of the church which would be enough to establish their apostolic origin on the one hand the tradition of the church and the practice of the church are not in vain it truly helps those who have died but on the other hand it does not help those who have merited eternal punishment yet as I mentioned above there is a clarification on this point and this clarification comes not only when we mentioned baptized infants who have died in their infancy as we mentioned from City of God book 21 but also when it comes to the martyrs he states of the martyrs quote "The justice of the martyrs is perfect because they have been perfected by their sufferings that's why they aren't prayed for in the church the other faithful departed are prayed for not the martyrs they left the world you see so perfected that they are not our dependents but our advocates end quote this is why for St augustine there's the three-fold distinction as I've mentioned time and time again and as we'll continue to see throughout his works there are those on the one hand who have been so perfected through purggation in this life especially the martyrs that they do not need to suffer purgatorial fire after death they do not need our prayers to get out of purgatory on the other hand there are those who have not suffered enough in this life but who have the foundation in Christ and for these they have the purgatorial punishments after life and we need to continually pray and offer the sacrifice of the mass for the propitiation of their sins and yes by the way St augustine does use the term propitiation to refer to the removal of these sins and on the other hand there are those who have lived a wicked life who do not have the foundation of Christ and when it comes to these these are only punished by eternal fire there's no hope in praying for these individuals because their end is fixed now this teaching on prayers for the dead is most touchingly seen in his confessions after his mother dies he commends his mother to the prayers of the reader now I really like this section i'm not supposed to read sections this long in a video but you know I just like this section so much it's my video i'm going to read it anyways he states quote I pour out unto you oh our God on behalf of your handmaidaden tears of a far different sort even that which flows from a spirit broken by the thoughts of the dangers of every soul that dies in Adam and though she having been made alive in Christ even before she was freed from the flesh had so lived as to praise your name both by her faith and conversation yet dare I not say that from the time you regenerated her by baptism no word went forth from her mouth against your precepts i then oh my praise in my life thou God of my heart putting aside for a little her good deeds of which I joyfully give thanks to you do now beseech you for the sins of my mother hearken unto me through that medicine of our wounds who hung upon the tree she only desired to have her name remembered at your altar which she had served without a mission of a single day whence she knew that the holy sacrifice was dispensed by which the handwriting that was against us is blotted out by which the enemy was triumphed over who summing up our offenses and searching for something to bring against us found nothing in him in whom we conquer who will restore to him the innocent blood who will repay him the price with which he bought us so as to take us from him unto the sacrament of which our ransom did your handmaiden bind her soul by the bond of faith unto the sacrament of which our ransom did your handmade bind her soul by the bond of faith let none separate her from your protection inspire oh my lord my God inspire your servants my brethren your sons my masters who with voice and heart and writings I serve that so many of them as shall read these confessions may at your altar remember Monica your handmmaid together with Patricius her sometime husband by whose flesh you introduced me into this life in what manner I know not may they with pious affection be mindful of my parents in this transitory light of my brethren that are under you our father in our Catholic mother and of my fellow citizens in the eternal Jerusalem which the wandering of your people size for from their departure until their return that so my mother's last in treaty to me may through my confessions more than through my prayers be more abundantly fulfilled to her through the prayers of many end quote Now beside all of this there is an objection as I mentioned above that is usually given from St augustine's handbook and in St augustine's handbook it is claimed that in his handbook he revealed the fact that he wasn't too sure about purgatory now on the face of things it's quite ridiculous to assert this well why because from the year 388 all the way to the 420s when this text is written St augustine had consistently and constantly taught purgatory in a number of different contexts in a number of different works why after almost four decades of teaching purgatory would he somehow put this into question and say this is mere speculation when he had spoken with such certainty at other times he said we can be most certain we can be certain he quotes various texts in scripture especially Matthew 12 he states that the opposite position is somehow savoring of the plagian heresy how could he claim that this is oh mere speculation and he's not at all certain about this it's ridiculous but even more ridiculous is that when we read the work in which this quote is a part of the handbook we see that it states in multiple places that purgatory is true so the reading that St augustine somehow was doubting purgatory is quite improbable but we need to read the text itself when we look in chapter 29 of this work we see that St augustine discusses the time between death and the final judgment and in this time between death and the final judgment on the basis of the prayers of the church and on the basis of the ex Jesus of scripture St augustine very clearly states his belief in purgatory he begins this text by saying quote "Now for the time that intervenes between man's death and the final resurrection there is a secret shelter for his soul as each is worthy of rest or affliction according to what it has merited while it lived in the body." End quote so we see here first that he is very much discussing the time after death and before the final judgment he goes on to say quote "There is no denying that the souls of the dead are benefited by the piety of their living friends when the sacrifice of the mediator is offered for the dead or alms are giving in the church so he introduces the idea of prayers for the dead in fact he introduces the idea of offering the sacrifice for the dead which is in reference to the sacrifice of the mass he then goes on to clarify the three different modes of life for which these prayers and offerings are offered for and three corresponding places after death and then he'll go on to talk about three possible benefits for those in in these three states he says quote "But these means benefit only those who while they were living have merited that such services could be of help to them for there is a mode of life that is neither so good as not to need such helps after death nor so bad as not to gain benefit from them after death there is however a good mode of life that does not need such helps and again one so thoroughly bad that when such a man departs this life such helps avail nothing so he has three different groups he has the first group which is obviously those in heaven he has the second group which are those in purgatory and he has a third group which are those in hell because those in hell cannot be helped those in heaven don't need the help it is only those in purgatory who need the help and he goes on to explain what these kinds of helps are he states quote "Accordingly when sacrifices whether of the altar or of alms are offered for the baptized dead they are thank offerings for the very good that is the martyrs propitiations for the not so very bad that is those in purgatory and as for the very bad that is those in hell even if they are of no help to the dead they are at least a sort of consolation to the living where they are of value their benefit consists either in obtaining a full forgiveness or at least in making damnation more tolerable." End quote so here very obviously not only does he think that the eucharistic sacrifice is offered for the dead not only does he think alms are offered for the dead and prayers for the dead but he also thinks that these are propitiations and that these bring about a full remission of sin how much clearer could this be the Catholic teaching yet he discusses this topic much earlier in the book starting in chapter 64 he begins by the admission of the universality of the fall and then he goes on to distinguish between two types of sin as we've seen time and time again between on the one hand mortal sin and on the other hand venial sin he writes quote like children of men they fall back on themselves under certain human impulses even in their spirit especially since it is weighed down by the corruptible body and so they sin but there are differences in degree since although every crime is a sin not every sin is a crime hence we say that the lives of holy men for as long as they live in this death can be found to be without crime end quote the nature of these crimes is very precisely outlined by St augustine depending on their effect and their degree of ecclesiastical punishment he states quote "But we should not despair of God's mercy for the forgiveness of actual crimes however great in the holy church for those who do penance each in a way appropriate to his sin but in works of penance when a sin has been committed of such a kind that he who committed it is also cut off from the body of Christ times of penance are rightly established by those who govern the church so that satisfaction may be made also to the church in which sins themselves are forgiven." Indeed outside the church they are not forgiven for it is the church that has received the Holy Spirit as her own as a pledge without which no sins are forgiven in such a way that those to whom they are forgiven receive eternal life end quote at this point St augustine begins to discuss purgatory in the 66th chapter he says quote "Many sins are pardoned here and not avenged with any punishments but their penalties are reserved for the future and it is not in vain that that day when the judge of the living and the dead will come has as its proper name the day of judgment just as on the contrary there are some sins that are punished here and if they are forgiven they will certainly do no harm in the world to come that is why the apostle says concerning certain temporal punishments imposed on those who win this life to those whose sins are forgiven and not reserved for the final judgment etc end quote here there are two groups which are pardoned first there is the group which is pardoned in this life and not in the life to come second there are those who are pardoned in this life but punished in the life to come these are all described as temporal punishments this is very clearly a reference to purgatory the second category of these punishments are described in chapters 67 and 68 which we above saw as the first type of pgation the purggation in this life and the second category of punishment is described in chapter 69 which we refer to as purgatory notice just as we saw in the later chapters in this chapter as well St augustine is not speaking obscurely he's not speaking in some sort of hypothetical way rather he's very sure about his teaching when he talks about those who will be punished in the life to come but forgiven in this life in chapters 67 and 68 he describes many of the themes we've already went over above especially those who have Christ as the foundation versus those who don't have Christ as the foundation the nature of temporal punishments which happen in this life and through all the trials that are gone through and etc if you remember St augustine interprets the flame of 1 Corinthians 3 in a much broader sense than most modern Catholics usually read it as this is actually the traditional reading of our theologians is that 1 Corinthians 3 is not only in reference to the fire of purggation but is divided into three types of fire as you can see in St thomas's commentary on 1 Corinthians 3 there is the three-fold distinction between the purgatorial fire in this life the fire in the life to come and the fire which happens at the final judgment as he says in another place quote Peter imploring the Lord for help so that he may not sink signifies that the church must be purified by certain tribulations even after the final persecution this is also indicated by Paul when he says he will be saved but only as through fire end quote many Protestants will point to this point to this wider sense of the term fire and somehow pretend like St augustine is denying purgatory in this way of course our own authors you know the authors that are very solidly believers in purgatory also interpret the fire in this way but apparently when it comes to St augustine St augustine cannot have an intelligent form of ex Jesus which has the word used in a broader and then in a more narrow applied sense you know why would we allow such a brilliant mind as St augustine to do this why would we let him speak throughout his whole works where he precisely describes the way in which it's used in these different senses you know why would we do that why wouldn't we just interpret St augustine like he is in a Catholic Answers versus Protestant Twitter battle why would we do that now it is especially in chapter 69 that these Protestants claim that St augustine somehow questioned purgatory although as I said before this is completely ridiculous from just a few chapters before where he affirmed it and also at the end of the same work that he affirmed it and also the 40 years of teaching where he affirmed it throughout a number of different works in a number of different contexts but apparently in this work he happens to question the teaching but let's read the section it's chapter 69 it says quote "Nor is it beyond belief that something of the same kind could happen also after this life and it can be asked if it is the case whether or not an answer can be found that some of the faithful are saved by a purifying fire more or less quickly depending on whether they have loved perishable good things more or less but this does not apply to those of whom it is said that they will not possess the kingdom of God unless those sins are forgiven them and they do suitable penance end quote now in this text St augustine clearly thinks that there are questions which can be asked he says as much he says quote it can be asked if it is the case and he actually states some uncertainty about the answer to this question he says quote whether or not an answer could be found now the Protestants they see this they're saying well he said that you know we don't know whether the case can be found or not he said oh they asked a question and therefore St augustine here is very clearly questioning whether purgatory exists or not but is that what he's asking let's read it again and very slowly let's read it slowly for our Protestant friends it says quote "It can be asked if it is the case whether or not an answer can be found that some of the faithful are saved by a purifying fire more or less quickly." End quote now it may be helpful actually there is a certain clause which separates the entire question you know St augustine had a very complicated sentence style let's remove that middle clause and it might become a little bit clearer to you it could be asked if it is the case that some of the faithful are saved by a purifying fire more or less quickly depending on whether they have loved perishable good things more or less that's interesting what is the question that St augustine is asking let's let's ask the question again let's see if this is very clear for us quote whether some of the faithful are saved by purifying fire more or less quickly so if you're asking whether some of the faithful can be saved by a purifying fire more or less quickly what is the question that's being asked well it's clearly a question being asked about some of the details of purgatory in fact to ask such a question about the details of purgatory affirms belief in purgatory you wouldn't ask the question for example are the fires of hell corporeal unless you believed in hell in the same way you wouldn't ask whether some are relieved more or less quickly depending on more or less attachments whether you believed there was a purgatory obviously the entire question is assuming the existence and this is merely a question on the basis of some of the details not only as I said before should this just be completely obvious from extrinsic evidence because it would be quite ridiculous to have St augustine professing something for 40 years and in a random book he writes for a layman who needs some help in theology he starts speculating he starts saying "Well I'm not I'm actually wasn't sure about it the whole time even though I said that it was certain it was certain it was certain it's certain that the prayers benefit it's certain that mass benefits it's certain that there's perpetuation of this life." And so on and so forth now obviously from extrinsic evidence but even from a plain reading of the intrinsic evidence this should be very clear noel Alexandre a 17th century Dominican theologian writes quote "Both scripture and tradition which are the two rules of faith teach that purgatory should be proposed and preached as a dogma of faith scripture and tradition clearly teach about purgatory therefore it must be proposed and defended as a dogma of the faith furthermore it is not true that St augustine only counted purgatory as a mere opinion his testimony in favor of purgatory is abundant and frequently expressed in his writings even though St augustine sometimes speak cautiously about the specific nature of the punishments in purgatory he never denies its existence end quote now in the beginning of this entire video I mentioned a certain text which St augustine wrote to St sirill and this text was an antipolagian text and this antipolagian text was on purgatory because denial of purgatory was a pelagian error the Plagians thought that one had to be perfectly sinless in order to enter into heaven and if anybody had any sort of sin there was no hope of a purifying fire rather they went straight to hell st augustine explained Pelagius's teaching in his on the proceedings of Pelagius us another statement was read which Pelagius had placed in his book to the effect quote in the day of judgment no forbearance will be shown to the ungodly and the sinners but they will be consumed in eternal fires end quote this induced the brethren to regard the statement as open to the objection that it seemed so worded as to imply that all sinners whatever were to be punished with an eternal punishment without accepting even those who hold Christ as their foundation although they build thereupon wood hay stubble concerning whom the apostle writes "If any man's work shall be burned he shall suffer loss but he shall himself be saved yet so as by fire." Since also they were absent who presented the indictment against Pelagius to the Holy Bishop Uloius there was no one to urge him that he ought to distinguish by some exception between those sinners who are saved by fire and those who are purified and those who are punished with everlasting predition end quote in fact Pelagius called any sort of affirmation of a purgatorial fire oristic st st augustine refuted this teaching by showing that all in in many and different ways suffer from venial sins every single day and therefore it would somehow be absurd to state that all sinners suffered from eternal hellfire but rather there are some sinners who only suffer from a temporal fire which is the fires of purgatory now some interpreted St augustine in Alexandria in an originistic sense and this obviously got them worried so St augustine had to follow up and explain his teachings and explain the manner in which he agrees with purgatory and the way in which his denial is said to be pelagium st augustine wrote that his work quote shocked certain people because it argued that not all sinners are punished by eternal fire end quote st augustine first exposes the plagian foundations for denying such a position he says quote "The statement we made that not all sinners but only certain ones are condemned to endless punishment displeases those who say that even in this mortal life there are holy persons without sin as a result they say that they do not need the Lord's prayer." In which the whole church cries out "Forgive us our debts for the forgiveness of their own sins because they have no sins." Your holiness undoubtedly sees that these people must be corrected from the wickedness of their error for it is certain that these ideas stem from that unhealthy Pelagian teaching that claim that all sinners are punished by eternal fire such that no hope of pardon would be left for those who truthfully admit that they are not without sin in that way they either swell up with pride supposing that this life and theirs has no sin or they waste away in despair as if they were already destined for everlasting punishment end quote notice that he clearly teaches that there is a quote hope of pardon which occurs in this next life now is this hope of pardon a simple forgiving of all of the temporal debt due to sin or is there actually some sort of punishment inflicted well St augustine explains himself he says quote "These words of the apostle should be interpreted so that we may understand that was said in terms not of the fire of the last judgment but of a fire before that judgment either in this life or after death." End quote notice that St augustine is very clearly affirming that two-fold fire that we've always went over above that is the purgatorial fire of sufferings in this life and the purgatorial fire which occurs after life but before the final judgment this is very much in line with that broader more extensive reading of 1 Corinthians 3 that St augustine clearly shows throughout his whole works he concludes this by reiterating the fact that the denial of purgatory has pelagian underpinnings he says quote "That error is certainly to be avoided by which all sinners are thought to be destined for the punishment of everlasting fire if they do not live a life here that is utterly without sin we must also be on guard that those who hold this view are not also found to hold other plagian teachings no less unsound or even worse and that their dreadful infection does not spread among unwary people when we do not suppress or heal the evil that the care of brotherly love has discovered in some of them." end quote as a point of conclusion it is completely and utterly absurd to deny that St augustine taught purgatory he teaches it in many places throughout his entire career and he never so much as doubts it uh it's extremely clear and it's pretty much cop to deny this anyways as always God bless there were recently two infamous surveys one done in 2019 and the other done in 2022 the survey in 2019 found out that 2thirds of professed Catholics in the United States do not believe in transubstantiation and the 2022 survey found that one-third of Masco and Catholics were in the same situation now basically everybody who knows anything about religion knows that the church teaches transubstantiation or at least knows that the church teaches the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist now when it comes to the sacrifice of the mass this is a much less well-known teaching when I was growing up I always heard about transubstantiation in my Protestant household i heard about the real presence i knew about all that stuff but I never heard about the sacrifice of the mass until I really started studying theology so when it comes to the sacrifice of the mass it is clear that the catechesus on this point is even worse than in other areas yet this is one of the most central aspects to our religion and this video is meant to provide at least a little bit of a remedy to help people catch up on their catechesus surrounding the sacrifice of the mass and when it comes to this catechizus on the sacrifice of the mass this isn't something that's merely useful for debating Protestants or explaining the faith to others in an apologetic situation the sacrifice of the mass is the most efficacious worship that we render unto God the sacrifice of the mass is something that we each go to week after week yet how much do you really know about the sacrifice of the mass well watch the rest of this video and find out [Music] let's get started in order to even understand what the sacrifice of the mass is we need to know what a sacrifice is generally speaking a sacrifice is when you offer something to God so there are going to be three elements to a sacrifice one there's the person offering sometimes this is an individual person who might be offering a sacrifice sometimes it might be a public individual who represents a community uh also known as a priest two you need something to offer this is usually referred to as the victim of the offering and three you need the sacrificial action the sacrificial action has two aspects on the one hand it has immolation immolation is the action which is performed on the victim so in many cases this could be cutting this could be burning it could be killing it could be a lot of different actions on the other hand you have the ablation because not only are you doing something to the victim you're offering this victim up to God so for example if you think about pagan human sacrifices the offer is going to be the priest who is you know stabbing the person the victim is going to be the individual who is on the altar having his heart ripped out the immolation is going to be the ripping out of the heart and the oblation is going to be when they raise the heart up and offer it to their pagan demon deities now when it comes to immolation and oblation these are usually two sides of the same coin uh when you're burning cutting destroying whatever with the victim of the sacrifice you're usually doing that with the intention of offering this up to God another less bloody example we can give is the offering up of incense so you have the individual who is burning the incense uh often times if this is in a lurggical context the individual is a representative for everybody else and he sets the incense on fire and this is the immolation and the incense itself is going to be the victim uh in this offering so in summary generally speaking a sacrifice is when you offer something up to God and there are three aspects to a sacrifice there is the offerer or the priest there is the victim or the thing offered and there's the sacrificial action which is constituted of two parts immolation which destroys the thing and ablation which offers the thing now something that I forgot to mention is why exactly is imilation necessary why do you need to render the object or the victim unusable why do you need to alter it by cutting burning destroying eating or whatever other action you may think of the reason is that sacrifice in its most proper sense recognizes the supreme dominion of what one is offering it to that's why we don't offer proper sacrifices to saints that's why we don't offer proper sacrifices to anybody in this world the reason we don't offer proper sacrifices is because by destroying something of creation by altering it in this way you're showing that that thing has supreme dominion over the entire existence of the victim and therefore if that has supreme dominion it can only be God so this is why sacrifice is the high point of offering this is why sacrifice can only be done to God and this is why we emulate sacrifices we also may use sacrifices in other less proper senses for example sometimes we speak of prayer or worship as sacrifices we speak of somebody sacrificing themselves for their country or making sacrifices for their family or so on and so forth but these are merely metaphorical analogous names given to all of these actions these aren't sacrifice in its most proper sense but anyways let's get back to it so this division of sacrifice actually gives us a pretty good outline it gives us a pretty good list of things to discuss so we can split this up into four sections first who offers the mass second what is offered in the mass third what is the sacrificial action and then fourth we can add something onto this because when it comes to any action we can ask what is the purpose or the end of the action so the fourth section is going to be covering what is the end what are the effects of the sacrifice at the mass in order to give a general overview you'll want to keep this formula in your head when it comes to the offerer or the priest of the sacrifice of the mass it is the same as the offerer or priest of the sacrifice of the cross that is Christ christ is the one who offers the victim in the mass the priest is only a minister of Christ now second when it comes to the victim the victim is the same as the sacrifice of the cross that is Christ's suffering so when it comes to the priest and when it comes to the victim it is the exact same as the sacrifice on the cross now because of this the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the mass are one sacrifice there is only one sacrifice that is the sacrifice of Christ this is why a lot of the Protestant arguments against the sacrifice of the mass from its opposition to the sacrifice of the cross are merely going to fall short it is only by the operative power of the cross that the sacrifice of the mass has any of its effect not only that but it is actually really identical to it so on the other hand what makes the difference between the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the mass well the difference is only found in the mode of offering when it comes to the mode of offering when it comes to the sacrificial act it is distinct on the cross it was a bloody sacrifice it was a corporeal sacrifice but when it comes to the sacrifice of the mass it's an unbloody sacrifice it is a sacrifice which is done under mystical symbols the symbols of bread and wine so this gives us our formulation the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrifice of the cross are essentially identical they are essentially identical because they have the same priest and same victim but the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrifice of the cross are modally distinct they are modally distinct because they have a different manner of offering as we saw before there are three elements of sacrifice there is the offerer there is the victim and there is the sacrificial action now as we just went over because there is a unity of the victim which is Christ's suffering and the offer which is Christ as priest the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrifice of the cross are truly one sacrifice but since the sacrificial action the third element is distinct they are modally distinct sacrifices one done in a bloody manner and one done in an unbloody manner the first thing that we must discuss is the one who offers now this might seem extremely easy we just say well we've already mentioned it we mentioned that Christ is the one who offers the mass and that of course is true but in our theological tradition in our spiritual tradition in our lurggical tradition we actually speak of many offerers we speak of Christ offering the mass we speak of the priest offering the mass we speak of the church offering the mass we speak of the faithful offering the mass what does it mean in our spiritual tradition when we as layman are said to offer the body and blood of Christ unto God what does this mean what exactly are we signifying and what are all of these distinct modes and manners in which we're speaking of so it's not as simple as just saying that Christ is the one who offers now when it comes even to the offering of Christ and the relationship between Christ offering the mass and the priest offering the mass there's actually quite a big controversy among Roman Catholic theologians on the one hand we have the Scotists and a few Jesuits and on the other hand we have basically everyone else the different names for these two positions are on the one hand Scott and the Scotists believe that there is a moral concurrence of Christ offering and the priest offering and on the other hand everyone else including the toists say that there is a physical concurrence now these are complicated concepts but I'll try to make it easy with a little bit of an analogy let's say you have a certain king and that king wants to honor a different king so what that king does is he takes his minister and he tells his minister "Go to the other king in my name and honor the other king." He doesn't give him particulars of what to say he doesn't even really give him particulars of what to offer now when the minister goes to the other king and gives him some sort of honor the original king is said to have a moral concurrence in that action the original king sent him in his name and obviously has a general intention that the other king be honored this is the way that the Scottists think about the manner in which Christ is said to be the primary offerer of the mass they say "Well Christ instituted the mass and Christ gave the priest power to transubstantiate the bread and wine into his body and blood." And therefore because of this there isn't an actual physical concurrence in the sacrifice of the mass rather there's just a general moral concurrence he kind of just sends him out in his name and therefore we can speak of Christ in a kind of technical way as the primary offer of the mass because you know he started the institution on the other hand what the vast vast majority of the theologians teach is basically like this you have the king the king sends the minister to the other king to honor him but the king gives him explicit directions and not only gives him these explicit directions but also gives him the very words to say and gives him the very gifts to give now when the minister is saying the very words of the king to the other king and is giving the very gifts that passed into his hands from the other king it truly can be said that the original king is physically concurring in the honor given to the other this is the way that the vast majority of the theologians including all of the toists think about the sacrifice of the mass they say that Christ in his role as our heavenly high priest is at all times and in all places concurring with every single mass that is offered thus at every moment Christ is offering through his hands to the heavenly father every single mass that is offered in his name and by his institution he is always and in all places all throughout the world interceding for us to the father on our behalf he is presenting his own body and blood to the father on our behalf and the priests are mere ministers and it is not their will it is not their gifts that is being offered to the father if the priest is a wicked man the sacrifice of the mass works it's not his will it's not his gifts that make the sacrifice of the mass efficacious rather it's because Christ himself is interceding for us in the heavenly places offering his own body and blood to the father yet we can dive a bit deeper into this mystery if we consider what are called the infused and beatotific knowledges of Christ christ knew all things when he was on earth christ when he was on the cross when his sacred heart was being pierced when he was dying and offering himself up to his heavenly father in that act of will whereby he chose to give up his life in this act of will he was aware of all the masses that would be offered by his commission and in his name so we can say that the very act of willing whereby the body and blood of Christ were offered on the cross is the self-same act of will whereby he willed that all of these various different masses be given from his hands to the father so the very will of Christ dying on the cross is the selfsame and very will of Christ which establishes all of these various sacrifices which are done in an unbloody manner and passed from his hands to the heavenly father now besides Christ in ecclesiastical literature we also see that layman and priests are said to offer the mass now here we can distinguish between imilation and ablation now as I said imilation consists in some sort of authoring of the victim in some sort of destruction that acknowledges the supreme dominion of God but on the other hand offering simply means that you are taking the victim and you are presenting it to the heavenly father to adore him to thank him and to impetrate all of the benefits of God as we will cover in a little bit more detail below the imulation that occurs in the sacrifice of the mass is the fact that there is what's called the double consecration just as the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was the actual separation of his body and blood because that's what a sacrifice is so also in the mass there is the mystical separation of his body and blood there's the sacramental separation of his body and blood and this occurs in the double consecration because over here we have the consecration of bread over here we have the consecration of wine this is actually why if we only had a single consecration let's say the priest just took bread and consecrated his bread there would be the real presence but there would not be the sacrifice so when it comes to this imolation obviously the only one performing this imilation is the priest the priest is the only one who transubstantiates in the person of Christ but on the other hand when it comes to the ablation when it comes to the taking of the victim and offering of the victim unto God the layman can have some sort of moral union with the priest and with Christ who are offering the body and blood to the father so since there can be this moral concurrence we can attach our wills and intentions to the offering of the body and the blood unto God this is the way in which ecclesiastical literature the liturgy and so on and so forth speaks about the offering or oblation of the body and blood unto the father if you really enjoy this channel please consider becoming a patron at patreon.com/militanttoist at the first level you get access to the private Discord at the second level you get access to weekly bonus videos at the third level you get access to free translations articles and notes on the Suma of St thomas on the fourth level you get access to course videos and DM questions and beyond this there are many other benefits so please make sure to check out patreon.com/militantist we've already went over quite a few things in this video first we distinguish the three aspects of sacrifice that is offer or priest the thing offered or the victim and then the sacrificial action further we've distinguished between immolation and oblation and the sacrificial action and most recently we've went over the senses in which Christ is said to be the offer of the mass and also in which the priest and even layman are said to be the offer of the mass and now that we've went over the priest who offers the mass we can now go over the victim that is offered in the mass when it comes to the victim that is offered in the mass there really isn't much controversy the victim that is offered in the mass is Christ christ who was sacrificed once upon the cross this victim is present unto us by transubstantiation because the bread turns into his body and the wine turns into his blood and because we have the body and blood of Christ we have the victims that once suffered on the cross the only distinction between the two is that on the cross Christ was present under his own proper appearance or technically speaking his own proper species now when it comes to the sacramental body and blood that are present to us in the mass they're not under their own proper species we don't see a hunk of flesh and a cup of blood in front of us rather it's present under a different species it's present under the species of bread and wine and because of this we sometimes speak in the liturgy in ecclesiastical tradition among the fathers among the theologians sometimes we'll talk about sacrificing bread and wine of course it isn't talking about sacrificing bread and wine as some sort of independent thing rather it's talking about the fact that Christ is here present under the species of bread and wine therefore by some sort of circumlocution we can speak about the sacrifice of bread and wine as a bit of an aside sometimes we also speak of our union or uniting to Christ as victim this is much less common in the spiritual and ecclesiastical literature but it does happen what this means is that we are suffering some sort of pain or anguish externally and we want to unite this pain or anguish to the sufferings of Christ on the cross and morally unite ourselves to him who is suffering that's all that means yet when we combine what we heard about our participation in offering and our participation in being offered we could actually learn a lot about some fundamental misunderstandings that Protestants have about the entire economy of salvation and the purpose of Christ being sacrificed on the cross we can distinguish between two aspects of Christ's mediation on the one hand you have the descending mediation of Christ on the other hand you have the ascending mediation of Christ in the descending mediation of Christ he is bringing certain things down from God to us this would be the various graces and blessings that Christ brings down to us on the other hand in the ascending mediation of God Christ brings something from us to God he's bringing our various thanksgivings and worships and offerings and sacrifices and he's taking them into his hands and bringing them up to the heavenly father this is where the Protestant confusion becomes obvious when it comes to the descending mediation of Christ this is the way of the sacraments the sacraments bring us sanctifying grace which is meant to make us holy when it comes to the ascending mediation of Christ this isn't about sacrament this is about sacrifice sacrifice is not for us sacrifice is something that we give to God and it comes through the hands of Christ the pleasing sacrifice is the sacrifice of the cross and the ascending mediation of Christ is the basis for the descending mediation of Christ christ offered his body and blood in love to the heavenly father and because of this the wrath of God was placadated and this sacrifice to God is what makes God disposed to rain down those heavenly blessings these heavenly blessings which come from the hand of Christ to us that is sanctifying grace it makes God want to wipe away the guilt that we have it makes God not want to give the eternal punishment to those things that we do and as a bit of a cyclical motion Christ offers himself to the father the father reigns down blessings on us through Christ and actually because these blessings are not fruitless but fruitful we are motivated from this to offer our worship to God but of course this worship to God comes through the hands of Christ and because it comes through the hands of Christ it is pleasing to God so this is why our works and our prayers and everything else our sacrifices are all worth something in the eyes of God because they are motivated by his blessings and they come to him from the hands of Christ we would not even be able to do any good works if it wasn't for the grace of God working within us both to will and to work and our willing and working would not be anything before God if it didn't come to God through the intercession of our Lord Jesus Christ this is why we speak of a two-fold basis of merit on the one hand Christ brings to us a certain participation in the divine nature and this participation in the divine nature is sanctifying grace it's the grace which makes us holy but on the other hand since Christ is our high priest since Christ is the head of the church when we motivated by the sanctifying grace offer up works prayers and sacrifices unto God not only did the virtue which makes all of these possible come through the hands of Christ but the works as imperfect as they are coming from our hands go up to God through the hands of Christ and it is only on this basis that they are worthy the Christian religion would not be complete without either aspect if we had sacrament without sacrifice the Christian religion would be completely fruitless we would offer nothing up to God we would merely receive from God but if we had sacrifice without sacrament there would be no basis for our worship there would be nothing which draws us up to the heavenly places through Christ it would be completely unintelligible for us to raise our hearts up to God if he had not descended to us first so we need both the descending mediation in the sacrament and the ascending mediation in the sacrifice we need the descending mediation in Christ coming to us in suffering and we need the ascending mediation in so far as he intercedes for us on our behalf both of these elements are sublimely present in the holy mass on the one hand Christ presents himself to the heavenly father through the ministry of a priest under the species of bread and wine we unite ourselves to this offering we unite ourselves to it in order to adore God through the hands of Christ we do it in order to thank him for his many blessings that we've received we do it in order to beg him for certain benefits we do it in order to ask him for forgiveness for our many sins and all these go up to God through the hands of Christ on the one hand Christ brings our offerings and intentions all the way up to the heavenly throne room all the way up to God the father but on the other hand he also brings God the father he brings the divinity a certain participation and share in the divinity down to us through the sacrament wherein we receive sacramental grace we do not leave without the pledge and gift of our redemption which is the very body and blood of Christ which we receive through the Eucharist and we receive this in order to be blessed and sanctified this actually gives us a good entrance into our next discussion we've already went over above how Christ is the offerer and the various manners and ways in which we speak about priests or even us being offerers of the mass we've also went over how Christ is the victim and then we attach these two things to the way in which the economy of salvation works the way in which the ascending and the descending mediation of Christ functions in the economy of salvation and how both of these aspects are sublimely found in the most holy Eucharist but we still haven't went over the sacrificial action as for the sacrificial action there's actually been quite a few theologians who unfortunately aired on this point this has been a very complicated question that was debated for a very long time until venerable pious I 12th put an end to it the difficulty is this we spoke about above that emilation is some sort of destruction when you emulate a grain offering you burn the grain offering when you emulate the offering of a lamb you eat the lamb so what is the imolation that's found in the Eucharist well for some theologians the reason that imilation in the old covenant often took the form of eating so therefore when it comes to the Eucharist our immolation of the sacrifice is found in our eating and our drinking this is the destruction of the sacrifice this is the destruction of the symbols of the sacrifice so it seems like when it comes to the eating of the bread and wine that this should be such an essential part of the sacrifice of the mass that it actually should be a constitutive part of the sacrifice of the mass not merely for its integrity for it to go through all of the ceremonies that are necessary to be a good sacrifice to the mass but actually this is an essential part of it to where if you don't have the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine therefore the sacrifice doesn't occur this was the position that was taken by St robert Bellerin and St alfonsus Lagori two doctors of the church but is this correct well as we went over above this was excluded by venerable pest 12 so what is the correct answer how is there immolation of the Eucharist well this problem was solved a very long time ago by St thomas Aquinas then it was repeated by Cardinal Thomas de Vio Kagetin kagetin repeating what St thomas said basically held that this is done by mystical immolation well what is mystical emilation sounds like it's a throwaway term that really doesn't say anything well think about it in the Eucharist you have the two-fold consecration you have the consecration of bread and the body is under the species of that bread under the appearances of that bread and on the other hand you have wine and blood is under the species of that wine well when you look throughout sacred scripture what is the blood of something well the blood is the life of something so what is another word for death well another word for death is the shedding of blood when you have the separation of blood from body you have the death of that thing so the separation of blood and body is sufficient for immolation in fact it is the normative means of immolation and on the cross when Christ's body and blood were separated that's when he was immolated and offered himself up to the father so in the Eucharist when you have on the one hand the consecration of the bread and on the other hand the consecration of the wine you have a two-fold consecration and this two-fold consecration under the symbols of bread and wine a sacramental separation of body and blood and therefore since there is the sacramental separation this is truly an immation now why do we call it a mystical imilation well the reason we call it this is because this is an outward symbolic separation but the symbols truly and really under their appearances contain the things they signify that's all that mystical separation means i'll give you an example this might help make you get it so let's say we had some sort of movie and this movie was of the passion of Christ we had Christ in front of our eyes in a symbolic way sacrificed for us we have a symbolic sacrifice in front of our eyes we have a dramatic presentation of the sacrifice of Christ is this a sacrifice is this an immulation happening before our eyes no it's merely a representation of it it's merely a movie about it but since in the separation of the blood and in the separation of the body under the symbols of bread and wine because we have this symbolic separation which really contains what it signifies we truly can say that we have an immation here so this is all that's meant by mystical emilation do you want to have access to more videos and custom interaction whilst also helping out the channel if so please consider becoming a YouTube member at the first level for only $3 a month get access to custom emojis to use in live streams and in the comment section at the second level for only $5 a month get access to a weekly bonus stream at the third level for only $10 a month get access to priority replies on all your comments click the join button below or the link in the description to find out more so far in this video we've went over the nature of sacrifice in general we went over the form or essence of the sacrifice of the mass which is found in the double consecration further we've went over the efficient cause which is Christ as priest who is offering the mass as primary offerer and lastly we went over the material cause which is Christ as victim suffering on the cross so what is there left to cover because we went over all three parts of the sacrifice of the mass well we can still cover as we said before the ends the purposes the effects of the sacrifice of the mass what is it for in order to understand the meaning and the purpose of the sacrifice of the mass the ends of the sacrifice of the mass we have to remember that this is part of the ascending mediation of Christ this isn't about what is brought down to us principally but rather what is it meant to do in relation to God what is it meant to do to God what is it meant to offer to God that's the question that we have to ask we have to always keep in mind that a sacrifice is an offering to God then we will not fall into the various Protestant confusions the text that tells us the most about this is Malachi 1:11 it reads quote "From the rising of the sun even to the going down my name is great among the Gentiles and in every place there is sacrifice and there is offered to my name a clean oblation for my name is great among the Gentiles sayeth the Lord of hosts end quote this is supposed to be a prophecy about the future church this is why most translations will translate the present tense is as the prophetic future shall be so there shall be a pure oblation a clean oblation which is offered among the Gentiles in all places now traditionally this has always been interpreted as the eukarist We could give plenty of individual exoggetical arguments and I might do a future video about this we're going to assume for a minute that this is about the Eucharist the Protestant might very much agree that this is about the Eucharist since from the very early times this has been applied to the Eucharist but they will argue that this is merely a sacrifice of thanksgiving they will argue that this is merely in reference to the application of the fruits of the cross well as we went over above the applications of the fruits of the cross is about the descending mediation of Christ and therefore isn't even about sacrifice which is why I told you it's important to keep in mind the distinction between the ascending and descending mediation between the Eucharist as sacrament the Eucharist as sacrifice but anyways this is what they'll argue argue that this is merely a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving that Malachi is talking about but this doesn't make any sense and the reason that this doesn't make any sense is that this clean oblation this pure sacrifice which will be offered among the Gentiles is meant to be a sacrifice in context this sacrifice is presented as something which is greater than all the sacrifices of the old covenant this is a sacrifice which is supposed to be a pure and clean offering in comparison to the dirty offerings that were once presented so if this sacrifice does not fulfill one of the primary ends of the sacrifice of the old covenant which were propitiation then this sacrifice wouldn't be a greater sacrifice how could it be a greater sacrifice if it only fulfills some of the ends of some of the sacrifices of the old covenant rather it would be a worse sacrifice it would be a much worse sacrifice so the sacrifice of the Eucharist needs to fulfill all of the ends of the sacrifices of the old covenant in a greater way further it's the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross makes no sense to say that the sacrifice of the cross has some end but the sacrifice of the Eucharist doesn't have that end that makes absolutely no sense now when it comes to the first argument the shates give a very good summary they say quote "The sacrifice which is predicted in Malachi 1:11 is a sacrifice replacing all the sacrifices of the old law but the sacrifices in the old law were not only of adoration and thanksgiving but also propitiation and impetration therefore the sacrifice predicted by Malachi will be of such a kind but this is nothing other than the sacrifice of the mass therefore the sacrifice of the mass is not only one of adoration and thanksgiving but also propitiation and impetration." End quote here we see the four ends of sacrifice presented we have adoration thanksgiving propitiation and impetration adoration is an act of the virtue of religion which is meant to acknowledge the supreme perfection of God adoration is the greatest and purest form of worship but on the other hand thanksgiving is a response thanksgiving is a response to the benefits which are given from God adoration and thanksgiving in the Eucharist are pretty obvious they're essential to any sort of sacrifice so very clearly the Eucharist is going to have these two this isn't really controversial with the Protestants who do affirm that the Eucharist is a sacrifice now when it comes to the last two this is where things get a bit interesting because there is a bit of disagreement so first we can speak of impetration what is impetration well impetration basically means that you're just asking for something if you go up to a king and ask the king to give you a benefit ask you to give you you know maybe a little bit of property over there you ask the king to show mercy on somebody else this is an act of impetration you're impetrating the king to do something for you so very obviously in the mass we offer various intentions and these various intentions are acts of infiltration yet the last one is where things get very controversial and this is propitiation what does propitiation mean well propitiation means to make somebody propitious to be propitious basically means to have a favorable disposition to somebody else usually it's in reference to a favorable disposition that one has after having a very unfavorable disposition propitiation means to render somebody propitious to be propitious means that you have a favorable disposition towards somebody when at one time you didn't have a favorable disposition towards somebody when you have a sacrifice of propitiation you're trying to appease somebody by offering something that they love so this is what happens in the sacrifice on the cross on the cross Christ offers in his infinite love his own body and blood in order to perpetuate the father this means that the father has some sort of wrath some sort of desired punishment against the guilt of sinful creatures and Christ is offering his own body and blood in order to render God favorable to us in English we have a similar idea with a peace offering a peace offering is something which is given from one party to another when they have a bit of tension in order to resolve the tension so if you get in a fight with you know your sibling you may give them something in order to render them propitious to you you're trying to propitiate the anger that they have of something that you've done wrong you're trying to end the hostilities between two individuals now the idea of a peace offering is a bit different because peace offering usually assumes that you're equals and that there is equal aggression between both sides and one of them is is finally trying to bury the hatchet uh by what's going on by what is offered or on the other hand we are guilty before God we deserve punishment and there's a very one-sided situation which is going on so propitiation is actually very closely related to infiltration we're basically asking God to do something in relation to our sins now in Catholic otteriology we think about guilt we think about the guilt of mortal sin the guilt of mortal sin is removed by sanctifying grace sanctifying grace is infused within us and guilt is removed now as I said before this is part of the descending mediation of Christ that we receive sanctifying grace so directly and immediately the sacrifice of the mass is not ordered to remove the guilt of sin because the guilt of sin is only removed by sanctifying grace which is part of the descending mediation of Christ and comes by way of the sacrament the only way in which we talk about the mass removing the guilt of mortal sin or anything like that is propitiation in so far as it is impetration we are asking God to be merciful unto us and he grants us a spirit of contrition he grants us repentance he grants us these good motions of grace which make us turn back to him this is the only sense we speak about the mass as propitious for the guilt of sin so it is completely wrong to speak of the mass as removing guilt in an immediate indirect way rather it only refers to the removal of guilt in a remote way in an indirect and a mediated way therefore the sacred theologia suma says giving a synopsis of the teaching of the council of trent quote "A sacrament sanctifies efficiently and instrumentally a sacrifice sanctifies to the power of impetation that it has in the sight of God the mass is offered for the sins not directly for their remission but it is offered for them indirectly in as much as by the sacrifice of the mass God having been appeased grants grace and the gift of repentance to the sinner and so forgives his sins." that is by giving the actual grace whereby the sinner disposes himself for justification to be obtained by the ordinary means end quote on the other hand we can actually think about certain temporal punishments which are due to sin these temporal punishments are satisfied in purgatory this is what is referred to when we're thinking about the punishments due to venial sins or sometimes they're called the punishments due to daily sins by some of the fathers by the offering of the body and blood of Christ the father is given some sort of propitiation in order not to punish these temporal punishments due to venial sin this is why according to the holy fathers mass is offered for the dead mass is offered for the dead so that God may be propitiated for all of the temporal punishments that he is inflicting in purgatory whether you like it or not this is the teaching of the fathers st and Augustine for example says quote "When sacrifices whether of the altar that is the mass or of alms are offered for the baptized dead they are thank offerings for the very good that is those in heaven propitiations for the not so very bad that is those in purgatory and as for the very bad that is those in hell even if they are of no help to the dead they are at least a sort of consolation for the living." End quote in this video we went over a lot we went over what a sacrifice is what are the various parts of a sacrifice how the mass fulfills all these parts of a sacrifice and therefore is a proper sacrifice we also went over the ends of the sacrifice of the mass some of the biblical justification the way in which the ascending and descending mediation of Christ relates to this the way in which we distinguish between a sacrament and a sacrifice and so on and so forth we went over a lot of stuff in this video this is why in the future I want to do particular videos going over some of these different aspects so let me know in the comments below which one of these aspects you would like me to cover in more detail and definitely subscribe like this video do all that good stuff follow me in order to get all of those future videos on the sacrifice the mass now I hope this helped you out and as always God [Music] bless pope Benedict the 16th said that mental prayer is an ordinary means that enables the disciple of Jesus to live in intimacy with the divine teacher yet how does one engage in mental prayer one of the greatest masters of the spiritual life was S ignatius of Leola in the 19th century a certain Jesuit priest decided to write a complete guide to mental prayer patent on the works of S ignatius check out this work on Amazon completely types set under the title a brief guide to mental prayer according to the mind of St ignatius for decades the popular Catholic mind has regarded predestination with disdain ordinarily viewing it as a Calvinistic heresy different as Catholics we don't believe in predestination what if I was to tell you that predestination is a Catholic dogma others understanding this will attempt to put forward a Catholic understanding of predestination bastardizing the historic teaching of the Jesuit order the teaching of St robert Bellerin Francisco Suarez and Luis de Molina by claiming that predestination to grace is after the consideration of our merits the toistic view affirms a total predestination of the elect through no condition like the Calvinists yet in most if not all occasions their articulation of mullanism violates Catholic dogmas as we will see throughout this video lastly a very many will understand well all the above yet will deny the idea of a quote double predestination accepting that God predestines individuals to heaven but denying any relation of the predestinating will of God to hell it would be a monstrous thing for God to do and the church rejects that it's called double predestination yet this too is against Catholic dogma as we will see above in most theological questions there are what are called opposed errors these opposed errors in order to retain some truth corrupt another truth in the issue of predestination there were some who wished to retain the truth of the freedom of the will and by that attempt destroy the doctrine of predestination these are called pelagians others in order to retain the truth of predestination destroy the truth of the freedom of the will these are called predestinarians further there were some who wished to so elevate the universality of the will of God save that they destroyed the particular will the predestined these are called semipolagians on the other hand there were some who wished to so elevate the particular and efficacious will to save that they destroyed the universality of the will of God to save these are given the ecclesiastical designation of Calvinist yet it is important to remember as we can also see with the description of semipolium that these historic descriptions conform to the beliefs of a historic group of individuals to a more or less degree with some designations the description is spot-on with other designations it is describing the popular understanding of the error with others it is describing the followers of a certain individual rather than the individual himself and lastly with others there's almost a complete disconnect between the described heresy and the individuals who supposedly hold these errors anyways the Catholic Church rather than emphasizing one truth over another holds all these seemingly opposed truths in tension following the teaching of divine revelation rather than the feelings of tension that they may have it is the job of the theologian to come in and begin to explain more and more the coherence of these seemingly opposed thesis and show how they do not contradict even while we will never be able to see the intimate reconciliation of these thesis until we see God as he is some of these theologians have tended to emphasize one part of the mystery over another tending closer to one or another heresy overexaggerating one point of the mystery at the exclusion of another still other theologians have taken the position of the radical centrist corrupting the truths not by any overemphasis but by seeking solutions that are in the middle of the seeming contradiction underemphasizing all the relevant truths lastly there is the theologian who faithfully holds what revelation teaches holding the tension where the mystery becomes too obscure and shining the light of reason on where reason can go in the most difficult questions there are two radically opposed and erroneous solutions one sitting by excess and the other by defect afterwards there then appear mediocre eclectic opinions opportunistically attenuating and juxtaposing the extremes in a kind of mechanical non-organic way however truth is found in the peak where there is an organic and positive reconciliation of the various aspects of the truth that are obscured in the opposed errors end quote yet it is important to remember that while we can critique the methodology and solutions of this or that theologian we need to remain faithful to the toleration that the church has of the number of different solutions to this problem so this video will be an investigation of the limits of Catholic theology to this problem and Lord willing I will make a future video that goes over the various systems classically set forth by theologians but before we continue have you ever wanted to read a book that is meant to be an entire introduction to theology written by toists and meant to bridge the gap between katakesus and higher scholastic studies well I have the perfect book for you the theology library is a six volume introduction to theology written by nearly 70 French Dominicans in the 1950s some of whom were students trained by the great Reginald Marie Gerugulge in order to be a comprehensive introduction to toistic theology for those laymen interested in Catholic action get your set today through the link below in order to set the boundaries of Catholic theology on this problem I will give a series of different thesis explaining them and then showing where the magisterium teaches these first God desires the salvation of all men second God only predestines some to salvation who will infallibly be saved third God predestines all salvific acts fourth predestination to the first grace and to its entirety are both before the consideration of merits fifth there is a positive consequent repbribation on the part of God sixth there is no positive antecedent repbation on the part of God the first thesis is simple god desires the salvation of all i don't really need to go into that one before we continue on to the next thesis we must ask the question what is predestination pope Adrien I sites St fentius to define the term writing as for that however which some of these say that predestination to life or to death is in the power of God and not ours they say "Why do we try to live because it is in the power of God." Again others say "Why do we ask God that we may not be overcome by temptation since it is in our power as in the freedom of the will for truly they are able to render or to accept no plan being ignorant of the words of blessed Faggentius against a certain Pelagius." Quote "Therefore God in the eternity of his changelessness has prepared works of mercy and justice but for men who are to be justified he has prepared merits he has prepared rewards for those who are to be glorified but for the wicked he has not prepared evil wills or evil works but he has prepared for them just and eternal punishments." This is the eternal predestination of the future works of God which as we have always acknowledged to be taught by apostolic doctrine so also faithfully we proclaim end quote here we see that predestination is something broader than the idea of election election concerns the choosing of such and such a person by God but on the other hand predestination concerns the ordering by God of certain means in order to bring about a certain end it is the order of salvation what providence is in the natural order this is why St augustine describes predestination in terms of the quote preparation of gifts since predestination in Catholic theology is God's preparation of the various different graces he will shower upon us in order to bring us elect to beatitude in our second thesis we see that this predestination to glory is not of all men in the papily approved council of valance 3 in the year 855 it states quote but also it is seemed right concerning predestination and truly it is right according to the apostolic authority which says or as not the potter power over the clay from the same lump to make one vessel into honor but another under dishonor where also he immediately adds "What if God willing to show his wrath and to make his power endured with much patience vessels of wrath fitted and prepared for destruction so that he might show the riches of his grace on the vessels of mercy which he has prepared under glory faithfully we confess the predestination of the elect to life the predestination of the impious to death in the election moreover of those who are to be saved the mercy of God precedes the merited good in the condemnation however of those who are to be lost the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment of God in predestination however we believe that God has determined only those things which he himself either in his gratuitous mercy or in his just judgment would do according to scripture which says "Who has done the things which are to be done in regard to evil men however we believe that God forneew their malice because it is from them but that he did not predestin it because it is not from him." End quote keep in mind that this quotation also touches on the fifth and sixth thesis thus while God gives sufficient grace to all men blowing forth from his will that all be saved the infallible ordering of graces to the end of glory is only given to some from this consideration the third thesis flows that is not only are all those who are saved predestined to glory but also each and every salvific act the paply approved council of orange too in the year 529 states quoting St prosper the good will of God and of man men do their own will not God's when they do what displeases God but when they do what they wish in order to serve the divine will even though willingly they do what they do nevertheless it is the will of him by whom what they will is both prepared and ordered end quote these last three thesis are the most controversial of the thesis that we will discuss as to the fourth thesis many claiming the name of Molanist sin against the faith by denying this thesis yet it is important to note that neither Molina nor his most faithful followers ever denied that predestination to the first grace is before the consideration of merits for they as all Catholic theologians affirm that grace is the principle of merit thus the controversy between the mullenists and toists is not a controversy over whether predestination to grace is before or after the consideration of merits but rather whether predestination to glory is before the consideration of merits this is why in the quotation above from the council of valance it states that quote in the election moreover of those who are to be saved the mercy of God precedes the merited good end quote further we can look at the same text in order to establish the fifth and sixth thesis yet we need to explain the technical language attached to each of these thesis before we begin but before we continue remember to like comment and subscribe further if you like content like this please consider supporting the channel at patreon.com/mentois or giving a direct donation at christianbwagner.com/donate in the fifth thesis I use the language of a quote positive consequent repbation all this means is that this is a predestination to the punishment of hell that happens after the commission of and on the basis of the evil that the individual has committed and is personally responsible for this is why in the quote from balance above it states the following quote in the condemnation however of those who are to be lost the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment of God end quote this leads us to our sixth thesis that there is no positive antecedent repribation on the part of God the sense of this thesis is that God does not before one has committed sin that makes them liable to hell positively order them to hell this is what is commonly called predestination to hell or predestination to evil in Protestant circles this error is often called equal ultimacy there's clarification on this point in balance when it states the following quote in regard to evil men however we believe that God forneew their malice because it is from them but that he did not predestin it because it is not from him we believe that God who sees all things forneew and predestined that their evil deserve the punishment which followed because he is just in whom as St augustine says "There is concerning all things everywhere so fix a decree as a certain predestination." End quote further the Council of Trent clarifies the scope of this thesis stating quote "If anyone shall say that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil but that God produces the evil as well as the good works not only by permission but also properly and of himself so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper work in the vocation of Paul let him be anathema." End quote thus the church leaves open a type of antecedent repbation professed by all non-molinist theologians even those theologians following Suarez and Bellamine this is called an antecedent negative repbation god chooses to permit some individual to fall into sin by withholding infallibly efficacious grace to that individual then by the act of positive consequent repbation described above God chooses to impose punishment on account of the sin that they fell into this is what St thomas meant when he stated quote "As predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory so also repribation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin." End quote in the 16th century there was a theological debate so profound that it divided some of the greatest minds in the history of Christianity a debate about how God knows the future on the one side of this controversy stands the theologians of the society of Jesus commonly known as the Jesuits who follow the doctrine of Louis de Molina and Francisco Suarez two of the greatest theologians of the Baroque era on the other side stand the theologians of the order of St dominic known as the Dominicans who follow the doctrine of the common doctor of the Catholic Church St thomas Aquinas however as few are aware the Dominicans are joined by the theologians from other schools in rejecting Molina's doctrine including Franciscans Austinians and virtually all other theological traditions one of the most significant exponents of the Dominican side of this controversy is the 18th century French Dominican Charles Renee Belowart billowart is noteworthy not simply for his arguments or profound insights but as a theologian who stands at the close of the debate providing a faithful and systematic overview of the Dominican arguments previously expounded at length by theologians such as Tomas de Limnos and Domingo Banzawart's devastating reputation of middle knowledge a concept that attempts to reconcile divine fornowledge and human freedom but according to Billowart profoundly misunder understands both by examining Billowart's arguments we'll uncover why his classical toistic critique remains unmatched even centuries later if you enjoy this video and want to delve deeper I've published an English translation of Billowart's masterful reputation of middle knowledge available for purchase on Amazon at the link below additionally those interested in toistic theology and seeking a structured comprehensive journey through Bilawart's brilliant work I offer an extensive course on my website in this course we carefully walk through Bilawart's Sum providing both English translations and detailed video explanations check it out via the link below to begin let's go over some historical background where did this controversy even come from the origin of this controversy is contentious and led to decades of conflict at the highest levels in Rome leading to dozens of different congregations under multiple popes over the span of many decades most historians placed the beginning of this controversy around 1581 when Prudencius de Monte Mayor gave a public defense of middle knowledge at the University of Salamanca this was quickly followed by reputations from Dominicans at the university including the famous Domingo Banz beside this he also denounced 16 thesis to the Spanish Inquisition for investigation there was an evaluation of the Jesuit theologians by various authorities at Salamanca and at the end of this first investigation they were condemned by the commissioner of the Holy Office although the Jesuits claimed that these thesis did not accurately represent them after this point the controversy exploded into other areas of Europe throughout the 1580s it was defended in the low countries by Leonard Leius and condemned in the universities of Luvane and Dwey finally Pope Sixstus V decided to step in as the controversy became more heated deciding in favor of neither side but encouraging both sides to keep the peace this controversy reached a fevered pitch around 1588 when Molina published a definitive edition of his Concordia a commentary on selected articles of the suma of St thomas Aquinas in this commentary he famously set forward the first systematic defense of the concept of middle knowledge while other theologians in the era before Molina had floated the idea in more or less clear form it was Molina that gave a systematic presentation this concordia was almost immediately denounced by Domingo Bettz this idea of middle knowledge which we will explain in more detail later was meant to solve a pretty intuitive problem how are we to think of God having knowledge of the free actions of creatures if we place it in God's knowledge of his own decrees then it would seem to remove the freedom of creatures so Molina decided to go beyond the traditional distinction between God's free knowledge and his necessary knowledge and invent middle knowledge the distinction between God's free and necessary knowledge is the distinction between how we consider God's knowledge of something to be in relation to the free decree of God god's necessary knowledge is said to be necessary because it is based on his own omnipotence god is necessary knowledge of anything he could do god necessarily knows that he could make a unicorn if he wanted to god is free knowledge of those things that he actually determines to will thus God does not have free knowledge of a unicorn since he has not actually determined to make a unicorn molina wanted to break free of this distinction due to the implications it has for issues of grace and predestination thus he devised a type of knowledge between these two this knowledge has as its future object free future actions the Tomas of course didn't deny that God had knowledge of free future actions outside of a few rather they stated that it was part of his free knowledge thus God knows a future free action because of his decree the molanists on the other hand claimed that middle knowledge is something which is both necessary in so far as it precedes the free determination of the will of God and it is contingent in so far as it is of an object that concerns the free decision of creatures the very root of the toistic critique will land on this point they will argue that positing such a decree breaks the classical view of God for it introduces dependency and imperfection in God rather than being completely independent only reliant on himself for his own knowledge God will be determined in his knowledge by a creature thus for the non-molanist God's knowledge can only be determined by something within himself either his omnipotence and his necessary knowledge or his will and his free knowledge anything else jeopardizes the perfection of God it removes God from being the first cause of things and the universal cause of all things for God is a cause through his decree if you have something truly future prior to the decree then this truly future thing escapes the causality of God by definition further it removes the omnipotence of God's will boxing his power in and limiting it to a limited set of possible choices based on the will of creatures to give an analogy William Lane Craig famously said that God must play with the cards that he has dealt in relation to the free decisions of creatures catholic theology must recoil from this for God is not determined by anything outside of himself he is completely independent while both toist and traditional molanist would rebuke Craig for what he said the toist would argue that this is the logical conclusion of molanism for the molanists the free decisions of creatures precede the decree of God thus God is handed the deck of cards that it is the possible future actions of creatures beside this point the tomus brought forward a second critique when considering the object of knowledge not only does it break down when we consider the perfection of God it also breaks down we consider the existence of things for knowability follows upon being something's only knowable in so far as it exists now existence is something that flows from an action of God which ultimately flows from his will since nothing exists independently from God thus even the free actions of creatures can only be and therefore can only be known as something flowing from the will of God not as something preceding it to continue the analogy given above the Thomas would argue that the cards that God plays the hand of providence with cannot be known unless God himself makes the cards since there aren't beings out there with existence apart from his sovereign will now if we introduce this knowledge after the will of God has been exercised then the entire foundation of molanism collapses since this has now been placed in the category of free knowledge in response to this Molina flipped the script and denounced Domingo Banz and another theologian Francisco Zumel to the Spanish Inquisition the objections against their doctrines centered around accusations of following certain Protestant doctrines condemned by Trent it is important to note something very important about the distinct character of the accusations and reputations the reputations of Molina by Banyanas and Zumel centered around the highest principles of things the very notion of the future the relationship between being and nobility firmly established doctrines surrounding God etc yet on the other hand the reputation of Bes and Zumel by Molina centered around certain amalgamations of difficulties that must be resolved such as for example the freedom of the will in its relation to the certainty of divine knowledge efficacy of grace etc while of course these are serious difficulties that need serious answers it is evident that the toist judged the matter on the basis of the highest and most certain principles whereas Molina judged the whole controversy on the basis of certain difficulties in matters like human freedom in 1594 the controversy reached its height now referred to the judgment of Rome by Pope Clement VII in order to resolve this controversy all the material touching this issue was sent to Rome and a series of discussions were planned where a select group of inquisitors who were cardinals hand selected by the pope could hear out the arguments for both sides these discussions became known as the congregations deilis this first round of congregations lasted nearly 10 years and had 181 sessions going from January 2nd 1598 to August 28th 16007 traditionally these congregations are divided into five series the first series was from January 2nd 1598 to February 22nd 1599 in 11 congregations throughout this series the sensors constantly opposed Molina's doctrine on March 6th 1598 they declared quote "The absurdities that follow from middle knowledge are too grave to be tolerated as Catholic." End quote further they also accused the doctrine of semipolasianism writing on March 19th6001 quote it appears to be the same doctrine which the Micilians devised to destroy efficacious grace of good will and to attribute to free will that which they subtract from grace so as not to offend it wherefore it is evidently opposed by St augustine as with the error of the Masilians end quote the sensors ultimately decided to prohibit Molina's Concordia the Jesuits complained against this censure so the pope decided to summon another round of sessions the second series was from February 22nd 1599 to April 20th 1600 in eight congregations in this series Cardinal Banerius a Dominican and St robert Bellerin a Jesuit were present to represent their societies as judges so that prejudice could not be claimed the Dominican side was defended by Diego Alvarez and Michael de Laipa and the Jesuit side by Michael Vasquez and Pedro Arubal this series had to come to a sudden close due to the death of the cardinal overseeing the congregations the third series was from April 27th,600 to March 20th 16002 in 77 congregations this went further than the first series drawing up and approving a list of 20 propositions of Molina to condemn having been approved by the inquisitors the condemnation was then presented to the Pope the Jesuits complained again that the judgment was biased so the Pope decided to get the matter over with rather than promulgating the condemnation of Molina the fourth series was from March 28,6002 to January 22nd65 in 68 sessions this had the most illustrious representatives and witnesses including Pope Clement VI himself presiding with the future Pope Paul V assisting as supreme inquisitor both heads of the Dominican and Jesuit orders were present the principal disputants were Gregory de Valencia Pedro Rubel Fernando Bastida and Juand Salos much progress was made during these sessions especially the last 10 where the doctrine of middle knowledge was discussed during these sessions they tended towards a condemnation for example on October 29th6004 it was concluded that Molina's doctrine was that of the semipolasians and therefore quote it must by all means be exterminated frustratingly Pope Clement died and his successor Leo XI 11th died shortly after this in May of6005 Paul V who had helped oversee the whole controversy became Pope the fifth series would be the last and would lead to a final decision and was from September 14th6005 to March 1st6006 in 17 sessions the votes of the consulters were privately communicated to Paul V and were repeatedly reviewed in secret at the end of July 1607 a presentation was given to the cardinals who had participated in the sessions so that a judgment could be made to end the controversy the next month a final convocation of the cardinals happened yet this final meeting is shrouded in complete secrecy certain historians of the era taken up by partisan spirit declared this meeting in support of their own cause some even speculating that a condemnation of Molino was decided upon and drafted yet never promulgated but all of this is simply speculative nobody knows what happened in that meeting for sure a few days later he issued a rescript to the heads of the Dominicans and Jesuits ordering three things one he permitted that each side continue to defend their own views two he forbade giving centuries to the positions of the other side three he ordered that any books published on this topic be published only with the permission of the holy seat what can we draw from this history we need to keep two points in mind first we have to deny the claim of some that there was a formal condemnation of Molanism even if there happened to be a bull of condemnation written it wouldn't matter since a nonpromagated teaching has no force second we can rightly gather from this history a morally certain argument for the toistic position this can be gathered from the consistent inclination of the learned centuries to tend towards the condemnation of mullanism yet the Jesuits who opposed the censures throughout the controversy insisted that they were rash in their original judgment and only continued it throughout the various congregations due to their obstinency yet as Billowart comments quote "Everyone knows that such complaints are the consolation of those who litigate poorly when they lose the case they revile their judges." And indeed anyone will easily detect how poorly constructed and unfairly hurled these calumnies are if he notes that the molists have not always maintained the same tone towards these very censures but now once it has become certain that all with the exception of Boius voted for Molina's condemnation these same censures according to Levus deer are deprived of all virtue and passed off in devices foreign to them thus for some one's good or bad disposition toward the molanist cause becomes the shest badge of merit or demerit indeed it confers all merit or demerit whatsoever end quote now that we have gotten the history of the controversy out of the way it is time to begin to discuss the controversy in a bit more detail before we get into all the proofs from scripture and the reason that the non-molanists bring forward against the idea of middle knowledge we need to get into the state of the question that is we need to discuss a little more the exact question we are attempting to answer here when we are thinking about the future the future can either be necessary or contingent if a future is necessary then it is something that follows upon the very nature of things on the other hand if a future is contingent then it tends towards existence but with causes that can be impeded thus it is necessary to say that next year a triangle will have three sides since it follows from the very nature of being a triangle on the other hand it is contingent to say that Donald Trump will win a third term in office since there are many causes that would impede this result this is especially clear when we consider future free contingents which have the free will of man as the cause of an event now the question of middle knowledge isn't a question of whether there are such things as contingent futures or whether God knows contingent futures but how God knows such futures when it comes to necessary futures these are pretty easy to know if you know the cause you can know the effect but contingents especially free actions are a bit more difficult it's not from the very thing considered in itself since it is contingent not necessary it would be contradictory to say that the thing comes to be from its very nature and also to deny that it is necessary the tomist claimed that the knowledge of these things must come by the medium of some sort of decree of the will of God thus it is an aspect of the free knowledge of God yet the molanists have severe difficulties with this solution so they're unified in denying that it is by the medium of the decree of the will of God thus denying that it is part of the free knowledge of God but that it is before it it is important to note that the unified molanist position is a negative unity rather than a positive unity if you ask a molanist what the medium is whereby god knows these future contingents they will give a variety of answers but they are united in denying the toistic solution first some will say that it is the super comprehension of causes this was the solution of Louis de Molina himself who taught that due to God's exhaustive and eminent knowledge of all things God could understand how free creatures could act in any circumstance second some will say that it is the very truth of the thing that God perceives future contingents some say that it is the formal truth of things which means in the perception of truth of propositions others say that it is the objective truth of things which means in the very perception of the truth of objects both of these converge to basically the same solution since the formal truth of things follows upon the objective truth of things so when properly considering this question we're not simply asking whether God knows the future free actions of creatures or whether there are future free actions in the first place but rather in what medium God knows the future free actions of creatures if we answer that it is an act of the will of God that is a decree of God then it is part of his free knowledge if we answer anything else then it must be his middle knowledge now that we have the state of the question out of the way let's get into the arguments from reason and then scripture first before continuing we need to first ask the question of what the future even is in the first place we will see that if we begin with a proper consideration of the future then the toistic solution becomes clear and we have an irrefutable proof against the various molist solutions if we consider the question carefully we see that the future is that which is determined in its causes to have existence in the subsequent time thus St augustine says "For God to make future is nothing other than to prepare their causes." End quote further St thomas says quote "When it is said this is a future in order designated which is in the causes of that thing to its production." End quote it is important that by causes we qualify it as in subsequent time which St thomas and Augustine describe as a preparation or ordering for the future is not a consideration merely potential causes since this designates the thing as merely possible further the future is not a consideration of actually producing causes since that will make it already present thus it must be some sort of preparation or ordering of the causes for the future stands partway between the merely possible which is determined by potential causes and the actual which is determined by actual causes thus it must be the causes ordered or prepared in relation to existence now from this brief consideration of the future which is expounded upon at much greater length by billowart we can easily see that the toistic position is confirmed for the preparation and ordering of causes to existence only happens from the intelligent first mover who decrees things as future first Molina's opinion falls apart for when he says that it is the super comprehension of causes we can ask whether these causes are merely potential determined towards a future existence or actual If they are merely potential then it is possibility and not futurish if they are actual then it is actually existing rather than future thus the only solution that remains is the toistic position which says that these causes are prepared further in attempting to liberate human freedom molina's solution has put us in a more abject slavery for how are we said to be free if we are certainly determined in our action by circumstances molina has replaced a future determination by the decree of God who is able to decree not only the thing but also its mode of being with a determination by inanimate things beside all this the position is refuted by what is called disperate conditional futures with these future conditionals there is no connection whether moral or physical with the condition thus for example Elisha said to King Joash "If you had struck the ground five or six or even seven times you would have struck Syria until its destruction." End quote there is no physical or moral connection between striking the ground in victory in battle thus it is not something that can be known through the connection between condition and thing second the position of the other Jesuits that it is the truth of the thing also falls apart for truth is a property of being and follows upon it now nothing has being except as an effect of the will of God acting thus nothing has truth before such an action so it cannot be a medium in which God knows before the decree since such a medium only exists after the decree of God beside this fact it is clear that the formal truth cannot be a medium in which God knows things since it puts the cart before the horse i'll give you an example let's say you pick up a book on ancient Rome that book on ancient Rome is the medium by which you know some fact about ancient Rome you have to know the medium before you know the object and the object is what gives the truth to the medium what the Mullen are trying to do is completely flip this on its head they want to claim that it's actually the book on ancient Rome that makes that which is true about ancient Rome true rather than the other way around the truth of propositions comes from the existence of something already posited as Billowart states quote "An event is not truly future because the proposition asserting it is true rather the proposition is true because the event is truly future." End quote yet the same argument follows upon the position that it is the objective truth as well as Billart points out quote "The objective truth of futuration depends on the truth of the present being no less than the formal truth of the proposition depends on the objective truth of futuration." End quote this position posits an infinite regress the supposed medium depends on something else for its truth yet God's knowledge is supposed to depend on it for the knowledge of the truth how can God's knowledge of a thing be based on something that depends on knowledge of the thing for its knowability in the first place as Bill points out quote "That which depends on another in its truth and borrows truth from it cannot be a medium for knowing that other thing for a medium of knowing must be itself known before the thing it reveals." End quote from this we see that middle knowledge doesn't have an object if an act of knowledge doesn't have an object it doesn't exist it's logically incoherent to claim otherwise how are future free actions supposed to exist before the will of God acting if futuration has to do with being prepared in one's causes distinguishing it from the merely possible in the actual how are we supposed to have such preparation without the working of the first cause it is only the toistic position that is able to provide a coherent answer to how exactly God is able to know conditional free futures it is through a decree that is said to be subjectively absolute in God and objectively conditional through these objectively conditional decrees of God he prepares causes beforehand and therefore neither falls into making the future identical with the actual or with the merely possible thus we see that middle knowledge is an absolute disaster on a number of different fronts first it violates the perfection of God second it violates the principles of truth and its dependence on being third it violates the very idea of the future beside all this we can look at scripture where middle knowledge is frequently opposed first we can look into 1 Corinthians 4:6-7 where St paul writes quote "That no one be puffed up against another for another's sake for who distinguisheth thee or what hast thou that thou hast not received and if thou hast received why dost thou glory as if thou hast not received it?" end quote according to the Molinus system it is the will of the one that distinguishes him from the other thus Bilawir proposes an example quote that Peter rather than Judas consents to grace in equal circumstance must come either from God giving him that consent or properly from his own will if the consent is given by God then before God decrees to give that consent such a consent is not future and God cannot foresee it as future thus middle knowledge collapses if however Peter has that consent properly from his own will then he has what he does not receive and by that he distinguishes himself from Judas against the apostle end quote he continues with other examples of the same thing quote "The apostle says that God chose us not because we were going to be holy but that we should be holy." Ephesians 1:4 that God works all things 1 Corinthians 12:6 that he works even our willing philippians 2:13 but if he chose us that we should be holy then before choosing he did not know us to be holy if he works all things and even the willing then he gives that very willing in consenting and if he gives it how can he know it as future before he has decreed to give it end quote but there's a text that almost every molanist will bring forward in defense of their doctrine matthew 11:21 which reads quote "Woe to the woe to the Beda for if entire and Siden have been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you they had long ago done penance and sackcloth and ashes." End quote the reason that this couldn't possibly assume the non-Manist position for under our position the Jews could have justly responded to our Lord and said that they would have repented if God decreed to give them efficacious graces as he had conditionally decreed to do with Ty inside him in response to this first we can turn this right back on them as Bill points out quote "According to the system of conquerorous grace the Jews could likewise have responded to Christ reproaching them in comparison to the Tyans." Lord if you had placed us in other circumstances in which through middle knowledge you forsaw we would have repented we would have done so." End quote yet we can also respond to this directly while it is true that they did not have efficacious graces it is not true that they did not have sufficient graces which make salvation truly possible if they would have employed these sufficient graces in remotely preparing for justification then God would have granted them efficacious graces as we conclude this video it is important to note that the amount of ink that has been spilled on this topic is immense i have done nothing but scratch the surface and provide a minimal overview of the history and principal objections to the Molina system this is a complex problem with complex arguments on either side there are in fact excellent and pious theologians who disagree with the toistic position on this question and that is fine we have to remember to be humble when discussing this question and to always be sure to keep the bond of charity that many holy popes have encouraged us to keep since Holy Mother Church permits a diversity of opinions as always God bless in many ways I hesitate to make this video i hesitate in the same way that you hesitate to contradict the lies of a habitual liar or to correct the delusions of a madman no matter what you say no matter how much evidence you bring forward there is always an escape in their mind truly someone willing to believe or to speak absurdity is hardly convinced by anything one such example is Sha Luke i don't really know much about Shaun Luke if you believe it or not i actually don't watch many YouTube videos unless it is for the purpose of video making but he came out with one of the most absurd theological claims that I have ever heard this is the claim that the Catholic Church before Vatican 2 taught that baptism did not give grace to anyone outside of the Roman communion right remember Vatican 2 says okay by baptism there's a sacramental bond such that all that have been justified in baptism are united together and it cites evidence of baptism's efficacy after talking about um the justification in baptism by the life of worship of ecclesial communities right people who don't even have apostolic succession or by Rome's lights don't have a proper eukarist and yet it says yeah baptismal grace is operative there now again you might have someone like Christian Wagner say oh well Sean's basically accusing Rome of donatism no of course not I agree Rome would have viewed those baptisms as valid that's not the issue right we know that impediments can block the efficacy of a valid baptism and being a heretic was one of them per cloth of the council of Florence uh per here as well so the cases that invincible ignorance historically applied to were very small to my knowledge not even the most extreme phenites teach this as is evident from their comments on baptized infants of heretics and schismatics his confirmation of this thesis which is contrary to any author who has written on this topic is also bad he thinks that it is a good argument to point the Hussites saying that we would never approve of a crusade against a heretical group whose sacraments give grace it seems that Shaun Luke has seemed to forget the fact we historically had anti-apostate and anti- heresy laws as well that were applied against those who were baptized Roman Catholics as children i guess for some reason the sacraments of those children were not fruitful because eventually they were punished for their crimes of heresy or apostasy the conclusion simply does not follow i was going to stop there but we can look at how poor this line of argumentation is from another line of thought he concedes that we always thought that schismatic baptisms were valid just not efficacious his argument from the husites is basically that we would never kill those who have a special relationship to Christ by their baptisms what is so juvenile about this argumentation is that he thinks that it is only sacramental grace that gives someone a special relationship to Christ he has exposed that he does not even know what a valid baptism is in the first place a valid baptism gives the sacramental character the indelible mark has Shawn ever asked himself what the character even is does he even know if he did he would not say something so outrageous as to distinguish between a merely valid baptism which does not give a unique relationship to Christ and one which gives grace and therefore does as St thomas teaches quote "Each of the faithful is deputed to receive or to bestow on others things pertaining to the worship of God." And this properly speaking is the purpose of the sacramental character now the whole right of the Christian religion is derived from Christ's priesthood consequently it is clear that the sacramental character is especially the character of Christ to whose priesthood the faithful are likened by reason of the sacramental characters which are nothing else than certain participations of Christ's priesthood flowing from Christ himself end quote this isn't some sort of esoteric information catacumans literally learn this when entering the church during OCIA as the CCC says quote "Incorporated into Christ by baptism the person baptized is configured to Christ baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark character of his belonging to Christ no sin can erase this mark even if sin prevents baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation given once for all baptism cannot be repeated." End quote in fact this is even in the compendium of the catechism which is an even more basic introduction to Catholicism it states quote "It is a spiritual seal bestowed by the sacraments of baptism confirmation and holy orders it is a promise and guarantee of divine protection by virtue of this seal the Christian is configured to Christ participates in a variety of ways in his priesthood and takes his part in the church according to the different states and functions he is therefore set apart for divine worship and the service of the church because this character is an indelible one the sacraments that impress it on the soul are received only once in life end quote beside this baptism makes one a subject of the church this is clear from the condemnation of Arasmus' positions at Trent and the common distinction of theologians between members and subjects of the church thus the entire assumption of his line of argumentation is false not only does a fruitful baptism give some sort of special relation to Christ a merely valid one does as well yet enough of that let's actually get to the meat of the question first it is not per se wrong to distinguish between four types of receiving the sacrament first you have the reception of the effect of the sacrament without a reception of the sacrament itself which is called by St thomas those quote who do not receive the sacrament but do receive the reality of the sacraments this would be those who receive the baptism of blood or desire secondly you have the reception of both the effects of the sacrament and the sacrament itself which would be called a fruitful reception of the sacrament third you have the reception of the sacramental character without the reception of the sacramental grace which is a merely valid sacrament which St thomas calls those quote who receive the sacrament and not the reality of the sacrament end quote fourth you have those who merely receive a simulation of the sacrament neither receiving it validly or fruitfully so Shawn claims that for any baptism outside the church it is in prevatican 2 thought a sacrament that is valid but not fruitful it is an instance of the third type of baptism now what is so absurd about this is that theological textbooks in the pre-consilary era that is before the era of Vatican 2 had entire thesis entire chapters teaching that there was the working of sacramental grace outside of the jeritical bounds of the Roman Catholic Church there were entire journal articles and entire monographs written on the topic of good faith heretics and schismatics if I wanted to quote those authors this video would be dozens of hours long because of the truly massive number of authors that teach the supposed novelty of Vatican 2 on this point in fact the claim of Shaun Luke is so absurd that I cannot think of a single author who doesn't teach this point if you want to read a good treatment of this question from an author who was very involved in the first Vatican Council you can read Cardinal Franand's declari thesis 23 which I will give a few quotes from below but I'm one who is up for a challenge so since I already hear the inevitable shifting of the goalposts as frequently happens when I point to authors teaching the supposed novelties of Vatican 2 decades or centuries before the council in a clear and manifest way I wish to mostly restrict myself to medieval authors and magisterial documents favoring my patron St thomas Aquinas first according to the medieval authors without restriction infants who received baptism received both the grace and character of baptism due to their lack of indisposition to baptism therefore they affirmed that sacraments give grace outside of the visible bounds of the church which is exactly what Shaun Luke denies first the teaching of the angelic doctor in the first place he writes quote "Baptismal grace in infancy is not opposed to anything but original sin but one child does not have more original sin than another therefore neither does one receive greater grace than another." End quote when St thomas is speaking of quote not opposed to anything he is contrasting the deliberate opposition of adults with the fact that since they are below the age of reason infants cannot give any opposition the same reasoning would apply to both heretical and non-heretical children of whatever state in the second place St thomas writes quote I answer that baptism in anyone who does not receive it insincerely universally removes any guilt infecting the person that it finds as has been said etc end quote now it is clear that an infant cannot receive baptism insincerely since they do not perform any moral acts since they are below the age of reason therefore etc in the third place he writes quote "It should be said that for the baptism of infants nothing is required on their part but for a disposition to salvation they have as it were the faith of the church and for the bringing about of salvation the power of Christ's passion which is at work in baptism." And these two things are equally related to infants and thus they do not differ in receiving the effect of baptism but all receive equal grace." End quote this clearly teaches the thesis in the fourth place he literally titles a section quote about infants and others lacking the use of reason who everyone agrees do receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament end quote remember those who receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament are those who receive both validly and fruitfully and this is something which he says that everyone agrees upon how much clearer could he get in the fifth place commenting on the place where Lombard says quote "All children who in baptism are cleansed from original sin receive both sacrament and the reality." End quote he writes quote "Not only little ones but also sometimes adults nevertheless with infants there is no doubt that they receive it there is however with adults for they can impede it by insincerity." End quote in the sixth place he writes quote "It should be said that in baptism a baptized person receives two things namely the sacrament and the reality behind the sacrament but to receive these two things nothing is required on the part of the one receiving baptism that would cause them but only on the removal of the impediment which is nothing other than the will contrary to one of the things mentioned and thus among adults and those having the use of reason in whom a contrary will can exist either actually or habitually baptism requires contrition or devotion to receive the reality behind the sacrament as well as intention or will to receive the sacrament but among children lacking in either one both the sacrament and the reality are received end quote in the seventh place he says quote among children there cannot be a contrary will either actually or habitually and thus in them neither willing nor intention is required for any impediment to be removed end quote in the eighth place he states quote as Augustine says in his book on charity no man is born of water and the Holy Spirit unwillingly which is to be understood not of little children but of adults in like manner we are to understand as applying to adults that man without himself is not justified by Christ moreover if little children who are about to be baptized resist as much as they can this is not imputed to them since so little do they know what they do that they seem not to do it at all as Augustine says in a book on the presence of God addressed to Dardanus end quote clearly he does not believe that there are impediments that can in any way be placed to the virtue of faith when it comes to infants thus in the ninth place he writes quote the carnal intention of those who take children to be baptized does not hurt the latter as neither does one sin hurt another unless he consent end quote further in the 10th place he writes quote since all children are equally disposed to baptism because they are baptized not in their own faith but in that of the church they all receive an equal effect in baptism whereas adults who approach baptism in their own faith are not equally disposed to baptism for some approach thereto with greater some less devotion end quote further in the 11th place St thomas even denies that it is a hindrance to the effects of baptism if the parents are unbelievers quote as Augustine says writing to Bonafice in the church of our savior little children believe through others just as they contract from others those sins which are remitted in baptism nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if their parents be unbelievers because as Augustine says writing to the St bonafice little children are offered that they may receive grace in their souls not so much from the hands of those that carry them as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful and the unbelief of their own parents even if after baptism these strive to infect them with the worship of demons hurts not the children but the faith of one indeed of the whole church profits the child through the operation of the Holy Spirit who unites the church together and communicates the goods of one member to another end quote in fact in a 12th place which says something similar he teaches that baptism gives the reality of the unity of the church which is why this does not violate the principle that extra ecclesium noal quote "This is to be understood however not as to receiving the sacrament but as to the reality behind the sacrament which is the unity of the church outside of which there is no salvation nor life." End quote enough for St thomas are there any other doctors who hold that regardless infants are regenerated by baptism yes and it is the universal consensus of the medievals of which I'll give a few notable names to confirm the thesis although I could give dozens if not hundreds more first blessed Dennis a Carthusian following Richard of Middleton after extensively citing many of the texts that I gave above writes quote "In baptism the evil of guilt and punishment is removed and the good of grace is conferred." Regarding the first two the effect of baptism is equal in all children just as original sin is equal in all of them and no one is bound to greater punishment than another furthermore according to the common law one does not receive greater graces than another in baptism end quote second Peter Poatier in book 5 chapter 6 distinguishes three groups infants who receive remission of their sins in the infusion of grace and if they die eternal life contrite adults and non-contrite adults therefore he clearly holds to the same doctrine third blessed Scotas in his ordinio actually explicitly refutes the argument that baptism is not fruitful for infants among heretics saying quote to the second principal argument it is said that a child is conjoined to God through the faith of the parents to the contrary posit the parents to be heretics it is said that he is conjoined through the faith of the church on the contrary let it be that in the church militant there were none faithful yet that they who offer the child for baptism would be intending to do what Christ did the child would still truly be baptized and receive grace i say therefore to the argument that de facto grace is given to none save through some meritorious cause which merits his first union with God this meritorious cause is Christ but because this one is not necessary to grant another cause intrinsic to the recipient whereby he may be conjoined to God before he receives grace end quote a similar response is given by Kagetin in commenting on St thomas's use of quote faith of the church end quote this is also something taught by St bonaventure who writes quote to the objection about faith that the faith of the church suffices it must be said that faith is like a universal agent but intention is a particular agent applying faith to this or that thus faith is preserved in the generality of the church but intention is necessary to couple that act of the faith of the church as a particular and actual act in the minister the power of the sacrament therefore comes from the faith of the church but its dispensation comes from the minister's action and since the ministry pertains to the intention of the one conferring faith is not required in the dispenser in the same way as intention is end quote in fact Blessed Scotas goes so far in the next distinction as to affirm that those in heresy or schism can receive all of the effects of baptism if they do not place the impediment of malice writing quote "The truth of the question is plain for many authorities because by whatever malice a minister is bad whether of heresy or schism or morals with the unity of the church preserved if he intend to do what the church does and keep the manner of the church he truly confers baptism and such baptism truly has its effects in the baptized notwithstanding the malice of the minister unless the malice of the receiver stand in the way in this that he is receiving from such a minister end quote it is clear that by effect he does not simply mean the effect of the sacramental character which is necessary for validity but also the effect of the other graces since in accordance with his teaching on those who receive in bad faith present in the fourth distinction he affirms that the effect of the character is present in those who receive in bad faith he goes on to confirm this further saying quote either a heretic baptizes the child in the form and intention of the church and in this nothing is an obstacle to the child neither as to the sacrament nor as to the effect or he baptizes an adult and still he confers on him the sacrament and its effect if there is not in the adult any evil motion as his consent to the heresy of the baptizer or intention to become his disciple end quote it is incredibly important that we have shown the consent of St thomas and blessed Scottas to this doctrine for among the medieval theologians at Florence the strict disciples of St thomas and Blessed Scotas made up the vast majority of authors along with a confirming text by St ponaventure who was held in high regard by the Franciscans at Florence beside this we have also quoted blessed Dennis of Carthusian who is regarded as the capstone of all of the medieval theologians especially immediately following Florence now I could keep going on and on and on but you get the point if you want to read any author talking about this point from the medieval church just read their commentary on distinction four of book four of the sentences it is clear and obvious and right there so it has become clear that infants born within heretical or schismatic sects according to the mind of the medievals which is clarified more and more in the broke in the Leonine era the sacraments administered by these heretical or schismatic ministers give grace thus the thesis that is given by Sha and Luke immediately fails yet what about the text given from the council of Florence that quote unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation end quote did all of the theologians at Florence somehow condemn the entire tradition before them did they condemn themselves in the sentences commentaries that they wrote as bachelors of theology did they condemn those great masters that they wrote in allegiance to throughout their entire lives did they condemn the other doctors of the schools who they were loyal to as well clearly this idea is absurd so what does this text mean well what you have to remember is that schism is a type of sin schism is damnable because it is a mortal sin and is classified as one of those indispositions that the medieval theologians and magisterium speak of thus it needs to be treated like any other moral act that is grave it is perfectly normal for us to say that all schismatics go to hell without qualification why is this the case it is quite simple ordinarily when we name a sin we are naming some moral act on the part of a person that the individual is culpable for thus for example St paul states that those of various different classes drunkards fornicators adulterers liars etc will not inherit the kingdom of God to use a classic example if someone happens to commit adultery in a non-culpable way for example if he is invincibly ignorant that the woman he is with is not his wife then the individual is more properly said to be a non-adulterer than an adulterer although in order to better explain this we use the language of a material adulterer but would these possible cases of material adultery stop me from saying without qualification that all adulterers go to hell of course not it is assumed that when we name a certain moral act we intend to name that act as culpably exercised that is the act formally considered not the act materially considered this was my purpose behind my invocation of St augustine's words to the Donatists in an earlier discussion with Sha Luke where St augustine states that those are not obstinate in their heresy are rather called non-heretics than heretics thus those who commit an act of schism in an inculpable way are rather called non-skismatics than schismatics it is completely irresponsible and intellectually lazy if not dishonest to quote texts without having read and understood the teaching of those authors that surround those texts and the categories that they are working with in their own works thus the medievalss have an entire system of general moral theology about the culpability surrounding immoral acts that clearly show that they did not universally apply the condemnations of Florence to all those in schism but only those culpable for their actions as is most clearly shown in the case of infants who are the least culpable the Cardinal Franlin I mentioned earlier gives a quite good overview of this teaching although as mentioned there are thousands if not more teachings from other prevatican 2 authors who say the same exact thing he says quote for the reason just stated the sacraments of the church wherever they are validly conferred produce all those effects that an obstacle in the recipient does not impede thus if we speak specifically of baptism conferred by a heretical or schismatic minister upon infants in whom there can be no obstacle it has all the same essential effects as if it were conferred by a Catholic minister not only are they marked with the character of Christ but they are also regenerated as children of God through grace and incorporated into the Holy Mother Church whose members they remain at least in the internal form and before God until they adhere to schism or heresy by their own act which would be a mortal sin this applies fully to those called material heretics or schismatics that is in the external form alone as St augustine teaches in many places about the sacrament by which the mother church generates children not only through her own womb but also through the wounds of handmmaids end quote the reason that the sacraments of those in heresy or schism do not benefit them to eternal life is because they are illisposed to receive such graces by their immoral acts if they have acts of heresy or schism that they are not culpable for clearly the reason for the ill disposition is removed and it would be absurd to give the same condemnation and since they are lacking the form of their act that specifies it in being a sin then they would only improperly or materially be referred to as schismatics or heretics this is why as Frangelin points out St augustine sometimes qualifies his statement about the lacking fruit amongst schizmatics with quote those who are proud and do not join the lawful mother end quote thus Fransen goes on to say quote "Thus those who are proud that is who out of any perverse desires or culpable negligence do not seek the truth as they ought or refuse to embrace it when sufficiently proposed formally or equivalently adhere to error and rebelling against God in his church are torn from it as formal heretics or schismatics not only in the external form but also before God and in the internal form holy exile but on the contrary those who are only materially heretics or schismatics that is by external profession alone and not by culpable adherence of mind should be considered even as adults to have that disposition of good faith end quote that disposition of good faith which renders a schismatic or heretic merely material is assumed by St augustine of some for example the affforementioned epistle where he writes quote "Though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinency especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption but have accepted it from parents who have been misguided and had fallen into error and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth and are prepared to be set right when they have found it such men are not to be counted heretic ics end quote in fact interestingly enough this inculpability for the moral act of schism is actually baked into the old right of the reception of heretics and schismatics for as Frangelin points out for those received into the church from ages 7 to 14 which were above the age of reason they were only required to give a profession of faith rather than an abjgeration of heresies thus they were clearly assumed to not be culpable for their errors so the questions I have for Sha Luke and others are if Florence teaches that no sacraments practiced outside of the church are salvific simply by virtue of not being within the jeritical bound of the church rather than by reason of moral culpability why do they believe that infants who are baptized were saved when baptized by these individuals it can either be because of their lack of culpability or perhaps they're condemning their own views the latter is absurd so as to the former then you admit that it has to do with the moral quality of the act of schism if this is the case then why would it not also apply to anyone else who in accordance with their own teaching on general moral theology is not culpable for their schism if not why has the church assumed in culpability for heresy and schism among the young that is under the age of 14 would it not be a great crime for them to not require this ancient and necessary ceremony in the reception of heretics and schismatics now many of you claim that this distinction between material and formal schism is something novel that the authors at Florence did not have in mind but this is absurd and merely exposes the ignorance of many of you who presume to attack the Catholic Church while ignorant of the doctrine you speak of one of the greatest theologians of Florence was Juande Tokamada who was an expert at ecclesiology and one of the biggest influences on the ecclesiology of Florence if anyone is able to express the mind of the documents it is him toramada was one of the most active legates and theologians at Florence going before kings to do the bidding of the pope he was appointed by the pope to be present as a theologian at the earliest conferences of the council where the topics were discussed before the opening sessions in fact in the famous quote by Cardinal Baserian concerning the Latins destroying all their arguments against the filioquay in the beginning of the council it was Toramada who was the spokesman in fact it seems like he was the one who convinced Baserian of the Catholic teaching on purgatory in the debates that took place throughout the council he was appointed as one of the six official ortors of the Latins specifically he represented the Dominican order at the council beside this he wrote definitive chronicles on the council as well his biggest contributions came down to debates over the sacraments and the role of the Roman pontiff besides these discussions with the Greeks he was also involved with the discussions with cops well luckily for us he wrote a work called Suma Deaclasia and the entire fourth book is about schism and heresy isn't that fantastic well does he mention material schism and heresy anywhere in this work he absolutely does this is evident when he discusses the necessity of pertinacity for there to be true schism he says quote "Not just any disobedience suffices to constitute the nature of schism but only that which is partenacious with a certain rebellion it is rightly understood that the disobedience through which schism is incurred must be taken with a certain pertinenacity hence Alexander of Hail says that schism properly understood occurs when one pertinently withdraws from obedience to the head of the church and blessed Thomas says that not obeying precepts with a certain rebellion constitutes the nature of schism i say with rebellion when one both pertinently despises precepts and refuses to submit to his judgment end quote he applies this question when he considers the question of adhering to an antipope in which he also includes the eastern schismatics drawing the same distinction between various different groups that we do to this day and are clearly reflected in the teaching of St thomas when he discusses general moral theology in primosukund as I already told Sha Luke but as somebody addicted to his own judgment and errors he didn't listen or wrote quote first proposition that those who intentionally separate themselves from him who they know to be the true Roman pontiff are schismatics this proposition is manifest from what was said above where it was stated that those are truly schismatics who intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the church or from the apostolic sea second proposition those adhering to an antipope out of perverse ignorance which is when someone directly wishes to remain ignorant of the knowledge of the truth and is drawn back by sin are schismatics this proposition is evident because such ignorance since it is voluntary does not excuse but accuses and increases the sin third proposition those who adhere to an intruder or antipope out of error or gross or subine ignorance for example because they do not care to apply diligence but neglect to be informed of the truth which they are bound to investigate namely who in truth is the pope are not excused from the staining guilt of schism this proposition is evident because such adherence to an antipope proceeds from ignorance that is in some way voluntary since they voluntarily condemn or neglect to know what they are bound to know for no one is excused by ignorance when he has access to the learned fourth proposition those who after exact diligence to know the truth about who is the true pope could not be fully clarified and induced by some probable reasons adhere to an antipope yet with the intention of always adhering to the true pontiff once they could truthfully be informed of this seemed to be excused from the staining guilt of schism this is proved because their ignorance is entirely involuntary since it is invincible and without any disorder of will and consequently the act that follows is without any fault hence Lord Uler in his suma says quote "If someone regarding a doubtful action consults the more learned having no express authority on whether it is so or not provided he form a good conscience after consulting the more learned even if the matter turns out otherwise he has not sinned for he did what he could and God requires nothing impossible for men." End quote fifth proposition simple people and unlearned who lack knowledge of law or fact seem to be excused from the stain and guilt of schism by obeying and adhering to the one whom their prelets obeyed and adhered to because they have a readiness to mind to obey whoseever right might be sufficiently shown whether by God's revelation the church's declaration or any other means." End quote thus he brings up the following objection that would assume the definition of heresy that Shaun Luke seems to have how much clearer could this get if you have someone acting in good faith and always willing to follow the commands of God carrying out his duty and invincibly in ignorance he is not a schismatic thus his baptism does incorporate him into the church since as St thomas teaches union to the church is given in baptism now when it comes to heresy he brings up the following objection that would assume the definition of heresy that Shaun Luke seems to have writing quote it is often argued against that where it says perttonaciously etc it is argued first as follows that this particle is superfluously included innocent III writing to the count of flu says quote those are to be understood as manifest heretics who publicly dispute against the Catholic faith or profess or defend an error or who have been convicted before their prelets or who have confessed or have been judicially condemned by them for heretical depravity end quote in these words no mention is made of pertinenacity therefore anyone who heirs against the Catholic faith even if not perttonaciously seems to be considered a heretic end quote yet he refuts this writing quote to the eighth objection where it is argued that perttonacity is superolously included it is responded that this is false and when it is argued that in the definitions assigned by the holy fathers no mention is made of pertinacity a twofold response is given first according to the distinction set forward above by master Alexander of Hales namely that in those definitions the term heretic is not defined most properly as we are now speaking but either commonly or properly as is distinguished from most properly second it is responded and this is better that although pertinacity is not expressly stated in the affforementioned definitions it is understood since it pertains to the essence of heresy as was sufficiently shown from the authorities of blessed Augustine end quote very clearly when the medievals were using terms like heretic and heresy they did not mean the material representation or mere adherence to falsehood but required the special character pertenacity as was seen in the case of schism lastly the magisterium has taught this on a number of occasions before Vatican 2 that someone who does not place an obstacle to the baptismal graces receives these graces this is exactly the teaching of the second Vatican council first innocent the third affirm the plenitude of graces in remission is to be found at the baptism of infants stating quote for they assert that baptism is conferred uselessly on children we say that a distinction must be made that sin is twofold namely original and actual original which is contracted without consent and actual which is committed with consent original therefore which is committed without consent is remitted without consent through the power of the sacrament but an actual which is contracted with consent is not mitigated in the slightest without consent end quote second against Martin Luther Leo I 10th condemned the following thesis as heretical quote it is a heretical opinion but a common one that the sacraments of the new law give pardon and grace to those who do not set up an obstacle end quote third the Council of Transession 7 condemned the following thesis saying quote "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the new law do not contain the grace which they signify or that they do not confer the grace on those who do not place an obstacle in the way as though they were only outward signs of grace or justice received through faith and certain marks of the Christian profession by which the faithful among men are distinguished from the unbelievers let them be anathema if anyone so say that grace as far as concerns God's part is not given through the sacraments always and to all men even though they receive them rightly but only sometimes into some persons let him be anathema end quote now it has been proven from all the magisterial statements above the principle that those not placing an obstacle to the sacraments receive grace is firmly to be helped which was already taught in all the medieval schools as I pointed out above now this clearly applies to all infants baptized in heretical or schismatic sects yet does this also apply to adults obviously it does apply to adults who are culpable for their schism as pointed out above and taught in Florence but can one be rendered inculpable for their action of schism yes the church affirms this inner teaching on general moral theology against the Jansenists this is most clearly seen in the teaching of Alexander VII who stated quote although there is such a thing as invincible ignorance of the law of nature this in the state of fallen nature does not excuse from formal sin anyone acting out of ignorance end quote it is a condemned thesis of the Jansenists long before Vatican 2 assert universally that invincible ignorance cannot render a moral act inculpable thus it is completely erroneous to assert that simply because an act of schism causes one to be indisposed to sacraments that such an act cannot be excused from formal sin and thus not be a cause of indisposition that is in an act of material schism this is basically all there is to say it is completely absurd to state that in principle someone outside the jeritical communion of the church does not receive a fruitful baptism according to the teaching of the church this is clearly seen in the case of infants but it is also seen in adults when one presents the teaching of the church on culpability for sinful acts the interpretation of Florence is quite easy when one is aware of the background material and especially that of the writings of Coramato who played a chief role in the ecclesiology of Florence including the drafting of documents that's all and as always God bless even if your friend is a saint and doctor of the church your friendship is not secure the effects of misunderstanding and rumors can harm even the strongest friendships this is what Rufinus a fifth century church father learned when he had a very slight disagreement with his friend St [Music] jerome this disagreement in the subsequent failure of the friendship between St jerome and Rufinus became infamous in the history of the church being written about by a number of ecclesiastical historians but not many people know about it today in fact even ecclesiastical writers during the time of St jerome and Rafinus were writing about how terrible of a break this was for example St augustine comments "In short where's the friend who may not be feared as possibly a future enemy if the breach that we deplore could arise between Jerome and Rufinus oh sad and pitiable is our portion i'm here to tell you the entire story of the breakup between these friends from the time that they became friends all the way until the end where St jerome goes so far as to celebrate the death of his friend Rufinus." Anyways the background of this is found in the writings of origin of Alexandria the 3rd century church father in the 4th century about a century and a half after his death there was a violent quarrel between many ecclesiastical writers and church fathers on both sides of the orthodoxy of the writings of origin of Alexandria they fought over issues like his trinitarian theology his esquetology and his method of ex Jesus the end of this controversy was determined at the fifth ecumenical council where origin was condemned as a heretic now I want to be clear and say that I'm not an expert on the writings of origin of Alexandria all I'm going to tell you about is the history of the disputes between the authors during this time there were fathers who took both sides of the dispute there were multiple different issues that were debated so I think we need to be a bit careful about what we say here for example something like his scriptural ex Jesus is really up for debate but on the other hand something like his esquetology is obviously wrong and this is seemingly what the fifth ecumenical council and the ecclesiastical condemnations usually focused on the controversy begins in the early 4th century st peter of Alexandria and St methodius of Olympus condemn the esqueological positions of origin such as on the pre-existence of souls but anyways after this point there are actually two other accusations first once the Aryan crisis you know got underway there were accusations that origin was actually the source of Aryanism with his views on the trinity second interestingly enough some actually critiqued Origin's exeetical methodology st ustius of Antioch for example critiques origin on both of these points now as I said before and as I'm going to reiterate the interpretation of origin on both of these points especially on his view on the Trinity are hotly disputed whereas the criticism on esquetology is pretty much admitted but at this point there were also fathers who defended origin but the controversy really heats up in the 390s what happened in the 390s that St epipanius actually lists origin and originism in his famous listing of heresies this was actually said in opposition to St john of Jerusalem who is the immediate successor to St siril of Jerusalem under St john of Jerusalem there were two monks who were particularly big fans of origin st jerome and Rufinus at this point in the 390s St jerome was a big fan of origin he actually sung the praises of origin on many occasions he called him the teacher of the church after the apostles he called him an immortal genius he really loved Origin at this point and he has a very funny quote actually about origin that I quite like he states that the people who hated origin hated him quote not because of the novelty of his thesis not because of heresy as baying dogs are now alleging against him but because people could not bear the fame of his eloquence and his learning end quote so yeah St jerome's actually a pretty funny guy he would have been excellent on Twitter but this quote will become extremely ironic as we'll see in a moment the controversy starts when St epipanius just shows up at Jerusalem and starts demanding that people condemn origin including St john St jerome and Rufinus st john and Rufinus refused but St jerome while at first hesitant decided to capitulate to what St epanius said so because of this St epanius gets really mad and St and Epanius decides to preach a sermon in the city he accuses St john of falling into heresy now obviously this is a pretty terrible move you shouldn't go into the dascese of a different bishop and you know abuse his hospitality by preaching a sermon in his church accusing him of heresy without some sort of obvious ecclesiastical sentence on a very disputed question totally not a good move from St epanius now the situation gets even worse because St and Epanius decided not only to preach a sermon accusing St john of heresy he also decided to ordain a priest without his permission the priest Paulinus now also at this point St epipanius decided to write a letter against St john of Jerusalem and St jerome due to his skill in both the Latin and the Greek languages and his fame as a translator decided to translate the epistle from Greek into Latin and because of this the west began to learn of this controversy that was happening in Jerusalem it went from a purely local crisis to now an international crisis now at this point St john realized that this was spilling over into other places and decided to contact the patriarch of Alexandria who was who would obviously be in a position to help him in this crisis and this patriarch was Theophilos of Alexandria who interestingly enough is actually the uncle of St cirill of Alexandria and at this point St jerome also entered into the writing controversy by writing a pmical work against his own bishop St john of Jerusalem which you know it was pretty harsh um to say the least but Theophilos when he stepped in was able to quell the controversy everyone became friends st jerome liked his bishop again rufinus liked St jerome again everybody was chill now now this is where things get interesting rufinus decides to head west and he wants to live in Rome while at Rome he begins translating from Greek to Latin a bunch of different works which were defending the orthodoxy of origin because obviously in the east this is a bigger issue there were various works which were written so Rufinus wanted to communicate some of those defenses to the west this time he also wrote himself a little defense appended to one of the works that he translated called on the falsification of the works of origin origin during his lifetime actually complained on multiple different instances that there were various individuals who were circulating works under his name that were falsifications and that they did that in order to defame him so Rufinus in an absolutely amazing spectacular move decided to say everything that you read in Origin that's bad was actually just one of those works or parts of works which were falsified so Rufinus actually was the originator of the it's a forgery defense amazing i cannot wait for all of you guys to tell the Eastern quote Orthodox that they're actually originists when they do this anyways what was actually convincing is that in this work he placed all of the unorthodox statements from origin on the trinity and on esquetology next to completely orthodox statements from origin on the trinity and on esquetology scriptural ex Jesus you know all of those different issues so he did little columns of different quotes from origin and he said well obviously origin believed all the orthodox stuff and all the unorthodox stuff he didn't believe now the better solution to this problem is to realize that origin throughout his entire life had a team of scribes following him writing down every little thing that he said and that probably he changed his mind on some issues or maybe like other theologians do sometimes in certain works they're more speculative than in other works they just generally state the common opinion on certain matters now the really bad move is that he actually started a translation of origins on first principles and in this translation of on first principles he used the little table to remove all of the sections from on first principles that were unorthodox and state that these were actually falsifications of origin's words so he basically rewrote entire sections in a orthodox manner and said well you know origin probably believed this so I'm just going to change it now to me this absolutely makes no sense because it makes sense in a homaly or some sort of letter to a layman that you wouldn't engage in overly speculative matters like origin had done but in something like on first principles this is his work this is something that he would feel comfortable engaging in speculation and obviously in that speculation he was wrong so we can commend Origin for the orthodoxy that he showed in those sermons where you know he said the right thing but we obviously have to state that he's just completely flatout wrong in matters of speculation in certain works like on first principles but I digress in the introduction to this work his translation of first principles Rufinus makes a side comment that would actually spark the controversy with St jerome he says that he was continuing the work of a great man who had previously translated Origin's works now this great man was St jerome because St jerome for years had been translating Origins homalies into Latin now for whatever reason some guys in Rome decided to start some trouble so they deceitfully got a copy of Rufinus' translation of on first principles which was not edited and completed yet and they sent it to Jerome with a letter and in that letter they told Jerome that the intention of Rufinus was basically to diss him in the introduction of the work to point to St jerome is somehow inconsistent which you know he was because he changed his mind and they said that Rufinus was basically lying about it obviously when he simply stated he was continuing the work of a great man in translating or he obviously meant no harm towards his friend St jerome now in an absolutely legendary move St to Rome read the letter read Rufinus's translation and decided to just sit down and translate the entirety of on first principles in a very literal way not leaving out any of the problem passages from the text then he went and he sent the entire translation to Rome with two letters one letter was meant for refinus and the letter was actually quite cordial and he stated that he wanted to keep his friendship you know he was offended by what Rufinus had said you know somehow that's an offensive thing for him to say but he was offended by what he had said but he didn't want to break the friendship that they had mended in Jerusalem but then he sent a second letter and this second letter was meant for the two guys who had reported this to Jerome in the first place and basically he went on and on and on in this letter about how the originists were a bunch of heretics including Rufinus which interestingly enough Rufinus was obviously the most orthodox of all the originists because he just didn't really believe in orism he just believed in orthodoxy and then changed origin to believe in orthodoxy so he just basically had weird textual opinions that that's the only thing about Rufinus there was really no grounds for ever calling Rufinus a heretic and making all these weird accusations towards him now these guys who had first reported this to St jerome were a bunch of jerks and what they did is they actually took the first letter that was meant for Rufinus tore it up threw it in the trash you know got rid of it and they took the second letter and they sent the second letter to Rufinus so Rufinus gets this letter from St jerome and it's basically like "Yeah you're a dirty heretic you know you're probably an Aryan you know and blah blah blah blah blah so that that's the letter that got sent to Rufinus and obviously this was completely you know not the intention of St jerome st jerome meant to send a more cordial letter to Rufinus you know explaining to him why he was hurt by what Rufinus had done but not breaking their friendship and all of this of course is extremely frustrating because it seems like if it wasn't for these other guys meddling in this situation that Rafinus and St jerome would not have had such a harsh break but everything kind of goes downhill from here anyways at this point Theophilles of Alexandria remember uncle of St sirill he decided to do a complete 180 on the whole origin question so before he was more supportive of origin and originism but then at a certain point he decides to flip the tables and become extremely anti- originist he makes a lot of weird accusations towards origin like that origin did not allow prayer to the sun or anything like that which is kind of crazy because in Origin's homalies he's always praying to the sun you know it's kind of a strange accusation to make but most say that Theophilus was actually more politically motivated than anything because there were a bunch of monks that he didn't like who were originists and he kind of wanted to you know get rid of them which was a very Theophilus thing to do so in order to get origin condemned he decided to write the Pope Pope Anastasius I and Pope Anastasius I agreed to a condemnation it's interesting that you have the patriarch of Alexandria writing to the Pope to get a condemnation it's all I'm saying that's just that's just curious isn't it but at this point this is when the controversy really started to heat up into an international crisis and at this point those same jerks or maybe some other guy but probably most historians say the same jerks they decided to falsify a quote from Rufinus' translation of on first principles and send it to the pope and say "Well Rufinus thinks this insert heretical proposition." So Rufinus decided to go directly to the pope and to explain himself and explain how he's not a heretic and also tell him a little bit about his methodology and his thesis about the falsification of the works of origin at this point St john of Jerusalem actually stepped in on behalf of Rufinus and as a result of this of hearing what Rufinus had to say and of hearing St john of Jerusalem the Pope decided not to condemn Rufinus and he left the matter up to God now at this point refu actually speculated that those you know those guys who were jerks that they actually sent the quote to the pope at the behest of St jerome which we now know is actually correct they did that on behalf of St jerome so Rufinus felt it necessary to write a defense of himself and basically all he did is he wrote a defense of himself which went over all of the different accusations and explained his own orthodoxy and then also uh because this was directed at St jer Rome who was now being a bit harsh with Rufinus to say the least he also appended a section of the book which went over all of the various places where Jerome himself had praised Origin and he basically said look I'm just saying exactly what you're saying i'm praising Origin and I don't believe anything different than what you're saying i just he just had this weird belief about the textual issues uh in Origin's works now I think it's completely fair actually for Rufinus to defend himself in this way to write a work defending his orthodoxy and to showing the inconsistencies of St jerome i think that's completely fair for him to be upset about the letter which Jerome sent and also the agitation with the pope this is all completely fair st jerome absolutely should not have on such light reports have condemned anybody like this in a letter um to to anybody st jerome on such slight grounds should not have just went out and condemned his friend that that was that wasn't okay at all but to me Rufinus pointing to all the former support that St jerome had for origin just makes absolutely no sense you know he you could support somebody at one point of your life and then change your mind and that's completely fine to change your mind and presumably seems like St jerome when St apanius laid it all out for him decided to change his mind on this problem it makes no sense for Rufinus to point at this as some sort of own uh against St jerome anyways uh St jerome's little Roman friends the guys who are complete jerks decided to inform St jerome that Rufinus was composing this work which was meant to defend himself and to respond against St jerome and at this point nearing the end of our explanation of the controversy St jerome receives this letter and does not get the book yet he wouldn't get the book for a while he becomes to put it lightly completely unhinged because at this point he hadn't even read the work he didn't even know what Rufinus was going to say but it was just enough for him to know that Rufinus was writing a work which was responding to him that he went sat down and wrote two books and for those who don't know books are basically large sections of a of a certain work which you know we would normally call the work the book and the books the sections but know it's whatever he wrote two large books and sat on it and then received the work and then added a third to it so three books against Rufinus and this work is pretty bad it's pretty horrible it goes into a lot of personal attacks of his former friend mind you former friend Refinus uh mocks him makes fun of his rhetorical skills it's it's a pretty sort of depressing work to read uh from a saint of the church the Catholic historian Carl Boss comments quote "In theatrical elegance in stinging irony Jerome's defense against Rufinus' apologia is clearly superior but in regard to content it is one of the most distasteful examples of theological pmics he did not set himself to rebut the really sound criticism of Rufinus but tried to do so through mere sarcasm his personal invectives against his former friend make painful reading rufinus' wretched style he says makes it obvious that he had scarcely attended school but the books of the ignorant always find readers he unscrupulously questions the honesty of Rufinus' profession of faith to Pope Anastasius and compares his argumentation to the tricks of a fox after reading the first two books Rufinus sent Jerome a letter which has been lost and hence we do not know his final word in this matter he kept silent for the last 8 years of his life and Jerome when he learned of Refinus's death in 410 he wrote in triumph that now the scorpion lies pressed flat under the earth of Sicily now finally the manyheaded hydra ceases to hiss end quote and that's how the whole thing ended i mean they went from being best friends in Jerusalem in the 390s to Jerome literally celebrating the death of Rufinus and branding him throughout his entire life a heretic it's sad it's extremely sad we can all recognize this and what's the most annoying thing is that this was basically just started by weird rumors and Rufinus honestly um despite his obviously wrong position on the status of the works of origin and the orthodoxy of origin on certain matters he was giving the judgment of charity to a former friend but unfortunately St jerome didn't give the same judgment and this actually teaches us a lot about the various flaws that we can see in the saints in the doctrines of the church and in the fathers there are flaws which pervade some of their lives and we have to be honest about that but anyways I hope you all enjoyed this and God bless [Music]