The Banana Republican

CHARITY

2011-12-31T23:59:00.005-05:00

REMINDER: Contribute to charity FOR FREE WHILE STAYING PUT. Do this EVERY DAY.

Please report any broken links. Also go to Freerice.com now to donate 10 grains of rice for every vocabulary word you correctly define! See if you can get to level 57 like me! :-)

A partial mirror of this blog can be found here at Wordpress.

See the Anthology of William Huysman for easy navigation and indexing of posts. Click here for a convenient index of posts.

Check out my new blog, Catholic Patristics. Click here for a convenient index of posts on that blog.

Hopefully the Scriptural and Patristic catenae on this site will help you realize the truth of the following distinctively Catholic positions:

Filioque
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, that is, from the Father and the Son (the formulas are complementary rather than contradictory) as regards His eternal hypostatic existence, and this is no prejudice to the monarchy of the Father.

Baptism
Trine immersion is not necessary for baptism to be valid; baptism by a single immersion, sprinkling, or pouring is valid, too.

Eucharist
The use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist is perfectly valid; leavened bread is not the only valid option.

Divorce
The bond of a consummated sacramental marriage is absolutely indissoluble and second marriages are impermissible so long as the spouse is still alive.

Contraception
The use of artificial birth control methods is intrinsically mortally sinful.

Papal Infallibility
The seeds of the papal infallibility dogma defined by the Ecumenical Council of Vatican I are present in scripture and in the writings of the Church Fathers and resolutions of Ecumenical Councils held in common by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Immaculate Conception
Mary the ever-virgin Theotókos never contracted original sin and never committed personal sin.

Check out the progress on the Catholic wonderworker project here.
Check out the progress on the Eastern Orthodox wonderworker project here.

Right now I'm re-doing citations in MLA format; this will take a while!

Happy Palm Sunday 2011!

2011-04-17T19:36:00.004-04:00

Happy Palm Sunday of the Lord's Passion 2011! May the Lord make this a great Holy Week for all. Thank you, Lord Jesus, King of the Universe, for by Your Precious Blood You have redeemed the world! Dear readers, pray for me, a sinner. I pray that you all experience an abundance of God's grace and a growth of communion with Him on this day and all the days to come, that the merciful God will bring you to the top of the Ladder of Divine Ascent! Amen.

The 21 Ecumenical Councils

2011-04-13T11:01:00.044-04:00

1 - Nicaea I (325)
-
-Hefele 1.1:335–632
-president was Bishop St. Hosius the Confessor of Cordoba, who was assisted by the papal legates Priests Victor and Vincent of Rome [Henri Leclercq]
-
-
-
-
-318 bishops [Henri Leclercq]
-"Cecilian of Carthage [311-325], Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, [and] Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia" were the only other Roman Catholic bishops present [Henri Leclercq]
-20 canons [Hefele 1.2:528–620]

2 - Constantinople I (381)
-
-Hefele 2.1:1–48
-J. Bois in DTC 3.1:1227-1231
-successive Presidents of the Council called by the holy Emperor Theodosius I the Great (379-395) were Patriarch St. Meletius of Antioch (360-381), Archbishop St. Gregory Nazianzen the Theologian of Constantinople (Doctor; 379-381; †390), and Archbishop St. Nectarius of Constantinople (381-397)
-originally a General Council of the East; no involvement or representation of Pope St. Damasus I of Rome (366-384)
-
-
-

3 - Ephesus (431)

4 - Chalcedon (451)
-
-
-Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome (Doctor; 440-461)
-
-
-
-
-
-27 canons

5 - Constantinople II (553)
-Mansi IX:163-658 (88-335)
-Hefele :
-J. Bois in DTC 3.1:1231-1259
-É. Amann in DTC 15.2:1268–1294

6 - Constantinople III (680-681)
-Mansi X:190-922 (101-467)
-Hefele 3.1:472–538
-J. Bois in DTC 3.1:1259-1274
-É. Amann in DTC 7.1:93-132
-Fr. Martin Jugie, A.A. in DTC 10.2:2307-2323
-
-Patriarch George I of Constantinople (679-686)
-Patriarch Peter V of Alexandria
-
-

7 - Nicaea II (787)
-
-Hefele 3.2:601–798
-G. Fritz in DTC 11.1:417-441
-
-
-

8 - Constantinople IV (869-870)
-
-Hefele 4.1:481-546
-Fr. Martin Jugie, A.A. in DTC 3:1273-1307
-E. Amann in DTC 12:1549-1582; 16:666-667
-Pope Adrian II of Rome (867-872)
-Patriarch St. Ignatius of Constantinople (847-858, 867-877)
-Patriarch Michael I of Alexandria (860-870) [AASS 6:V:84, §446 (126)] represented by Deacon Joseph [Mansi XVI:190B]
-Patriarch Nicholas II of Antioch (860-879) [AASS 7:IV:123A-C, §579-581 (153)] represented by Metropolitan Thomas of Tyre [ibid.]
-Patriarch Theodosius of Jerusalem (862-878) [AASS 5:III:xli, §180 (53)] represented by Presbyter Elijah the syncellus [ibid.]
-two of the 26 metropolitans who signed the Acts of the Eighth Ecumenical Council [Mansi XVI:190C-191D] signed the acts of the sixth session of the Robber Council of 879-880 [Mansi XVII-1:513]: Cyprian of Claudiopolis and Ignatius of Hierapolis
-

9 - Lateran I (1123)
-Mansi XXI:277-304 (148-161)
-Hefele 4.2:630-644
-F. Vernet in DTC 8.2:2628-2637
-Pope Callistus II of Rome (1119-1124) "presided in person"
-22 canons promulgated

10 - Lateran II (1139)
-Mansi XXI:523-546 (271-282)
-Hefele 5.1:721-738
-F. Vernet in DTC 8.2:2637-2644
-Pope Innocent II of Rome (1130-1143)
-

11 - Lateran III (1179)
-Mansi XXII:209-468 (118-247)
-Hefele 5.2:1086-1112
-F. Vernet in DTC 8.2:2644-2652
-Pope Alexander III of Rome (1159-1181)
-
-
-
-Latin Patriarch Amalric of Jerusalem (1158-1180) represented by Prior Peter of the Holy Sepulcher [Hefele 5.2:1087]

12 - Lateran IV (1215)
-Mansi XXII:953-1086 (490-556)
-Hefele 5.2:1316–1398
-F. Vernet in DTC 8.2:2652–2667
-Pope Innocent III of Rome (1198-1216)

13 - Lyons I (1245)
-Mansi XXIII:605-686 (303-343)
-Hefele 5.2:1633–1679
-Pope Innocent IV of Rome (1243-1254)
-Latin Patriarch Nicholas de Castro Arquato (1234–1251) [AASS 8:I:151C-F (177)]
-no involvement of Greek Orthodox Patriarch Gregory I of Alexandria (1243-1263) [J. Pargoire in 1903 DTC 1.1:796]
-Latin Patriarch Albert Rezzato of Antioch (1226–1245)
-Patriarch Berthold of Aquileia (1218-1251)
-Catholic Metropolitan Peter Akerovych of Kiev (1241-1246) came with Grand Prince St. Michael the Martyr, Wonderworker of Chernigov

14 - Lyons II (1274)
-Mansi XXIV:37-136 (25-75)
-Hefele 6.1:153–209
-F. Vernet in DTC 9.1:1361–1391
-Bl. Pope Gregory X of Rome (1271-1276) and 15 cardinals
-Titular Latin Patriarch Pantaleon Giustiani of Constantinople (1253–1278) [Hefele 6.1:168; F. Vernet in DTC 9.1:1376]
-Titular Latin Patriarch Opizo Fieschi of Antioch (1247–1292) [Hefele 6.1:168; F. Vernet in DTC 9.1:1376]
-Greek ex-Patriarch Germanus III of Constantinople (1267) [AASS 8:I:164A-165E (190-191)]
-no involvement of Greek Orthodox Patriarch Nicholas II of Alexandria (1263-1276) [J. Pargoire in 1903 DTC 1.1:796]
-Fr. Yves Congar, O.P., I Believe in the Holy Spirit III:130: "it is not possible to say that the Greek Church was really represented"

15 - Vienne (1311-1312)
-Mansi XXV:367-416 (189-213)
-Hefele 6.2:643-719
-J. Leclercq in DTC 15.2:2973-2979
-Avignon Pope Clement V of Rome (1305-1314)
-Titular Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, Nicholas of Thebes (1308-1331) [Mansi XXV:380CD (195)]
-Titular Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem [Mansi XXV:380E (195)]
-Patriarch of Aquileia Ottobuono of Razzi (1302-1315) [Mansi XXV:380D (195)]
-Patriarch Angelo Motonense of Grado (1310-1313) [Mansi XXV:380DE (195)]

16 - Constance (1414-1418)
-Mansi XXVII:519-1240 (269-629); appendix in Mansi XXVIII:1-976 (10-497)
-Hefele 7.1
-A. Baudrillart in DTC 3.2:1200-1224
-
-
-
-no involvement of Greek Orthodox Patriarch Athanasius IV of Alexandria (1417-1425) [J. Pargoire in 1903 DTC 1.1:796]

17 - Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431-1445)
-
-Hefele 7.2
-A. Vogt in DTC 6.1:24-50
-Pope Eugene IV of Rome (1431-1447)
-Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople (5/21/1416-6/10/1439), who died a sincere Catholic
-Patriarch Philotheus of Alexandria (1435-1459) represented by the future Patriarch Gregory III Mammas of Constantinople; contrary to his official biography on the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria website, there was no anti-union synod of 1443 or 1450 and Patriarch Philotheus actually sent a Letter to Pope Eugene IV of Rome in which he says that anyone who does not accept the Council of Florence is a heretic [Fr. Gill 323; Mansi XXXI-2:1703-1704 (300)]
-Patriarch Dorotheus II of Antioch (1436-1454) represented by Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev
-Patriarch Joachim of Jerusalem (1431-1450) represented by Metropolitan Dositheus of Monembasia
-no anti-union synod of 1443 [Fr. Gill 354], nor was there an anti-union synod in 1450 [Fr. Gill 376 n. 3]
-Greek Church did not officially repudiate Council of Florence until 1484 [Fr. Gill 410]

18 - Lateran V (1512-1517)
-Mansi XXXII:649–1002 (332-508)
-Hefele 8.1:339–375, 396–548
-F. Vernet in DTC 8.2:2667–2686
-Pope Julius II of Rome (1503-1513) and Pope Leo X of Rome (1513-1521)
-Titular Latin Patriarch Jacques Cortès of Alexandria (1552-1568) [F. Vernet in DTC 8.2:2675]
-Titular Latin Patriarch of Antioch [F. Vernet in DTC 8.2:2675]

19 - Trent (1545-1563)
-
-
-
-Titular Latin Patriarch Anthony Helia of Jerusalem (1558-1575) [Hefele 9.2:717]
-Patriarch Daniel Matthew Alvise Barbaro (1550-1570) [Hefele 9.2:717]
-Patriarch Giovanni Trevisano of Venice (1560-1590) [Hefele 9.2:717]
-no involvement of Patriarch Joasaph II of Constantinople (1555-1565) even though Pope Pius IV of Rome (1555-1559) invited him [Hefele 9.2:1025]
-no involvement of anti-Catholic Patriarch Joachim I Pany of Alexandria (1487-1567), though Pope Pius IV of Rome (1555-1559) invited him [Hefele 9.2:1025], since "the Alexandrian Melkites finally severed relations with Rome after the Turkish conquest of Alexandria in 1517" [G. A. Maloney in NCE I:271]
-no involvement of Patriarch Joachim IV of Antioch (1543-1576), even though Pope Pius IV of Rome (1555-1559) invited him [Hefele 9.2:1025]
-
-

20 - Vatican I (1870)
-
-

21 - Vatican II (1962-1965)
-
-
-
-
-
-

Old Rome, Not New Rome 1

2011-04-11T16:20:00.033-04:00

This is version 3.0 (2011) of part 1 of "Why God Led Me to Rome Instead of Constantinople." May God bless you with ever-growing communion with Him and may He bless you and yours with everlasting life. May He make use of this sinner to win people over to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by holiness of life and sound arguments from Sacred Scripture and Tradition and right reason. May God grant this sinner the strength to show, in these posts, that Catholicism, and not Eastern Orthodoxy, is the only true and saving faith, and that the Catholic Church is the bearer of the Four Marks of the Church. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Since the Eastern Orthodox Church does not have an infallible magisterium,{1} it has been unable to definitively solve issues such as the following{2}: the procession of the Holy Spirit; the nature of the primacy of the Pope; the validity of Catholic Baptism; the canon of Sacred Scripture; whether there is a real distinction in God between His essence and energy; the form of the Eucharist; the immediacy of retribution; Purgatory; and other issues.

Notes to Preface
{1} Fr. Martin Jugie, A.A. (†1954), Theologia dogmatica Christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica dissidentium IV:525-529.
{2} Op. cit., 538-539.

A. Constantinople Not an Apostolic See

B. Heretical Patriarchs of Constantinople
Despite its share of saintly archbishops and patriarchs,{1} the see of Constantinople has been occupied by numerous heretics and even heresiarchs. Its three Arian occupants were Eusebius of Nicomedia (339-342),{2} Eudoxius of Antioch (360-370),{3} and Demophilus (370-380).{4} The semi-Arian heresiarch Macedonius (342-346, 351-360; †364){5} and the heresiarch Nestorius (428-431){6} also held the throne, as did five Monophysites: Acacius (472-489),{7} Fravitas (489),{8} Euphemius (489-495),{9} Timothy I (511-518),{10} and Anthimus I (535-536).{11} The Monothelite Patriarchs of Constantinople include the heresiarch Sergius I (610-638),{12} Pyrrhus (638-641, 654),{13} Paul II (641-653),{14} Peter (654-666),{15} and John VI (712-714).{16} Constantinople also had a series of Iconoclast Patriarchs: Anastasius (730-754),{17} Constantine II (754-766),{18} Nicetas I (766-780),{19} Paul IV (780-784),{20} Theodotus I Cassiteras (815-821),{21} Antony I Cassimatis (821-836),{22} and John VII Grammaticus (836-842).{23} Photius (877-886), whose first term was illegitimate,{24} was guilty of doctrinal innovations,{25} especially his opposition to the Filioque.{26} Cyril I Lucaris (1612, 1620-1623, 1623-1633, 1633-1634, 1634-1635, 1637-1638) was a Calvinist,{27} Cyril V (1748-1751, 1752-1757) held Anabaptist tenets,{28} and Meletius IV Metaxakis (1921-1923; †1935) was a Freemason who declared Anglican orders valid.{29}

If Catholicism is false, then even more Patriarchs of Constantinople were heretics, since they accepted distinctively Catholic dogmas (e.g., Filioque, papal primacy): John XI Beccus (1275-1282; †1297),{30} Joseph II (1416-1439),{31} Metrophanes II (1440-1443),{32} Gregory III Mammas, a renowned wonderworker (1443-1459),{33} Dionysius II (1546-1555),{34} Neophytus II (1602-1603, 1607-1612),{35} Raphael II (1603-1607),{36} Cyril II Contares (1633, 1635-1636, 1638-1639; †1640),{37} Athanasius V (1709-1711),{38} and probably others.{39}

Since 1054, there has been no "Orthodox" Pope of Rome, whereas the post-1054 Orthodox succession lines of the following autocephalous sees and Churches include multiple Catholics:
Constantinople: nine or more (to 1711)
Alexandria: three or more (to 1517)
Antioch: four or more; up to 25 (to 1724) [G. D. Gallaro in NCE IX:479]
Jerusalem: six or more (to 1503)
Kiev: 15 or more (to 1596)
Serbia: two or more (to 1321)
Bulgaria (Tarnovo and Ohrid): eight or more (to 1660)
Georgia: 15 or more (to 1240)

Notes to Section B
{29}
{30}
{31}
{32}
{33} a. Siméon Vailhé, "Constantinople, Église de," in the 1907 DTC 3.2:1402, says that "the Catholic Patriarch Gregory Mammas ... had not abdicated and ... probably had not been deposed..." According to Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J. of happy memory, there was no anti-Catholic Patriarch Athanasius II of Constantinople (1450-1453); see The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959), p. 376 n. 3.
b. AASS 8:I:190B-192B (216-218).
c. On the holy Gregory's reputation as a wonderworker, see his Greek biography on the Ecumenical Patriarchate website.
{34} a. Vailhé, op. cit., 1424-1425.
b.
c.
{35}
{36} a. Vailhé, op. cit., 1426.
b.
{37} a.
b.
{38} a. Vailhé, op. cit., 1432: "And concerning the Patriarch Athanasius V, we note that he was deposed in 1711, because he innovated in matters of faith and showed himself too favorable to Western ideas, that is to say to Catholicism."

C. Heretical Patriarchs of Alexandria

D. Heretical Patriarchs of Antioch

E. Heretical Patriarchs of Jerusalem

F. Alleged Counter-Examples proposed by Orthodox: Old Rome

G. The Russian Church
The first Christians of Russia were Catholic.{1} Princess St. Olga of Kiev was Catholic,{2} and so was her grandson, Grand Prince St. Vladimir I Sviatoslavich the Great.{3} From his conversion until the elevation of anti-Catholic Metropolitan Nicephorus I of Kiev (1104-1121),{4} all the metropolitans of Kiev were Catholic,{5} except for John II of Kiev (1080-1089).{6} These were St. Michael I of Kiev (988-992),{7} Leontius (992-1008),{8} John I (1019-1035),{9} Theopemptus (1035-1049),{10} Hilarion (1051-1055),{11} Ephraim I (1055-1061),{12} George (1062-1073),{13} John III (1089-1091),{14} and Nicholas I of Kiev (1097–1101).{15} Even between 1121 and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, not all the Metropolitans of Kiev were Orthodox; Catholic Metropolitans of Kiev during this time period include Clement Smoliatich (1147-1154){16} and Peter Akerovych (1241-1246){17}, and probably John IV (1164-1166).{18} There is no historical certainty that the following Metropolitans of Kiev were Orthodox: Nicetas (1122-1126),{19} Michael II (1130-1145),{20} Constantine I (1156-1159),{21} Theodore (1161-1163),{22} and Nicephorus II (1182-1198).{23} Peter of Kiev (1308-1326), who resided in Moscow starting in 1325, was Catholic for quite a while (until at least 1316),{24} but became Orthodox in 1324 at the latest.{25}

Notes to section G
{1} a.
b.
{2} a.
b.
{3} a.
b. Andrew Shipman, "St. Vladimir the Great," in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 15.
{4} a.
b.
{5} a. Fr. Stilting in AASS
b. Fr. Yves Congar, O.P., After Nine Hundred Years: The Background of the Schism Between the Eastern and Western Churches (Fordham University Press, 1959), p. 95, n. 7.
c. Fr. Joseph Schweigl, "Menologio graeco-slavico post annum 1054," Periodica de re morali, canonica, liturgica 3 (Rome 1941): 222.
{6}
{7}
{8} a.
b.
c. Fr. Mauricio Gordillo, S.J. in the 1938 DTC 14.1:217: the letter denouncing unleavened bread is not by Leontius of Kiev, but by a metropolitan in Bulgaria after the time of the anti-Catholic bishops Leo of Ochrid and Michael Cerularius.
d. The Popes were John XV (XVI) (985-996), Gregory V (996-999), Sylvester II (999-1003), John XVII (XVIII) (1003), and John XVIII (XIX) of Rome (1003-1009).
e. The Antipope was John Philagathus of Piacenza ("John XVI (XVII)" 997-998; †1013).
f. The Patriarchs of Constantinople were Catholic Sisinnius II (996-998) [Siméon Vailhé in 1907 DTC 3.2:1359] and Sergius II (1001-1019).
{9} a.
b.
c. The Popes were Benedict VIII (1012-1024), John XIX (1024-1032) and Benedict IX of Rome (1032-1045).
d. The Patriarchs of Constantinople were Sergius II (1001-1019), Eustathius (1019-1025), and Alexius I the Studite (1025-1043).
{10} a.
b.
c. The Popes were Benedict IX (1032-1045), Gregory VI of Rome (1045-1046; †1048), Clement II (1046-1047), Damasus II (1048), and St. Leo IX the Wonderworker of Rome (1049-1054).
d. The Antipopes were John of Sabina ("Sylvester III" 1045; †1063) and the ex-pope Benedict IX (1047-1048).
e. The Patriarchs of Constantinople were Alexius I the Studite (1025-1043) and the anti-Catholic Michael I Cerularius (1043-1058).
{11} a.
b. Fr. Congar, loc. cit.
{12} a.
b. Fr. Congar, loc. cit.
{13} a.
b. Fr. Congar, loc. cit.
c. Fr. Gordillo in op. cit., 218: the anti-Catholic letter said to be a 1072 work of Metropolitan George of Kiev is probably a 12th century work
d. The Pope was Alexander II of Rome (1061-1073).
e. The Patriarchs of Constantinople were Constantine III Leichoudes (1059-1063) and the anti-Catholic John VIII Xiphilinus (1064-1075) [AASS 8:I:127C-128D (153-154)], who frustrated an attempted reunion of the Churches in 1072 under Pope Alexander II of Rome (1061-1073) and Byzantine Emperor Michael VII Ducas (1071-1078; †1090) [Fr. Jugie I:402].
{14} a.
b. Fr. Congar, loc. cit.
{15} a.
b. Fr. Congar, loc. cit.
{16}
{17}
{18} a. Fr. Stilting, op. cit., xviii:EF, §75 (43), says "Joannes probabilius Catholicus", and according to Ignatius Kulczynski, O.S.B.M., he wrote a letter of obedience to Pope Alexander III of Rome at the command of Grand Prince Rostislav I Mstislavich of Kiev (1154, 1159–1167), whom the Eastern Orthodox commemorate on March 14 (see his OCA entry).
b. The Pope was Alexander III of Rome (1159-1181).
c. The Antipope was Guido of Crema ("Pascal III" 1165-1168).
d. The Patriarch of Constantinople was Luke Chrysoberges (1156-1169) [AASS 8:I:139C-140C (165-166)].
{19} a. Fr. Stilting says, op. cit., xviii:EF, §73 (42), that he was in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, but it is uncertain if Nicetas was Catholic or schismatic.
b. Mgr. Pelesz I:293 (305) says, "über dessen Wirksamkeit keine Nachrichten vorhanden sind."
c. The Popes were Callistus II (1119-1124) and Honorius II of Rome (1124-1130).
d. The Patriarch was John IX Agapetus of Constantinople (1111-1134) [AASS 8:I:131D-132B (157-158)].
{20} a. Fr. Stilting says, loc. cit., that he was in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, but it is uncertain if Michael II was Catholic or schismatic.
b. Mgr. Pelesz I:294-295 (306-307) is not clear on whether Michael II was Catholic or Orthodox.
c. The Popes were Innocent II (1130-1143), Celestine II (1143-1144), Lucius II (1144-1145), and Bl. Eugene III of Rome (1145-1153).
d. The Antipopes were Pietro Pierleoni ("Anacletus II" 1130-1138) and Gregorio Conti ("Victor IV" 1138; †1139).
e. The Patriarchs of Constantinople were John IX Agapetus (1111-1134) [AASS 8:I:131D-132B (157-158)], Leo Styppeiotes (1134-1143) [AASS 8:I:132B-133B (158-159)], and Michael II Kourkouas (1143-1146) [AASS 8:I:133C-E (159)].
{21} a. Fr. Stilting, op. cit., xviii:EF, §75 (43), says "de hisce nihil certi invenio".
b.
c. The Pope was Adrian IV of Rome (1154-1159).
d. The Antipope was Ottavio di Montecelio ("Victor IV" 1159-1164).
e. The Patriarch of Constantinople was Luke Chrysoberges (1156-1169) [AASS 8:I:139C-140C (165-166)].
{22} a. Fr. Stilting, loc. cit., says "de hisce nihil certi invenio".
b.
c. The Pope was Adrian IV of Rome (1154-1159).
d. The Antipope was Ottavio di Montecelio ("Victor IV" 1159-1164).
e. The Patriarch of Constantinople was Luke Chrysoberges (1156-1169) [AASS 8:I:139C-140C (165-166)].
{23}
{24}
{25}
{26}
{27}
{28}
{29}
{30}
{31}
{32}
{33}

H. The Serbian Church

I. The Bulgarian Church

J. The Georgian Church

K. The Photian Schism

L. The Council of Florence

Corrigenda

2011-03-21T10:47:00.009-04:00

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Dear readers, pray for me and forgive me for misleading you by my errors of scholarship.

Nicephorus the Hesychast of Mt. Athos (†1300)
I don't think the anti-Catholic monk Nicephorus the Hesychast (†1300?), an Italian who converted from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy and was famous for his anti-union activities in the wake of the 14th Ecumenical Council (Lyons II in 1274), is the "Our Venerable Father Nicephor, Hegumen of the Medikion Monastery (14th Century)" for May 5 of the "official calendar of saints and commemorations for the Byzantine Ruthenian Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh is taken from The Divine Liturgy of our Holy Father John Chrysostom (2006)." The calendar seems to list the wrong century; Nicephorus the Hesychast was an Athonite, whereas there is a St. Nicephorus of the Medikion Monastery, which is in Bithynia and not Athos, who reposed in the 815. On this St. Nicephorus see the Acta Sanctorum for May 4 from the year 1680: 5:I:500-501E (628-629). St. Gregory Palamas praised Nicephorus the Hesychast for his anti-Catholicism, yet Josyf Cardinal Slipyj must have led the Magisterium to moral certainty that Palamas died a Catholic, thought it seems that Slipyj's specific arguments are not a matter of public knowledge (though Fr. Serge Keleher of Dublin might know). Here is a rough translation of what Palamas says in Triads II:2:2, from the French translation of Fr. John Meyendorff, p. 320: "Nicephorus who confessed the true faith and therefore was condemned to banishment by the first emperor Palaeologus who adopted the thinking of the Latins, Nicephorus was of Italian origin, but acknowledged the heresy of these people, so he joined our Orthodox Church, and with the customs of his fathers, he rejects their heritage and prefers our empire to his own country..."

Photius
Did Photius die in communion with the Holy See? Previously I answered with a resounding yes, and I hope this is the case. Yet I can't really be enthusiastic about Photius anymore, in light of the observations of Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A. of happy memory in "New Light on the Photian Schism," Unitas 5 (1953), 147-148.

Did Photius die in communion with the Holy See?

2011-03-19T20:34:00.008-04:00

Mirror link

Hail Joseph the just, Wisdom is with you; blessed are you among all men and blessed is Jesus, the fruit of Mary, your faithful spouse. Holy Joseph, worthy foster-father of Jesus Christ, pray for us sinners and obtain divine Wisdom for us from God, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

==========

Previously I answered with a resounding yes, and I hope this is the case. Yet I can't really be enthusiastic about Photius anymore, in light of the following observations of Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A. of happy memory in "New Light on the Photian Schism," Unitas 5 (1953), 147-148.

Did Photius die in communion with the Holy See?
The most striking result of this recent research on the Photian question is the disappearance of the presumed second Photian schism. For many people this conclusion takes the concrete form: Photius died in communion with the Holy See. Is the conclusion justified? To respond we must avoid hasty conclusions, and distinguish between the position in the eyes of the law and the conduct or personal conscience of the deposed patriarch.

We cannot pass over in silence the fact that the Council of 869 was omitted from official lists of ecumenical councils, even in the West, until the second half of the eleventh century. Dvornik has established this with great erudition, and concludes that this silence is equivalent to the annulment of the Council. But we claim that it is more reasonable to suppose that since the Council concerned itself only with a personal issue and not with any question of dogma there was no great reason for emphasizing its importance at the time, and that also it seemed diplomatic in the West to remain silent after the Photian affair was settled in 899.

If it is a question of the position of Photius in the eyes of the law, all that we can say is that Photius died in communion with the Church of Byzantium. If this was in communion with Rome at the time, the former patriarch died in communion with Rome; if it was in schism, he died in schism. We are faced with two uncertainties here—the date of Photius's death and the situation of the two Churches from the time of Formosus until the reunion council held under John IX in 899. We cannot give a reply to the main question until we can answer these two.

In regard to the personal attitude and the conscience of the ex-patriarch we are on even more difficult ground. Photius composed his two principal works against the doctrine of the Filioque after his re-establishment as patriarch under John VIII, his letter to the Archbishop of Aquilea and his Mystagoge. He was not manifesting a desire for reconciliation, and he even avoids the expression through the Son, used by the Second Council of Nicaea and current among the Greek Fathers. Would this latter have embarrassed him just as later it was to embarrass the adversaries of Johannes Beccos?

What of the genuine attitude of Photius towards the Roman Church? It is argued that he had different attitudes, and many of them, not so much against the Roman Church as against those who headed it. He spurned St. Nicholas I, he admired John VIII and Adrian III; the one had eyed him with disfavor, the other two with forgiveness. He measured the merit of those who occupied the Apostolic See by their treatment of himself. With this in mind we conclude that the question: "Did Photius die a Catholic?" is a strange one. We are even more fully convinced that in seeking a patron for works of Unity, we should not pause to consider the possibility of choosing Photius, as some others would suggest (19).

(19) Fr. Dvornik, "Photius, père du schisme ou apôtre de l’union" in Vie intellectuelle, Dec. 1945, pp. 16-28.

Heretical and schismatic false martyrs (Fr. René Hedde, O.P.)

2011-03-18T21:51:00.005-04:00

This is a very rough translation of a section of the article "Martyre" by Fr. René Hedde, O.P. in the 1928 Dictionnaire de théologie catholique 10.1:233.

9. Heretical and schismatic false martyrs (c. XX). – We can distinguish two cases, one in which the heretic dies to defend his heresy, or one in which he dies for a doctrine common with the true faith.

The second case is more interesting, but even then the patient will not be considered a martyr, for, says Benedict XIV, though he died for the truth, he did not die for the truth given by faith, since he has no faith. At the same time he admitted in a heretic who denies a point of faith, a supernatural habitus, but informed by faith; this view is widely rejected by theologians. He who has no faith, cannot die for the faith. Benedict XIV then speaks of the heretic invincibiliter, that is to say, of he who is in his error "in good faith" and if he dies for a true point [article] of faith, can he regarded as a martyr? Benedict XIV responds with an important distinction: he will be coram Deo, but not coram Ecclesia. He will be coram Deo, provided he is habitually disposed to believe anything that would be proposed by the legitimate authority, because he is not culpable according to the word of St. John: "Si non venissem et locutus fuissem eis, peccatum non haberent," XV, 22; he would not be a martyr coram Ecclesia, which judges from the outside, and which, noting his external heresy, is reduced to speculate his internal heresy. We see how this distinction proposed by the eminent canon lawyer can give satisfaction to the most difficult [questions]. But once it is admissible to recognize as a martyr coram Deo the heretic invincibiliter who dies to defend a doctrine common with Catholic truth, does she not need to recognize him even if he dies with the same sincerity to defend an erroneous assertion that he believes belong to the Christian Credo? We see from these examples how the concept of martyrdom that, at first sight, seems very clear and sharply defined, in reality poses many questions that are difficult to answer with certainty.

Post-Schism Orthodox Saints (Bollandists)

2011-03-16T15:42:00.041-04:00

I hope everyone's Lent is going well! Pray for me, a sinner.

Click here for an incomplete catalog of freely downloadable volumes of the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists.

Regarding the Holy Fathers of the Kiev Caves (cf. 10:XI:209 [245]) and their loyalty to Rome, and concerning Catholic veneration of post-schism Orthodox saints, see the Bollandists' learned comments in the following volumes (from authors like Frs. Ivan Martynov and Daniel Papebroch of pious memory, etc; the format is Month, Tome, Page, PDF file page # from Documenta Catholica Omnia):
*10:X:863-883 (891-911)
*10:XI:i-vii (30-37), 27 (63)

Eastern Catholics celebrate "the Synaxis of the Venerable Fathers of the Monastery of the Caves" on August 28 and/or September 28.

See also the venerable Fr. John Stilting, S.J.'s "Dissertation on the Conversion and Faith of the Russians," which talks about which Metropolitans of Kiev were Catholic and which ones were Orthodox: Acta Sanctorum 9:II:i-xxvii (25-51). Fr. Stilting, in the same volume, talks about Sts. Boris and Gleb on pp. 633-639 (741-747), and annotates their "Acts" on pp. 639-644 (747-752).

The Bollandists explicitly list the following as "Saints" (I'll include more after I get my homework done) in the columns next to their biographical entries, or as saints/blessed in their biographical entries themselves, in Acta Sanctorum, October, t. XI:

11th century
*St. Abraham of Rostov (October 29) [†1073]: 10:XI:265 (301); 10:XIII:36-51 (104-119), 926-927 (994-995)
*St. Agapetus of the Kiev Near Caves (June 1) [†1095]: 6:I:135 (221); 10:XI:144 (180)
*St. Anthony of the Kiev Far Caves (July 10) [983-1073]: 7:III:3 (53); 10:XI:174 (210)
*Sts. Damian [†1071], Jeremiah [†1070], and Matthew the Clairvoyant [†1085] of the Kiev Caves (October 5): 10:XI:242 (278)
*St. Eustratius the Martyr of the Kiev Near Caves (March 28) [†1096]: 10:XI:99 (135)
WRH: Not under AASS March 28 in 3:III:709-711D (759-761) from the year 1668.
*Bishop St. Isaiah the Wonderworker of Rostov (May 15) [†1090]: 10:XI:129 (165)
WRH: St. Isaiah not under AASS for May 15 from the year 1680 in 5:III:438-441 (532-535).
*Bishop St. Leontius the Wonderworker of Rostov (May 23) [†1073]: 10:XI:137-138 (173-174)
WRH: Not under AASS May 23: 5:V:233-235 (475-477) from year 1685.
*Abbot St. Nikon of the Kiev Far Caves (March 23) [†1088]: 10:XI:96 (132)
WRH: Not under AASS March 23 in 3:III:440-442 (490-492) from the year 1668.
*St. Parasceva Petca the New of Tarnovo (October 14) [†11th. c.]: 10:VI:62(90),66(94),68(96); 10:XI:246-247 (282-283)
WRH:
*Philothea of Tarnovo (December 7) [†1060], "whose relics are in Arges, Romania": 10:XI:301-302 (337-338)
*St. Stephen, abbot of the Kiev Caves and Bishop of Vladimir in Volhynia (April 27) [†4/27/1094]: 10:X:875A (893), 880B (908), 883A (911); 10:XI:116 (152)
WRH: Not under AASS April 27 in 4:III:473C-475F (511-513) from the year 1675, and not listed as saint (with †) in 10:X:956 (984) from year 1861.
*Sts. Theodore and Basil the Martyrs of the Kiev Near Caves (August 11) [†1098]: 8:II:607C (635); 10:XI:198 (234)
*St. Theodosius of the Kiev Far Caves (May 3) [†1074]: 5:I:360 (486); 10:XI:121-122 (157-158), 200-201 (236-237)
WRH: On the loyalty of St. Theodosius of the Kiev Far Caves to the Apostolic See, consult 10:X:880E (908), from the year 1861. Fr. Mauricio Gordillo, S.J. of happy memory says in the 1938 DTC 14.1:218: St. Theodosius Pechersky did not write against the Latins because he "remained faithful to Iziaslav when he displayed his Catholic faith by sending his son Yaropolk to implore the aid of Pope Gregory VII in Rome and put Russia under the protection of Saint Peter."

12th century
*St. Anastasius the Monk-Martyr of the Kiev Near Caves (January 22) [†late 12th century]: 10:XI:50 (86)
WRH: Not under AASS for January 22, from the year 1643: 1:II:388-389 (418-419).
*Anthony the Roman of Novgorod (August 3) [1067-1147]: 10:XI:46 (82), 193 (229)
WRH: Abbot Anthony, whom Orthodox hagiographers portray as fleeing persecutions of Roman Catholics, is not under AASS August 3 in 8:I:196-198 (498-500) from the year 1733.
*St. Arethas of the Recluse of the Kiev Near Caves (October 24) [†1190]: 10:X:xi (13), 863-877 (891-905); 10:XI:259-260 (295-296)
*King David III of Georgia (January 26) [1089-1125]: 10:XI:53-54 (89-90)
WRH: Not under AASS January 26 in 1:II:690-691 (720-731) from the year 1643.
*Dionysius of Kiev (June 26) [†1182]: 6:V:246-247 (462-463)
*St. Erasmus of the Kiev Near Caves (February 24) [†1160]: 10:X:866D (894), 874D (902); 10:XI:79-80 (115-116)
WRH: Not under AASS February 24 in 2:III:428-430F (466-468) from the year 1658, and not listed as saint (with †) in 10:X:933 (961) from year 1861.
*St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk (May 23) [†1173]: 5:V:234 (476); 10:XI:138 (174), 244 (280)
*Bishop Hilarion of Meglin, Bulgaria (October 21) [†1164]: 10:IX:405-408 (447-450); 10:XI:253-257 (289-293)
*St. John the Long-Suffering of the Kiev Near Caves (July 18) [†1160]: 7:IV:346F-347A (530-531); 10:XI:181 (217)
*Archbishop John of Novgorod (September 7) [†1186]: 10:XI:219 (255)
WRH: Not under AASS September 7 in 9:III:1-5E (73-77) from the year 1750.
*St. Nestor the Chronicler of the Kiev Near Caves (October 27) [1050-1114]: 10:XI:261-262 (297-298)
WRH: In AASS October 27 in 10:XII:181 (215) from the year 1867.
*St. Nicetas the Stylite, Wonderworker of Pereyaslavl (May 24) [†1186]: 10:XI:139 (175)
WRH: Not under AASS May 24: 5:V:269-272 (511-514) from year 1685, and not listed as saint (with †) in 10:X:948 (976) from year 1861.
*St. Pimen the Much-Ailing of the Kiev Near Caves [†1139]: 10:XI:195 (231)
WRH: Not under AASS August 7 in 8:II:180C-184E (208-212) from the year 1733.
*St. Prochorus of the Kiev Near Caves (February 10) [†1103]: 10:XI:67 (103)
WRH: Not under AASS February 10 in 2:II:377-379F (415-417) from the year 1658.
*Sts. Spyridon and Nicodemus the Prosphora-Bakers of the Kiev Near Caves (October 31) [†1148]: 10:X:864 (892), 874 (902); 10:XI:267 (303)
WRH: Not under AASS October 31 in 10:XIII:683-687 (751-755) from the year 1883.
*Stephen Nemanya of Serbia, a.k.a. Simeon the Myrrh-Gusher of Mt. Athos (February 13) [†1200]: 10:XI:71-73 (107-109)
WRH: Not under AASS February 13 in 2:II:642-644 (680-682) from the year 1658.
*St. Titus the Presbyter of the Kiev Near Caves (February 27) [†1190]: 10:XI:81 (117)
WRH: St. Titus is not under AASS February 27 from year 1658: 2:III:671-673E (709-711).

13th century
*Abbess St. Parasceva of Polotsk (October 28) [†1239]: 10:XI:262-264 (298-300), 277 (313); 10:XII:420 (454)
WRH: In 1273 Bl. Pope Gregory X of Rome (1271-1276) canonized St. Parasceva of Polotsk, who reposed in Rome in 1239.
*Peter (David) and Febronia (Euphrosyne), Wonderworkers of Murom (June 25) [†1228]: 10:XI:158-159 (194-195)
WRH: In AASS June 25 in 6:V:2E (218), 111 (327) from the year 1709.
*Archbishop St. Saba I of Serbia (January 14) [1169-1234]: 1:I:979-983 (1063-1067); 10:XI:39 (75), 42-44 (78-80)
*Bishop Simon of Vladimir and Suzdal (May 10) [†1226]: 10:X:956 (984); 10:XI:125 (161)
WRH: Not under AASS May 10 in 5:II:490C-494E (536-540) from the year 1680.

14th century
*Metropolitan Alexis of Kiev and Moscow (February 12) [r. 1354-1378; omitted from Russian Catholic calendar in 1940]: 2:II:639-641 (677-679); 10:XI:70-71 (106-107)
*Sts. Anthony, John, and Eustace of Vilnius (April 14) [†1342]: 4:II:265 et seq. (?); 10:XI:109 (145), 310 (346)
*Bishop James of Rostov (November 27) [†1392]: 10:XI:290 (326)
*John the New of Suceava (June 2) [†1330]: 6:I:263-264 (349-350); 10:XI:145 (181)
WRH: Gregory Tsamblak (Metropolitan of Kiev 1414-1420), who attended the 16th Ecumenical Council (Constance 1414-1418) and was Catholic according to AASS 9:II:xxii:E, §94 (47), described the martyrdom of John.
*Peter of Korish, a mid-14th century hermit of Serbia (November 25): 10:XI:289 (325)
*Metropolitan Peter of Kiev (December 21) [r. 1308-1326; omitted from Russian Catholic calendar in 1940]: 10:XI:313-314 (349-350)
*St. Sergius the Wonderworker of Radonezh (September 25) [1314-1392]: 9:VII:3-4 (39-40); 10:XI:234-235 (268-269)
*St. Stephen the Enlightener of Perm (April 26) [1340-1396]: 10:XI:115 (151)
WRH: Cf. the brief notice in AASS April 26 in 4:III:408C (446) from the year 1675.

15th century
*Andrew the New Martyr of Chios (May 29) [†1465]: 5:VII:184-188 (294-298); 10:XI:143 (179)
WRH:
*Abbot Dionysius of Glushitsa, Vologda (June 1) [†1437]: 6:I:135 (221)
WRH: Not listed as saint in 10:XI:145 (181) from the year 1864.
*Monk Joannicius of Devich (November 4) [†1430]: 10:XI:270 (306)
*Metropolitan Macarius the Hieromartyr of Kiev (May 1) [r. 1495-1497]: 10:XI:118-119 (154-155)
WRH: Not under AASS May 1 from the year 1680.

16th Century
*Despotina (Princess) Angelina Brancovich of Serbia (July 30) [†7/30/1520]: 10:XI:226 (190)
WRH: Not under AASS July 30 in 7:VII:127-130D (159-162) from the year 1731.

17th century
*Luarsab II of Georgia (June 21) [†1622]: 10:XI:157 (193)
WRH: Not under AASS June 21 in 6:IV:64-66 (98-100) from year 1707.

*Nestor the Silent (April 26) [?]: 4:III:424 (462)

The Bollandists mention St. Michael of Chernigov in 10:XI:71 (107), 85 (121). In 9:VI:105E (from the year 1757) they say: "Michael, princeps Zernichoviensis, aut Czernioviensis, et Theodorus ejus famulus memorantur hodie in Ephemeridibus Moscorum figuratis. At non conflat nobis, Catholici ne fuerint an schismatici. Non coli tamen apud Catholicos, habemus ex notitiis Polonicis." See also 5:I:xxxxiv (60), from the year 1680.

ByzCath.org Forums

2011-03-11T12:33:00.012-05:00

O infinitely merciful Lord, promptly take into your Heavenly Kingdom the souls of all the recently departed, including the victims of the earthquakes in China and Japan, and the victims of the terrorist car bomb attack in Faisalabad, Pakistan. We pray, O Lord our God, that they died within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. Sts. Mary, Joseph, Raphael, and Pionius the Hieromartyr, pray to God for us.

Dear readers, please pray for me, and please join me in praying for the members of the ByzCath.org forums. These forums are one place in which I am trying to find out the answer to the following question: "What led the saintly Josyf Slipyj to the requisite (for liturgical veneration) moral certainty that Palamas--who died in 1359 and is not recorded as becoming Catholic in 1355 when Pope Innocent VI of Rome (1352-1362) sent Paul of Smyrna (Titular Latin Patriarch of Constantinople 1366-1370) to the Palamas-Gregoras debate--did not die before accepting the truth of the dogma of Filioque?"

I have trouble not characterizing the responses I have gotten (in addition to other posts) from people identifying as Catholics (and Orthodox in communion with Rome) as follows. These scandalous propositions are either explicit statements from forum members or the direct logical result of their statements:
1. The teachings on "no salvation outside the Church" in Denzinger are not dogmatic; they are outdated and have been corrected and replaced with a different teaching by Vatican II.
2. How dare you correct "Catholics" who say that (1) despite real, objective dogmatic differences, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church subsists in both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church; or both Churches are parts of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Churches; and (2) Catholicism and Orthodoxy are equally certain paths to salvation.
3. I'm an Eastern Catholic, but Filioque is not a dogma, I don't believe Filioque is true.
4. Someone who dies in the state of willful and knowing "obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of Baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" and willful and knowing "refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CIC 751) can be saved.
5. St. Gregory Palamas never attacked the dogmas of the Catholic Church.
6.
7.

Remember CCEO 905: "In fulfilling ecumenical work especially through open and frank dialogue and common undertakings with other Christians, due prudence has to be kept avoiding the dangers of false irenicism, indifferentism and immoderate zeal."

I hope that, in combating false irenicism and indifferentism, I am not guilty of immoderate zeal.

Metropolitans of Kiev

2011-02-28T07:39:00.075-05:00

Mirror link

Which Metropolitans of Kiev were Catholic and which ones were Orthodox?

We consult, among other sources, the venerable Bollandist Fr. John Stilting, S.J.'s "Dissertation on the Conversion and Faith of the Russians" in Acta Sanctorum 9:II:i-xxvii (PDF file pages 25-51). Page numbers in parentheses indicate the page of the downloaded PDF document.

St. Michael I of Kiev (988-992): Catholic
-see Bollandists 10:XI:237 (October, tome XI, page 237)
-Pope was John XV (XVI) of Rome (985-996)
-Patriarch of Constantinople was the Catholic St. Nicholas II Chrysoberges (984-996) [AASS 8:I:120F-121D (146-147); 10:XI:310 (346); Siméon Vailhé in 1907 DTC 3.2:1359]
Leontius of Kiev (992–1008): Catholic
-Fr. Mauricio Gordillo, S.J. in the 1938 DTC 14.1:217: the letter denouncing unleavened bread is not by Leontius of Kiev, but by a metropolitan in Bulgaria after the time of the anti-Catholic bishops Leo of Ochrid and Michael Cerularius
-Mgr. Pelesz I:188, §29 (200):
-Popes were John XV (XVI) (985-996), Gregory V (996-999), Sylvester II (999-1003), John XVII (XVIII) (1003), and John XVIII (XIX) of Rome (1003-1009)
-Antipope was John Philagathus of Piacenza ("John XVI (XVII)" 997-998; †1013)
-Patriarchs of Constantinople were Catholic Sisinnius II (996-998) [Siméon Vailhé in 1907 DTC 3.2:1359] and Sergius II (1001-1019)

John I of Kiev (1019–1035): Catholic
-
-Popes were Benedict VIII (1012-1024), John XIX (1024-1032) and Benedict IX of Rome (1032-1045)
-Patriarchs of Constantinople were Sergius II (1001-1019), Eustathius (1019-1025), and Alexius I the Studite (1025-1043)

Theopemptus of Kiev (1035–1049): Catholic
-
-Popes were Benedict IX (1032-1045), Gregory VI of Rome (1045-1046; †1048), Clement II (1046-1047), Damasus II (1048), and St. Leo IX the Wonderworker of Rome (1049-1054)
-Antipopes were John of Sabina ("Sylvester III" 1045; †1063) and the ex-pope Benedict IX (1047-1048)
-Patriarchs of Constantinople were Alexius I the Studite (1025-1043) and the anti-Catholic Michael I Cerularius (1043-1058)

Hilarion of Kiev (1051–1055): Catholic
-
-Fr. Yves Congar, O.P., After Nine Hundred Years, p. 95, n. 7: Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev "remained in communion with Rome"
-Popes were St. Leo IX the Wonderworker (1049-1054) and Victor II of Rome (1055-1057)
-Patriarch of Constantinople was anti-Catholic Michael I Cerularius (1043-1058)

Ephraim I of Kiev (1055–1061): Catholic
-Fr. Yves Congar, O.P., After Nine Hundred Years, p. 95, n. 7: Metropolitan Ephraim I of Kiev "remained in communion with Rome"
-Popes were Victor II (1055-1057), Stephen IX (1057-1058), and Nicholas II of Rome (1058-1061)
-Patriarchs of Constantinople were the anti-Catholic Michael I Cerularius (1043-1058) and the probably anti-Catholic Constantine III Leichoudes (1059-1063) [AASS 8:I:126E-127B (152-153)], of whom Joan Mervyn Hussey says in NCE IV:177: "Leichudes was a distinguished scholar and orator, who had studied and taught rhetoric and civil law. He was also a wise administrator and churchman, a man of marked integrity who won the respect of his contemporaries"

George of Kiev (1062–1073): Catholic
-Fr. Yves Congar, O.P., After Nine Hundred Years, p. 95, n. 7: Metropolitan George of Kiev "remained in communion with Rome"
-Fr. Gordillo in the 1938 DTC 14.1:218: the anti-Catholic letter said to be a 1072 work of Metropolitan George of Kiev is probably a 12th century work
-Pope was Alexander II of Rome (1061-1073)
-Patriarchs of Constantinople were Constantine III Leichoudes (1059-1063) and the anti-Catholic John VIII Xiphilinus (1064-1075) [AASS 8:I:127C-128D (153-154)], who frustrated an attempted reunion of the Churches in 1072 under Pope Alexander II of Rome (1061-1073) and Byzantine Emperor Michael VII Ducas (1071-1078; †1090) [Fr. Jugie I:402]

John II of Kiev (1080-1089): Orthodox
-
-
-
-but Fr. Yves Congar, O.P., After Nine Hundred Years, p. 95, n. 7 says: Metropolitan John II of Kiev "remained in communion with Rome"
-Popes were St. Gregory VII (1073-1085), Bl. Victor III (1086-1087), and Bl. Urban II of Rome (1088-1089)
-Antipope was Guibert of Ravenna a.k.a. Clement III (1080-1100)
-Patriarchs of Constantinople were Cosmas I (1075-1081) [AASS 8:I:128D-129E (154-155)], Eustratius Garidas (1081-1084) [AASS 8:I:129E-130B (155-156)], and the anti-Catholic Nicholas III Grammaticus (1084-1111) [AASS 8:I:130E-131C (156-157)]

Nicholas I of Kiev (1097–1101): Catholic
-
-Fr. Yves Congar, O.P., After Nine Hundred Years, p. 95, n. 7: Metropolitan Nicholas I of Kiev "remained in communion with Rome"
-Popes were Bl. Urban II (1088-1099) and Paschal II of Rome (1099-1118)
-Antipopes were Guibert of Ravenna ("Clement III" 1080-1100) and Theodoric (1100)
-Patriarch of Constantinople was anti-Catholic Nicholas III Grammaticus (1084-1111) [AASS 8:I:130E-131C (156-157)]

Nicephorus I of Kiev (1104-1121): Orthodox
-anti-Catholic according to Avvakumov 100:31, nn. 112-113: Letter to Prince Vladimir II Monomakh (1053-1125; Prince of Pereyaslav 1094-1113; Ruler of Grand Rus 1113-1125) on the Latin Faith [Ponyrko, Epistoljarnoe nasledie 71-73; on date of this letter see ibid. 60]; Letter to Prince Sviatopolk II Iziaslavich (r. 1093-1113) on the Latin Faith (Napisanie na Latinu ko knjazju) [Ponyrko, Epistoljarnoe nasledie 73-79; on date of this letter see ibid. 63-64]
-he was in communion with Patriarch Nicholas III Grammaticus of Constantinople (1084-1111), who was anti-Catholic according to Encyclopedia Britannica Online and Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A. of happy memory; the latter said he wrote against Filioque, azymes, and papal primacy to Patriarch Symeon II of Jerusalem in 1089 [Echos d'Orient 38 (1939) 104–17]; Jean Darrouzès says these letters are fake [REB 23 (1965) 43–51; REB 28 (1970) 221–37]
-Mgr. Pelesz I:290-293 (302-305):
-Popes were Paschal II (1099-1118), Gelasius II (1118-1119), and Callistus II of Rome (1119-1124)
-Antipopes were Burdin ("Gregory VIII" 1118) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV" 1105-1111)

Nicetas of Kiev (1122-1126): uncertain
-Bollandists 9:II:xviii:EF, §73 (42): he was in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, but it is uncertain if Nicetas was Catholic or schismatic
-Mgr. Pelesz I:293 (305):
-Popes were Callistus II (1119-1124) and Honorius II of Rome (1124-1130)
-Patriarch was John IX Agapetus of Constantinople (1111-1134) [AASS 8:I:131D-132B (157-158)]

Michael II of Kiev (1130-1145): uncertain
-Bollandists 9:II:xviii::EF, §73: he was in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, but it is uncertain if Michael II was Catholic or schismatic
-Mgr. Pelesz I:294-295 (306-307) is not clear on whether Michael II was Catholic or Orthodox
-Popes were Innocent II (1130-1143), Celestine II (1143-1144), Lucius II (1144-1145), and Bl. Eugene III of Rome (1145-1153).
-Antipopes were Pietro Pierleoni ("Anacletus II" 1130-1138) and Gregorio Conti ("Victor IV" 1138; †1139)
-Patriarchs were John IX Agapetus of Constantinople (1111-1134) [AASS 8:I:131D-132B (157-158)], Leo Styppeiotes of Constantinople (1134-1143) [AASS 8:I:132B-133B (158-159)], and Michael II Kourkouas of Constantinople (1143-1146) [AASS 8:I:133C-E (159)]

Clement Smoliatich of Kiev (1147-1154): Catholic
-Fr. John Stilting, S.J.: Bollandists 9:II:xix:A, §74:
-Patriarch Nicholas IV Mouzalon of Constantinople (1147-1151) [AASS 8:I:136B-E (162)] was anti-Catholic (he wrote a treatise against Filioque) and he did not confirm Clement's election
-Mgr. Pelesz I:295-298 (307-310):
-Popes were
-other Patriarchs of Constantinople were Theodotus II (1151-1153) [AASS 8:I:136F-137B (162-163)], Neophytus I (1153), and Constantine IV Chliarenus (1154-1156) [AASS 8:I:139A-C (165)]
Constantine I of Kiev (1156-1159): uncertain
-Bollandists 9:II:xix:A, §75 (43): "de hisce nihil certi invenio"
-Bollandists 10:X:869:A, §20 (897):
-Bollandists 10:XI:147 (183):
-Mgr. Pelesz I:298-299 (310-311):
-Pope was Adrian IV of Rome (1154-1159)
-Antipope was Ottavio di Montecelio ("Victor IV" 1159-1164).
-Patriarch was Luke Chrysoberges of Constantinople (1156-1169) [AASS 8:I:139C-140C (165-166)]

Theodore of Kiev (1161-1163): uncertain
-Bollandists 9:II:xix:A, §75 (43): "de hisce nihil certi invenio"
-Mgr. Pelesz I:299-300 (311-312):
-Pope was Alexander III of Rome (1159-1181)
-Antipope was Octavius ("Victor IV" 1159-1164)
-Patriarch was Luke Chrysoberges of Constantinople (1156-1169) [AASS 8:I:139C-140C (165-166)]

John IV of Kiev (1164-1166): probably Catholic
-Bollandists 9:II:xix:AB, §75 (43): "Joannes probabilius Catholicus", and according to Ignatius Kulczynski, O.S.B.M., he wrote a letter of obedience to Pope Alexander III of Rome at the command of Grand Prince Rostislav I Mstislavich of Kiev (1154, 1159–1167), whom the Eastern Orthodox commemorate on March 14 (see his OCA entry)
-Mgr. Pelesz I:300-302 (312-314):
-Pope was Alexander III of Rome (1159-1181)
-Antipope was Guido of Crema ("Pascal III" 1165-1168)
-Patriarch was Luke Chrysoberges of Constantinople (1156-1169) [AASS 8:I:139C-140C (165-166)]

Constantine II of Kiev (1167-1169):
-Bollandists 10:X:870B, §26 (898):
-Mgr. Pelesz I:302-303 (314-315):
-Pope was Alexander III of Rome (1159-1181)
-Antipopes were Guido of Crema ("Pascal III" 1165-1168) and Giovanni of Struma ("Callistus III" 1168-1177)
-Patriarch was Luke Chrysoberges of Constantinople (1156-1169) [AASS 8:I:139C-140C (165-166)]

Michael III of Kiev (1171):
-
-Pope was Alexander III of Rome (1159-1181)
-Antipope was Giovanni of Struma ("Callistus III" 1168-1177)
-Patriarch was anti-Catholic Michael III Anchialus of Constantinople (1170-1177) [AASS 8:I:140C-141F (166-167)], concerning whom F. Chiovaro says in NCE IX:598: "In a synod (1171) Michael made a public response to the legation's offer in a dialogue with the emperor. He violently attacked the pope [Alexander III] as no pastor but a sick member of the fold in need of a cure. He said union with the Turks would be preferable to union with the Latins"

Nicephorus II of Kiev (1182-1198): uncertain
-
-Mgr. Pelesz I:303 (315): a recent source reports that he was loyal to Constantinople, i.e., Orthodox, "while Kulczynski and other Western writers describe him as a prelate devoted to the pope"
-Aurelio Palmieri: Nicephorus II did not accept Pope Clement III's invitation to the Third Crusade (1189–1192)
-Popes were
-Patriarchs of Constantinople were Theodosius I Boradiotes (1179-1183) [AASS 8:I:142B-F (168)], Basil II Camaterus (1183-1186) [AASS 8:I:142F-143D (168-169)], Nicetas II Mountanes (1186-1189) [AASS 8:I:143D-144A (169-170)], Leo Theoticites (1189-1190) [AASS 8:I:144BC (170)], anti-Latin Dositheus (1190-1191) [AASS 8:I:144C-145A (170-171)] who "offered unconditional absolution to any Greek killing a Westerner" [Dr. Warren Carroll III:132], George XII Xiphilinus (1191-1198) [AASS 8:I:145B-146A (171-172)], and perhaps (started reigning August 5) the anti-Catholic John X Camaterus (1198-1206) [AASS 8:I:146A-147E (172-173)]

Matthew of Kiev (1200-1220): Orthodox
-Bollandists 9:II:xix:C, §76 (43): "Itaque allegatis argumentis certo non evincitur, Matthaeum fuisse Catholicum. Certo dubitare vix possim, quia Graeci paulatim abusus quosdam hisce temporibus in Russiam invexerint, Russorumque animos a Latinis abalienaverint."
-Bollandists 10:X:870D, §27 (898):
-Mgr. Pelesz I:304-310 (316-322):
-Popes were Innocent III (1198-1216) and Honorius III of Rome (1216-1227)
-anti-Catholic Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople were John X Camaterus (1198-1206) [AASS 8:I:146A-147E (172-173)], Michael IV Autoreianus (1207-1213) [AASS 8:I:153E-154B (179-180)], Theodore II Eirenicus (1213-1215) [8:I:154C-155A (180-181)], Maximus II (1215; in exile) [AASS 8:I:155CD (181)], Manuel I Charitopoulus (1216-1222; in exile) [AASS 8:I:155E-156B (181-182)]
-Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople were Thomas Morosini (1204-1211) [AASS 8:I:147F-148F (173-174)] and Gervase (1215-1219) [AASS 8:I:149A-F (175)]

Cyril I of Kiev (1225-1233): uncertain
-Fr. John Stilting, S.J., Bollandists 9:II:xx:A, §79 (44): "Cum tamen non carerent erroribus, fides eorum, ut minimum, dubia haberi debet, nec ausim certo asserere, Cyrillum I fuisse a schismate immunem. Suspicor inter episcopos non satis de fide convenisse, quod alii aliis addictiores essent Romanae Ecclesiae"
-Mgr. Pelesz I:310-316 (322-328):
-Popes were Honorius III (1216-1227) and Gregory IX of Rome (1227-1241)
-Greek Patriarch Germanus II of Constantinople (1223-1240) was anti-Catholic [AASS 8:I:156C-158C (182-184)]
-Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople were Matthew (1221–1226) [AASS 8:I:150A-151A (176-177)] and Simon (1227-1233) [AASS 8:I:151A-C (177)]

Cyril II of Kiev (1233-1236):
-
-
-Pope was Gregory IX of Rome (1227-1241)
-Greek Patriarch Germanus II of Constantinople (1223-1240) was anti-Catholic [AASS 8:I:156C-158C (182-184)]
-Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople were Simon (1227-1233) [AASS 8:I:151A-C (177)] and Nicholas de Castro Arquato (1234–1251) [AASS 8:I:151C-F (177)]

Joseph I of Kiev (1237-1240): uncertain
-Fr. John Stilting, S.J.: "Post Cyrillum unum aut duos, quorum fides dubia est, secutus est Josephus, natione Graecus, patria Nicaenus..." [Bollandists 9:II:xx:C, §81 (44)]
-Mgr. Pelesz I:316-317 (328-329) is not clear on whether Joseph I of Kiev was Catholic or Orthodox
-Pope was Gregory IX of Rome (1227-1241)
-Greek Patriarch Germanus II of Constantinople (1223-1240) was anti-Catholic [AASS 8:I:156C-158C (182-184)]
-Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was Nicholas de Castro Arquato (1234–1251) [AASS 8:I:151C-F (177)]

Peter Akerovych of Kiev (1241-1246): Catholic
-see Fr. Gordillo in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. A. Vacant et al. (1938) 14.1:232
-at 13th Ecumenical Council (Lyons I) in 1245
-Mgr. Pelesz I:388 (400):
-Popes were Gregory IX (1227-1241), Celestine IV (1241), and Innocent IV of Rome (1243-1254)
-Greek Patriarch of Constantinople was Manuel II (1244-1255) [AASS 8:I:158F-160F (184-186)]
-Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was Nicholas de Castro Arquato (1234–1251) [AASS 8:I:151C-F (177)]

Cyril III of Kiev (1247-1281): Orthodox
-Bollandists 9:II:xxi:B, §84 (45): "Siricovium ad manum non habeo, sed merito dubio, an hic magis faveat fidei Danielis, qui fortasse numquam sincere conversus est. Certe concilium Kioviense sub Cyrillo III celebratum, quod edidit Kulczynskius in Appendice pag. 36, non favet sincera et stabili Russorum subjectioni, cum in eo ne verbum quidem legatur de Romana Ecclesia."
-Fr. Gordillo in 1938 DTC 14.1:235: Cyril III "left [Galicia] for 'beyond the forests'" to avoid becoming a member of the Catholic court of Daniel I of Galicia (†1264), who was Catholic from 1248-1256; Cyril III was "anti-Latin and unfortunately away from the major movements for religious union that stirred the West"
-Mgr. Pelesz I:317-327 (329-339):
-for info on Alexander Nevsky see Mgr. Pelesz I:247-248 (259-260), 322-324 (334-336)
-Popes were Innocent IV (1243-1254), Alexander IV (1254-1261), Urban IV (1261-1264), Clement IV (1265-1268), Bl. Gregory X (1271-1276), Bl. Innocent V (1276), Adrian V (1276), John XXI (XX) (1276-1277), Nicholas III (1277-1280), and Martin IV of Rome (1281-1285)
-Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople were Manuel II (1244-1255), anti-Catholic Arsenius Autoreianus (1255-1259) [AASS 8:I:160F-161F (186-187); Fr. Jugie IV:328], Nicephorus II (1260-1261) [AASS 8:I:161F-162D (187-188)], Arsenius Autoreianus (1261-1267) [AASS 8:I:162D-164A (188-190)], Germanus III (1267; became Catholic in 1274) [AASS 8:I:164A-165E (190-191)], anti-Catholic Joseph I Galesiotes (1267-1275) [AASS 8:I:165E-166C (191-192)], and Catholic John XI Beccus (1275-1282) [AASS 8:I:166C-167F (192-193)]
-Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople were Nicholas de Castro Arquato (1234–1251) [AASS 8:I:151C-F (177)], Pantaleon Giustiani (1253–1278) [AASS 8:I:151F-152E (177-178)], and Girolamo Masci, O.F.M. (1278-1288; later Pope Nicholas IV of Rome 1288-1292)

Maximus of Kiev (Vladimir as of 1299) (1285-1305): Orthodox
-Bollandists 9:II:xxi:BC, §85 (45): "Catholicus hic patriarcha Cyrillum III ad debitam subjectionem perducere potuit, eique successorem dare Catholicum, uti actum aiunt Koialovicius et Kulczynskius, dicentes Maximum anno 1283 Constantinopoli a Vecco in Russiam missum metropolitam. Verum si Maximus a Vecco creatus est metropolita, id factum oportuit ante finem anne 1282, quo Veccus XXVI Decembris sede sua deterbatus est ab Andronico imperatore schisma renovante. Quidquid tamen sit de modica temporis differentia, cum Constantinopoli rursum fuerit patriarcha schismaticus, ubi Maximus ornatus erat dignitate metropolitica, non ausim asserere ipsum mansisse Catholicum, praesertim si, eo mortuo, Russi successorem petierint Constantinopoli, ut scribit Kulczsynskius ad XXI Decembris in Petro metropolita."
-Mgr. Pelesz I:327 (339): "it is clear that Maximus was a supporter of the schism"
-Popes were Honorius IV (1285-1287), Nicholas IV (1288-1292), St. Celestine V (1294), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), Bl. Benedict XI (1303-1304), and Clement V of Rome (1305-1314)
-Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople were anti-Catholic Gregory II Cyprius (1283-1289) [AASS 8:I:168F-169F (194-195)], anti-Catholic Athanasius I (1289-1293) [AASS 8:I:169F-170D (195-196)], and anti-Catholic John XII (1294-1303) [AASS 8:I:170D-172C (196-198)]
Peter of Kiev (Moscow as of 1325) (1308-1326): Catholic, then Orthodox
-omitted from 1940 Russian Catholic Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
-Andrew Shipman: "Peter, Metropolitan of Kieff, who was then in union with Rome, in 1316 changed his see from that city to the city of Vladimir upon the Kliazma, now about midway between Moscow and Nizhni-Novgorod, for Vladimir was then the capital of Great Russia. In 1322 he again changed it to Moscow."
-Bollandists 9:II:xxi:E, §86 (45): "Haec quidem amicitia cum Latinis et exceptio legatorum Apostolicorum, si de utraque constaret, favorabilem suspicionem ingereret de recta Petri fide; at necdum certam faceret ejus obedientiam."
-Bollandists 9:II:xxi:F, §87 (45): "Praeterea Vladislaus Poloniae rex in litteris ad Joannem XXII, quas edidit Raynaldus in addendis tomi 15, ad annum 1324 [Baronius XXIV (1313-1333):273:43] nuntias mortem duorum ultimorum principum 'Ruthenorum de gente schismatica,' auxilium contra Tartaros implorans. Itaque cum rex ille Russos vocet 'gentem schismaticam,' ejus metropolitam eodem tempore Catholicum fuisse non ausim asserere."
-Mgr. Pelesz I:330-334 (342-346):
-Avignon Popes were Clement V (1305-1314) and John XXII of Rome (1316-1334)
-Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople were anti-Catholic John XII (1294-1303), anti-Catholic Athanasius I (1303-1310) [AASS 8:I:172C-173C (198-199)], Nephon I (1310-1314) [AASS 8:I:173C-174C (199-200)], John XIII Glycas (1315-1320) [AASS 8:I:174C-175A (200-201)], Gerasimus I (1320-1321) [AASS 8:I:175A-176B (201-202)], and Isaiah (1323-1334) [AASS 8:I:176B-F (202)]
-

Theognostus of Kiev (1328-1353): Orthodox
Bollandists 9:II:xxi:F, §87 (45): nothing to indicate that Theognostus of Kiev (1328-1353) was Catholic
-Bollandists 10:XI:90 (126):
-Mgr. Pelesz I:334-337 (346-349):
-he was anti-Palamite:
-Avignon Popes were John XXII (1316-1334), Benedict XII (1334-1342), Clement VI (1342-1352), and Innocent VI of Rome (1352-1362)
-Patriarchs of Constantinople were Isaiah (1323-1334) [AASS 8:I:176B-F (202)], John XIV Calecas (1334-1347; anti-Palamite) [AASS 8:I:177A-178B (203-204)], Isidore I (1347-1350; Palamite) [AASS 8:I:178B-179A (204-205)], and anti-Catholic Callistus I (1350-1354; Palamite) [AASS 8:I:179B-F (205)]
Alexis of Moscow (1354-1378): Orthodox
-omitted from 1940 Russian Catholic Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
-Bollandists 9:II:xxi:F, §88-xxii:D, §91 (45-46): Fr. Stilting says that he does not call Alexis a schismatic, but he did not find any proof that Alexis was Catholic
-Fr. Stilting adds that the legitimate Byzantine Emperor John V Palaeologus (1341-1376, 1379-1390, 1390-1391) became Catholic under Bl. Pope Urban V of Rome (1362-1370) in 1369
-Raynaldus [Baronius XXVI(1356-1396):145:10] says that in 1367 Patriarchs Philotheus Coccinus of Constantinople (1364-1376), Niphon of Alexandria (1366-1385), and Lazarus of Jerusalem (1334–1368) [AASS 5:III:lxxi:F-lxxii:D, §279-282 (83-84)] sent letters of submission to Bl. Pope Urban V of Rome (1362-1370), according to the pope's 11/8/1367 letter
-however, Patriarch Philotheus Coccinus of Constantinople was a notorious opponent of reunion efforts and persecutor of Byzantine Catholics [F. Chiovaro in NCE XI:307], and Patriarch Niphon of Alexandria "signed the Tome against" Prochorus Cydones in 1368 [Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria Website]
-the pious men Kulczynski, Fr. Godefrid Henschen, S.J., and Fr. Albert Wijuk Kojałowicz, S.J. all argued that Alexis of Moscow was a Catholic who died in the odor of sanctity
-Bollandists 2:II:639-641 (677-679):
-Bollandists 10:XI:70-71 (106-107):
-Mgr. Pelesz I:348 (360): Alexis of Moscow was anti-Catholic
-Avignon Popes were Innocent VI (1352-1362), Bl. Urban V (1362-1370), and Gregory XI of Rome (1370-1378)
-Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople were anti-Catholic Philotheus Coccinus (1354-1355; see NCE XI:307 by F. Chiovaro and AASS 8:I:179F-180C [205-206]), anti-Catholic Callistus I (1355-1363) [AASS 8:I:180C-F (206)], anti-Catholic Philotheus Coccinus (1364-1376) [AASS 8:I:181A-182A (207-208)], and Macarius (1376-1379) [AASS 8:I:182BC (208)]
-

Michael Mityay of Moscow (locum tenens 1378-1379):
-
-Mgr. Pelesz I:348-351 (360-363):
-Pope was Urban VI of Rome (1378-1389)
-Antipope was Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII" 1378-1394)
-Greek Patriarch was Macarius of Constantinople (1376-1379) [AASS 8:I:182BC (208)]
-Titular Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople were James of Itri (1376-1378), William of Urbino, O.F.M (1379), and Paul of Corinth (1379)

Cyprian of Kiev (1381-1382; 1390-1406): Orthodox
-Bollandists 9:II:xxii:D, §92 (46): "Verum nihil allegat, quo probari posit certo Catholicum fuisse Cyprianum: ideoque rursum cogor tanto magis de fide ejus dubitare, quanto incertior est chronotaxis Kulczynskii, quia patriarcha Constantinopolitani circa id tempus non omnes ague certo fuerunt schismatici."
-Bollandists 10:XI:225 (261): anti-Catholic Patriarch Philotheus of Constantinople ordained Cyprian of Kiev, who was very good friends with St. Stephen the Enlightener of Perm (†1395)
-Mgr. Pelesz I:354-357 (366-369):
-Joseph Lins: St. Hedwig of Poland's (r. 1384-1399) husband King Vladislaus II Jogaila of Poland (r. 1386-1434) became Roman Catholic in 1386, but after 1387 "the Russian portions of Lithuania (Kiev, Tchernigoff, etc.) remained Greek Orthodox"
-Popes were Urban VI (1378-1389) and Boniface IX (1389-1404), and Innocent VII of Rome (1404-1406)
-Antipopes were Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII" 1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII" 1394-1417), and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII" 1400-1415)
-Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople were Nilus Cerameus (1379-1388) [AASS 8:I:182C-F (208)], Anthony IV (1389-1390) [AASS 8:I:182F-183B (208-209)], Macarius (1390-1391), Anthony IV (1391-1397), Callistus II Xanthopoulus (1397) [AASS 8:I:183B-E (209)], and Matthew I (1397-1410) [AASS 8:I:183E-184B (209-210)]
-Titular Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople were Angelo Correr (1390-1405), later Pope Gregory XII of Rome (1406-1415; †1417) and Louis of Mitylene (1406-1408)
Pimen of Moscow (1382-1384):
-
-Mgr. Pelesz I:351-354 (363-366):
-Pope was Urban VI of Rome (1378-1389)
-Antipope was Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII" 1378-1394)
-Greek Patriarch was Nilus Cerameus of Constantinople (1379-1388)
-

Dionysius I of Kiev (1384-1385):
-
-Pope was Urban VI of Rome (1378-1389)
-Antipope was Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII" 1378-1394)
-Greek Patriarch was Nilus Cerameus of Constantinople (1379-1388)
-

Photius of Kiev (1408-1431): Orthodox
-Bollandists 9:II:xxii:E, §92 (46): schismatic according to all authors
-Mgr. Pelesz I:358-360 (370-372):
-Popes were Gregory XII (1406-1415; †1417) and Martin V of Rome (1417-1431)
-Antipopes were Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII" 1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII" 1400-1415)
-Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople were Matthew I (1397-1410), Euthymius II (1410-1416) [AASS 8:I:184C-F (210)], and the Catholic Joseph II of Constantinople (1416-1439) [AASS 8:I:184F-186E (210-212)]
-
Gregory I Tsamblak of Kiev (1414-1420): Catholic
-
-rival of the schismatic Metropolitan Photius of Kiev (1408-1431)
-Mgr. Pelesz I:361-365 (373-377):
-in 1418 Gregory I Tsamblak submitted to Pope Martin V of Rome (1417-1431) at the 16th Ecumenical Council (Constance 1414-1418) [Fr. Gill ###]
-left Catholic exposition of Our Lord's words "Thou art Peter..." (Mt 16:18) [Fr. Jugie IV:333]
-
-Popes were Gregory XII (1406-1415; †1417) and Martin V of Rome (1417-1431)
-Greek patriarchs of Constantinople were Euthymius II (1410-1416) and Joseph II (1416-1439), who died a sincere Catholic [AASS 8:I:184F-186E (210-212)]
-Titular Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was Jean de La Rochetaillée (1412-1423; †1437)
Gerasim of Kiev (1433-1435):
-Bollandists 9:II:xxiii:CD, §95 (47): "Verisimile igitur est, Photium non fuisse desertum a schismaticis, sed hosce ei usque ad mortem paruisse; et tunc demum ei a schismaticis suspectum esse Harasimum illum, de quo agit Koialovicius. Jam vero ex hisce intelligitur, metropolitam quidem et Russos, Poloniæ regi aut Lituaniæ duci subditos, majori saltem ex parte Catholicos fuisse; suum tamen etiam caput fuisse schismaticis, qui in Moscovia aliisque locis vicinis superiores videntur mansisse, ut manifestius siet ex periculo sequentis metropolitæ."
-Mgr. Pelesz I:365-366 (377-378):
-Andrew Shipman: "Gerasim (1431-5) was the successor of Photius at Moscow, and had correspondence with Pope Eugene IV as to the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches"
-Pope was Eugene IV of Rome (1431-1447)
-Greek Patriarch was Joseph II of Constantinople (1416-1439), who died a sincere Catholic [AASS 8:I:184F-186E (210-212)]
-Titular Latin patriarch of Constantinople was Giovanni Contarini (1424-1438?)

Isidore of Kiev (1436-1458; †1464): Catholic
-became a sincere Catholic in 1439
-Mgr. Pelesz I:366-376 (378-388):
-Fr. Gordillo in the 1938 DTC 14.1:243: the Russian Church's rejection of the Ecumenical Council of Florence was "due exclusively to Prince Basil"
-for "probably purely political" motives [Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J., The Council of Florence 361], Grand Duke Basil II of Moscow (1425-1462) condemned him "for turning the Russian people over to the Latins" and tyrannically and illegally deposed him in 1441 [Andrew Shipman]
-notorious anti-Catholic Mark of Ephesus praised Isidore when he ascended to the Metropolitanate of Kiev: "A man who really is a reflection of Christ, gracious in character and angelic in form; a happy and outstanding blend of simplicity and sagacity with a gift of speech that surpasses the flow of rivers; generous and liberal to such a degree as not to grudge even his own coverings, if occasion demand" (G. Mercati, Scritti d'Isidoro il cardinale Ruteno (=Studi e Testi 46, Rome 1926), p. 155) [qtd. in Fr. Gill, Personalities of the Council of Florence 78 n. 1]
-Popes were Eugene IV (1431-1447), Nicholas V (1447-1455), Callistus III (1455-1458), and Pius II of Rome (1458-1464)
-Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople were Catholic Joseph II (1416-1439) [AASS 8:I:184F-186E (210-212)] and Catholic Metrophanes II (1440-1443) [AASS 8:I:189C-190B (215-216)]

Illegitimate: Jonah of Moscow (1448-1461): Orthodox
-Bollandists 10:XI:101: the holy Pope Pius II of Rome (1458-1464) called Jonah of Moscow a "son of perdition"
-Mgr. Pelesz I:376-377 (388-389):
-Popes were Nicholas V (1447-1455), Callistus III (1455-1458), and Pius II of Rome (1458-1464)
-Antipope was Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V" 1439-1449; †1451)
-Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople were Catholic Gregory III Mammas the Wonderworker (1443-1459) [AASS 8:I:190B-192B (216-218)], anti-Catholic Gennadius II Scholarius (1454-1456; †1472) [AASS 8:I:196B-198D (222-224)], and anti-Catholic Isidore II Xanthopoulus (1456-1462) [AASS 8:I:198D-F (224)]
Gregory II the Bulgarian of Kiev (1458-1472): Catholic
-J. Krajcar in NCE XII:421: "Gregory remained loyal to Rome until death (1472)"
-Popes were Pius II (1458-1464), Paul II (1464-1471), and Sixtus IV of Rome (1471-1484)
-Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople were anti-Catholic Isidore II Xanthopoulos (1456-1462), Sophronius I Syropoulos (1462-1464), anti-Catholic Gennadius II Scholarius (1464), Joasaph I (1465-1466) [AASS 8:I:199A-E (225)], anti-Catholic Mark II Xylokaraves (1466) [AASS 8:I:199E-200A (225-226)], anti-Catholic Symeon I of Trebizond (1466) [AASS 8:I:200B-E (226)], anti-Catholic Dionysius I (1466-1471) [8:I:200E-201E (226-227)], and Symeon I (1471-1475) [8:I:201EF (227)]
-Titular Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople were Cardinal Isidore of Kiev (1458-1462) and Basilios Cardinal Bessarion (1463–1472)

Michael Drucki of Kiev (1474-1480): Catholic
-Bollandists 9:II:xxiv:E, §102 (48):
-Mgr. Pelesz I:475-477 (487-489):
-Pope was Sixtus IV of Rome (1471-1484)
-Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople were anti-Catholic Symeon I (1471-1475), Raphael I (1475-1476) [AASS 8:I:202A-C (228)], and Maximus III Manasses (1476-1481) [AASS 8:I:202D-203F (228-229)]
-Titular Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was Jerome Lando (1474-1496)

Symeon of Kiev (1481-1488): Catholic
-Bollandists 9:II:xxv:D, §105 (49):
-Mgr. Pelesz I:477 (489): "faithful follower" of the Union
-Pope was Innocent VIII of Rome (1484-1492)
-Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople were Maximus III Manasses (1476-1481) [AASS 8:I:221A-C (247)], anti-Catholic Symeon I (1482-1486), Nephon II [8:I:218F-219E (244-245)], and Dionysius I (1488-1490) [AASS 8:I:219F-221A (245-247)]
-Titular Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was Jerome Lando (1474-1496)

Jonah Glezna of Kiev (1492-1494): Catholic
-Bollandists 9:II:xxv:D, §105 (49):
-Mgr. Pelesz I:478 (490):
-Aurelio Palmieri in 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia: Jonah Glezna was "friendly to the union"
-
-Greek Patriarch of Constantinople was Maximus IV (1491-1497)
-Titular Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was Jerome Lando (1474-1496)
-Pope was Alexander VI of Rome (1492-1503)

St. Macarius the Hieromartyr of Kiev (1495-1497): Catholic
-Bollandists 9:II:xxvi:A, §108 (50):
-Bollandists 10:XI:118-119 (154-155):
-Mgr. Pelesz I:476 (488):
-Mgr. Pelesz I:478-479 (490-491): "weleher als Archimandrit von Wilno das im Jahre 1476 von Misaël an Papst Sixtus IV gerichtete Schreiben unterfertigt hat. Im Jahre 1495 versammelten sich (nach der Kiewer Chronik bei Karamsin VI. N. 403) die Bischöfe: Wassian von Wladimir, Lucas von Polozk, Wassian von Turow, Jonas von Luzk, und ordinirten den Archimandriten Macarius mit dem Beinamen Cort zum Metropoliten, und schickten dann einen gewissen Dionysius und einen Mönch, German, zum Patriarchen um den Segen. Der Patriarch Niphon schickte darauf seinen Gesandten Isaph mit der Confirmationsurkunde, so wie mit Briefen an den litauischen Grossfürsten und an die Bischöfe und die Gläubigen der Kiewer Metropolie. Der Gesandte des Patriarchen verlangte aber von den ruthenischen Bischöfen, dass sie künftig zuerst um den Segen bitten, bevor sie zur Ordination des Metropoliten schreiten, was diese auch zusagten; das jetzige Verfahren aber damit entschuldigten, dass auf dieselbe Weise, d. i. ohne vorherigen Segen des Patriarchen, auch der Metropolit Gregor I Semivlac ordinirt worden war. Daraus sieht man, dass die Kiewer Metropoliten immer um die Bestätigung des Patriarchen ersuchten (Kiew. Chron. Macarius wurde auf einer Reise nach Kiew im Dorfe Skryholovy von den Tataren gefangen und enthauptet."
-Mgr. Pelesz I:572 (584): "Es werden wohl einige Beweise dafür angeführt, allein der Umstand, dass sie das Abhängigkeitsverhältniss von Konstantinopel auch damals nicht aufgegeben haben, wo sie nicht mehr zweifeln konnten, dass die griechischen in Konstantinopel residirenden Patriarchen von der Union abfielen, und die unirten Patriarchen, wie aus dem obangeführten Breve des Papstes Alexander VI an den Wilnaer Bischof Albert hervorgeht, in Rom residirten, dieser Umstand macht die Orthodoxie der Metropoliten Simeon, Jonas I und Macarius I verdächtig. Ja sogar der Metropolit Joseph Soltan, der sich dann entschieden der Union angeschlossen hat, scheint anfangs dem Schisma gehuldigt zu haben, wie aus dem eben erwähnten Breve zu ersehen ist. Joseph Soltan arbeitete eifrig an der Ausbreitung der Union, allein er wurde in seinem Wirken durch die zahlreichen am Hofe der Königin Helena lebenden schismatischen Emissäre gehindert, und als dann sein Nachfolger sich offen für das Schisma erklärte, waren allmälig auch die letzen Spuren der Union verschwunden."
-Aurelio Palmieri in 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia: Macarius was "friendly to the union"
-Pope was Alexander VI of Rome (1492-1503)
-Greek Patriarch of Constantinople was Maximus IV (1491-1497)
-Titular Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople were Jerome Lando (1474-1496) and Giovanni Michiel (1497–1503)
Joseph II Bolgarynovich of Kiev (1498–1501): Catholic
-Bollandists 9:II:xxvi:AB, §108 (50):
-
-Greek Patriarch of Constantinople was Joachim I (1498-1502) [AASS 8:I:222B-E (248)]

Blog Fast

2011-02-23T21:47:00.008-05:00

Mirror link

Dear readers, I am sorry for leaving you with many unfinished posts (e.g., the Fr. Divry posts and the Aurelio Palmieri post), but this blog is taking up way too much of my time, to the detriment of my grades. I am taking a break until I get my priorities straight (i.e., school first) and get my grades back up, and I will probably post no more than a few times between now and mid-May. Sts. Mary, Joseph, Raphael, Augustine the Great, Thomas Aquinas, and Rita of Cascia pray for me, a sinner!

Dear readers, pray the Rosary for me, a sinner. Thank you and God bless you and yours. Happy feast day of Bishop St. Polycarp the Martyr of Smyrna; St. Polycarp, pray to God for us!

The commemoration of Saint Polycarp, bishop and martyr, who is honored as a disciple of the blessed John and the last witness of apostolic times and, under the emperors Mark Anthony and Lucius Aurelius Commodus and in the presence of the proconsul and all the people, was delivered up to fire in the amphitheater at Smyrna when he was nearly ninety years of age, giving thanks to God that he had been deemed worthy to be numbered among the martyrs and receive a share in the cup of Christ. -- USCCB website

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Pope St. Leo III & Filioque (Palmieri)

2011-02-21T15:08:00.029-05:00

Since no one is ignorant that Pope St. Leo III of Rome (795-816) upheld the dogma of Filioque, I am posting a rough translation of Aurelio Palmieri's treatment of Pope St. Leo III's refusal to add Filioque to the Creed, from Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. A. Vacant, et al. (Paris 1913) 5.2:2329-2931. Pope St. Leo III pray for us!

Two more paragraphs to translate as of 1:15 P.M. EST 3/24/2011
But if Leo III was convinced of the dogmatic truth of Filioque, why did he blame them for the insertion of this formula to the Symbol, why he did he urge the legates of Charlemagne not to sing the symbol with the addition? Is not his behavior proof that he believed in the inviolability of the Symbol of Constantinople?

Western theologians give different explanations for Leo III's conduct in the Filioque affair. According to Baronius, this pope did not blame the introduction of the Filioque to the Symbol, but the Franks' lack of veneration for the See of Rome, because of which they, on their own, without the prior permission of the sovereign pontiff, had modified the text of the Symbol. Annales, an. 809, m. 112, Lucques, 1743, t. XIII, p. 456. Pagi agrees. He adds, however, another reason for the conduct of Leo III. The pope feared alienating the sympathies of the Greeks. Ibid., p. 457. Bellarmine believes that Leo III wanted to preserve for posterity the Symbol as it was received, and to thereby show that there was nothing in it against the Filioque. De Christo, b. II, c. XXVII. In his notes on the letter of Photius to the Patriarch of Aquileia [Valpert, 875-899], Combefis insinuates that Leo III had not approved the addition of the Filioque for fear of being a heretic in the eyes of the Greeks. P.G., t. CII, col. 800, note 8. According to Fr. Cichowski, Leo III would have decided to respond negatively to the solicitations of the Franks in order to avoid the Greeks inserting the formula "ex Patre solo" in the Symbol. Colloquium kioviense de processione Spiritus Sancti a Patre et Filio, in Tribunal sanctorum Patrum orientalium et occidentialium, Kraków, p. 321. According to Costanzi, Leo III's conduct was inspired primarily by the desire to defend the orthodoxy of the ancient ecumenical councils, lest they should be accused of neglecting to define and explicitly profess a very important dogma of Trinitarian theology; then, in order to avoid also introducing to the Symbol other dogmas that one must believe in order to be saved. Opuscula ad revocandos dissidentes græcos, etc., Rome, 1807, p. 101.

According to Jager, Leo III did not want to touch the Symbol because it was sanctioned by the ecumenical councils, and we should not add to it without serious reasons. Histoire de Photius, p. 356. Cardinal Franzelin believes that Leo III forbade the inclusion of Filioque in the Symbol, because it had not been proposed and approved by legitimate authority, by the See of Rome. De Deo trino, p. 564. He would consider the Filioque affair as a question of discipline alone. Examen doctrinæ Macarii, p. 93. Fr. De Régnon insinuates that Leo III's decision was a temporary expedient, devised by Italian finesse, and that the wise slowness of the pontifical court in its resistance to the prodding of the faithful highlights the providential role of Rome, which is expected to resolve the questions raised by the Christian world. Op. cit., t. III, p. 220. Fr. Brandi points out that Leo III's refusal to Charlemagne's envoys concerned the public chanting of the Symbol with the Latin addition. De l'union des Églises, p. 30.

These various explanations are not all likely to silence the Greek polemicists. Lampryllos concludes that the Latins "bend the events, twist the facts to make them consistent with their intentions." Op. cit., p. 43. We cannot know exactly what reasons led Leo III to blame the insertion of the Filioque to the symbol. Bekkos was perhaps right in saying that the Greeks, by their refusal, Pope Leo III showed his reverence for the ancient monuments of Christian antiquity and implicitly stated that a doctrine need not be contained in the symbol for us to recognize it as a truth of divine revelation. De unione Ecclesiarum, n. 47, P.G., t. CXLI, col. 112, 113. Anyway, there is no doubt that the Filioque, for Leo, is not a false and impious dogma; that he deems belief in Filioque necessary for salvation; that he does not consider the insertion of Filioque to the symbol as a falsification of the faith of Nicaea and Constantinople. He therefore leaves intact the dogmatic side of the Filioque, although he believes that we should wait to propose to the faithful explicit adherence to the solemn dogma of the Christian faith.

Post-Schism Orthodox Saints (Dictionnaire de Spiritualité)

2011-02-21T12:25:00.063-05:00

Mirror link

The Dictionnaire de Spiritualité puts (SAINT) or (SAINTE) next to the name of men and women who are recognized as saints by the Catholic Church.

Column numbers of the 1995 Tables Generales are in parentheses.

The (SAINT) label is absent for the following:
*Alexis Stefanovich [†1781] (16)
*Andrew of Mechtchovsk [†1812] (27)
*Andrew of Totma [†1673] (27)
*Anthony Alexeivich of Zadonsk [†1851] (33)
*anti-Catholic Patriarch Athanasius I of Constantinople [†1310] (46; mentioned in VIII:1362)
*Athanasius of Paros (46; mentioned in X:11)
*Basil the Blessed of Moscow [†1551] (60)
*anti-Catholic Patriarch Callistus I of Constantinople [1350-1354, 1355-1363] (97; mentioned in XII:1342)
*Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev and Moscow [†1406] (149; mentioned in XIII:1163)
*Cyprian of Suzdal [†1662] (150; mentioned in V:759)
*Cyril of Belozersk [†1427] (150; mentioned in V:758)
*Metropolitan Daniel of Moscow [r. 1522-1539; †1547] (152; mentioned in XIII:1168)
*Euphemius Popop the Fool-for-Christ [†1860] (206)
*Metropolitan Eustathius of Thessalonica [†1194] (207; article by Jean Darrouzes in IV:1712-1714)
*Patriarch Euthymius of Tarnovo [1325-1400] (202; article by Jean Darrouzes in IV:1724-1725)
*ex-Catholic Patriarch Gennadius II Scholarius of Constantinople [r. 1453-1456, 1458, 1462-1463, 1464; †1472] (252; article by Jean Darrouzes in VI:209-211)
*George the Fool-for-Christ of Shenkursk (253; mentioned in V:759)
*Monk George of the Caves of Zarub (253; mentioned in XIII:1151)
*George Zatvornik the Recluse [†1836] (254)
*anti-Catholic Patriarch Germanus II of Constantinople [†1240] (256; article by Jean Darrouzes in VI:311)
*Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev [1051-1055] (300; mentioned in XIII:1147)
*ex-Catholic Isidore of Rostov [†1474] (327)
WRH: The Acta Sanctorum 10:XI:128 (164) says that Isidore became Russian Catholic, not Russian Orthodox.
*James Borovichi the Fool-for-Christ of Novgorod [†1540] (727; mentioned in V:759)
*anti-Catholic John of Ephesus [†1455] (348)
*anti-Catholic John of Kronstadt [1829-1908] (339; article by François Rouleau in VIII:447-449)
*John Mauropos (352)
*John the Fool-for-Christ of Moscow [†1589] (344)
*John the Hairy of Rostov [†1580] (354)
*John Salos [†1490] (353)
*anti-Catholic Leo of Ochrid [†1055-1056] (400; article by Daniel Stiernon in IX:623-625)
*Leontius of Jerusalem [1176-1184/1185] (402; article by Daniel Stiernon in IX:664-666)
*anti-Catholic Mark of Ephesus [1392-1445] (431; article by Daniel Stiernon in X:267-272)
*ex-Catholic Maximus the Greek [1470-1556] (454; article by Daniel Stiernon in X:847-851)
*Michael of Klops [†1453] (467; mentioned in V:759)
*Nicholas of Pskov (497)
*anti-Catholic Nicodemus the Hagiorite [1749-1809] (495; article by Daniel Stiernon in XI:234-250)
*Paisius Velichkovsky [1722-1794] (519; article by Aimé Solignac in XII:40),
*Peter of Damascus [†12th c.] (552)
*Philaret of Moscow [1782-1867] (546; article by Jan Krajcar in XII:1277-1279)
*Philip the Solitary [†1105] (547; article by Aimé Solignac in XII:1323-1325)
*anti-Catholic Patriarch Philotheus Coccinus of Constantinople [r. 1353-1354, 1364-1376; †1377] (548; article by Aimé Solignac in XII:1389-1392)
*anti-Catholic Theophan the Recluse [1815-1894] (671; article by Tomáš Cardinal Špidlík, S.J. in XV:517-522): in the New Catholic Encyclopedia XIV:911, G. A. Maloney says: "Except for a few doctrinal errors inherited from his Protestant–tinged professors, his general teaching is quite acceptable to Catholics... As to the dogmatic teachings of the church and his view of Rome in general, he repeated the prejudices of his environment. To him, the Catholic church was just another sect terrorized by the Inquisition and a despotic pope who attributed to himself divine qualities. Zatvornik's works are thoroughly patristic in character. They contain the best traditional Orthodox teaching on the spiritual life and are, for the most part, also in harmony with the teachings of the Catholic Church."
*Metropolitan Theophylact [?] of Kiev (672; mentioned in XIII:1145)
*anti-Catholic Theophylact of Ochrid (672; article by Gerhard Podskalsky in XV:542-546)
*Xenia the Fool-for-Christ of St. Petersburg [†1803] (727; mentioned in V:759)

The official, public ecclesiastical veneration of saints who were known to have written against the teachings of the Catholic Church presupposes the moral (but not necessarily historical) certainty that these persons died after being received formally into the Catholic Church or explicitly desiring to enter the Catholic Church; for example, St. Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica (1296-1359), canonized by the Orthodox Church in 1368 and officially accepted as a saint by the Catholic Church in 1973. See Huysman, Will R. "False Ecumenism." The Banana Republican. 8 Dec. 2010. 21 Feb. 2011 <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2010/12/false-ecumenism.html>.

Even though Sts. Photius the Great (549; article by Pélopidas Stephanou in XII:1397-1408), Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica [1296-1359] (520; article by Fr. John Meyendorff in XII:81-107), Anthony of Kiev [983-1073] (34; mentioned in VI:966), Theodosius of Kiev [†1074] (669; mentioned in XIII:1146,1148 and not identified with Theodosius Pechersky in 670; X:1592), and Cyril of Turov [1130-1182] (150; mentioned in XIII:1150,1157) are Catholic saints, they are not labeled as such in the 1995 TG of DS. Even though the Byzantine Ruthenian Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh officially venerates St. Nicephorus the Hesychast [†1300], portrayed in Orthodox sources as an ex-Catholic, on May 5, he is not listed as a saint (494; article by Daniel Stiernon in XI:198-203) in the DS.

The following are labeled as saints in the 1995 Tables Generales:
*Metropolitan Alexis of Moscow [r. 1354-1378] (15) - omitted from Russian Catholic Liturgy in 1940
*St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk (April 26) [†1173] (187; mentioned in XIII:1148)
*Bishop Euthymius of Novgorod [1396-1458] (207; mentioned in XIV:200)
*George the Hagiorite [†1065] (254; article by John Kirchmeyer in VI:240-242)
*Germanus the Hagiorite a.k.a. George Maroules of Thessalonica [†1336] (256; mentioned in XII:1391)
*Joseph of Volokolamsk (Possessor) [1440-9/9/1515] (364)
WRH: Not labeled as Catholic saint in article by Tomáš Cardinal Špidlík, S.J. in VIII:1408-1411. The Acta Sanctorum for September 9, from the year 1750, says [9:III:326D (398)]: "Josephus hegumenus hodie occurrit in Synaxario Ruthenorum, quod nobis Latinum fecit Georgius David S.J. Verum in nullis aliis Fastis eumdem invenio, nec mihi conflat de fide ejus Catholica." Cf. AASS 10:XI:220 (256) from the year 1864.
*St. Leontius of Rostov (May 23) [†1077] (402; mentioned in XIII:1148,1154) - Russian Catholics invoke him in the prothesis of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
*Maximus the Hut-Dweller [†1365] (454; article in V:757)
*St. Nicetas of Pereyaslavl (May 24) [†1186] (494)
*Nil Sorsky (Non-Possessor) [1433-1508] (500)
*Metropolitan Peter of Moscow [†1326] (551; mentioned in XIII:1163) - omitted from Russian Catholic Liturgy in 1940
WRH: Peter (r. 1308-1326) in communion with Rome for a while according to Andrew Shipman, but then became Orthodox in 1324 at the latest, according to Bollandist Fr. John Stilting, S.J.
*anti-Catholic Seraphim of Sarov [1759-1833] (636)
WRH: Not labeled as Catholic saint in article by Tomáš Cardinal Špidlík, S.J. in XIV:632-636.
*St. Sergius of Radonezh (September 25) [1314-1392] (637) - also in Roman Martyrology September 25
*St. Stephen of Perm (April 26) [1340-1396] (203; mentioned in XIV:200) - also in Roman Martyrology April 26
*Tikhon of Zadonsk [1724-1783] (680)
WRH: Not labeled as Catholic saint in article Tomáš Cardinal Špidlík, S.J. in XV:960-964.

New Catholic Encyclopedia Ambiguities on Canonizations

2011-02-21T01:27:00.023-05:00

From yesterday's post in which I show that Alexander Nevsky might have been Catholic from 1248 until his death in 1263:

In the New Catholic Encyclopedia article "Alexander Nevski [NCE, vol. 1, 2nd ed., p. 263], Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor says, "He is venerated as a saint in the Russian Church." Properly speaking, the Russian Church is the Russian Catholic Church, and I hope that is what Sherbowitz-Wetzor means; the New Catholic Encyclopedia should be revised to dispel many ambiguities about canonizations.

The following examples show that the 2003 New Catholic Encyclopedia (which had some articles revised in 2010) is not uniformly clear about whether the Catholic Church considers certain people to be saints.

Sherbowitz-Wetzor is quite clear in his NCE article "St. Vladimir" [XIV:576]: "The Russian Church remained under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, but Vladimir and his successors remained close and friendly to the West. Vladimir is venerated as a saint by both Byzantine Catholics and the Russian Orthodox. Feast: July 15."

The 2003 version of J. M. Hussey's article "Symeon the New Theologian, Monk of the Studion" [XIII:672] is similarly clear: "Feast: March 12 (Orthodox Church)."

Byzantine Emperor John III Ducas Vatatzes (1221-1254)
G. T. Dennis is not as clear in his article "Byzantine Emperor John III Ducas Vatatzes" [VII:913]; he says "In the Byzantine Church, St. ... His interest in learning and his charitable measures made him so popular that soon after his death he was honored as St. John the Merciful. Feast: Nov. 4." Was he commemorated by Byzantine Catholics, and not only by Orthodox Christians? The Wikipedia article attests to his commemoration by the latter: "A half-century after his death, John III was canonized as a saint, under the name John the Merciful and was still commemorated annually until recent times," citing "Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 1969, p. 444."

St. Sergius of Radonezh (1314-1392)
P. Roche's article "St. Sergius of Radonezh" correctly mentions that the latter's feast is on September 25 [XIII:16], but ought to mention that the saint, who reposed in 1392, was approved by Ven. Pope Pius XII of Rome (1939-1958) for veneration by Russian Catholics in 1940, and is in the 2004 Roman Martyrology.
Bl. Exarch Leonid Feodorov the Martyr (1879-1935)
The 2003 version of P. A. Mailleux's article [V:687] about the Russian convert Exarch Leonid Feodorov (1879-1935) fails to mention that Bl. Pope John Paul II the Great of Rome (1978-2005) beatified Bl. Leonid as a martyr on 6/27/2011.

St. Cyril of Turov
G. Luznycky [IV:473] does not mention that St. Cyril of Turov (1130-1182) appears on April 28 in the list of saints of the Roman calendar that the Servant of God Pope Paul VI approved in 1969.
Nicodemus the Hagiorite (1749-1809)
G. A. Maloney says [X:382]: "Nicodemus [the Hagiorite] was solemnly canonized a saint of the Greek Church on May 31, 1955." He should say, in his entry on a man who denied the validity of Roman Catholic Baptism, "the Greek Orthodox Church." Maloney should mention Nicodemus's denial of the validity of Roman Catholic Baptism; he says only the following: "His most important work, the Pedalion, or Rudder of the Ship of Knowledge, is a commentary on Greek canon law, which manifests certain anti-Roman tendencies. These are usually attributed to interpolations by its editor, the monk Theodoritus, though Nicodemus elsewhere manifests obvious prejudices against Roman ecclesiastical institutions."
Patriarch Joseph I of Constantinople (1267-1275; 1282-1283)
F. Chiovaro's article [VII:1043], which details the anti-Catholic beliefs activities of Patriarch Joseph I of Constantinople (1267-1275; 1282-1283), which says "Feast: Oct. 30," should not say even "Feast: Oct. 30 (Greek Church)" or "Feast: Oct. 30 (Oriental Church)," but "Feast: Oct. 30 (Orthodox Church only)."

Even in the case of people glorified only by the Orthodox Church, the NCE fails to mention their glorification. L. Ouspensky's article "Andreĭ Rublëv" [XII:400] does not mention that the Russian Orthodox Church glorified the outstanding iconographer Andrei Rublev (1360-1430) in June 1988. P. A. Mailleux's article [IX:760-761] omits to mention that anti-Catholic Metropolitan Peter Moghila of Kiev (r. 1633-1646) is on some official Orthodox calendars of saints. R. H. Schmandt [XIII:884] does not mention that Eastern Orthodox Christians commemorate the righteous Roman Emperor Theodosius I (r. 379-395) as a saint on January 17.

Was Alexander Nevsky Catholic?

2011-02-20T22:17:00.025-05:00

Mirror link

MYTH
Alexander Nevsky (1220-1263), Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Vladimir, was anti-Catholic his whole life

1. Did Alexander Nevsky, canonized by the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow and All Russia (1542-1563) in 1547,{1} convert to Catholicism? The conventional wisdom is that he did not; this is the "unanimous" consensus of "Russian writers,", according to the expert Aurelio Palmieri (1870-1926).{2} His Life asserts that he said in 1248 to visiting papal legates that Russian Orthodox are members of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and that they adhere firmly to the Seven Ecumenical Councils: "These we know very well, but we do not accept your teaching."{3}

2. There are strong reasons to doubt the legendary anti-Catholicism of Russia's "national hero,"{4} whom Pope Innocent IV of Rome (1243-1254) of happy memory tried to convert to the only true faith, Catholicism.{5} In his 1/23/1248 letter to Alexander, Pope Innocent IV exhorted him to join the Catholic Church, like the former's father, Grand Prince Yaroslav II of Vladimir (1238–1246) did after he renounced schism in front of the Franciscan John of Plano Carpini (1182-1252).{6} Russian historians say that Alexander made his aforementioned rebuff to two cardinals who delivered the letter, Galda and Emonte, but this is doubtful.{7} Pope Innocent IV joyfully congratulated Alexander on becoming Catholic in his 9/15/1248 letter to the latter.{8} In this letter, Innocent invites Alexander to receive Archbishop Albert of Prussia with dignity and work with him to convert people to Catholicism.{9} Innocent granted Alexander's request to be permitted to build a Roman Catholic cathedral in Pskov.{10} The anti-Catholic "Confession of Faith of St. Alexander Nevsky" is apocryphal.{11}

3. Palmieri makes these concluding remarks in his DHGE article: "We have no further information on the relationship between Alexander and Innocent IV. ... It is difficult, from the lack of documents, to decide the question" of whether Alexander Nevsky converted to Catholicism and died a Catholic.{12}

4. While Alexander Nevsky figures as a saint on many web collections of Catholic saints,{13} such collections are not always reliable,{14} and I have been misled by them in the past (I apologize to you, dear readers, for my mistakes in this regard, and any other errors!). In the New Catholic Encyclopedia article "Alexander Nevski,"{15} Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor says, "He is venerated as a saint in the Russian Church." Properly speaking, the Russian Church is the Russian Catholic Church, and I hope that is what Sherbowitz-Wetzor means; the New Catholic Encyclopedia should be revised to dispel many ambiguities about canonizations.{16}

Notes & References
{1} "Repose of St. Alexander Nevsky" at OCA website.
{2} Palmieri, Aurelio. "The Religion of Russia." The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 20 Feb. 2011 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htm>.
{3} "Repose..."
{4} Palmieri, loc. cit.
{5} Ibid.
{6} Palmieri, "Alexandre Nevski," Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, ed. A. Baudrillart, et al. (Paris 1912—) 2:262.
{7} Ibid.
{8} Ibid.
{9} Ibid.
{10} Ibid.
{11} Ibid.
{12} Ibid.
{13} See Alexander's entries at Catholic.org and Patron Saints Index, which links to his entry in the 1910 New Catholic Dictionary.
{14} For instance, Patron Saints Index and Catholic.org list the anti-Catholic monk Nicodemus of Mt. Athos (the Hagiorite) (1749-1809), who notoriously denied the validity of Catholic baptism, as a saint of the Catholic Church! The Orthodox Church did not canonize Nicodemus until 1955, 126 years after the reunion of the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church. The official, public ecclesiastical veneration of saints who were known to have written against the teachings of the Catholic Church presupposes the moral (but not necessarily historical) certainty that these persons died after being received formally into the Catholic Church or explicitly desiring to enter the Catholic Church; for example, St. Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica (1296-1359), canonized by the Orthodox Church in 1368 and officially accepted as a saint by the Catholic Church in 1973. See Huysman, Will R. "False Ecumenism." The Banana Republican. 8 Dec. 2010. 20 Feb. 2011 <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2010/12/false-ecumenism.html>.
{15} NCE, vol. 1, 2nd ed., p. 263.
{16} Huysman, Will R. "New Catholic Encyclopedia Ambiguities on Canonizations." The Banana Republican. 21 Feb. 2011 <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-catholic-encyclopedia-ambiguities.html>.

Fr. Divry's Explanation of the Tabor Light 2

2011-02-16T21:39:00.020-05:00

Mirror link

The following is VERY roughly translated from pp. 503-505 of Fr. Édouard Divry, O.P., La Transfiguration selon l'Orient et l'Occident:
8. Is the hypostatic property, defined above, created or uncreated?
Applied to Christ, the question offers an inept alternative response. In fact, "created" and "uncreated" qualify the natures, human and divine respectively, of Christ. A created personal property, and thus driven by the human nature alone, pertains to the Person of Christ; it is therefore defined as hypostatic. A personal property, innate in the divinity of Christ, also belongs to His Person, and is therefore also hypostatic. By the theological axiom of the communication of idioms, the prime unity of the Person with His divine or human properties that exist in the unity of one ontological subject.¹⁵¹⁸ In other words, these concrete properties all depend on the same supposit, the Person of the Incarnate Word.

1518. The expressions of St. Thomas Aquinas like "gratia personalis" (cf. ST III, q. 8, a. 5, ad 3), "esse personalis" (cf. ST III, q. 17, a. 2, c.) respond solely to the concern of making the person of the Word that which returns directly to Him as a subject, but do not necessarily anticipate the distinction between created and uncreated.

In the case of Christ's illumination on Tabor, the Orthodox see in this light an uncreated energy, the Latins a light created by a miracle. However, the two sides, Latins and Greeks, could recognize in this light a certain hypostatic property of Christ.

We think of the metaphor of a two-sided reality in order to speak about grace: a presence of the light of glory visible to the witnesses' eyes of faith, and a reality visible to the senses, produced by a miracle with the help of a form that could be a pre-glorious quasi-habitus that participates in the uncreated divine light. It is perhaps worth reminding the reader that "quasi" is understood here in the sense of providing certain exceptional characters of the habit, and not in the clearly inadequate sense of "almost." The two aspects, created and uncreated, of this light include a certain original Personal property, that of Christ illuminated in His divinized corporeal humanity. It is thus that our theological effort interprets, with regard to the Transfiguration, the laconic expression of the Ecumenical Council Constantinople III (681): "two natures radiate in His one hypostasis."¹⁵¹⁹ This hypostatic irradiation makes perfect sense in its application to the Transfiguration.

1519. Dogmatic definition of Constantinople III, Denzinger, n. 558 [292], p. 206: "δύο αὐτοῦ τὰς ϕύσεις ἐν τῇ μιᾷ αὐτοῦ διαλαμπούσας ὑποστάσει."

In applying this doctrine to the saints with all the necessary modifications, one should answer the demanding initial question in affirming that any created effect comes from the Triune God considered consubstantially as One. However, if it is admitted, with St. Thomas Aquinas, that the personal procession in the Trinity is the reason for the procession of creatures, then "something personal may also be signified with a relation to the creature."¹⁵²⁰ A necessarily hypostatic relation, even as weak as a relation of reason between God and His creature, may therefore intervene in the case of the procession of creatures.¹⁵²¹

1520. Thomas Aquinas, In I Sent., d. 27, q. 2, a. 3, ad 6: "potest etiam aliquid personale cum respectu ad creaturam significari" (trans. G. Émery, La Trinité créatrice, p. 551).
1521. Idem., In I Sent., d. 14, q. 1, a. 1, sol.: "quia processiones personarum æternæ, sunt causa et ratio totius productionis creaturarum" (trans. G. Émery, La Trinité créatrice, p. 386).

Yet the hypostatic property in the saint is defined very precisely in the right respect of a real relation of the created to the uncreated, and not vice versa.

...

The following is VERY roughly translated from pp. 507-509:
11. What ecumenical value can we expect from the hypostatic property?
Within a framework of dogmatic theology, it seems difficult to speculate on what could happen upon the reception of this simple theological hypothesis formulated during research that concentrated an immense Patristic and hagiographical heritage. The main part of this research already consists in the creation of an intellectual space of meeting and discovery of two traditions that often ignore each other. This is certainly the beneficial aspect that one should retain in this effort of ecumenical theology, even though the work of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn has largely cleared the way thanks to his treatise on the icon of Christ.

The Real Identity of Essence and Will in God (Aquinas)

2011-02-14T08:36:00.011-05:00

Mirror link

From http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia.htm#3:15:

First Text
Q. III: ARTICLE XV
Did Things Proceed from God of Natural Necessity or by the Decree of His Will?

6. In God nature and will are the same: and consequently if He produces things willingly it would seem that He produces them naturally.
Reply to the Sixth Objection. Although will and nature are identically the same in God, they differ logically, in so far as they express respect to creatures in different ways: thus nature denotes a respect to some one thing determinately, whereas will does not.

8. God's operation is His essence: and His essence is natural to Him. Therefore whatever He does he does naturally.
Reply to the Eighth Objection. Although God's operation belongs to Him naturally seeing that it is His very nature or essence, the created effect follows the operation of His nature which, in our way of understanding, is considered as the principle of His will, even as the effect that is heating follows according to the mode of the heat.

18. The effect proceeds from its cause in action: wherefore a cause is not related to its effect except as related to its action or operation. Now the relation of God’s action or operation to Himself is natural, since God’s action is His essence. Therefore the relation of God to His effect is also natural so that He produces it naturally.
Reply to the Eighteenth Objection. The effect follows from the action according to the mode of the principle of the action: wherefore since the divine will which has no necessary connection with creatures is considered, in our way of thinking, to be the principle of the divine action in regard to creatures, it does not follow that the creature proceeds from God by natural necessity, although the action itself is God's essence or nature.

20. Since what exists of itself is prior to that which exists by another, it follows that the first agent acts by His essence. Now His essence and His nature are the same. Therefore He acts by His nature: and thus creatures proceed from Him naturally.
Reply to the Twentieth Objection. God's will is His essence: wherefore His working by His will does not prevent His working by His essence. God's will is not an intention in addition to His essence, but is His very essence.

Second Text
ST I, q. 19, art. 2: Whether God wills things apart from Himself? (Yes)
Objection 1. It seems that God does not will things apart from Himself. For the divine will is the divine existence. But God is not other than Himself. Therefore He does not will things other than Himself.
Reply to Objection 1. The divine will is God's own existence essentially, yet they differ in aspect, according to the different ways of understanding them and expressing them, as is clear from what has already been said (13, 4). For when we say that God exists, no relation to any other object is implied, as we do imply when we say that God wills. Therefore, although He is not anything apart from Himself, yet He does will things apart from Himself.

Third Text
ST I, q. 19, art. 3: Whether whatever God wills He wills necessarily? (No)
I answer that, There are two ways in which a thing is said to be necessary, namely, absolutely, and by supposition. We judge a thing to be absolutely necessary from the relation of the terms, as when the predicate forms part of the definition of the subject: thus it is absolutely necessary that man is an animal. It is the same when the subject forms part of the notion of the predicate; thus it is absolutely necessary that a number must be odd or even. In this way it is not necessary that Socrates sits: wherefore it is not necessary absolutely, though it may be so by supposition; for, granted that he is sitting, he must necessarily sit, as long as he is sitting. Accordingly as to things willed by God, we must observe that He wills something of absolute necessity: but this is not true of all that He wills. For the divine will has a necessary relation to the divine goodness, since that is its proper object. Hence God wills His own goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily, and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and principal object, for instance the sight to color, since it tends to it by its own nature. But God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end. Now in willing an end we do not necessarily will things that conduce to it, unless they are such that the end cannot be attained without them; as, we will to take food to preserve life, or to take ship in order to cross the sea. But we do not necessarily will things without which the end is attainable, such as a horse for a journey which we can take on foot, for we can make the journey without one. The same applies to other means. Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is not absolutely necessary. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change.

Objection 4. Further, being that is not necessary, and being that is possible not to be, are one and the same thing. If, therefore, God does not necessarily will a thing that He wills, it is possible for Him not to will it, and therefore possible for Him to will what He does not will. And so the divine will is contingent upon one or the other of two things, and imperfect, since everything contingent is imperfect and mutable.
Reply to Objection 4. Sometimes a necessary cause has a non-necessary relation to an effect; owing to a deficiency in the effect, and not in the cause. Even so, the sun's power has a non-necessary relation to some contingent events on this earth, owing to a defect not in the solar power, but in the effect that proceeds not necessarily from the cause. In the same way, that God does not necessarily will some of the things that He wills, does not result from defect in the divine will, but from a defect belonging to the nature of the thing willed, namely, that the perfect goodness of God can be without it; and such defect accompanies all created good.

Objection 6. Further, whatever God knows, He knows necessarily. But as the divine knowledge is His essence, so is the divine will. Therefore whatever God wills, He wills necessarily.
Reply to Objection 6. As the divine essence is necessary of itself, so is the divine will and the divine knowledge; but the divine knowledge has a necessary relation to the thing known; not the divine will to the thing willed. The reason for this is that knowledge is of things as they exist in the knower; but the will is directed to things as they exist in themselves. Since then all other things have necessary existence inasmuch as they exist in God; but no absolute necessity so as to be necessary in themselves, in so far as they exist in themselves; it follows that God knows necessarily whatever He wills, but does not will necessarily whatever He wills.

Fourth Text
ST I, q. 19, art. 4: Whether the will of God is the cause of things? (Yes)
Objection 2. Further, The first in any order is that which is essentially so, thus in the order of burning things, that comes first which is fire by its essence. But God is the first agent. Therefore He acts by His essence; and that is His nature. He acts then by nature, and not by will. Therefore the divine will is not the cause of things.
Reply to Objection 2. Because the essence of God is His intellect and will, from the fact of His acting by His essence, it follows that He acts after the mode of intellect and will.

Fifth Text
From http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia.htm#2:6:
Q. II: ARTICLE VI
Are the Generative and Creative Powers the Same? (Yes)
On the contrary in God power and essence are not distinct. But there is only one divine essence. Therefore there is only one divine power. Therefore the powers in question are not distinct.

Again, God does not do by several means what He is able to do by one. Now God is able both to generate and to create by one power, and all the more seeing that the generation of the Son is the prototype of the production of creatures, as Augustine expounds the words, "He spake, and they were made" (Gen. ad lit. ii, 6, 7): "That is to say He begot the Word in Whom they existed as things to be made." Therefore the generative and creative powers are but one power.

I answer that, as stated above (A. 5), in speaking of the divine power we must take as our guide those things that apply to the divine essence. Now in God though one relation is really distinct from another on account of the mutual opposition between the relations which are real in God, nevertheless the relation and the divine essence are distinct not really, but only logically, since there is no opposition between them. Consequently we cannot grant that there are several absolute things in God, as some have asserted who maintained that there is a twofold being in God, an essential being and a personal being. The reason is that all being in God is essential, and the very persons are constituted by virtue of that essential being. Now when we consider the divine power we find besides the power a certain relation to what is subject to that power. Accordingly if we take power in its relation to an essential act, such as intelligence or creation, and power in its relation to a notional act such as generation, and compare them together as power, we find that they are one and the same power, even as nature and person have but one being. And yet we understand at the same time that each power has its peculiar relationship to its respective act to which it is directed. Therefore the generative and creative powers are one and the same power, if we consider them as powers, but they differ in their respective relationships to different acts.

1. According to Damascene (De Fide Orthod. ii, 27) generation is the operation or work of nature: whereas according to Hilary (De Synod.) creation is a work of the will. Now will and nature are not one and the same principle, but are opposite members of a division, as stated in Phys. ii, 4, 5. Therefore the generative and creative powers are not the same.
Reply to the First Objection. Although in creatures nature and will are distinct, in God they are one and the same.—Or we may reply that the creative power does not denote the purpose or will, but the power as directed by the will: whereas the generative power acts as inclined by nature. But this does not necessitate a distinction of powers, since there is nothing to prevent the same power from being directed to one act by the will and inclined to another by nature. Thus our intellect is urged by the will to believe, and is led by nature to understand first principles.

2. Powers are distinguished by their acts (De Anima ii, 4). Now generation and creation are very different acts. Therefore the generative and creative powers are also distinct.
Reply to the Second Objection. The higher the power the wider its scope: so that a diversity of objects does not require that it should be divided: thus the imagination is one power covering all objects of sense, for the perception of which distinct senses are appropriated. Now the divine power is raised above all others: wherefore a difference of acts requires no distinction therein, if we consider it as power; but God by His one power is able to do all things.

3. There is less unity among things that admit of a same common predication, than among those that have the same being. Now in no respect do the generative and creative powers admit of a same common predication, as neither do the acts of generating and creating, nor the Son and a creature. Therefore the generative and creative powers are not the same in being.
Reply to the Third Objection. The generative and creative powers, considered as to their substance, so to speak, do not merely admit of a same common predication, but they are one and the same thing: the analogy comes in through this relationship to their respective acts.

Fr. Divry's Explanation of the Tabor Light 1

2011-02-11T19:49:00.036-05:00

Mirror link

VERY Roughly translated from the French in pp. 425-426 of Fr. Édouard Divry, O.P., La Transfiguration selon l'Orient et l'Occident:

Our solution adopted in order to explain the Light of Tabor
In his Seven Canonical Epistles, Nicholas of Gorran (†1295), in a text very close to the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas but posterior to it, carefully posed to us the problem of the Light seen in the Transfiguration, considered in its twofold intelligibility: "I believe that this light was glorious by an analogical similitude, not univocally. Indeed, this was a light formed (formata) in the body by the divinity (a divinitate) that the Apostles apprehended by their external senses. Through this light that their eyes were seeing, they understood by their intellect (intellexerunt) the light of glory that they, however, did not see with their fleshly eyes."¹³⁰⁹ We will continue to comment on these two levels perceived by Nicholas of Gorran: the visible light witnessed by the senses, and the light of glory that is invisible but grasped by the intellect.

St. Thomas effectively distinguishes the subject (subjectum) and the term (terminus) of all that is attributed to the Son, and, in so doing, he distinguishes the divine Person (Persona) as the subject, and the human nature (natura) as the term. He uses this distinction particularly in the case of the movement (motus) of the human nativity (nativitas).¹³¹⁰ Applying this analogically to the case of the light of the Transfiguration, we say that the term of movement of the Transfiguration consists in the shining visible light (claritas), and that the subject of movement of the Transfiguration goes back to a Personal property--the spiration a Filio--, then in obliquo back to the very Person of the Word.¹³¹¹

If the three Apostles grasped, through their sufficiently spiritualized senses, that at the Transfiguration it was the divine glory, it means that they were able to understand also that the luminous visible quality is not numbered analogically with a property of the Person of the Son, grasped in their intellect. The underlined phrase in Nicholas of Gorran, "a divinitate," designates first of all the source, the efficient cause, that is to say, God Himself. All theologians, Latin and Eastern, agreed on the first cause, that is, the divine origin of the Transfiguration. Did Christ, in His Soul, participate in this action? Inasmuch as Christ, in His Soul, merited--and He alone merited this--the glorification of His Body,¹³¹² was the pre-glorification of Christ's Body secondarily an effect of His very powerful Soul?¹³¹³ Christ's Soul could actually be a second cause of the illumination of His Body, thereby causing, inwardly by itself, a reinforcement of an illuminating form for the Body representing a Personal property as in similitude. This is the main finding of this chapter, as a Thomist extension.

1309.
1310.
1311.
1312.
1313.

Palamas & Patristics 2

2011-02-10T20:35:00.016-05:00

Mirror link

From Fr. Yves, Congar, O.P., I Believe in the Holy Spirit.

Congar III:64: It would, in my opinion, certainly be possible to dispute the meaning of the texts of the Cappadocian Fathers and John Damascene that have been quoted in favor of Palamas' thesis.¹⁷ The ante-Nicene Fathers, and in particular Athanasius, always denied that there could have been any procession in God other than that of the Persons. According to them, apart from the hypostases, only creatures proceeded from God. ...

¹⁷. G. Florovsky, "Grégoire Palamas et la patristique," Istina, 8 (1961-1962), 115-125, especially 122 (only Basil of Caesarea, Ep. 234 ad Amphilochium, and John Damascene, De fide orthod., I, 14); G. Philips, op. cit. below (note 22), 254.

Did the Fathers postulate a kind of corona of divine energies which were active ad extra, which could be shared and which were ontologically and really distinct from the divine essence and the hypostases? E. von Ivanka, who is also a considerable expert, disputes this (see note 16 below). The problem has, in my opinion, not yet been fully cleared up, and I am in no position to decide.

Congar III:65: Palamas interprets this as taking part in God entitatively and ontologically, but this participation cannot be in his essence, which cannot be communicated--it must be in the energies which emanate from that essence and which surround it. ... From the philosophical point of view, this Palamite idea of participation is clearly elementary and material,²⁵ one might almost say Neo-Platonic. The interpretation provided by Thomas Aquinas (and Maximus the Confessor), on the other hand, is Aristotelian, although it has taken from Plato a note of exemplarism.

²⁵. Thus, according to Palamas, if a man were to participate in God's essence, he would himself become omnipotent and there would consequently be an infinite number of divine hypostases: Capita CL physica, 108-109 (PG 150, 1193C-1196A [Sinkewicz 205-209]). This accounts for G. Philips' comment, op. cit. (note 22 ["La grâce chez les Orientaux," ETL, 48 (1972), 37-50, reprinted in L'union personnelle avec le Dieu vivant. Essai sur l'origine et le sens de la grâce créée, (Bibl. ETL, XXXVI) (Gembloux, 1972), 241-260]), p. 253: "Palamas sees 'participation' as a division into almost materialized pieces, each participant possessing a fragment of the whole, which is clearly absurd. In his view, everything that can be shared can also be divided (Cap. 110; PG 150; 1196C [Sinkewicz 209]; Theoph. 944A)."

Congar III:66: The participation of which Thomas speaks is in a likeness of God's perfections and is realized in existence by the efficient causality of the absolute Being. There is no distinction in God himself between the divine essence that cannot be shared and the energies that are communicated, not even when it is a question of our supernatural participation. ... Participation ... is not in perfections which are God's common perfections. It is rather in the divine nature as a principle of activities with God himself in view (see 2 Pet 1:3-4).

I do not dispute the underlying intention of Palamas' teaching, but find myself in disagreement with the concepts that he uses and his metaphysical mode of expression. Even if it is admitted that he is supported by several of the Fathers in his distinction a parte rei between the divine essence and the energies, he still only presents us with a theologoumenon in the precise sense in which this this term has been defined by B. Bolotov...

Congar III:67: Did the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically condemn the Palamite theses at any time? J. Kuhlmann does not think so. .... Kuhlmann has therefore concluded that, as far as Palamism is concerned, there is no obstacle to re-establishing communion with the East. Is he being too optimistic here? Mgr. Gérard Philips, who was the king-pin in the Theological Commission of Vatican II, has come to the same conclusion. This is, in my opinion, a firm guarantee.

Palamas & Patristics 1

2011-02-08T16:45:00.039-05:00

Mirror link

Here is a translation of part Fr. Martin Jugie, A.A. (1878-1954), "Palamas, Grégoire," in: M. Vacant et al., eds., Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, tome XI/2 (Paris 1932), cols. 1761-1763. Many thanks to Dr. Peter Gilbert of De Unione Ecclesiarum for sending me the French text. I added some references, e.g., to St. Thomas Aquinas.

N.B. This translation is finished, thanks be to God!

Did Palamas have a good game in the field of positive theology? Certainly not. But he could fight more easily there than in the field of philosophy, where he was beaten in advance. He could at first, as we said before, hide behind the anthropomorphisms of common language that the Fathers, just like everyone else, have employed, without always explicitly applying the correctives that they put in place. Also, he and his party composed Patristic florigelia full of vague and meaningless passages, which they pulled together by a sophistic and entirely subjective exegesis. These florigelia have no probative value for the system they are intended to support. We are astonished, when browsing through them, by the exegetical blindness of their authors and the aplomb with which they list a [large] number of texts that have nothing to do with their theories. Without doubt, certain Fathers spoke in a rather obscure manner about the Taboric Light. There are, for example, in the homilies of St. John Damascene and St. Andrew of Crete, in the writings of St. Maximus, and in others expressions which, at first glance, appear to favor the new theology in some way; but is only in appearance, and anti-Palamite theologians have had no trouble in dispelling these verbal ambiguities. They all could assemble a great number of passages in which the absolute simplicity of God is expressly taught and the Palamite distinctions are explicitly condemned. Note, for example, an extract from St. Nicephorus, given in the First Refutation of Constantine Copronymus, 41, P.G., t. C, col. 304-305, falsely attributed by both parties to St. Theodore Graptos, which recurs constantly in the polemical writings of the period and subjected to tortuous exegesis by Palamas and his followers; several passages from St. Maximus, Pseudo-Dionysius, and others, which Nicephorus Gregoras assembled in his discussion with Nilus Cabasilas, Hist. byzant., b. XXII-XXIV, P.G., t. CXLVIII, col. 1328-1433.

Palamas especially abused the authority of the Fathers, when he sought to establish a real distinction between the divine essence and its energy from the passages where the Fathers prove, against the heretics, the real distinction of the divine persons among themselves. For him, in fact, the two distinctions go hand in hand and are of the same order. He reasons as follows: if the simplicity of God is not destroyed by the real distinction between the divine persons among themselves, it is no more ruined by the real distinction between the divine essence and its energies and attributes. This reasoning implies another affirmation of our theologian: it is not only the case that the persons differ from each other, but each of them is really distinct from the essence. There is, between the essence and each person, the same distinction and difference that there is between the essence and the energy; cf. the dialogue Theophanes, P.G., t. CL, col. 929A, and Capita theologica, 135, ibid., col. 1216C [Sinkewicz 241]: "τῶν ὑποστάσεων ἑκάστη μήτε οὐσία ἐστὶ μήτε συμβεβηκός;" cf. also his Confession of Faith, P.G., t. CLI, col. 766BC. According to him, just as we say, "ἄλλο ἡ οὐσία καὶ ἄλο ἡ ἐνέργεια", we must also say "ἄλλο ἡ οὐσία καὶ ἄλλο ἡ ὑπόστασις". This is the confusion of the absolute and the relative, and further compromises the simplicity of the divine being.

The Hesychast theologian will also find, in the Fathers, texts proclaiming the incomprehensibility of God and conclude therefrom that the divine essence is completely invisible, inaccessible, and imparticipable to creatures, even those deified by grace. He juxtaposes the Scriptural texts that sometimes say that no person has seen God [Jn 1:18], at other times promising face to face vision with Him as He is [1 Cor 13:12; 1 Jn 3:2]. He deduces from this that God is absolutely invisible in His essence, but that He is visible in His energy. He understands the face to face vision of God as contemplation of something that comes from God, not of God's essence itself. By this doctrine, he satisfied the aspirations of mystics and promised them the vision of God on earth, that is to say, His light and glory, without falling into Messalianism. From these considerations he deduced the following hermeneutical rule, which he applied equally to texts from Scripture and the Fathers: "When you read that God is incommunicable and inaccessible, understand this of His essence. When you read, however, that He is communicated to creatures, that He is seen face to face, understand this of His energy." Cf. Theophanes, loc. cit., col. 937D, 938B; Capita theologica, 149, 150, ibid., col. 1224-1225 [Sinkewicz 255-257]. As we said above, the invisibility of the divine essence, even for the good angels and the elect, is an axiom for Palamas, which a great number of Byzantines uncontroversially admitted with him. This opinion he based on several texts of the Greek Fathers, which one must, without doubt, understand of vision by only natural powers, or of the incomprehensibility properly said of the divine being. As our theologians say, God is seen as a "whole" by the blessed, because He is simple; but He is not seen "wholly" by any creature: "totus videtur, sed non totaliter" [cf. St. Thomas Aquinas. ST I, q. 12, art. 7, ad 3]. The Byzantines of which we are speaking do not seem to have made this necessary distinction. Palamas drew some support for his theory, and could embarrass those of his opponents who accepted his premise.

He also believed he found support for his theories in the definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council proclaiming the existence of two natures and two energies [operations] in Jesus Christ, and we saw that the Council of 1351 presented the new doctrine as a development, ἀνάπτυξις, of this definition. This was their reasoning: the Council proclaimed two natures and two energies: if the human energy is really distinct from the human nature, it must also be the case that the divine energy is really distinct from the divine nature; otherwise, the terms of the definition would be meaningless. This argument especially is repeated in Palamite writings.

Finally, our theologian never failed to use other theological rationales sewn from subtle sophistries. He said, for example: "If, in God, the energy does not differ from the essence, then in Him generating, γεννὰν, will be the same thing as creating, ποιεὶν. There will be no difference between the Son and the Holy Spirit, on the one hand, and creatures on the other." Capita theologica, 96 et. sq., loc. cit., col. 1189 [Sinkewicz 197]. He also triumphed over his opponents by portraying them as pure nominalists, and in saying that they denied that God is an active nature. But St. Maximus had said: "A nature without activity is pure non-being." Acindynus and Barlaam were therefore atheists. They were also polytheistic, because in saying that the energies of God were created, they united the created and uncreated in a monstrous whole.

VI. Palamism and the Catholic West (col. 1809)

2011-02-06T19:10:00.036-05:00

Mirror link

Many thanks to Dr. Peter Gilbert of De unione ecclesiarum for supplying the French text of Fr. Martin Jugie's DTC article.

I have changed some of Fr. Jugie's words to clarify the meaning (e.g., the sentence involving George Scholarius; turn the spotlight on --> make a laughingstock of).

Thanks be to God! This translation is done. Any revisions are most welcome.

VI. Palamism and the Catholic West (col. 1809)
During the acute phase of the Palamite controversy, that is to say, between the years 1341 and 1368, talks between the imperial court of Byzantium and the popes for a crusade against the Turks and the union of the Churches were virtually constant. Moreover, Latins were not lacking in the East, and some Greeks converted to Catholicism there also. It was therefore inevitable that the noise of the quarrel which divided the Byzantine Church into two rival factions did not reach the ears of Westerners and, in particular, that the papal legates had not one day or another to deal with it.

1. We see, in fact, in 1355, the pontifical legate, Paul of Smyrna, attending, in the company of John V Palaeologus, the debate between Nicephorus Gregoras and Gregory Palamas. What impression Paul had of this theological joust, we can conclude from a letter he wrote later, that is to say, after the death of Urban V (†1370), to the pope and the cardinals to render an account of the discussions he had had on Palamism with the former emperor John Cantacuzene around 1366-1367. In this letter, published by Arcudius in Greek and Latin in his work Opuscula aurea theologica circa processionem Spiritus Sancti, Rome, 1630, and reproduced in P.G., t. CLIV, col. 835-838, he tells us that, having been sent by Urban V to go with John V Palaeologus (1366), he had tried to form an opinion on the Palamite doctrine, and had not arrived at a clear idea of it: "Cum nosse verum hujus doctrinæ cuperem," he says, "Constantinopoli degens, quando ad imperatorem Palæologum a commemorato summo pontifice missus tui, quævisimus istud scire, non autem potuimus verbo vel re aliquid certi de hac opinione et impia doctrina comprehendere. Quapropter et coactus sum verbis asperis eos insectari et veluti quibusdam argumentis provocare." P.G., loc. cit., col. 838. If he still did not understand it in 1366, it is evident that in 1355, after the debate between the two protagonists, he did not understand it. But he thought, one moment, that he had grasped it, following his talks with Cantacuzene, who had conceded, for a moment, that between God's essence and attributes there was a distinction of reason, κατ ἐπίνοιαν. But he was soon disappointed by reading the report of these discussions written by Cantacuzene himself, a report that has reached us, and which we talked about earlier, col. 1797. In talking about the distinction κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, the emperor, like the Palamite theologians, simply wanted to say that the attributes could be separated mentally, and not in reality. The διαίρεσις πραγματική, or even the διάκρισις πραγματικὴ, was denied, and only a διαίρεσις κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν was admitted; but, in fact, the real distinction, διαφορὰ πραγματική, was maintained, and Cantacuzene continued to say, "ἄλλο ὴ οὐσία, ἄλλο ὴ ἐνέργεια, ἄλλο τὸ ἕχον, ἄλλο τὸ ἐχόμενον." In addition, he proclaimed the existence of a divine uncreated light, which is not identified with the divine essence; this is absolutely unacceptable: "Deinde scripsit de lumine, quod apparuit in monte Thabor, asserens illud esse increatum, et non esse Dei essentiam, sed quandam divinam operationem, quod ne auditu quidem ferendum est; nihil enim est increatum præter divinam essentiam." P.G., t. cit., col. 838.

The same letter of Patriarch Paul tells us that some Greeks had made the pope aware of the Palamite error and had informed him that Cantacuzene shared this error: "Nonnulli Græci retulerunt commemoratum imperatorum Cantacuzenum et Ecclesiam Græcorum multas suo dogmate divinitates inducere supereminentes et remissas, eo quod asserunt quæ Deo insunt realiter inter se differe." Ibid.. They had to be better informed when Demetrius Cydones came to Rome in 1369, accompanying John V Palaeologus, and when, later, the great opponent of Palamas, John Cyparissiotes, appeared at the papal court. This was a new divergence, a most serious one, in addition to those already too numerous, which separated the two Churches.

When the Council of Florence opened, there was reason to fear that this question of God's essence and His energy would only come to aggravate the difficulty of reunion. Yet it did not happen, because the Greeks had the prudence to avoid discussion on this topic. At the 25th session, the Latins handed them a list of four questions that still remained to be clarified, namely, the primacy of the pope, the existence of three categories of the deceased, the use of unleavened and leavened bread, and distinction between God's essence and His energy: τέταρτον, ἴνα ζητνθὴ περὶ θείας οὐσίας καὶ ἐνεργείας ἐπὶ συνόδου; cf. Ἡ ἁγία καὶ οἰκουμενικὴ ἐν Φλωρεντία σύνοδος (the narrative of Dorotheus of Mytilene), edition of the Benedictine Nickes, Rome, 1864, p. 304. They replied that they were not authorized by the emperor to discuss it, but they agreed to share their private opinion on the first three points. However, they refused to talk about the fourth point: "τὸ δὲ περὶ τῆς θείασ οὐσίας καὶ ἐνεργείας οὐδόλως ἀπολογούμεθα." Ibid.. The Latins, it seems, did not insist on a subject that would probably lead to an interminable debate. Still, we do not hear more about it, and the decree of union was soon signed. Indirectly, however, the Greeks had renounced Palamism by declaring they believed that the souls of the saints in Heaven behold God's essence: "καὶ τὸ θεωρεὶν τὰς ϕυχὰς τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀληθῶς προσιέμεθα." Ibid. And they signed the Decree of Union, which says, "animas in cælum mox recipi et intueri clare ipsum Deum trinum et unum. SICUTI EST." Mark of Ephesus, in his third discourse on Purgatory given at Ferrara, denied this crucial point: Neither the blessed angels nor the saints, according to him, enjoy the vision of God's essence; he tried to prove this with a large collection of Patristic texts. Asked about the object of beatitude, he responded that the elect enjoy the glory of God, δόξα, the brilliance that flows from His essence: "ὴ ἐκ Θεοῦ πεμπομένη αἴγλη." As for explaining what this glory is, he gave up, and referred the Latins to the definition given by St. John Climacus of divine illumination: "This is an ineffable energy, seen in an invisible manner and conceived in an inconceivable manner: Ἔλλαμϕίς ἐστιν ἐνέργεια ἄρρητος ὁρωμένη ἀοράτως καὶ νοουμένη ἀγνώστως." And he added: "You have heard the definition: seek nothing more." Cf. L. Petit, Documents relatifs au concile de Florence. La question de purgatoire à Ferrare, in Patrologia orientalis, t. XV, p. 157-162. In explaining it this way, Mark, who, as we have seen, was a strict Palamite, raised the question of the system of Palamas and the Taboric Light. We understand that when they went to Florence, on the doctrine of last things, the Latins would have liked to have some clarification on the object of beatitude and the Palamite theory of the divine essence and its energy. They seem to have been content with the answer [of the other Greeks] concerning the object of beatitude, an answer which categorically rejected the theory Mark maintained at Ferrara. It is likely that the emperor forbade his bishops to initiate a direct discussion on the divine essence and its energy. The Greeks themselves had sensed the danger of spreading the formulas and theories of Palamas before the Latin theologians, who were formidable logicians, and George Scholarius was there to advise them to keep to themselves such a childish theology, which, if exposed, would make the Greek nation a laughingstock. During the bitter controversy between Unionists and Anti-Unionists that followed the Council until the Capture of Constantinople, the question of Palamism, notwithstanding the definition given concerning the essence of beatitude, was not agitated. Instinctively, the more learned Greeks felt that they were not, with the theses of Palamas, on solid ground, and later polemicists very rarely dared to criticze the Latins for not admitting the Palamite theses.

Seize the Fewcha (Junior Sanchez)

2011-01-25T19:14:00.004-05:00

Download this album today! I pre-ordered it off of iTunes, and was happy that it came with the individual tracks and the whole album as a mix, as well. I'm loving this electro-house album from Nervous Records; my favorite three tracks are: We Luv the Nite, Be There (Junior Sanchez Remix), and La Da's Dance (Junior Sanchez Nite Version).

Palamite Studies

2011-01-20T19:31:00.026-05:00

Mirror link

Update: Saturday, 1/22/2011: Right now I'm reading the Orthodox Dr. Joost van Rossum's 1985 Fordham dissertation, Palamism and Church Tradition (I'm about halfway through) and I'll let you know any groundbreaking points he makes.
Update: Sunday, 1/30/2011: Check out Dr. Peter Gilbert's translation of Jean-Philippe Houdret, O.C.D., "Palamas et les Cappadociens," Istina 19 (1974), pp. 260-271.

1. While St. Gregory Palamas's views on Filioque were indisputably heretical,{1} his essence-energies distinction seems compatible with Catholic dogma on the simplicity of God, provided that it is not a real distinction.{2} Gerry Russo,{3} Dr. Joost van Rossum,{4} and Fr. Georges Florovsky,{5} and ex-Catholic Fr. Gabriel Bunge{6} say that Palamas posited a "real" distinction, in God Himself, between His essence and His energies. Such a distinction would contradict God's absolute simplicity,{7} but some of St. Gregory's statements support the theory that he taught a formal distinction.{8}

2. In his Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite 32, he says that the saints "call [God's essence and energies] one, but not indifferent, i.e., the same and not the same in different manners. ... you will find them saying in one place 'the same' and in another 'different,' because, in their view, they are both."{9} Since the divine names are not synonyms{10} and the divine attributes are virtually or even formally distinct,{11} the only identity left between (1) the attributes among themselves and (2) the essence and attributes is real identity.{12}

3. The other text that lends support to this friendly interpretation of Palamas is Chapter 34 [PG 150:1141D-1144A]{13}:

the supreme mind is itself life, for life is a good and life in it is goodness. Wisdom too is found in it; or rather, it is itself wisdom, for wisdom is a good and wisdom in it is goodness; and similarly with eternity and blessedness and in general any good that one might conceive of. And there is no distinction there between life and wisdom and goodness and the like, for that goodness embraces all things collectively, unitively, and in utter simplicity.

4. The third text supporting the thesis that Palamas did not make a real distinction, in God Himself, between the Almighty's essence and energies, is his Letter to Daniel [Coislin 99, fol. 95]: "In a certain sense, essence and energy are identical in God, but, in another sense, they are different."{14}

Anti-Palamites on the Tabor Light
5. Gregory Acindynus (1300-1348) taught that unless the Tabor Light is really identical to God's essence, the Tabor Light is created.{15} Patriarch John XIV Calecas of Constantinople (1334-1347) approved the teaching of Acindynus and denied absolutely that bodily eyes can see the Godhead.{16} Nicephorus Gregoras (1295-1360) said the Tabor Light is created because the Apostles beheld it with their bodily eyes, and that that the Tabor Light is not the object of the beatific vision.{17} John Cyparissiotes (1310-1378) discusses the Tabor Light exhaustively in Decades V:1-10 [PG 152:839-864].{18}

Palamite Language Savoring of a Heretical Real Distinction
6. Despite the above three texts that point to Palamas' making a formal rather than real distinction, Palamas uses scandalous expressions that seem to teach the heresy of a real distinction, in God Himself, between His essence and energy.{19} This quote comes from Chapter 126:

For they do not understand that just as God the Father is called Father in relation to His own Son and being Father belongs to Him as an uncreated reality even though "Father" does not denote the substance, so too God possesses also the energy as an uncreated reality even though the energy is distinct from the substance.{20}

7. In Chapter 135, he says, "God also possesses that which is not substance. ... And, to speak in accord with all the theologians, if God creates by will and not simply by nature, then willing is one thing and natural being is another. If this is true, the divine will is other than the divine nature. ... Therefore, God possesses both what is substance and what is not substance, even if it should be called an accident, namely, the divine will and energy."{21}

8. In Chapter 75, Palamas says, "There are three realities [ὄντων] in God, namely, substance [essence], energy, and a Trinity of divine hypostases."{22}
Notes & References
{1} Although Palamas conceded that the Holy Spirit eternally energetically proceeds from the Father and the Son, he categorically rejects the dogma that the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father and the Son (Against the Latins I:Prologue), or even from the Father through the Son (Against the Latins I:26; II:45). He repeats the standard Photian fallacies against Filioque: Filioque leads to two sources of divinity (I:30) and necessitates that the Holy Spirit originates another hypostasis lest He lack a property that is common to the Father and the Son (I:15).
{2} According to Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pp. 28-29, it is heresy to hold that the attributes of God are really distinct from one another, that is, that God's justice is distinct from His mercy as a thing (res) differs from another thing, as if it was logically possible for His justice to exist without His mercy.
{3} Rahner and Palamas: A Unity of Grace, pp. 175, 178.
{4} Deification in Palamas and Aquinas, pp. 371, 373.
{5} Saint Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, p. 130.
{6} The Rublev Trinity, p. 75.
{7} Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pp. 28-29, cites the following as bases for the dogma that "The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence."
Denzinger 389, Council of Rheims under Bl. Pope Eugene III of Rome in 1148, Confession of Faith in the Trinity: "We believe and confess that God is the simple nature of divinity, and that it cannot be denied in any Catholic sense that God is divinity, and divinity is God. Moreover, if it is said that God is wise by wisdom, great by magnitude, eternal by eternity, one by oneness, God by divinity, and other such things, we believe that He is wise only by that wisdom which is God Himself; that He is great only by that magnitude which is God Himself; that He is eternal only by that eternity which is God Himself; that He is one only by the oneness which is God Himself; that He is God only by that divinity which He is Himself; that is, that He is wise, great, eternal, one God of Himself."
D703, 17th Ecumenical Council on 2/4/1442 (Florence under Pope Eugene IV of Rome), A Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites: "These three persons are one God, and not three gods, because the three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, and all these things are one where no opposition of relationship interferes." Latin: "omniaque sunt unum, ubi non obviat relationis oppositio."
{8} This is the thesis of Mgr. Gérard Philips (1899-1972) of happy memory in "La grâce chez les Orientaux," Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 48 (1972): 38, 43, 47.
{9} Trans. Rein Ferwerda, p. 71.
{10} "Although the names applied to God signify one thing, still because they signify that under many and different aspects, they are not synonymous." -- St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I, q. 13, art. 4, corp.
{11}
{12} Cf. Lee Faber, "Cornelisse on the Formal Distinction I." The Smithy. 6 Apr. 2008. 20 Jan. 2011 <http://lyfaber.blogspot.com/2008/04/cornelisse-on-formal-distinction-i.html>.
{13} Trans. Robert Edward Sinkewicz, pp. 117-119.
{14} Trans. Fr. John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas, p. 225.
{15} Fr. Martin Jugie, A.A. "Palamism's principal opponents. Their doctrine on the light of Tabor." Trans. Will R. Huysman. The Banana Republican. 9 Nov. 2009. 27 Jan. 2011 <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2009/11/v-palamisms-principal-opponents-their.html>.
{16} Ibid.
{17} Ibid.
{18} Ibid.
{19} On the heretical character of positing a real distinction, in God Himself, between His essence and energies, see notes 2 and 7, above.
{20} Trans. Sinkewicz, p. 231.
{21} Trans. Sinkewicz, p. 241.
{22} Trans. Sinkewicz, p. 171.

Book 2 On Essence and Energy (Gregory Acindynus)

2011-01-13T22:48:00.005-05:00

God willing, I will translate the Latin of Book Two of "On Essence and Energy" by Gregory Acindynus [PG 151:1218-1242].

1218D-1219C - transcribed
Chapters of the Second Book
1. Quod convenienter ponuntur operationes perfectivae ipsius habentis aute alias operationes, quae sunt perfectivae exteriorum effectuum.
2. God non est in Deo sensus.
3. Quod Deus est intelligens.
4. Quod Deus est volens.
5. Quod est in Deo intellectiva et appetitiva potentia.
6. Quod habitus harum potentiarum Deo attribuuntur.
7. Quod hujusmodi operationes earumque habitus et potentiae sunt unum et idem in Deo.
8. Objections of our opponents, together with our proposed solutions.
9. Iterum de eodem argumento.
10. Quod intellectualis Dei potentia est essentia ejus.
11. Quod intellectualis Dei potentia est operatio ejus.
12. Quod Deus nulla alia specie intelligibli intelligit, quam sua essentia.
13. Quod perfecte Deus intelligit seipsum.
14. That there is no habitual knowledge in God.
15. That God's wisdom is His essence.
16. Quod veritas Dei sit ejus essentia.
17. That God's will is His essence.
18. Quod principate [?] divinae voluntatis volitum est divina essentia.
19. Rationes ob quas haec videntur a se invicem distincta, et earum solutiones cum propositione.
20. Quomodo Deus sibi sit ut volitum in volente.
21. That God is His own life.
22. Rationes adversariorum et solutiones.
23. That God is His own goodness.
24. That God is happy [μακάριος].
25. That God is His own happiness.
26. That the divine names are not synonyms.
27. Utrum univoce haec nomina dicantur de Deo et de creaturis.
28. Quod haec nomina non aequivoce dicantur de Deo et rebus.
29. Quod haec nomina analogice dicuntur de Deo et rebus.
Conclusion of the second book.

Book 1 On Essence and Energy (Gregory Acindynus)

2011-01-13T22:43:00.003-05:00

God willing, I will translate the Latin of Book One of "On Essence and Energy" of Gregory Acindynus [PG 151:1191-1218].

Chapters of the First Book
1. Prologue to the first book. Quod variorum operationis sensuum confusio causa est cur nec ordinate nec recte de praesenti quaestione disseratur.
2. De divisione et ordine librorum hujus operis.
3. That in God there is no passive potency [δύναμισ παθητική]
4. Quod essentia Dei est esse ipsius.
5. Objections of our opponents, together with our proposed solutions.
6. That God is not material.
7. Our opponent's objections solved by demonstrating that there is no matter in God
8. Conclusion of the first book.

1191B-1194A - transcribed
Chapter 1: Quod confusio variorum operationis sensuum causa est cur nec ordinate nec recte de praesenti quaestione disseratur.
Omnes qui de essentia et operatione Dei disseruerunt, sive haec aliud, sive idem sit accepus [?], primo praetermiserunt distinguere qutuplex sit operatio: haec enim multipliciter consideratur. In unaquaque autem demonstratione investigatio variorum praedicati aut subjecti sensuum multum prodest ut reperiamus veritatem, et alios decipiamus, si velimus, nos vero ab aliis non decipamur, utque argumentando per ordinem procedamus, incipientes ubi opertet, et in debitum tandentes finem, atque ut omnia clare et evidenter pateant, et verba rebus definitis consenent.

1194A
Hoc illi, ut dictum est, non concipientes, et varios non distinguentes sensus, neque prout quaestioni congruit praelium ineunt (nam aliunde pugna eis offerretur), neque ordine ad debitum finem sermones conducunt; sed velut errabundi

1194B
Necesse igitur nos, ab omnibus istiusmodi erroribus caventes, totis viribis enitamur accurate cunctas praefatae operationis afferre signifcationes, ita ut quaestionem haud alibi quam decret inchoemus, et procedamus per ordinem,

1194C
Chapter 2: De divsione et ordine librorum hujus operis.

1194D-

1198A
Chapter 3. That there is no passive potency in God.