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)]

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.

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.

The 1995 Tables Generales of 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 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)
*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)
*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)
*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)
*James Borovichi the Fool-for-Christ of Novgorod [†1540] (727; mentioned in V:759)
*John of Ephesus [†1455] (348)
*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)
*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)
*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)
*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)
*Patriarch Philotheus Coccinus of Constantinople [r. 1353-1354, 1364-1376; †1377] (548; article by Aimé Solignac in XII:1389-1392)
*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)
*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://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/false-ecumenism/>.

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
*Euphrosyne of Polotsk [†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) [1440-1515] (364; not labeled as Catholic saint in article by Tomáš Cardinal Špidlík, S.J. in VIII:1408-1411)
*Leontius of Rostov [†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)
*Nicetas of Pereaslavl [†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; in communion with Rome for a while according to Andrew Shipman
*Seraphim of Sarov [1759-1833] (636; not labeled as Catholic saint in article by Tomáš Cardinal Špidlík, S.J. in XIV:632-636) – anti-Catholic according to the Diveyevo Chronicle quoted in Saint Seraphim of Sarov: A Spiritual Biography by Archimandrite Lazarus Moore [1902-1992] (New Sarov Press 1994), p. 239
*Sergius of Radonezh [1314-1392] (637) – also in Roman Martyrology September 25
*Stephen of Perm [1340-1396] (203; mentioned in XIV:200) – also in Roman Martyrology April 26
*Tikhon of Zadonsk [1724-1783] (680; not labeled as Catholic saint in article by Tomáš Cardinal Špidlík, S.J. in XV:960-964)

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.

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://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/false-ecumenism/>.
{15} NCE, vol. 1, 2nd ed., p. 263.

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.

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 irradiating in His one hypostasis.”¹⁵¹⁹ This hypostatic irradiation makes perfect sense in its application to the Transfiguration.

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

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.

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.

One of the members of the ByzCath forums said to me concerning my response on veneration of post-schism Orthodox saints,

In spite of Dr. Ludwig Ott, I think you will find on this Forum precious little sympathy (and absolutely none from me personally) for the idea that the Orthodox are schismatics or that it is impossible for the Orthodox to achieve sainthood or that the Orthodox Church is a less certain path to salvation than is the Catholic Church.

Why become Catholic instead of Orthodox, then? Dogmatic differences simply do not matter in this nonsensical worldview! Let us, following the canon law of the Church, call a spade a spade. CIC 751 (1983): “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; … schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Orthodox Christians who consciously reject Catholic dogmas (papal primacy, Filioque, etc.) and shun communion with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI of Rome are objectively guilty of formal heresy and formal schism and cannot be saved if they die in these dispositions. This is necessary to confess in light of Pope Eugene IV of Rome (1431-1447) on 2/4/1440, Bull “Cantate Domino” at 17th Ecumenical Council (of Florence) [D714].


Ecumenism does not mean denying the dogma of no salvation outside the Church just because that might hurt someone’s feelings! It is heresy to deny that Orthodox Christians who have heard of the Catholic Church must become Catholic or explicitly desire to become Catholic in order to be saved. Another forum member said, in defense of my post, that “the position espoused by Raphael does reflect the beliefs of many pious and well-intentioned Catholics.” However, it is the dogmatic position of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the members of which are in communion with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI of Rome, not just a theologumenon of many Catholic faithful! That is precisely why I cited dogmatic statements that are found in Denzinger, with which the Vatican II statements that some ByzCath members harp on are in perfect continuity! Some of the items cited in Denzinger are even to be found in footnotes of the Vatican II decrees.

A moderator said, “while we believe that the visible outlines of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church subsist in the Catholic Church there are others who can make the same claim and we are not to deny their claim.” Yes we are (with charity, of course)! That is why in n. 56 of the Declaration Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, says,

The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. “The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power” by Father Leonardo Boff: AAS 77 [1985], 756-762).

Here is what I posted:
The issue [re:veneration of post-schism Orthodox saints] is the doubt as to whether many of these men on the calendars were Catholic, since, as Dr. Ludwig Ott says, the proposition “Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation” is De fide (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1957 edition, p. 310), that is, necessary to believe with divine and Catholic faith under pain of automatic excommunication (CIC 751; 1364 §1). If someone were to knowingly and deliberately refuse to become Catholic before death, he would die a formal schismatic who is not a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church either “in re” or even “in voto” via explicit or implicit desire. If the Church is able to come to a moral certainty (not necessarily a scientific certainty) that the person in question died a fully incorporated member of the Catholic Church (CCC 837) or died desiring to become Catholic (even after a long period of anti-Catholicism), she can approve veneration of such saints.

For more info on this dogma of the Church, consult the following magisterial pronouncements:
*Pope Pelagius II of Rome (579-590) in 585, Letter 4 “Dilectionis vestrae” to the schismatic bishops of Istria in PL 72:710D-715B [D247]
*Pope Innocent III of Rome (1198-1216) on 12/18/1208, Profession of Faith Prescribed for Durand of Osca and his Waldensian Companions, from the letter “Fitts exemplo” to the Archbishop of Terraco [D423]
*Twelfth Ecumenical Council (Lateran IV in 1215 under Pope Innocent III), Definition directed against the Albigensians and other heretics [D430]
*Pope Boniface VIII of Rome (1294-1303) on 11/18/1302, Bull “Unam Sanctam” [D468-469]
*Pope Clement VI of Rome (1342-1352) on 9/20/1351, Letter “Super quibusdam” to the Consolator, the Armenian Catholicos Mekhitar I of Cilicia (1341-1355) [D570B]
*Pope Eugene IV of Rome (1431-1447) on 2/4/1440, Bull “Cantate Domino” at 17th Ecumenical Council (of Florence) [D714]
*18th Ecumenical Council (of Trent, 1545-1563) under Pope Paul III of Rome (1534-1549) on 1/13/1547, Decree of Justification chapters 4-5, 8, 14 [D796-797, 801, 807]
*Pope Benedict XIV of Rome (1740-1758) on 3/16/1743, Profession of Faith prescribed for the Maronites [D1473]
*Bl. Pope Pius IX of Rome (1846-1878) on 12/9/1854, Allocution “Singulari Quadem” [D1647-1648]
*Idem. on 8/10/1863, Encyclical Letter “Quanto conficiamur moerore” to the bishops of Italy [D1677-1678]
*Pope Leo XIII of Rome (1878-1903) on 6/29/1896, Encyclical letter “Satis cognitum“ [D1955]
*Ven. Pope Pius XII of Rome (1939-1958) on 6/29/1943, Encyclical letter “Mystici Corporis Christi” 22, 56-57 [D2286, 2288]

=====

My dear readers, pray for us sinners, especially the wretched author of this blog!

Excerpts from the Angelic Doctor’s answers to the following five questions:
1. Did Things Proceed from God of Natural Necessity or by the Decree of His Will? (by the Decree of His Will) [QDP 3:15]
2. Whether God wills things apart from Himself? (Yes) [ST I, q. 19, art. 2]
3. Whether whatever God wills He wills necessarily? (No) [ST I, q. 19, art. 3]
4. Whether the will of God is the cause of things? (Yes) [ST I, q. 19, art. 4]
5. Are the Generative and Creative Powers the Same? (Yes) [QDP 2:6]

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.

A VERY rough translation from the Latin in PG 152:283-427, with the Latin paragraph separation. Finished sections will have a √ next to them. In short order I’ll try to translate at least the first sentence of each paragraph. I am almost illiterate in Latin (I haven’t taken any courses at Fordham but will try to teach myself Latin grammar when I have much more free time in summer 2011), so if you’d like to speed up this process and translate some for me, I would be extremely grateful!

I will let you know when I have posted the whole text (i.e., I will post the untranslated parts, too, so I don’t have to keep referring to the PDF file of PG 152:283-427). I’m putting all the Palamite quotes in red, since this is an anti-Palamite work in which the author attacks the Palamites for making what he believes is a real (as opposed to formal or virtual) distinction between God’s essence and energy. I’ll eventually put in PG references to writings Manuel quotes, and add glosses to certain parts of his work.

283B-286B – transcribed
Id nobis hic loci, quasi defungentibus, finis propositus est, ut latam a synodo de divina essentia divinaque operatione, deque illis mota quaestione, sententiam, clarius retexamus; quo scilicet, ii qui aemulationem quidem habent, sed non secundum scientiam [Rom 1:1], erudiantur ad legitime certandum, undé sibi et coronam acquirant; qui autem ex simplicitate ignorant, doccantur; nam, ut auctor est divinus Apostolus: “He who knows not, shall not be known” [1 Cor 14:38]; iique adeo etiam, qui proclive, seu potius temere ac maligue alios calumniantur, eisque detrahunt, injustitiae arguantur. Hanc nimirum sententiam, universa synodus, praesidente imperatore, saepius conveniens, ipsa promulgans atque conscribens, tanquam rectae fidei columnam sibi proposuit, ac velut pietatis regulam, reliquis tenendam traditit; nec non Tomum Palamae appellandam sanxit. Id enimvero eorum qui ista lecturi sunt, ante omnia animis ratum esto ac constitutum, fuisse tempus cum haec Ecclesia, sententiam aliam huic contrariam aute edidit; me [?] testatur, qui etiam num superstites, synodo illi interfuerunt, Actusque ipsi eo in negotio synodales, Andronico imperatore, habiti; ac denique quae de illis gestorum monumentis conscripta sunt; quocirca dubium est, utra harem [?] senteniarum veritate nitatur. Liquet enim fieri non posse ut affirmatio et negatio simul verae sint, vel ut illa dicatur atque credatur Ecclesia catholica, quae de iisdem fidei capitulis modo sic, modo aliter, maxime contraria decernat, teneatque et palam scriptis factisque enuntiet. Necesse est enim, ut Ecclesia catholica verum semper dicat; nam et qui eam non audierit, ethnicum et publicanum fore, Dominus statuit [Mt 28:17].

286B-C – transcribed
Ut igitur certa ad destinata ratione ordientes, ejus quae nunc obtinet, de divina essentia ac operatione, quaestionis sententiam retexamus, hancque ipsam in seipsa, cujusmodi sit, contueamur, observandum est; illi quem dixi, synodi Tomo, sex capita ac questiones conclusionesque, ostendenda proposita esse, deque illis universim tractare. The first is that in God there is a distinction between essence and energy. Second, this energy is uncreated. Third, this distinction does not introduce composition into God. Fourth, the name of “divinity” [Deitatis] is said not only of God’s essence, but also of His divine energy. Fifth, the essence is superior to the energy. Sixth, non participari Deum ratione essentiae, sed ratione operationis. Ex ejusmodi sane questions, quas et laculentius, ut sibi videntur, ostendant ac probant, quaenam sit istoram hominum fides patet; quanquam etiam ex his quae dicunt, ipsis eorum verbis, a nobis monstrandum est; quo nimirum, eorum quae proposita sunt, scopus carius ipse elucescat, nec quisquam per calumniam aliquid eis a nobis objici arbitretur.

286C-287B – transcribed
Liquet autem, ex ea quae in Tomo habetur, sententia non proposuisse eos, de illa distinctione, qua unus Deus, nullis verbis explicabili ratione, hypostases discernitur; scilicet three subsistences and three persons, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; quia potius the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, quandoquidem sancta is one reality quacunque tandem illa sit, and one essence; nec personarum alia quidem per se subsistit vereque est, alia non per se subsistit nec est vere; vel alia sui ipsa ratione participabilis est, alia ex se participari non postet. Aliaque complura missa facio, quae speaking of the essence and the energy, distinguendo ac discerndendo, ut monstrabitur; sed secundum aliam distinctionem ac discretionem, cujus ipsi auctores exsistunt: qua utique, ut illi existimant, ipse Deus trine subsistens in essence and energy (or magis in essence and energies) discernitur. But it is manifest that hanc operationem etiam Deitatem illis nuncupari; quinimo Deitates; quod ipsum ex iis quae credunt ac scribunt clarius innotescet. Etenim de hac ipsa re in eodem Tomo, ante earum quas diximus quaestionum editionem, aiunt: “Coepisse venerabilissimum chartophylacem et principem philosophorum ut est ecclesiastica consuetudo, ex unoquoque sciscitari, qua nam ejus esset sententia, de deogmaticis illis chapters, de quibus sigillatim sermo habitus, atque examen institutum esset; omnesque uno ore, tanquam uno afflatos Spiritu, cum eo quod unitem est, eam quoque quae Deum decent, discretionem ac distinctionem divinae essentiae ac operationis palam confessos esse; and the uncreated divine energy, haud secus ac essentiam, amplexos esse; audientesque hanc quoque a theologis vocari Deitatem, quod sic dicatur libenter habuisse. Inter quae sanctissimus quoque ac Ecumenical Patriarch rogatus, ut et ipse sententiam suam profferet, ubi prius disseruisset on the distinction between the divine essence and energy, ac quos the saints say, distinctionis modos omnes pulchre si gillatim distinxisset; praeterenque aunitam eam et inseparabilem a divina essentia monstrasset (in quibus etiam uncreated divine energy, and is rightly called God, asseruit), totus deinde ad eos qui dissiderent admonendos atque hortandos versus est.”

287C-D – transcribed
Hence it is evident that they confess that the energy, which they say is distinct from the essence, is also uncreated Deity [Θεότητα]. Unde etiam de two and even many distinct divinities illis sermo est. Apertiusque monstratur, et ex iis quae scripsit Palamas, qui hujus sententiae ac opinionis antistes fuit, ac fere quidem in omnibus astruit, maxime vere in ea oratione, eujus initium istud est: “Afflante Spiritu prolatas Patrum sententias secuti.” Hic enim, Barlaam and Acindynus in illis traducens, ait: “Vociferantur in eos qui eumdem ac Patres confessionem colunt ac servant, ut qui two uncreated divinities quovis modo dicunt, quorum altera emineat, altera inferior exsistat: non intelligentes nimirum crimen hoc in sanctos Patres nostros intorqueri, seu ad illos spectare.” He adds: “Ignorant itaque miseri, sanctorum sic accusatores fieri, ut est auctor theologus; idipsumque fere illis accidit, ac iis qui metu mortis, ipsi sibi gutter frangunt; ne scilicet parum aliquid laboris ponant atque operae, exquirendo quaenam hic deitates, et quidnam in cis pie eminens superiasque.” Moreover, he says in his Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite [27; Ferwerda 67]: “But another is called divinity by the saints, either one, or two, or more.”

287D-290A – transcribed
From this it is manifest that they speak of two Deities [Θεοτήτων]. Quod autem discreta haec in Deo (id est, Deitates hae) non sola ratione discreta sint, sed et tres exsistant, et non simpliciter nomina; hoc quoque multis astruunt, dum ante quaestiones sic aiunt: “Orsi sunt qui dissentiunt, accusare the Archbishop of Thessalonica. Erat autem ejusmodi accusatio: Quod nimirum ille, in quibusdam eorum librorum, quos scripsit, duas ac plures Deitates scribat, quae emineant, et quae inferiores exsistant. Huncque saepius sermonem ac dicam reprentibus ac concrepantibus, itasque utique voces accusantibus, the Thessalonican says: ‘Exigua mihi verborum ratio est: de dogmatis rebusque certamen habeo.’” After a few interjections: “I certainly distinguish two or rather many divinities [Θεότητας] in the Holy Trinity, so without doubt the Father is one, the Son is another [ἅλλην=alia], the Holy Spirit is another, Whom I neither perceive nor understand at any time; but at the same time, I call ‘Divinity’ [Θεύτητος] the energy and natural processions proper to God from eternity, in agreement, I think, with what the saints say.”

290B-C – transcribed
From these words it is clearly proven that they confess many Deities [Θεότητας], they are really affirming these things. Quod autem negavit, dicens: “Nec sensi unquam, neque sentio,” ut solummodo simplicioribus facum faceret, et in quibus minime accusabatur, illa inficiatus est. Neque enim crimea inferebant, quasi aliam Patris aliamque Filii, atque aliam Spiritus sancti Deitatem diceret, sed quod nunum Deum in essentiam et operationem, seu etiam operationes, divideret, quas singulas increatam Deitatem, et rem in Deo ab ejus distinctam essentia, ac ab ca aliam, vocaret. Denique, cur has Deitates resquete [?] se [?] affirmet, in sequentibus statim subjecit rationem. Subdit enim: “Haec vero dixi, decertans adversus Barlaamum illum et Acindynum, qui solam Dei essentiam increatam dicant;” tanquam nimirum etiam alia sit praeter ipsam, quia et multae, uti ipse fatetur. Itaque quod it inficias, id fatetur; perindeque est ac si diceret: Unam dico, et non unam; et unam dico et plures. Clare enim affirmavit, saying: “But the divine energies and processions, naturally and eternally belonging to God, are called by the name ‘divinity.’” Hae autem esse increatas ait, ut quae natura et ab aeterno Deo competant, ac diserte Deitates vocat.

290C-D√
This is confirmed by the anathemas the Council pronounced against those who do not confess multiple divinities [Θεότητας]. They cry out, for example: “to those same men who think and say that the name ‘Godhead’ or ‘Divinity’ can be applied only to the essence of God, but who do not confess in accord with the divinely-inspired theologies of the saints and the pious mind of the Church, that this appellation equally pertains to the Divine energy, and that thus one Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is by all means still professed, whether one apply the name ‘Godhead’ to Their essence, or to Their energy, as the expounders of the divine have instructed us, let him be anathema.”

290D-291A – transcribed
Enimvero fieri non posse ut duae hae ac plures Deitates in unam numero cocant, uti frigidis voculis isti omniantes affirmant, solumque ratione unam esse secundum potestatem, quod ita sentiunt ac docent magistros calumniantes, ex sequentibus liquebit. Nec enim satis illis fuit, ut sic quovis modo Dei essence and energy between themselves dividerent easque distingui dicerent; verum etiam multos in eis discretionis ac oppositionis modos adhibuerunt, quorum nullo fieri potest, ut essentia et operatio reipsa in unam conveniant, unaque Deitas exsistant, uti hi simplicioribus falso suadent. Porro examinemus. Horum enim nonnullos, illorum probre, seu potius ut eorum falsa opinio ac sententia palam fiat ac evertatur, ex iis quos confessi sunt creduntque, in ea quam synodice ediderunt, ipsorum religionis atque fidei nova regula (tomo scilicet) hic loci exponemus.

291B-294A – transcribed
The first mode of distinction that they think exists in God between the essence and energy is that in God there is essence and that which is not essence. The second is that in God aliud est trine subsistens ejus natura, atque aliud non subsistens aut persona. Unde et aiunt in Tomo, velut ex persona eorum qui sanc fucantur positionem, sic eis concepto sermone hacque verborum forma: “Sed neque aliud quid aio Deitatem praeter trine subsistentem Deitatem, nec essentiam divina aut angelicam, nec hypostasin seu personam, sed operationes quasdam ac processiones seu emanationes, natura et ab aeterno Deo competentes, Deitatis nomine appellari.” Rursumque in eadem Tomo, post jam dicta quaesita, de luce in monte Thaborio (etenim hanc quoque unam multarum numeroque superiorum operationum statunat [?], cujus per se vis circa ea quae collucebant ac illustrabantur) concludes in the words: “The Light of our Lord’s Transfiguration is uncreated, nor is it the essence of God.” They say and confess in their Anathemas: “The Light that shone in our Lord’s Transformation on the Mountain is uncreated;” negent tamen “illud esse superessentialem Dei essentiam, because this is altogether invisible, extraque omne commerciam maneat, sed potius claritatem naturalem seu gloriam esse dicant superessentialis essentiae, ex ille indivise manentem, Deique clementia ac benignitate illis factam conspicuam, qui mente purgati essent; cum qua gloria ac claritate, our Lord and God venturus est in secundo tremendoque suo adventu, ut judicet vivos et mortuos.” Later in the same Tome: “His qui non confiteatur, juxta divinas sanctorum voces ac sententias, piumque Ecclesiae sensum, nec creaturam esse divinissimum illud lumen, nec Dei essentiam, sed increatam ac naturalem gratiam illustrationemque et operationem, ex ipsa divina inseparabiliter seper manantem, anathema sit.” Later in this tome, concerning the last question: “Nobis vero omino sermo est, non de hac energy and power (of the Son and the Holy Spirit) sed de communi trine subsistentis Deitatis, quae non est hypostasis ac persona, sed natura, altiorique supra naturam notione, unicuique divinarum hypostases or persons inest.” Haec quidem communiter sentiunt ac docent; seosim vero ac privatini horum dogmatum auctor et pater, in his dialogue Theophanes and Theotimus, sic magnificis verbis effert: “Quanquam enim neither hypostasis or person, nor is it the essence of God, nihilominus tamen increato ac Dei essentiae coeaterna est.”

294A-B – transcribed
The third mode of distinction they thought of and invented, and posited in Him, is that essence is that which possesses; the operation is possessed. After questions the Council declares: “Quanquam enim quidam sanctorum, potentiam dixerunt seu virtutem et operationem Filium et Spiritum sanctum, verum ut Patris, eoque ratione, quod unusquisque hypostasis or person perfecta est, atque has energy or power [δύναμιν].” Moreover, in answer to the first question: “Porro quod habet ab eo quod habet, aliqua ratione prorsus distinguitur. Siquidem igitur nulla est distinctio divinae essentiae et divinae operationis, fieri non potest ut Dei essentia habeat operationem. But that which lacks energy is iners et inefficax. Quod vero iners et inefficax nulliusque actionis est, illud neque in rerum natura ac vere est.”

294B-C – transcribed
The fourth mode of distinction is that the divine essence is spoken of in the singular, while the energy is spoken of in the plural. The Council says in the Tome before the questions: “Distinctionem tamen divinae essentiae ac dinvinae operationis, sive etiam divinarum operationum, utique sane, intelligendam atque dicendam hortari sunt.” Ac rursus in the sixth question locum quemdam magni Dionysii calumniantes, they say: “Plurali numero eas [?] proferens, ostendit non esse Dei essentiam. Nunquam enim illa plurali numero profertur. Vocando autem illustrationes, omnique [principio ac fine carentea (aeternas scilicet ac immortales cognominans) divinus ac increatas illas ostendit." Sed et celeberrimus Nilus of Thessalonica, who, in his oration or book beginning with "This is the rule of theology," says, "De distinctione autem divinae essentiae et divinae operationis istud dicimus; essentia quidem una est; haec vero, plura; unum vero et multitudo, alia ac diversa [ἕτερα].”

294C – transcribed
The fifth mode of distinction is that they call the divine essence the cause [αἰτίαν], while the divine energy is that which is from the cause [αἰτιατήν]. Sixth, quod essentiam quidem operantem, operationem vero, (ut sic dicam) vocitant ἐνεργουμένην. Seventh, they say the essence characterizes [χαρακτηριζομένην], while the energy is characterized [χαρακτηρίζουσαν].

294D√
Of the fifth mode of distinction, in the first question, after a long disputation, they add in conclusion: “The first and foremost is a distinction of origin, that is, between cause and that which is from the cause, or the effect.”

294D – transcribed
Of the sixth autem in quarta quaestione velut corollarium quoodam edunt aiuntque: “Pariet quoque ostensum est, τὸ ἐνεργεῖν and ἐνεργεῖσθαι (quasi dictas habere operationem ac edere, et quod operatio habeatur atque edatur) non solum in creatis, verum etiam in increatam [gratia?] atque aeternis dici posse. Nam [habet?] qui dissentiunt, dum gratiam ἐνεργουμένῆν audiunt (ac si operatum dicas confestim creatum…”
WRH: I’ll have to look in the library hard copy of PG 152:294D, because the electronic version is compromised.

295A√
On the seventh, he says in the fourth question: “That although the divine energy is called created, as distinguished from the divine nature, it would also be necessary to think of as created the divine nature that it exhibits and represents.”

295A√
The eighth mode of distinction between the essence and energy is that the divine essence is completely imparticipable; its energy, participable. The ninth, that the essence remains indivisible, the energy is divisible. Tenth, the essence is called unnameable, the energy has names. 11th, the essence is certainly greater than all the concepts the intellect can grasp, the energy is understood and conceived in the mind. 12th, the essence is invisible, while they teach that the energy is visible.

295B – transcribed
In prima enim quaestione, ubi distinctionem quae est penes causam et quod est ex causa, seu effectum, ostendissent, aiunt: “Distinguuntur vero inter se, ea etiam ratione, quod divina operatio participetur ac indivise dividatur et nominetur, and, however obscurely, is understood from its effects; the essence is imparticipable and indivisible and unnameable, and is above all names and all understanding,” quibus quatuor istus oppositionum modos una contexunt.

295B-C – transcribed
De duodecimo autem in ultima quaestione, de lumine scilicet Thaborio sermonem habentes, aiunt: “Sed et omnes sancti, illustrationem et claritatem seu splendorem, dei Deificationem et Deitatem ipsum vocant, paulo etiam visu firmiorem.” Nimirum visible illud, quod “paulo etiam visu firmiorem” dicunt, astruentes. Clarius enimvero horum dogmatum Pater, in his Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite, in haec verba rem interpretatus est: “Vides hunc Theologum (nempe Gregorium) non solum invisibilem Deitatem novisse, sed et visibilem? quae et ipsa increata sit, quandoquidem est et ejus lumen.” And later in the same dialogue: “Vides aperte, nedum quae omnimodis invisibilis et intelligibilis est ac imparticipabilis, sed et quae sanctis duntaxat videri potest et participari et intelligi, Dei Deitatem esse.”

295D – transcribed
The 13th mode of distinction is that God’s essence is said to be immobile; the energy is motion. 14th, the essence is absolute; the operation has the character of relation. 15th, the essence is inimitable; the energy, imitationem ac quod imitatione editur portento comminisecatur.

295D-298A – transcribed
Sane talia asserunt in prima quaestione; aiunt enim: “Sed neque tanquam extra divinam essentiam sit, esse illam existimavimus, sed qui essentialem et naturalm hanc Dei motum esse, ut theologi sentiunt, sciamus, ex divina essentia tanquam ex jugi fonte progredi dicimus ac sacturire.” Manifestly, therefore, tanquam ex immobili divina essentia, ejuscemodi motum procedere. Non enim motus quasi ex motu exstiterit.Nam et hujus quoque motus quarundus sit, et sic in infinitum. Declarat tamen etiam in multis suarum lucubrationum, qui horum primus auctor ac inventor est. In the oration or book entitled Confutationes et absurda, he says: “Divine essentia manente immobili, Deitas haec natura habet ut moventur ac impartiatur.” Later in the same work: “Haud sane enim Elisabeth Spiritus sancti essentia impieta est; est enim haec immobilis, et quae nec tangi nec capi potest.”

298A-B – transcribed
Non solum autem in eum modum penes motum et immobilem divinam discernunt essentiam et operationem, sed etiam, uti dictum est, penes relationdm seu habitudinem, et quod absolutum est, penesque imitationem, et quod inimitabile est, haec in omnibus palam asserentes, ex iis quae Dionysius, de aliis loquens, ipse rite saneque locutus est: “Quantum scilicet qui absolutus ac inimitabilis est, imitationes praecellit ac relationes seu habitudines.” Absolutum enim et inimitabile de essentia divina acceperunt; relationes vero seu habitudines et imitationes de increatis et naturalibus et essentialibus, ut vocant, in eo exsistentibus, Dei operationibus.

298C – transcribed
Clarius quoque etiam in quarta quaestione de his disserunt. “Mota enim,” inquiunt, “hinc etiam a sancta synodo quaestione: Num quis sanctorum increatam Deitatis gratiam dixerit, ac num etiam relatio seu habitudo et imitatio seu simulacrum, tum vere exsistant, tum de increatis dicantur, allatae sunt sanctorum auctoritates, declarantes, haec non semper dici de iis, quae creata sunt.” After a few interjections: “Quocirca nec deificum Spiritus Sancti donum, ipsa scilicet Deitatis gratia, creata est, eo quod relatio est ac habitudo ergo illos, qui Deitate donantur.”

298C-299B – transcribed
The 16th mode of distinction is that God’s essence eminere dicunt ac sua operatione superiorem; operationem vero inferiorem illa gradum tenere. Universimque de distinctione penes hanc inaequalitatem, quinta dictarum quaestionum, quae in Tomo habentur, aiunt: “Posteaquam vero liquido constitit, divinam operationem Deitatem vocari, quasivimus demonstratrit a theologis, num Deus essentialiter dicime operationi atque his quae essentialiter circa eam considerantur.” Peculiariter autem etiam Palamas in his Letter to Acindynus, haec ait: “Est ergo Deitas, quae inferior est, donumque est ejus quae sit superior et quae illa eminentior est: nec–solum Deitas, sed quae increata Deitas sit; supraque illam Deitatem Deus exsistit.” Idemqie in his Book Against Symeon, legum custodem ac praesidem: “Nisi enim submissa aut subjecta vel inferior, sive quid ejusmodi operatio dicta fuerit, non vere magnus Dionysius, aliique ejus generis Patres, eminere docent Dei essentiam ac illa superiorem esse. Non enim eminere est, nisi ubi quid eminenti inferius est.” Quamobrem, si juxta sententiam synodi, visum est divinam operationem esse Deitatem: hocque ostenso, quaesitum abunde est, num Deus essentialiter illi emineat sitque ea superior: quod et uno omnium calculo aiunt praedicari: quomodo non perpiscue, cum ex iis quae communi consensu, tum quae seorsim, ab eo qui istarum dogmatum auctor fuit, scripta sunt, ipsa Deitas dicatur inferior ac minor, Deusque essentialiter eminens ac illa superior? Hoc enim etiam illi quasi liberalius admittunt, sic absolute concludentes: “Siquidem Deus essentialiter sua Deitate superior est,” ut liqueat per eas auctoritates, quibus in hac parte calumniose utuntur, cur distinctionem penes excellentiam ac submissionem unidique commendi [?] sint. Hoc enim illis moribus comparatum, ne a seipsis loqui videantur, in quibus palam est eos blasphemare: sed cujusdam vetutsiorum per calumniam adducta sententia, eamdem ipsam nudam sibjiciunt; ea scilicet quae dicta ab eis sunt in suum deteroquentes scopum, ut suam inde nequitiam astruant. Idque hic etiam praestare omnino convincuntur. Deum enim essentialiter sua operatione (quae ipsa Deitas nuncupatur) majorem illique eminere, adducta auctoritate probantes, per ea quae adduxerunt, quot modis emineat declararunt. Atque aliud quidem ordine vocant, aliud necessaria consequentia, aliud situ[?], aliud quantitate, aliud qualitate.

299C – transcribed
Ac sanc decimus septimus illis adinventus est distinctionis modus penes ordinem, ratione prioris ac posterioris; quem utique distinctionis modum tum ex magno Basilio abstruunt, dicente in his book Confutationum, de discretione quae occurrit in divinas personis, non de essentiae et operationis, ut illi existimant, ipsa distinctione: “Aliud quoddam est ordinis genus,” ac subjungente: “In ejusmodi enim prius causam dicimus; posterius, quod est ex causa;” tum ex magno Athanasio, dicente, “Nomen ‘Deus’ natura posterius est.” Quia igitur divina quidem essentia causa est, divina vero operatio ex causa est, colligunt priorem esse divinam essentiam, posteriorem vero divinam operationem.

299D-302A – transcribed
Decimus octavus illis adinventus est distinctionis modus, penes necessariam consecutionem, quod divina quidem essentia praecat, ut id quod ad naturam spectat, divina autem operatio sequatur, ut id quod ad voluntatis sententiam. Ac probare nituntur from the words of Athanasius the Great, dicentis (alio tamen sensu) against the Arians in this way: “Siquidem Deo tribuant [?] velle, quod attinet ad non entia, quiam agnoscunt in Deo quod est voluntate superius?” Ac rursus dicentis: “Quemamodum voluntati opponitur, quod est praeter voluntatis sententiam, ita eminet; praeitque voluntati, quod ex natura est.” Ex his enim necessariam inferunt consecutionem, quando quidem quod ex natura est, voluntati eminet, illaque superius est; divina autem voluntas est Dei operatio; fit ergo ut quod ex natura est etiam divinae operationi emineat illaque superius exsistat. Verum sic ait Athanasius: “Eminet praeitque voluntati quod ex natura est, haud secus ac voluntati opponitur, quod est praeter voluntatis sententiam.” Jam itaque secundum eamdem consecutionem, quod est ex natura, sequetur ad id quod est praeter voluntatis sententiam, et divina operatio divinam essentiam.

302A-B – transcribed
Decimus nonus illis adinventus est distinctionis modus, penes situm. Essentia enim divina superior est; divina autem operatio inferior, id vero etiam ex magno Basilio per calumniam nituntur astruere, dicente: “Quamobrem si quid saeculis niterius mente conceperis, illud quoque Spiritu inferius est.” Quo ex dicto concludentes aiunt: “Quaenam vero existimandum esse saeculis ulteriora, praeter scilicet antesaecularia? Quae autem saeculis priora sunt, omnia increata sunt, quibus divinus vir dixit Spiritum sanctum superiorem esse.”

302B – transcribed
The 20th mode of distinction commenti sunt penes quantitatem, quod divina essentia infinities infinite superemineat, divina autem operatio infinities infinite subsidat ac inferior exsistat. Idque ut astruant fucum faciunt, divum Maximum adducentes per calumniam, qui apertissime comparationem ejusmodi de Deo ac rebus ab eo creatis protulerit, nempe Deum infinities infinite emitaere, iis omnibus quae participant ac participantur, quod illi de increata, ut vocant, naturali et essentiali Dei operatione acceperunt; hincque adeo colligunt: “Siquidem divina operatio ex illis videtur quae participantur, quidni et ei Deus infinite eminet?”

302C-303B – transcribed
Hinc et ellis quasi corollari loco vicesimus primus distinctionis modus quaesitus est, penes qual tatis (ut sit dicam) superlationes et submissiones. Quod nimirum Dei quidem essentia, ut quae sunt sancta,{1} superexcedat, operatio vero, ut quae non sunt sancta, superexcedatur: quas utique qualitatis ratione excellentias ac submissiones, ex duplici maxime magni. Dionysii sententia se existimant probare, omnino tamen contra viri sancti mentem. Atque unus locus est, quo Caii dubitationem solvit, qua ab eo quaesierat [Letter 2 to Caius in PG 3:1068A]: “How is He, Who is beyond all, both above source of Divinity and above source of Good?” Ostendit quod deitatis ac bonitatis principium dicitur, ipsam esse, quae ex nobis ad Deum habitudo est ac imitatio; quod et nos Deum imitemur, non ille nos; quae et illorum quae deificantur et bonificantur, divinitatis ac bonitatis principium est: quatenus divinitate ac bonitate donantur. Ac velut concludens subdit: “Qui est omnis principii supra quam principium, etiam sic dicta divinitate ac bonitate, haud secus ac divinitatis et bonitatis principio, superior exsistit: in quantum inimitabilis, incomprehensusque et absolutus, imitationibus habitudinibusque ante [...], iisque quae imitantur ac impartiuntur.” Alter locus est [On the Divine Names 12:1 in PG 3:969A], quo explanat quonam modo dicatur “Sanctus sanctorum et Deus deorum, et Dominus dominorum, et Rex regum;” declaratque haec dicendo, eam designari excellentiam [On the Divine Names 12:4 in PG 3:972B], “ut quantum praestant sancta, vel dominantia, vel divina, vel regia, iis quae non sunt, ipsisque participantibus ipsae per se participationes, tantum omnibus sublimior sit, qui est super omnia, omnibusque participantibus et participationibus, auctor ipse imparticipabilis, praecellat.”

{1} Cambefis note 1 – transcribed
᾽Ως τὰ ὄντα ἄγια. Portentosa omnia Palamitarum de Dei essentia, ejusque operatione; tantis hic a nostro Caleca exposita, ut solum memorasse, confutasse sit; quod palam sit, ejus, quam essentialem ac caeternam Deo ἐνέργειαν ponunt, eas esse conditiones, quae vere creatum aliquid extra Deum illa esse ostendant; proinde ejus effectum, solaque ejus voluntate exsistens, non necessaria aliqua conjunctione illi cohaerens. Idque omnino evincit Dionysius uterque locus, hic allatos, quibus illi per sununum stuporem nitebantur sua confirmare. Ἐνέργεια ergo, non ipsa in se, quae Deus ipse est, summa cum Deo unitate, nihilque reipsa a natura et essentia diversa, sed ejus effectus; majestas ipsa et claritas, δοζα, quam Deus extra sui in visionem seipso quandoque amicis impartitur, ad Deum se habet, ut quae non sunt sancta, iis comparata quae sancta sunt; quae ipsa creati ad Deum ratio est: τοῦ μὴ οντος πρὸς τὸ ον. Tanquam non sint, ac nihil sint, sic sunt omnis, relata ad Deum.

Hocque volunt sic emphatica Dionysii verba, quibus reddendis non satis felix demidavit [?] Corderii industria, potuitque meliora vel a sodali Lanselien habere: Prior loco ex II To Caius, nullo sensu reddit, ac velut esset θεαρχἰα καὶ ὰναθαρχία, “tanquam principium divinitatis et principium bonitatis,” cum sit, “Superior sit[?] ὀ ὐπεράρχιος (Deus omni principium eminens) sic dicta divinitate et bonitate, uti etiam divinitatis et bonitatis principio;” quod Dei donum vocat, quo et dit et boni aefficiamur, participate ab illo; cui proinde liquet eum eminere. Altero loco ex XII On the Divine Names, καὶ πάντων τῶν μετεχόντὸιν καὶ ν, subandi, ὐπερίδρυται, “eminet omnibus participantibus et participationibus;” Cord. “Cum ὀ αἴτιος omnium participantium et participationum auctor.” Paulo melius Lauselius, “Superat ea omnia quae participant;” sed debuit [?] addere, “et quae participantur.”

303B-306A – transcribed
Hinc manifestissime inveniri dicunt submissam divinitatem, eamdemque ipsam participationem nuncupari et imitationem et habitudinem. Explanant vero omnia haec in fidei suae formula, ut hoc probent: Postquam nimirum visum est, divinam operationem divinitatem dictam increatum esse, quaestisse demonstrari, Num Deus essentialiter illa superior sit; visumque esse etiam hoc, communi omnium calculo praedicari; illa omnino omnibus confirmantes, quae dogmatum auctor in suo dialogo, cui titulus Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite [20], privatim conscripserat. And so he says: “Divinitate (scilicet deitate donandi faculiate) ejus qui cuncta novit, Deus, prius quam fiant, of which the great Basil has said that it is below the Spirit [On the Holy Spirit 19:49 in PG 32:156D], second to the nature according to the great Athanasius [Dialogue with a Macedonian 1:14 in PG 28:1313A]; the divinity which rightly has that name, being around the divine nature, as Gregory of Nyssa has stated [Against Eunomius 3:1 in PG 45:604B]; this is certainly not God’s essence, which is above all names, quae nulla proferri voce potest, circa quam praeaeternae semper virtutes sunt ac operationes, quae ipsa divinitas a propria sua operatione nominetur, quomodo non superior exsistat? But we must also call upon the great Dionysius. Hic enim apertius Dei deitates dicit, unamque alteri praecellentem.” And later in the same Dialogue: “Omnino vero cum hae virtutes sint rebus superiores (omnia enim quae participant, ex illis quae participabilia sunt, ortus sui habent originem), idemque est ac si dicamus, hae participationes atque virtutes nunquam coeperunt ut auctor is the divine Maximus; although the same man says God is infinite times above even all the things that are participated in [Theological Chapters I:49 in PG 90:1101A].” And later in his Fourth Book Against Acindynus, cujus initium est: “Susurrans igitur: Alio autem loco clarius divus Dionysius ipsas quidem virtutes ac participationes illis quae participant superiores dicit. Idem vero est ac si dicat rebus creatis. Quidquid enim creatum est, participatione (ac quasi precario) esse habet; Deum vero hisce virtutibus ac participationibus superiorem dicit, dum ita scribit: ‘Quantum praecellunt,’” etc. Ex his igitur liquido patet omnis probatio excellentiae essentiae divinae, ac demissionis illius operationis; elucetque maxime exterior quidam praecellentiae modus. Quantum enim creata inferiora sunt iis participationibus, quas participant, tantum quoque hae participationes inferiores sunt Dei essentia. Liquet enim ex illa auctorirate, qua est usus ad probandum horum dogmatum auctor. Hoc vero praeter impietatem, ingentis plenum dementiae est.

306B-D – transcribed
Praeter hos vero vicesimus secundus illis modus adinventus est, per respectum ad creaturam; quod nimirum divina operatio, eorum quae extra sunt, effectrix sit, divina autem essentia nullius eorum quae sunt extra, sit effectrix. Nam ut videtur, cum omnino illis constitutum esset, ut trine subsistentem ac beatam illam naturam, nedum ab humanarum rerum gubernatione, sed et a creatione proscriberent, ejusque loco lucem illam, quam ipsi commenti, sunt, uti dictum est, inducerent, ac cum illam unam e multis illis operationibus statuerent, noluerunt eam Dei essentiam dicere, sed Dei operationem; uberius quoque ex efficaci erga creaturas, distinctionum momenta divinae essentiae divinaeque operationis, concludentes. Ac quidem operationem (perinde autem dicatur lucem illam) effectricem causam ac creatricem omnium creatorum docent; divinam vero essentiam, nullius prorsus eorum quae sunt in creatura, ipsam per se auctorem esse, credunt. Aiuntque in prima quaestione: “Ex Deo quidem de creatis quoque dictum est; de essentia autem, de nulla unquam dictum est creatura; quia imo id prorsus a sanctus vetitum est.” Haereseon vero auctor ac parens in his dialogue Theophanes et Theotimus, “Non vero,” inquit, “allius rei extra effectricem divinam essentiam.” Haec vero dum dicunt, quidquid fabulosum ac portentosum tingi animo potest, excesserunt. Quam enim tantis a divina essentia differe dixerunt, uti ostensum est, divinam operationem, hanc ipsam unamque rursus rerum hanc universitatem prius eondidisse, ac postea conservare, asseverant. Consentance igitur huic argumento etiam distinctionis modos contexunt.

306D-307A – transcribed
The 23rd mode is: Quod operatio quidem creatis rebus propinquat, divina vero essentia inaccessa est. 24th, that divina quidem operatio, si accipiatur, haec incolumia praestat; divina vero essentia, priusquam accepta fuerit, eadem consumit. 25th, quod operatio illis commista non confunditur; essentia vero si commercium alium ineat, confusionem patietur. 26th, the energy quidem inferius ad creaturam venit, ab eaque participatur et impartitur, et sanctificat ac illuminat, insidetque, et eos qui sunt digni, deificat; essentia vero ejusmodi est quae non prodeat, ac incommunicabilis manet, nec prorsus in creatis habitat, aut illuminat, vel insidet, aut illa sanctificat. 27th, the energy is, properly speaking, Deity [Deitas], life, wisdom, and power; the essence, by and of itself, is neither deity [deitas], nor life nor wisdom nor power. 28th, the energy is the inheritance, the end of all desire; the essence is neither the inheritance, nor the [object of the] final beatitude.

307B-C – transcribed
In hunc modum inaccessam omni creaturae dicunt divinam essentiam, et intactam et incomprehensam, et quae non prodeat sitque incommunicabilis, non ut inde ejus excellentiae magnitudinem efferant (bene enim esset haec illi magnifice exque decoro tribuere, juxta sanctorum doctorum de Deo doctrinam), sed hoc enitentes, ut eo praetextu, ut videtur, quam procul ab humanis eam rebus proscribant. Majorique temeritate ac audacia, si a nobis participetur, duorum alterum necessario illi eventurum asserunt: “Aut enim,” aiunt, “naturam consumet priusquam accipiatur; vel si illius haec particeps facta fuerit, confusionem utique patiatur.” Sic cultis illis ac magnificis verbis instructo adversus essentiam divinam mendacio, obsque excellentem ejus terrorem ac majestatem ab humanis eam rebus submoventes, palam jam ac fiducia lumen illud inducunt, illudque ipsum divinam operationem esse asserunt, atque eam ponunt quae inferius ad creaturam veniat, et ab omnibus participatur placide simul ac benigne, eosque qui sunt digni, deificet ac sanctificet, insideatque atque conservat: quae videlicet omnia fiat, ut salutem et incolumitatem universis praestet.

307C-310B – transcribed
Caeterum, quod divinam essentiam ejusmodi sentiant, quae nec adiri possit, ac ea quae adeant, consumat, sequentia confirmant. Post quaestiones enim, around the end of his Confession, volentes hoc crimen subtegere, sic aiunt: “Dei quoque essentiam, idcirco quod sancti inaccessam eam dicant et imparticipabilem, ejusmodi existimare quae corrumpendi vim habeat, eos qui ita sentiant (o audaciam et temeritatem!) impius asseveravere, idque adeo cum Deus Mosi locutus sit: ‘No man shall see Me and live’ [Ex 33:20].” Proinde quibus videntur dep[?]i[?]ere, ne Dei essentia existimetur, corruptionem ac interitum affere, iisdem ipsis imprudentes hanc illius vim prorsus aestimandam probant. Quid enim aliud haec eis vult ludificatio: “Idque adec cum Deus Mosi locutus sit, ‘No man shall see Me and live?’ [Ex 33:20]” Si enimvero hoc amoliebantur, esse eam quae corruptionem ac interitum afferat, alicujus loci meminissent, quo Deus quae nostra sunt vivificare ac conflare perhiberetur, non ejus quo oppositum confici videatur. Clarius vero qui a principio haec adinvenit. Enim Fifth Book Against Acindynus, cujus initium est: “Verum quis possit contrarium mentem suadere, Haec igitur,” inquit, “divina natura, ipsa secundum se si participetur, aut confusionem patietur, aut naturam quae vim patiendi habet, prius consumet, quam fuerit assumpta.” Quod autem dicatur, mortalem hanc naturam consumere, cuinam alii, quam ei quod corrumpit ac interitum facit, tribuatur? Quanquam enim “God is a consuming fire” [Dt 4:24] Scripturae verbis dictes est; id tamen quod omnem consumat pravitatem, non vero quod humanam naturam. Quia imo, idcirco quod illi propositum est, ut salutem ei praestet, malitiam credimus vitiumque abolere ac corrumpere.

310B – transcribed
Ex his vero, cum alia multa, tum etiam non leve absurdum colligitur, quod attinet ad Dei Verbi incarnationem. Quia enim Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ex castissimis ac virginalibus sui sanguinis rivulis Deo Verbo carnem commodavit, concepitque et gestavit, ac enixa est ipsum Deum-Hominem Verbum, nec inde consumpta aut corrupta est; in eorum sententia, non ipsummet Dei Verbum concepit, sed quae ipsa non vero exsistit, aut substantiam habet, operationem sustulit. Praeterea vero ex transmutatione panis et vini in Salvatoris corpus et sanguinem emergunt adversus ilios absurda, nec ipsa exigua nec pauca.
WRH: Summary: if human nature can have no contact or communion with God’s essence, then Christ was not really incarnate, since His human nature was not really united to His divine essence. Therefore Christ’s divine essence is not really distinct from His divine energy.

310C-D – transcribed
Alias opposiones refert [a/ad?] ipse dogmatum auctor ac parens, Fourth Book Against Acindynus, which begins: “Susurrans igitur, quae est in magnum illud lumen, blasphemiam,” aitque: “Velui quae imparticipabilis ac incommunicabilis, nec ipsa a se excedens maneat, divina ejus essentia, cum nimirum lumen participetur, et ad creaturam inferius exeat; hoc est, iis qui digni sunt, se conspicuum faciat eosque deitate imbuat.” Qui vero tertius retro illis patriarcha Philotheus ille fuit (quem et in sanctorum album ascripserunt, eo scilicet nomine quod eam strenac doctrinam propugnasset, acceleratum alias caput multisque mortibus dignum) in libro quem hoc titulo praenotavit: “Nullam divinarum operationum creatam, quemadmodum illi aunt;” inquit: “Quisnam invidus daemon procaci audacia Ecclesiae Dei inveit, ipsum Dei essentiam in hominibus inhabitantem, expiandos expiare, atque eos qui illuminantur, illustrare, eos denique qui profano aliquo gesta [?] ab honesti rectique tramite deflexerint, reducere, prorsusque in rebus creatis inhabitantem hoc operari, quod a vobis audimus (ac utinam ne esset quidem!) tenebresum vere daemonum inventum?”

310D-311B – transcribed
Cum itaque omnia tribuant operationi, consequenter etiam vere eam ac proprie divinitatem vocant, vitamque et sapientiam ac reliqua absolute; illiusque ratione divinam quoque essentiam haec esse ac nuncupari existimant. Nam in Tomo post quaestiones the Council says: “Quomodo igitur oequum est, naturalem et communem Deitatis trine subsistentia virtutem perimere, ob quam ipse Filius ac Spiritus a theologis virtus laudati sunt?” Is quoque qui illorum primus patriarcha fuit, nempe Isidore, ait: “Tuam vere ac proprie Deitatem operationem dicimus; haud raro vere desiderio atque amore, etiam naturam. Quod igitur illae tibi communes sunt, uniusque Deitatis trias est, increatum te [?] canimus, utramvis aliquis dicat.” Hoc vero Ecclesiae caniticis seu modulis divinus hic vir coaptavit. Non solum enim quibus crediderunt, haec se sentire scripto consignarunt, sed et quibus in Ecclesia canticis celebrandum sanxerunt. Ante hunc vero, horum antesignanus [?] ac parens, in libro, cujus initium est: “Spiritu afflante dictatas secuti Patrum sententias,” ait “Deitas etiam Dei natura nuncupatur; verius autem magisque proprie operatio.”

311B-D – transcribed
Hoc ex principio, multarum quoque divinities and energies are freely admitted turbam; parum [?] quidem ex iis quae ante quaestiones, quasi nimirum objectis satisfaciendo, affirmarunt. Nam cum dixissent: “Sed et quibus accusabant the Archbishop of Thessalonica, velut qui multas Deitates dicat,” non adjecerunt ipsum non dicere; sed potius ut dicere astuerent, verbis sequentibus usi sunt, dicentes: “Idcirco nimirum, quod divinas omnes ac communes three hypostases or persons virtutes et orationes asserit increatas esse.” Quamobrem non hoc sustulerunt, dicere illum plures deitates; sed magis esse illas increatas hisce probaverunt. Partim vero ex iis quae seorsim talium dogmatum magister ac antesignanus in his Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite conscripsit. Nam cum dixisset: “Una est trium personarum divinitas, id est natura et essentia, essentia omni superior, simplex, invisibilis, imparticipabilis, nulla mentis vi ullo modo cogitabilis,” subjunxit: “Quas vero sancti alius dicunt Deitates, sive unam, sive duas, sive plures”, aliaque astruens, ad declarandum esse plures Deitates. Quod si “non de vocibus illi sermo est,” uti dixit, “sed de dogmatis deque rebus certamen habet,” quomodo non et has Deitates res exsistere, recte quis dicat? Nam et illi, per ea quae fatentur, istud affirmant. But in his Letter to the Bishop of Cyzicus, which begins: “Scire te volo,” he says that “multiplicationem Deus non patitur, tamet quis per eum modum duas aut plures Deitates dicat.” Sexcentaque alia desumere liceat ex eorum books and writings, unde sic eam ipsorum de multitudine turbaque Deitatum opinionem esse liqueat.

311D-314C – transcribed
Videntur autem in hanc evasisse superstitionem, eo quod non exsistiment, Deum ipsum per se una virtute posse omnia producere, eamdemque gubernare ac incolumia praestare (ob summam nimirum ejus perfectionem et simplicitatem et unionem), sed hac quidem istud, illa illud, atque alia aliud. Qui enim tertius, uti dictum est, eorum patriarcha fuit [Philotheus], in illis capitulis quae edidit, says in the eighth chapter: “Quae de Deo dicuntur ac scribuntur nomina, divinarum ejus operationem nomina sunt. Nimirum habet Deus virtutem et operationem operantem in omnibus quae vita praedita sunt, sive humanam vitam dixeris, sive divinam; vocaturque illa Dei operatio vita. Habet in illis qui illuminantur virtutem et operationem, lumen; et vocatur illa operatio lumen seu lux. Prae illis autem pariter virtutem habet et operationem, in illis qui deificantur operantem deificationem; diciturque illa operatio divinitas.” Has itaque cum sic discrete alias ab aliis nominant, pluraliter divine energies and operationes appellant; cum vero unite (quemadmodum etiam rerum hanc universitatem unum mundum solemus vocare), tanquam de una operatione sermonem habent. Quamobrem etiam quaerunt, suarum quaestionum fourth book “si deitatis vox solum non in essentia, verum etiam in operando seu virtute laudata sit.” Ex eo autem quod ille dixerit: “habere Deum operationem, in omnibus quae vita praedita sunt, operantem, sive humanam vitam dixeris, sive divinam,” liquet eos existimare, una eademque operatione praestari, velutque effici, tum Dei vitam, tum vitam humanam: unaque et eadem sapientia constare Dei sapientiam et humanam sapientiam, aliaque similiter. Hoc namque sibi vult, quod in ea quae in Tomo habetur, fidei formula ac confessione, dicunt; nempe, “tum operatione praestare, tum praestari (agere scilicet et agi) nedum de creatis, verum etiam de sempiternis ac increatis posse dici.”

314C-D – transcribed
Ex his igitur volut unum quemdam mundum atque ornatum acervantes, sortem esse dicunt ac possessionem omnium justorum, totam lumen illud visibile contingentes, ipsumque omnium desiderabilium supremum statuentes. Quemadmodum enim harum quamlibet seorsim participationem appellabant (sapientium nimirum sapientiam et viventiu a vitam), sic et omnes collectim ipsam per se participationem vocant. Ostendunt vero se ita sentire per totam fere ipsorum fidem. Quid enim sibi vult, quad in Tomo aiunt: “Which energy gives uncreated grace, and which is called deification and the deifying gift of the Holy Spirit, and uncreated habit [love?], and the eternal natural and essential motion of God’s essence? And this is what all participate in, while God’s essence remains utterly imparticipable.” Apertius tamen, qui hanc primum fidem adinvenit, posteaque, eo quo voluit modo, composuit, in libro quem praenotavit “Redargutiones et absurda,” ostendit. “Quid igitur,” inquit, “Dei naturam ac essentiam possidebunt? Haudquaquam, sed vivificam gratiam, quae et regnum appellatur: quae videlicet, tametsi non sit Dei natura (haec enim imparticipabilis est), est tamen naturalis Dei operatio naturaliter illi comes, et quae circa illum intelligatur, inseparabiliter illi haerens. Quamobrem etiam qui illius haeres ac possessor est, Dei dicitur possessor et haeres”.

314D-315B – transcribed
Sed et alii plurimi modi illorum inserti decretis occurrerunt. Nec enim hic nobis propositus finis, ut omnes impraesentiarum repraesentemus; sed quantum sufficit, ut eorum impudentiae audaciam ac temeritatem, novataeque fidei crimen ostendamus, quo nimirum unum perfectissimum simplicissimimumque Deum in sexcenta, parvaque et magna, aicque diversa, diviserunt; et ad eorum blasphemiae prodendam falsitatem, quod eum haec aliaque ejus generis damnanda temeritate circa Deum praesumant, postea inficiantur, piisque hac in parte ascribunt, quorum illi jure rei teneantur; ad erroris item magnitudinem paucis ob oculos poncadam, iis qui ignorantia laborant, ut noverint, quam imprudentes fidem teneant, et in quod periculum animae praecipites ruant, cujusmodi est et ille distinctionis modus, a nobis nihilominus dicendus, ad probandum alios quoque plures istiusmodi apud illos, uti dictum est, exstare.

315B – transcribed
Nam hoc quoque effutire ausi sunt, essentiam quidem sui ratione immortalem esse, operationem vero, ratione quidem essentiae, esse immortalem: sui autem ratione, νέκρωσιν (quasi dicas, mortificationem ac mortis auctorem). Namque Palamas says in his book, On Divine and Deifying Participation: “Sin autem illi per hunc modum et immortaliter vivunt et moriuntur, multique qui aevo hoc vivunt, mortui sunt, uti ostendit qui vitae ac mortis arbiter est; fit ergo ut et Deitas mortificatio ac mortis auctor exsistat, cum per naturam immortalis maneat.”

315B-D – transcribed
Conclusum itaque est, non aliunde, sed ex eis quae publice synodica cognitione promulgarunt, et ad fidei formulam ac confessionem conscripserunt ac crediderunt; quinimo credunt, atque eos quo non ipsis credunt ac morem gerunt, diris publicis subjiciunt; there is certainly a distinction in God between the divine essence and the divine energy, usually explained in this way: in God, God’s essence is one thing, and another thing that is not God’s essence; the natural Triune subsistence is one thing, and there is another thing which is not subsistence or person; one possesses, the other is possessed; the essence is one, the energies are many; one is the author and cause, the other is from the author and cause; one is energizing, the other is energized; one is that distinguishes, the other is distinguished; one is imparticipable, the other participable; one indivisible, the other divisible; one is without name, the other is named; one cannot be perceived with the intellect, the other is intelligible; one is invisible, the other is visible; one is immobile, the other moves; one is absolute, the other has the state or character of relation; one is inimitable, the other is imitable; one is prior, the other is posterior; one is superior, the other is inferior; one is, according to nature, goes before, but the other, as an addition to nature, follows, or is its companion: the one which is imparticipable, rises above infinity infinitely; the other, which is participable, is infinitely inferior to infinity [?]; one, as that which is holy, is preeminent [eminet]; the other, as that which is not holy, is lower [subjacet].

315D-318C – transcribed
Hae quidem antitheses co ordine distributae, quod utique decorum ac magnificum est, tribuunt Dei essentiae, summopere vero deprimunt, quam vocari docuerunt increatam Dei operationem: quae autem sequuntur, secus omnino divinam quidem essentiam deprimunt, victoriam vero rursus tribuunt divinae operationi. Divina enim operatio rerum quae sunt extra effectrix est; divina vero essentia nullius eorum quae sunt extra effectrix est; atque illa quidem creatis rebus accedit, haec vero inaccessa est; atque illa quidem percepta, ea incolumia praestat, haec vero priusquam percepta sit, eadem consumit. Illa iis commista, non confunditur: haec, si percepta fuerit, confusionem patietur; atque operatio quidem inferius ad creaturam venit, et ab ea percipitur et communicatur, et sanctificat et illuminat et insidet, et eos qui sunt digni, deificat; essentia vero a se non excedens ac incommunicabilis manet, nullo prorsus modo habitans in creatis, neque sanctificans, nec illuminans, nec insidens, nec illa deificans. Ac quidem illa vere ac proprie deitas est, and life and wisdom and power; haec autem sui ipsa ratione non est deitas, neque vita neque sapientia neque virtus. Atque illa quidem omnium haereditas est ac possessio, finisque appetibilium; haec autem neque haereditas seu possessio illius cujusquam est, nec beatitudinis finis. Ergone fieri possit, ut quae sic diversa sunt atque distincta, in rem unam uniformem et simplicissimam perfectissimamque, qualis est Deus, unam denique Deitatem conveniant? seu potius una Deitas existant, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, ut ipsi (mirabiles scilicet theologi) portente confinxerunt, dicentes, uti superius expositum est in suis Anathematismis: “Iis qui sentiunt ac dicunt, Deitatis nomen de sola essentia dici, nec juxta pium Ecclesiae sensum nihilominus in divina ipsum operatione poni, sicque rursus unam modis omnibus Deitatem the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit docent, anathema,” ut ipsi aiunt. Ergo possibile? aut non impossibile, sicut impossibile est, quod est et non est; quodque vere subsistit, nec vere subsistens est; quoque invisibile, et quod visibile st; quodque infinities infinite eminet et quod toties sicque inferius est; ac quaecunque alia modi superius recensiti habent. Hoc sane, an fieri possit cogitandum relinquitur quibus vel mica judicii ac sanae rationis est.

318D-319A – transcribed
Sic igitur, posteaquam his, quos diximus, aliaque pluribus distinctionis ac oppositionibus modis unum Deum in essentiam et operationem diviserunt; deinde tanquam essentia, et quod essentia caret, quodque subsistit, et quod non vere exsistens est, ac reliqua sic opposita, in unum cocuntia, compositionem non facerent (compositum enim est, quod ex multis atque distinctis constat, sive quod multis in idem cocuntibus integrum ac perfectum exstat, ut vera ac certa theologorum doctrina est), non fieri compositionem affirmant, ex divina essentia, exque iis, quae illi realiter distincta, coexistere ipsi existimant, contra omnem rationem, omnemque sanctorum doctrinam. Non enim sic omni sensu ac judicio destituti Patres, ut quod ex distinctis ac diversis constat, quorum distincta sit diversaque ratio tum re tum ratione, simplex esse affirmarint, uti ipsi per calumniam illis tribuunt, Judaeorum more ad litteram crassis legentes, quae ab eis conscripta sunt, deque aliis dicta, ad alia perperam referentes, quod ubique erroris illis causa fuit; non raro etiam ad litteram longe alienissimam a magistris viam ineuntes, quod et ipsum sequentibus liquebit.

319A-D – transcribed
Denique quod non fiat compositio, Palamas says in the book which begins, “Afflante Spiritu dictata Patrum: Increatum adjacens, unam et aequalem simplicemque, in ea conspectam discretione, deitatem facit. Etenim quidquid increatum est, pari etia gaudet honore ac unitum est; nec in iis quae sunt increata, in unum coeuntibus, esse compositionem unquam contigerit.” In alio quoque, cujus initium: “Susurrans itaque: neque vero hoc intelligere potuit, qui in his compositiones insipienter animo cogitavit. Ea quae increata vereque simplicia sunt, si in unum conveniant, nullam facere compositionem.” Quique patriarcha fuit Philotheus in his ninth chapter: “Nos vero qui ex sanctorum dictis noverimus, ne hominem quidem, naturales ipsius proprietates facere unquam compositum; at neque artium rationes ac scientias. Nemo enim unquam hominem compositum dixerit, quod naturam habeat et naturalem operationem, vel quod naturam et artem, puta grammaticam, vel fabrilem, aut agriculturam. Cumque se ita in hominibus res habeat, quid de Deo dicendum, qui eximia quadam ratione ac supra quam ferat natura, omnia habeat? Sed tunc exsistit atque dicitur compositio, cum duae res, quae singular propriam subsistentiam habeant, et quarum quaelibet, ipsa per se absque alia esse potest ac intelligi; cum, inquam, talia compositionem ac unionem inter se, si unam hypostasim unumque subsistens, inierint, velut in homine body and soul; vel i domo lapides et ligna et terrum. Haec enim singula per seipsa cum sint singulare quoddam, id est, hypostasis, cum inter se compositionem unionemque inierint, tunc dicitur compositio sive unio, duarum rerum, sive etiam plurium, per se existentium.” Haec autem quantam viri dementiam arguant, ne dicendum quidem.

319D-322A – transcribed
Similiter quoque in Tomo simul omnes pronuntiant: “Post haec quasivimus ex sanctis, num liceat aliquam in Deo intelligere compositionem, ob divinae essentiae et operationis distinctionem? Ostensumque est omnium sanctorum communi celebratum praeconio, nullam inde in Deo existimandam esse compositionem.” Sed et in Anathematismus suis in haec verba enuntiant: “His qui sentiunt ac dicunt omnino propterea aliquam in Deo fieri compositionem, nec fidem sanctorum doctrinae habent, docentium, ex naturalibus nullam in natura existare compositionem, ita ut distinctio haec nihil prorsus officiat divinae simplicitati, anathema,” ut ipsi volunt.

322A-D – transcribed
Quia vero pariter alia quoque valde impia ac absurda dogmata illis adinevnta sunt, quae non cadunt sub divisionum modos, necessarium est etiam hic quadam ex illis exponanamus, ut hinc quoque novae illorum fidei falsitatem ac dementiam ostendamus. Quas enim de novo divinitates conflaverunt, quandoque etiam Deos vocant. Palamas sane in quadam suarum Oration on the Light, duplex scilicet Namen [?] volens ostendere: “Non solum Deus est, qui sit super ea quae sunt, id est, entia (nempe operatio, de qua illi sermo erat), sed et supra quam Deus. Nec solum supra omne quod affirmatur, est; sed et supra ia omne quod negando removetur, ejus excellentia qui eos supra omnia, omnemque excellentiam, quaecunque illa sit, superat.” Rursusque in eodem: “Sed neque ex theologia illud audivit, sane omnium loco nobis fore divinam naturam, ut inde tandem persuadeatur Deum esse hoc lumen.” The same in his Second Book Against Barlaam altera capita, quem praenotat: “Catalogus absurdorum quae sequuntur, Enimvero quandoquidem sunt quae Deum participent, Dei autem, quae omnem essentiam superat, essentia, prorsus imparticipabilis est; plane aliquid intercedit inter essentiam imparticipabilem et ea quae participant, per quod ea quae sunt Dei participent.” After a few interjections: “Porro alius nobis Deus quaerendus est, qui nedum sit ipse a se perfectus, a se efficax, ipse seipsum per seipsum videns, verum etiam bonus. Omninoque nobis Deus quarendus est, in hunc fere modum participabilis, cujus singuli participatione convenienter pro participationis ratione et modo, cum exsistentes, tum viventes, tumque divini erimus. Est igitur aliquid medium inter creata et illam imparticipabilem (ut sic dicam) superessentialitatem (essentiam scilicet vim omnem ac modum essentiae superantem), nec unum duntaxat, sed et plura; totque adeo, quot nimirum etiam haec participantia, cujus munere per se sunt, media scilicet illa. Virtutes enim sunt superexcellentis illius essentiae, quae videlicet simpliciter ac unite praehabem [?] ac contineat participabilium omnem multitudinem.” Idcirco in quibusdam suarum lucubrationum quandoque eructavit, dicens: “Quot sunt res in specie, tot sunt et divinitates, aliae aliis superexcellentes, aliae inferiores.” And he he says later in his book, which begins: “Non est nobis, amice: Et hunc itaque divinum splendorem et gratiam et operationem, et donum sanctissimi Spiritus, Spiritum sanctum divinae Scripturae appellant; sed et Deitatem et Deum, et vim deificam, et per se bonitatem et bonificam. Rerum quoque universitatis auctorem ac conditorem divinae eaedem Scripturae vocant divinam hanc gratiam, energy and gift, proceeding from the superessential Trinity, as Dionysius the Areopagite testifies.”

322D-326B – transcribed
Quoque patriarcha fuit Isidore, in quodam suorum Modulorum ait: “Esse te quidem, non vero quid esse significare intelligimus; Deum autem operationem.” Ad haec vero patriarcha Philotheus ipse quoque, in suis Canticus, sic ait: “Venite, nova nunc sepulchri prole luce aspectabili, ante illustrem diem suscitationis regui lucis, fruamur, eam ut Deum in saecula laudantes.” Praeterea Palamas, in suis orationibus, quas “Priores et Posteriores” praenotat, haec dicit: “Lumen tamen ipsum vere exsistens spiritualiter videre dicunt; quod sit ipsum, et non symbolicum exsistat. Cum enim semper exsistat, aitque immateriale et quod mente possit intelligi, id noverunt rei ipso periculo.” Rursus quoque in alia suarum lucubrationum, which begins, “Susurrans,” says this: “Itaque lumen illud, tum signum est, tum lumen verum, nec quovis modo verum, sed ipsum exstitit lumen verum.” And later in the same book: “Quamvis habeat quod lumen appellatur, sed et verum vocatur lumen, quinimo ipsum verum lumen, quod Deus induit tanquam vestimentum [Ps 103:2].” Praeterea addit, “Etiam contemperationes quasdam ac mistiones ejuscemodi luminis fieri, cum his qui vident.” Aitque in quadam earum quae dictae sunt, suarum de lumine orationam: “Unum est, cum versatur cum vidente, quandoque diversum videtur: quandoque quidem assurgit supra corpus, attollitque in attitudinem nullis verbis explicabilem: quandoque rursus etiam corpus coaptans, proprioque impartiens splendore et pace ac dilectione[?], deiformique voluptate et tranquillitate adimplens, oculis corporeis, o miraculum! comprehensum efficitur. Quandoque radii natura intelligibilis circumfusum etiam oculis conspecta illa praestat his qui digni exstiterint, nullam interim ipsum prorsus vocent emittens ac sonum: quandoque ei qui videt, per arcana verba et ineffuta[?] (ut ita dicam) clare loquitur. Ac primum aperte ita affetur: ‘Ego sum, noli timere. Ego sum.’ Non enim Deitas a me separatur, qua per communionem illis deitatem praesto, qui deificantur, Ego sum qui adsum, et deificationem operor. Num vides omnia in me, et me prae omnibus? Verum propter te in te fio omnia. Propter te etiam tibi visibilis fio.” And later in alia, which begins, “Convenienter sane Scriptura,” haec ait: “Unus in contemplatione spiritus, cum illis qui per puram orationem interpellant, lumen efficitur; quod videatur, et ab eis non dividatur.” And later in alia: “Sciunt initiati et aiunt: Non conjugium exiguis quibusdam partibus atque viribus necessitudinem praestans, sed velut commistionem cum anima esse, luminis gratiae in ea moram et habitationem; mirabilem sane velut arcanam oc pene innuditam.” Furthermore, “Conjugalis societatis unio majus quid reliquis videtur habere; at neque illa naturalis quasi concretio est neque commistio; sed quadam ex consuetudine ac velut adhaesione unum plura fiunt. ‘Erunt enim, inquit, ‘two in one flesh’ [Gen 2:24]; solumque in carnem, sed non etiam in spiritum. Dei autem, cum iis qui promerentur, unio, scientiae omnem modum excedit, quod tota ac integra sit, ejusque Spiritus, qui sermone penetrabilius [Heb 4:12], omnes pervadit mundos spiritus.”

{2} Cambefis note 2:

{3} Cambefis note 3 – transcribed
Massalianorum ista omnia purporis exque umbilico videntium Deum.

{4} Cambefis note 4:

326B-C – transcribed
Praeterea docent tres Deitatis personas, qua personae sunt, quodam modo inter se non discerni, sed contrarie vicissim ad virtutes atque operationes se personas habere. And Palamas says in his book Ad Paulum Assa: “Cum dirimitur Deitas secundum hypostases, indiscreta manet ac indistincta quoad operationes; cum vero secundum virtutes ac operationes dirimitur, indiscreta ac indistincta manet, quoad hypostases.” In alio quoque, cujus initium: “Convenienter sane Scriptura; quia enim Deitas, quod attinet ad hypostases, quodque operationes dirimitur, diversitas cernitur secundum utramque discretionem, quae se contrario modo ac vicissim habeant, nam divinarum quidem personarum propria nomina, communia sunt operationibus; quae vero personis communia sunt, propria nomina sunt divinarum operationum.”

326C-327A – transcribed
Ad haec docent non sufficere trinae subsistenti Deitati, ipsam per se exsistentem ac vere subsistentem virtutem atque operationem; sed aliam quoque necessarium esse, quae non sit ipsa subsistens. And Palamas says in quodam suorum dialogorum: “Habet quidem Pater sapientiam et virtutem, et vitam et operationem (nempe Filium) essentialim et naturalem; Filius vero num virtutis expers et vitae et operationis seu efficacitatis, aut etiam tota essentia sanctae Trinitatis?” In Tomo quoque synodice decernunt ac pronuntiant: “Ex his nimirum sancta synodus ostendit, eum qui dicat solummodo Filium et Spiritum sanctum increatas esse Dei operationes, tanquam non sentiat communem trium personarum naturalem operationem, pridem exstinctam ac abolitam Marcelli, Photini and Sophronius haeresim audere dequo in Ecclesiam Dei insinuare ac proferre.” Paucisque interjectis: “Nobis vero plenus sermo, non de hac, sed de illa quae communis est trine subsistentis Deitatis, quae ipso non est hypostasis seu persona, sed natura, eximiaque ac supra naturam ratione divinarum hypostaseon seu personarum inest.” And later in the same work: “Quomodo igitur rationi consentaneum, communem trine subsistentis Deitatis inficiari virtutem, cujus ratione Filius et Spiritus sanctus virtus a theologis laudantur?”

327A-C – transcribed
Item docent, qui apud illos mundati sint, taliumque operationum effectus, increatos et ipsos reddi. Palamas says in his Letter to Acindynus: “Do you not clearly see that grace is uncreated? Not only is grace entirely uncreated, but also the effect of God’s energy is uncreated. Likewise with the great Paul, no longer living the temporal life, but the divine and eternal Word dwelling in him, the effect is eternal and immortal.” After a few interjections: “And so Paul was created, as long as he lived did as God commanded, not for the sake of things that are made; not living for these things, but for that which the indwelling God fulfilled in him, became uncreated by grace. In short, life is effective only with the Word of God inside oneself.” Furthermore in the same place: “Quonam igitur aliquis modo vel si nullam divinarum operationum rationem habeat, unum esse increatum concesserit, non addendo natura, cum per gratiam multi sint increati et dit, ac deitate ejusmodi, quae pro eorum ratione illis conveniat, praediti?” And further, “Enimvero sunt quidem hi omnes per gratiae munus increati, uti sane etiam dit; ipsa vero gratia increata est, sicut paulo ante probatum est.” And furthermore, “The energies of God are uncreated, even though many created things are their effect.” In oratione quoque, which begins: “Contentiosius quidem: Quinam igitur fiat ut gratia increata non sit, cujus manere qui ejus fuerint participes, principii expertes et increati, immortalesque et semviterni atque coelestes secundum illam, Patrum sententia dicti sunt?”

327C-D – transcribed
Praeterea docent esse multas Dei hypostases. Ait enim Palamas: “Quia vero multas et distinctas hypostases et virtutes et operationes habet Deus, nisi una aliqua causa (seu auctor) in illis sit, multa et distincta erunt divinitatis principia.” Atque id confirmat, ex eo quod idem[?] praeterea sentiant, doceantque; quod nimirum multas has operationes, quas non vere exsistentes ac subsistentes dicebant, ipsas jam quoque essentias esse dicant. Quamobrem Palamas says in his Oration at Ænum, which begins, “Sublato vere pudore: Atqui juxta magnificum reipsa divinoque Spiritu afflatum sanctorum Patrum sensum, pie quis etiam exsentiam vocet, quamlibet divinarum operationum.”

327D-330C – transcribed
Praetera ausi sunt impudentissimi hominum dicere, certa quadam ratione ac proportione respondere, sicut legalia mysteria evangelicorum documentorum traditionibus, sic has quoque novis Palamae decretis et opinionibus. Editus enim a patriarcha Philothea Tomus, quas ex Montis sancti monachorum persona, Palamae commendatitius, haec habet: “Quae plene vulgata, cuntisque communitur cognita, ac palam praedicata sunt per Mosen docreta, legis fuerunt mysteria, sotis prophetis in spiritu praevisa; sanctis autem futuro aeva[?] promissa bona, evangelicae sunt disciplinae mysteria his, qui per Spiritum digni habiti sunt qui conspicerunt, ipsisque adeo mediocriter in arrhabonis partem concessa atque praevisa. Verum sicut si quis Judaeorum, non religiosa pietate prophetas audiens, dicentes Verbum ac Spiritum Deo coaeternos ac praeaeternos esse, aures continuisset, nempe arbitratus se voces audire, quibus illi pietas interdiceret, eique quam pii confiterentur voci contrarias, ei nimirum quae dicit, ‘The Lord your God is one Lord’ [Dt 6:4], sic et nunc forte alicui accidat, qui mysteria Spiritus, iis duntaxat cognita qui virtutis cultu purgati sint, religiosa pietate non audiat. Verum sicut rursus praedictionum eventus, quae tunc erant mysteria atque arcana, manifestis consentire ostendit; credimusque nunc in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, trine subsistentem Deitatem, natura unam; sic et futuro saeculo temporibus suis patefacto, secundum ineffabilem Dei unius in tribus personis manifestationem, mysteria atque arcana, manifestis consona cunctis videbuntur. Sed et illud nihilominus observandum, quanquam postea finibus terrae innotuit, trine subsistentis Deitatis fidem nequaquam officere doctrinae unius principatus; prophetae tamen illa ante etiam rerum eventum certo cognoscebant; his autem qui tunc illis credebant, non satis suaderi poterat; eodem ergo modo, ne nunc quidem nos nescimus confessionis verba, tum scilicet eorum quae palam praedicantur, tum quae nunc mystice in spiritu dignis praelucent.”

{5} Cambefis note 5:

330C-331C – transcribed
Haec ex multis, ac quae numerum excedere videantur, ex absurdis blasphemisque Palamae, ejusque synodi dogmatis, quantum operae pretium videbatur, hic loci exposuimus; multitudinem ipsam molestam existimantes, qua proinde abstinendum doximus. Puto autem satis esse quae allata sunt, ad probandum eorum fidem, extra fidei catholicae ac apostolicae, quam sancti praedicant, fines prorsus positam esse; idque adeo ex ipsis eorum verbis et sermonibus ac sententiis, quae communiter privatimque conscripserunt, ac scripto credenda tradiderunt, eosque qui non credunt, publicis in Ecclesia diris ac anthemati subjiciunt. Nam pars quidem ex Palamae libris et orationibus dogmatisque sumpta est, qui ejus fidei magister duxque fuit; cujus merito nedum vivens honores consecutus est, quod ita credidit docuitque, Thessalonicensis archiepiscopus factus; verum etiam mortuus, hymnis ac hostiis, pari munere ac qui olim Ecclesiae doctores pietatis laude claruerunt, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, ac reliqui, quotannis festive celebratur; pars vero ex iis quae in Tomo diserte ipsisque clare verbis habentur; in quo Ecclesia tota, universaque synodus, praesidente imperatore, hanc illius firmissime fidem, velut pietatis regulam rectaeque fidei columnam, reliquis tenendam tradidit, ac quem perinde ac sacra Evangelia colunt, nihilque non mollunter ut ille consistat ac firmitatis obtineat robur: sed et seorsim, velut religiosissim ac qui in omnibus pro veritate pugna functus sit, conventus ille Ecclesiae, illius in eo memoriam facit, simulque ab eo quovis loco dicta, ceu rectissime dicta scriptaque ad pietatis normam, laudans sanciensque tradit.

331C-334B – transcribed
Aiunt itaque in Tomo, post quaestiones, prope illius finem: “Caeterum, quem saepius sacratissimum Thessalonicensem metropolitam diximus, qui nihil dissentaneum divinis Eloquiis vel scribat vel sentiat; quia potius, qui etiam pro communi nostra pietate et traditione, pro eo ac honesti rectique ratio postulant, depugnet, nedum per calumniam illi seu magis Ecclesiae, objectis nugia, modus omnibus superiorem, sed et Ecclesiae ac pietatis tutissimum defensorem et propugnatorem adjutoremque decernimus ac pronuntiamus. His autem eo eventu peractis, adhuc reliquam erat, nobis hoc satagentibus, ut scilicet dicam inferre volentium crimen omne dilueremus, nec ea quae in sacratissimi Thessalonicensis lucubrationibus ac scriptis, Ecclesiae hostes erroris nota aspergerent ac sagillarent, indiscussa omittere; quanquam ex iis quae in sancta synodo examinata sunt, haec etiam omnia merito videri possint comprehensa. Cum itaque potentissimus ac sanctissimus dominus noster ac imperator haec seorsim illius conscripta manu nactus esset, ac nobis ea porrexisset; nos singula quaeque in sacratissimi Thessalonicensis codice legimus serioque examinavimus, convenientes in Magnam ecclesiam, diemque in ea communi conventu, non semel, sed bis, terque ac saepius transigentes, sacratissimumque Thessalonicensis Ecclesiae metropolitam, in his quoque sacris theologis consentaneum invenimus, ejus vero accusatores, multis magnisque haeresibus obnoxios, dictisque theologrum palam contradicentes;” tumque haec illaque subjiciunt, compluraque alia nugantur, haud secus ac impudicae mulieres, suam ipsorum turpitudinem aliis tribuentes.

{6} Cambefis note 6 – transcribed
“Ἀλλὰ καὶ θανών.” Novi hujus ex orco sancti operum exstat spissum satis volumen in Bibliotheca Em. card. Mozarini τοῦ μακαρἰτου, quod ipsum “sancti Gregorii Thessalonicensis archiepiscopi” praenotatur. Nolim tamen ullus in Ecclesiae (quae una Christi sponsa est ac columba) castris [...???...], Possiniano in Theophylacto perinde achisatatico, etsi non forte tantis haeretico, errato, sanctum nobis ex ejus fide (glorioso scilicet illo titulo, Τοῦ ἐν άγίοις Πατρὸς ὴμῶν Γρηγορίου) obtrudat; ut neque Ephesium, aliosque, quos sic vindicant caeci homines et pervicaces, non alio quam erroris, vel iis inventi, vel producti factique auctoris, ac schismatis, praemio; quo uno, reliqua omnia ejus retro Ecclesiae lumina, illis addunt; sic laudant, sic venditant, sic in quemque illorum, omnium superiorum laudes, hisque majores fastuosioresque titulos effusius acervant. Sic certe Michael Psellus Cerularium Photiani schismatis instauratorem, Oratione ejus laudatoria, quae mihi exstat, cum ejus aliis producenda, magnifice celbrat, cunctisque superioribus ejus sedis [?]antistitibus praefert, quod illis pene άδιάφορον habentibus, quo dissidere videbantur Latina Graecaque Ecclesia, ipse majori zelo exarserit, calentiusque Latinos impugnarit, ab ab eis, Ecclesiae, cui praeerat, aeterno schismate coetum abjunxerit: quod post Photium reliqui non fecerant, etsi eorum plures Romanam Ecclesiam rodere non cessabant, ac schismatis semina fovere, ovaque ponere, quae tanta Ecclesiarum labe, omnium audacissimus exclusit, quem dicebam, Cerularius, ipse ejusdem Pselli Oratione ad synodum, suis omnibus coloribus depictus, si qua fides hominis sic versatilis ingenii ac ipse se utraque illa oratione Psellus prodidit. Erunt tamen ambae nec lectu injucundae, nec ejus Ecclesiae, urbisque ac imperii notitiae, sic doctis expetitae, prorsus inutiles. Noster Calecas contra errores Graecorum hoc vel maxime voluerit, quod a Cerulario ad Photium retro, ejus sedis antistites a schismatis vel haereseos nota liberat; nec Leo Allatius in sua de Graecorum libris ecclesiasticis Dissertatione ipsum impugnans, aliud evincit, quam quod modo a me dictum est.

334B-335A – transcribed
Celebrant vero eum in iis etiam, in quibus non credentes ipsorum blasphemiis anathemate feriunt. Aiunt itaque, “Gregorii sanctissimi metropolitae Thessalonicensis, qui synodice in Majori ecclesia Barlaam and Acindynus, haereseon auctores ac inventores, abdicavit;” tumque adjectis, in quibus eos calumniae non piget, nec mendacii, abunde subjiciunt: “Qui pro communi Christi Ecclesiae verisque ac certis de Deitate decretis sapienter admodumque strenue scriptorum monumentis, sermonibusque ac disputationibus depugnavit, unamque Deitatem et Deum unum trina subsistentem, operationis ac voluntatis facultate praeditum, omnipotentem, per omnia increatum, secundum Scripturas et theologos harumque interpretes, praedicavit, quique horum omnium et verbis et factis et conscius et astipulator et consentiens diligensque curator ac propugnator enituit, aeterna memoria,” ut volunt ipsi. Quomodo autem unum Deum dicat, manifestum est ex ante dictis; velut nimirum, quod ex multis atque diversis seu distinctis unum conflatur. Quomodo vero voluntatis ac operandi vi praeditum, velut scilicet qui multas atque diversas seu distinctas operationes in se contineat; atque ut multis suorum scriptorum locis, omnipotentem eum vocat, non quia divina essentia et infinita, omnemque vincens plenitudinem omnia potest, estque omnia, et vita et sapientia et bonitas et virtus seu potentia, ac si quid aliud absolute illi tribuitur; ac sicut Damascenus dicit []: “Deus est essentia omnium creatrix ob summam perfectionem et simplicitatem et unitatem;” sed ita dicit Omnipotentem, velut qui in seipso unitas omnesque complectatur virtutes, seu vires, tum ipsas inter se, tum ab essentia divina, quomodo in superioribus reaccusamus[?], distinctis[?]. Hoc vero est, divinae essentiae, quae sit perfectissima, ac qua nihil perfectius, perfectionem quasi attinectere, adjunctis illi dotibus, ac si oculis videndi vim, ac quod videant, adjungas; cujus nec meminiss[?] decet in divina natura, quae nullius auxilio egeat.

335A-C – transcribed
Quia igitur universa ejus Ecclesiae synodus, in ea, quam edidit, suae fidei Regula, profitetur, nihil se dissonum ab eloquiis divinis, aut scribentem Palamam aut sentientem, ejus discussa causa deprehendenisse, quinimo pietatem pro officii ratione propugnantem; quodque saepius convenientes in Magnam ecclesiam, singulaque in ejus libris ac scriptis contenta legentes ac examinantes, sacris theologis consentientem, consociumque ac compugilem, nec non veritatis fidei defensorem, ipsum invenerunt; ex ejusmodi hisque affinibus liquet, qui ejus Ecclesiae cum censeantur, hunc Tomum velut catholicae ac inculpatae fidei confessionem servant, negare non posse, quae usquam genitum dicta Palamae sunt, haec quoque eorum fidem esse. Ac forte qui post illum ipsius dictis patrocinari in animum induxerunt, partim quidem argumentis in contrarium impares, partim vero sic palam absurda erubescentes, ex ejusmodi non pauca sustulerunt. Verum ejus ipsa pauca residua, illius de divinis opinionem, ut ea habuerit, abunde testabuntur. Nam etsi nihil ejus sermonum exstaret litteris consignatum, quod communi ac receptae fidei traditioni dissonum videretur, unus ipse Tomus, sufficiens de viro ejusque fidei testimonium praebens, atque illo contentae quaestiones, probationesque ac sigillatim sententiae distinctionesque, abunde essent, ut omnem [?] illius horumque fidei novationem repraesentaret. Idque adeo ex iis quae dicta sunt, liquet.

335C-338A – transcribed
Quae igitur mota quaestione de divina essentia et operatione, universa synodus saepius conveniens disceptansque decreverit ac pronuntiarit: quomodo item de Palamae fide in illo contenta Tomo praedicet, ac quaenam illa sit, quasi compendio ac rudi minerva dictum est. Quod vero hujus synodi Tomus, consentire cum sacris doctoribus palam mentitur; primumque inter absurda ipsa conspicua, ac quo dato secuta sunt reliqua, istud est, quod penes essentiam et operationem Deum diviserunt, tanquam penes ens et non ens, vere exsistens seu subsistens, et non vere exsistens aut subsistens, quod oculis videri non potest et quod oculis videri potest; perindeque dicas, penes Dei essentiam ejusque vitam et sapientiam et virtutem seu potentiam et bonitatem, aliaque similiter; qua nimirum Dei essentia, sive Deus, vivit, et sapiens et potens et bonus per seipsum est, in aeterna et immobili identitate, una eademque stabilitate, consistens, cuncta ipse exsistens, eaque omnia quae sunt, citra omnem comparationem excedens; necessarium eset hoc horo [?], ut sacrorum doctorum quaedam repraesentemus, in quibus idem in Deo ac indistinctum asserunt operationem et essentiam, vitamque et sapientiam et virtutem, cunctaque omnino quae absolute et tribuntur, idem esse reipsa, nihilque distincta esse, seu differre ab ejus essentia; ut et Palamae decreto dissentanea esse et abhorrere a sanctorum doctrina et traditione eluceat (perindeque dicas, Tomi hujus ostendatur falsitas), nosque adeo amaram falsamque auditionem (eam scilicet, quammodo exposuimus, blasphemiam) dulci sermone ac potabili (vera nimirum sanctorum doctrina) eluamus.

338A-339C – transcribed
Id enimvero ante omnia, velutque in antecessum, sciendum est, operationem (which the Greeks call “ἐνέργειαν”) tribus modis apud sanctos dici. Ut enim auctor is the divine Anastasius of Jerusalem, ἐνέργεια (id est, operatio) tripliciter dicitur; tum nimirum virtus seu potentia qua Deo comparatum ut operetur; tumque habitudo ab operante ad id quod operatione praestatur, ac denique qui ex illis effectus consequitur. Sed et St. John Damascene [An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith III:26 in PG ] eodem modo. Operatio igitur (id est, ἐνέργεια) modo quidem facultatem operandi significat; modo vero, operari; modo autem, quod operatione efficitur, et ἐνέργημα dicunt. Neque igitur dissidentibus de tertio illo seu effectu, sermo fuit, neque vero de secundo (de habitu scilicet seu habitutidine, quae a nobis Deum inter operantem, effectusque illi editos media intercedere intelligitur). Haec enim sunt extra Deum. But whatever is outside of God is a creature, quanquam alia aliis dignitatum praestantia nobiliora sunt, ut ait the great Basil in his Refutations []; sed de virtute et operatione, per quam habet operari, et secundum quam est operatio ceu actus, et ens et forma et vita et sapientia et bonitas, vel si quid aliud est, quod omni semper mentis comprehensione superius invenitur. Hoc enim quod rei cuique est ἐνέργείᾳ (quasi operatione, actu scilicet) esse; quiquid tandem illud sit, quod velut perfectio et forma, et (ut quidam vocant) ἐντελέχεια, actus nimirum subjectae cujusque rei consideratur; in iis quidem quae creata sunt, a subjecto, in quo est, distinguitur, pro rerum creatarum duplicitate et distinctione ac compositione; velut scilicet ens et non ens, perfectum et imperfectum; quod tribuit formam et quod recipit; in Deo autem, qui totus operatio subsistens ac perfecta est, actusque, et a quo procul ab est quod est potentia, ac imperfectum est, ob summam perfectionem et simplicitatem, idem est ejus operatio, seu actus, cum essentia, qua est. Perindeque dicas, idem esse vitam eum ejus essentia; sic similiter in aliis, quae essentiae Dei tribuuntur; alioqui enim, tum ejus vita, expers essentiae esset, tum essentia, vitae; quodque alterum altero ad existentiam ac perfectionem vicissim indigeat, primum summumque bonum compositum atque imperfectum exhibet. Quocirca non est dicendum Deum habere operationem aut vitam aut bonitatem (id enim esse Deum quidpiam particulare ac imperfectum designat), sed totum esse operationem, et totum vitam, et totum bonitatem per se subsistentem, ob summum perfectionem et simplicitatem et unitatem. Habens enim, ab eo distinguitur, quod habetur. In Deo autem nulla realis distinctio est, alioqui non esset Deus una essentia, unumque, quidquid tandem illud sit, excepta duntaxat personarum seu hypostaseon distinctione ac discretione, quae non rerum per se differentiam et distinctionem facit, sed numerum discretionis personalis penes Trinitatem inducit. Nam, ut auctor is Damascene [An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith I:8], in his duntaxat tribus hypostaticis proprietatibus distinguuntur inter se, tres sanctae hypostases seu personae, paternity, filiation, and procession. Ac sicut ridiculum esset dicere, quod mare qquam habeat, quandoquidem mari omnis coalitio qua est; sic magis ridicule dicatur, habere Deum essentiam et intelligentiam, aut vitam, sed esse totum essentiam et totum intelligentiam et totum vitam. Idemque de reliquis dicendum, quae simpliciter et absolute Deo tribuuntur. Ac liquet ex subjunctis. Theologia enim propositam veritatem probabit.

{7} Cambefis note 7:

339D-342A – transcribed
Ac sane primum ipse Dominus ait: “I am Life and Truth and Light” [Jn 14:6,8,12]. Si igitur non erat Filius ac Verbum Dei, qui haec loquebatur, sed aliud quid praeter ejus essentiam, essentiae expers, nec vere exsistens aut subsistens; quale denique volunt esse virtam et veritatem, ac prorsus operationem, qui haec aliud quid ab essentia esse statuunt, cujusmodi etiam dicunt lumen, quod in Thaborio, in Dominica transformatione apparuit? Sic vero, si hoc dederitmus ac supponamus, consequens est actum esse de divinae incarnationis mysterio; aut, siquidem ipsum vere erat Dei Verbum, unus scilicet sancta Trinitatis, qui haec de seipso loquebatur, uti profecto et erat et est (tota enim divina natura in una suarum hypostaseon seu personarum incarnata est, uti sanctorum traditio habet), sequitur necessario confitendum, veritatem ac vitam idem in Deo esse ac essentiam.

342A-343B – transcribed
Deinde, the Blessed Paul says “Christ, the wisdom and power of God” [1 Cor 1:24]. Quod si quis duas in Deo esse sapientias dicat, unam quidem subsistentem, alteram vero quae essentiae expers exsistat, nihil dicit. Cum enim perfectissima sit, omnemque excedens plenitudinem Dei sapientia, virtus ipsa subsistens. The Son of God, through Whom all things were made, superfluum est aliam quoque essentiae expertem nec vere exsistentem, ac si ipsa per se subsistens non sufficerert, illi adjungere; simulque emergunt compositionis Deique imperfecti absurda. Non enim hic possint dicere unam numero esse geminam sapientiam, quemadmodum Filium sapientiam ex Patris sapientia dicimus; velut atiam Life from Life, and Light from Light; unam tamen numero sapientiam confitermur et vitam, unamque rem. Haud tamen hoc loco id didi queat. Quid ita? Quod nimirum has dicant inter se realiter distingui; ita nimirum, ut altera essentia sit, altera essentiae expers. Quorum autem tanta distinctio est, nunquam contingat una consistere, remque unam numero fore. Patrem vero et Filium dicimus nihil prorsus realiter aliove [?] modo distingui juxta fidei assertionem. Sed et qui haec dicat, reprehendit Athanasius in his Against the Arians libris, hisce verbis: “Ubi enim prorsus invenerunt in divina Scriptura dictum, vel ab ullo omnino audierunt, tanquam alius sit Verbum, praeter hunc Filium, ut et talia ipsi comminiscantur? Quomodo vero non haec quoque portentosa eorum iudificatio, quod dicant Sapientiam quidem Patri coexsistere, eam tamen Christum non esse?” And later on: “Non enim vita in vita vivit; nam alioqui vita non fuerit.” Praeterea quoque in libro, “De” ipsius “Verbi in carne dispensatione: Si enim ipse Vita est, quomodo Vitae vitam accipit?” Ad haec the Apostle says of the Son of God: “Who being the brightness of His glory and the figure of His substance” [Heb 1:3]. Quamobrem idem sunt hoc loco figura et splendor, substantiaque et gloria idem ac essentia. Omnesque adeo Christi Ecclesiae magistri, omnem diversitatem ac duplicitatem, realemque distinctionem in Deo tollunt. Basil the Great dum scribit Against Eunomius, ait: “In Dei forma, in Dei essentia est. Nec enim aliud forma est, aliudque essentia, ne sit compositus. Omnis imago, aut essentiae aut formae, aut figurae, aut speciei, aut coloris imago est: Deus autem in nullo horem, sed in essentia solummodo est.” And the Blessed John Damascene says []: “Essence and form and nature are identical in God.” And later on [], “Deus simplex et omnisque expers compositionis.” Quod autem ex multis atque distinctis conflatum est, compositum est. Si igitur increatum, immortale, principii expers, esse creatorum, aeternum, habere providentiam, essentiales in Deo differentias dixerimus, ex tam multis conflatum, ipsum compositum, non simplex erit, quod extremae impietatis est. And the same author says: “Non debet in Deo dici qualitas, ne eum compositum dicamus ex essentia et qualitate.”

{8} Cambefis, note 8:
{9} Cambefis, note 9:
{10} Cambefis, note 10:

343B-D
St. Maximus, in his Chapters to Elpidius:

343D-346B

346B-C

346C-D
Furthermore, the divine Chrysostom explains, “I am the Light of the world” [Jn 5:16], saying

346D-347B
Furthermore, the divine Cyril says in the Acts of the Third Council:

347B-C

347C-350A
Furthermore, St. Augustine, whom the ecumenical councils

350A-351B
The great Athanasius says on this, Oration on the Son:

351B-D

351D-354B

354B

354C

354C-355A

355A

355A-B
Furthermore,

355C-D
Moreover, if, besides the essence, life and wisdom and goodness are in God, ___, certainly contrary λόγοι. All these λόγοι are in God, and there is contrariety between all of them. Yet each one,

355D-358A√
It is equally clear, from what has been said, that God’s essence and energy differ in nothing. That is to say, because they place in God something really distinct from His essence, life and wisdom and power and goodness, and the rest of what they attribute to Him, calling them the energies and energy of God, and just as they assign completed energy/operation (or act) [τελειωτικὴν ἐνέργειαν] to Him, whereby He is living, powerful, and good, and is energy and act, everything which He ultimately is: but these prove that the energy is not distinct from the essence; it is manifest that the energy–which is operative [ἐνεργητικός], and acting with the power it has, which is certainly the first meaning assigned to this expression ἐνέργεια, minutely and critically considered by the saints–is not distinct [ἕτερον] from the essence of God. Nevertheless the following statements of the saints support our thesis.

358B
Thus St. Maximus states at the end of the second chapter of the first 100 theological chapters, which begins “God alone is essentially good,” saying “.” He says in [...], “.” He says in his Scholia on Blessed Dionysius, “.”

358C
Gregory of Nyssa, in Explanation of the Song of Songs: “.” He says

358D
And although St. Athanasius the Great

358D-359A
St. Theodore Graptos expresses it this way in Against Eusebius the Iconoclast: “.” He says in the same work: “.”

359B-C
But however one has it, the natural characteristics are that which something is, teaches the divine Maximus, who makes clear in that place, “in Christ there is a distinction of things, that is, of substances [οὐσιῶν].”

359C-362A
And Basil the Great confirms this in his Refutations, saying: “In the simple and incorporeal nature the energy or power takes on the nature of [ἀσυμάτου φύσεως] the essence.”

, it becomes impossible for God to be a simple and incorporeal nature.

362A-C

362D-363A

363A-B

363B-C
, it is a distinction according to reason [διάφορον κατά τὸν λόγον], not a real distinction [κατἀ τὸ πρἄγμα]

370A
St. Athanasius, in his Letter to Serapion:

370A-B

370B-C

370C-D

370D-371A

371B

371B-C
Moreover, the First Holy and Ecumenical Council decrees in its Acts: “.” On this the Third Holy and Ecumenical Council decrees in its Acts: “.”

371C-D

371D-374A
Patriarch St. Sophronius of Jerusalem: “.” The same says: “.” He says in his Profession of Faith: “.” St. John Damascene: “.”

374A

374B-375A

375A-B

375C
Second, that by “energy,” uti dictum est, multipliciter dicatur, quae ubivis locorum sancti de operatione uno sensu locuti sunt, illi alio acceperunt, idemque pene illis accidit, ac si qui de cane loquentes, alter quidem de cane terrestri disputet, alter de marino aut sidereo scribonem instruat. Hoc enim alii, aliis furere videantur, belloque implacabili pugnare, eo scilicet errore qui ex varia ejus vocis acceptione est.

375C
Third, quod quam sancti secundum rationem distinctionem dixerunt, ipsi in Deu secundum rem intellexerunt: inque eum modum, distincta ratione, distinctas illi tradiderunt.

375C-D
Fourth, quod ea quae sanctis dicta sunt de discretione divinarum personarum, velut de distinction between essence and energies in God dicta acceperunt; nempe nescientes duorum alterum necesse esse, ut vel operationem personarum subsistentem ponant, vel etiam Filium et Spiritum sanctum non subsistentes, quod ita opinantur, dicant; et ut per se vere actu exsistere, ut ipsi loquuntur, non existimentur.

375D-378A
Fifth, quod ea quae dicta sunt per circumlocutionem, de distinctis rebus intellexerunt. Just as we say with Damascene: “Trinae lucis Deitatem, singularem, ex una trine subsistente natura effulgentem nitorem ,” qua nempe haec circumloquendo grate variat. Non enim

378B-379A – transcribed
Sixth, that ea quae dicta sunt sanctis de essentia et operatione, in rebus creatis, ac si dicta in Deo essent, sic et in eo se habere voluerunt. Ut cum St. Dionysius dicit, “Nihil in rebus esse absque naturali operatione;” and later: “Quod nullam habet operationem, neque est, neque aliquid est, neque ulla prorsus ejus positio, seu affirmatio est.” Haec enim de rebus (id est, iis quae sunt) dicta sunt. “Nihil” enim, inquit “in rebus.” Deus autem nulla rerum est, nec ejusdem ac illae ordinis, aut qui rebus connumeretur, sed supra res, ac ea quae sunt, incomparabiliter eminens. Cum item John Damascene speaks thus [An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith III:15]: “Energy and capacity for energy, and the product of energy, and the agent of energy, are all different. Energy is the efficient (δραστικὴ) and substantial activity of nature: the capacity for energy is the nature from which energy proceeds [πρόεισιν]: the product of energy is that which is effected by energy: and the agent of energy is the hypostasis Who uses the energy.” Nam et ipse ad ea quae sunt, seu ad res attendens, hoc ita distinxit. Quod enim non haec loquatur de operatione, qua Deus vi agendi praeditus est, sed de illis sermonem habeat, quae creatis adnumerantur, primum liquet ex eo quod sanctus haec loquens, non addiderit: In Deo aliud est operatio, aliud quod vi agendi praeditum est, et quae sequuntur, vel in Deo se hoc dicere; sed sic simpliciter. Deinde ex eo quod dixit operantem uti sua operatione. Deus enim non utitur aliquo, in eo quod condit ex nihilo vel quod omnino facit vel creat, ac si ipse non sibi sufficeret. Nam quod Deus et Pater per Filium suum operetur, nihil doctrinae officit. “Non enim tanquam per instrumentum aut servum, sed tanquam per naturalem virtutem,” ait idem sanctus, idemque est ac si dicas, eum per seipsum condere, seu facere et creare. Ait enim, “My Father works until now; and I work” [Jn 5:17]. Una enim substantia est Pater et Filius, unaque virtus et una res; quod illi de operatione et essentia non dicunt. Magis autem etiam ex eo liquet, quod hanc operationem motam vocant. Nam in Deo non dicimus motum. Etenim motus secundum se imperfectus est; fit enim alicujus finis gratia. Deus autem, cum sit omnium finis finalissimus (ut sic loquar), aliis quidem auctor est ut moveantur; ipse vero, immobilis est. Unde etiam chapter 9 of the book On the Divine Names, the divine Dionysius says: “Quid vero etiam cum rursus aiunt theologi procedere atque moveri eum, qui immobilis est?” Si enim est in illo operationis motus, erit communis forma patibilis virtutis rerum, et factricis ejus virtutis. Motus enim actus est et perfectio ac forma utriusque virtutis seu potentiae, quatenus potentia est; velut aedificatio ejus quod aedificari habet, et quod vim habet aedificandi. Nulla autem Dei ac rerum est communis forma.

379A-D – transcribed
Seventh, that regarding this same energy, qua Deus agendi vi praeditus est, quandoque sanctis dicta; ad haecque de vita et sapientia et potentia seu virtute et bonitate, nempe, potentia seu virtus et vita et sapientia, ipsa vita, ipsaque potentia seu virtus; quae videlicet pro humanae locutionis modo, humanius (ut ita dicam) crassiusque tradita sunt, cum non contingat aliter eam, quam pro eo ac illi comparatum est, conceptus atque nomina proferre, sic ut dicta sunt, etiam in Deo se proprie habere crediderunt. Ut, verbi gratia, quia dicitur Deum habere vitam, aut virtutem aut sapientiam aut operationem; et: “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son also to have life in Himself” [Jn 5:26], et quae sunt ejusmodi; ex his illi, aliud quidem quod habet, aliud id quod habetur, esse statuerunt, sanctorum de his expositionibus animum minime attendentes, aut vero attendere nolentes; id quidem quod habet, Patrem verbi gratia, aut Deum, vel essentiam esse decernentes; quod vero habetur, vitam aut sapientiam, aut potentiam seu virtutem, aut operationem, qua Deus (quidquid tandem actu est) in aeterna immutabilique identitate consimiliter subsistit. Ita nimirum illis fere evenit, ac si, quia etiam Scriptura dicit: “Your hands have made me and formed me” [Ps 118:73]; or, “Audivi vocem tuam deambulantis in paradiso ad vesperam, et abscondi me” [Gen 3:10]; sive: “the Lord smelled a sweet savor” [Gen 8:21]; aut, “Pergam ad vos in furore obliquo, dicit Dominus” [Lev 26:24,28]: ex his utique et similibus, Deum statuerint rem quamdam esse humana praeditam forma, et sentientem ac iracentem ac quaecunque alia divina Scriptura loquitur ob auditorum imbecillitatem, ex his ad alia nobis altiora iter pandens. Tametsi Deus, nedum vitam habere dicatur aut operationem, verum etiam essentiam, seu substantiam, ut auctor est Justin in his book Against the Greeks; totumque comprehensum in seipso esse habere, ut sentit Gregory the Theologian. Quandoquidem igitur aliud esse dicunt id quod habetur, remque aliam id quod habet, consequens fit in illorum sententia, aliud esse Deum, atque aliud ejus essentiam ac substantiam, ac rursus ipsum aliud esse, aliudque esse illius.

379D-382A
Praeterea juxta eorum theologiae regulas, Deus expers essentiae erit; nec essentia Dei seu substantia Deus futura est. Juxta enim divisionem, quam induxerunt, habentis, et ejus quod habetur nunquam fiat ut alterum ejusmodi exsistat quale alterum, quod attinet ad esse; etenim nolunt operationem esse essentiam, neque vero essentiam id esse admittunt quod operatio est.

382A
Ad haec, quandoquidem operationem qua Deus operativus (ut sic diam) est, sive etiam vitam, qua vivit, ut quae habeatur, non vere esse aut subsitere posuerunt, sequetur illis ut nec essentiam vere esse aut substistere ponant, siquidem ipsa quoque sic profertur, ut quae habeatur, juxta quod dicitur: “Utique Deus essentiam habet.”

382A-B
Sin autem quod non vere ac per se est, expers essentiae est, consequens erit ut id quoque blasphement, nempe ut Dei essentiam dicant essentiae expertem esse. Quod vero expers essentiae est, nihil est; sicque ea quae sunt, ex non ente atque nihilo erunt. Simulque eis accidit ut credant in non ens. Ac sane, whatever the essence is not, according to the authority of St. Maximus, God is not.

382B-C

382C-383B – transcribed
Ad omnes vero auctoritates, in quibus sermo ex humana ratione humilior est, quod ex consueto loquendi more, obque humanam imbecillitatem, talia per eum modum dicta sint aut dicantur, satis nobis erit unus beatus Chrysostomus, explaining these words, “In Him was life” [Jn 1:4], in his Sixth Homily on the Gospel of John. Quod enim ex eo quod dixerat: ““In Him was life” [Jn 1:4], sequebatur compositionem in Deo opinari, tanquam ex essentia et vita ille conflaretur; causam assignat, cur ipsam vere ac per se exsistentem vitam, vitam habere. Ait itaque “Haec vero omnia dixit, non ut compositionem opinemur, sed ut plataim ad celsa dogmatum provebamur. Quia enim non facile quis e vulgo intellexerit, quomodo ejus vita ipsa vere ac per se exsistat, prius quidem illud dixit, quod humilius est; deinde eum qui eruditus sit, ad id ducit quod sublimius est. Nam qui dixerat, ‘He has given to the Son also to have life in Himself’ [Jn 5:26], hic rursus dixit: ‘I am the life’ [Jn 11:25], ac rursum, ‘I am the light’ [Jn 8:12]. Quocirca illud light and life and beauty and goodness, non sic intelligenda sunt, quasi aliquid in aliquo, tametsi ita dicantur, pro eorum captu et imbecilitate, qui non facile intelligere possunt, quomodo horum quodlibet, ipsum vere et per se exsistentia gaudeat.” Hic porro locus unus sufficiens est ad solvenda omnia, quae dicunt, Deum habere operationem, et esse aliquid in eo; esseque operationem ex essentia, ac si qua alia sunt ejus generis. Liquet autem etiam eos qui necdum intelligere possunt, vitam ac lucem ipsam vere ac per se existentem, eorum classis esse atque generis, quibuscum in Scriptura indulgentius, pro eorum captu, agitur, quorum etiam causa, talia sermonis demissione illa utitur: alioque modo theologiam illis loqui qui rurdimentarii sunt ac inducuntur, alioque iis qui sunt perfecti; nec semper discendum esse, ac nunquam intelligendum [2 Tim 3:7]; puerorumque immanentes disciplinis, perfecta delici par est doctrina, which we hear from Paul, “the letter kills, but the spirit quickens” [2 Tim 3:6]; and “All you who are justified in the law: you are fallen from grace” [Gal 5:4]; tametsi tot in divina Scriptura continentur voces, quibus ad humilioribus ad sublimiora mente erigamur. Quare, quod fieri nequeat ut haec omnia per se exsistant ut res propriae, unum quid per se exsistens necesse est ut ea omnia existimemus, quaecunque scilicet in nobis et subjecta sunt ac praedicata, infitiesque plura secundum unum ac idem exsistens.

383B-C – transcribed
Octava hujus corruptionis causa, quod ea, quae quibusdam locis a sanctis dicta sunt de Dei essentia tanquam de operatione, qua ille vi agendi praeditus ac efficax est (id enim sanctis promiscuum habetur, uti probatum est), ipsi pro libito de operatione, quae a Dei essentia dividitur, modo superius relato, acceperunt. Ait enim magnus Dionysius, quod et postea illi secundus Joannes Damascenus iisdem verbis exposuit, nempe [An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith I:14]: “The divine effulgence and energy, being one and simple and indivisible, assuming many varied forms in its goodness among what is divisible and allotting to each the component parts of its own nature, still remains simple and is multiplied without division among the divided, and gathers and converts the divided into its own simplicity. For all things long after it and have their existence in it. It gives also to all things being according to their several natures , and it is itself the being of existing things, the life of living things, the reason of rational beings, the thought of thinking beings. But it is itself above mind and reason and life and essence.”

383D-386C – transcribed
His itaque ut validissimis utuntur, ad probandum, divinam essentiam, nullius corum quae extra sunt esse effectricem, but operation or power, quam tantopere ab essentia distingui dixerunt, illaque infinities infinite inferiorem esse; hanc nempe creatis propinquare, eaque incolumia praestare, atque ad creaturam inferius ventitare, ejusque illam participem este, et sanctificare, et illuminare, et insidere, et eos qui digni sint deificare, proprieque divinity and life and wisdom and power and the inheritance of the saints esse, ac final beatitude, ac quaecunque alia in priori parte ante dicta sunt, in qua eorum fidem, ex iis quae illis sripta sunt ostendimus. His itaque utuntur, uta ea probent quae dicta sunt, ignorantes quod ita dicitur: “Divina illustratio ac virtus, cum una sit, omnia omnibus fit,” de essentia divina dictum esse, ut et ipsamet abunde testantur verba, quae palam theologiae explicandi more Dei essentiae congruant, ac omnem illi excellentiam tribuant, uti etiam dixit the great Dionysius in his book On the Divine Names 9:5: “God is present to all providentially, and becomes all in all, for the sake of the preservation of all, resting upon Himself, and His own identity within Himself, standing [as beseems an energy] one and ceaseless, and imparting Himself with an unbending power.” Later he says, “Ipsam de se in sacris tradidisse Eloquiis, esse se omnium causam seu actuorem, et principium et essentiam et vitam,” et quaencunque alia sigiliatim Deum nobis fieri recenset, tanquam qui principium sit, omni principio eminens. Sic enim etiam Damascenus in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith I:12, ut a beato illo editum est, dicens: “God is the cause and beginning of all: the essence of all that have essence: the life of the living.” Quod itaque in illis “divinam” dixit “illustrationem atque virtutem,” in his “Deus” dixit; juxta quod nimirum sentit Gregory of Nyssa, Oration against the Greeks, dum sic ait: “Sin autem Deus nomen est essentiam significans, qui unvam sanctae Trinitatis essentiam confiteamur, unum merito Deum sentimus; quandoquidem unius essentiae nomen unum Deus est.” Liquet igitur, quod ita dictum est: “Divina illustratio et virtus, quae una sit et simplex et indivisa,” de essentia divina dictum esse. Sic enim etiam de illa dixit the blessed Maximus: “Ipsa supra quam bonitas, quae mens exsistat, totaque operatio seu virtus, in seipsam converta, virtus seu operatio est.”

386C-387A

387B-390A

390B-D

390D-391C – PDF 67

St. Maximus says in Chapter 25 of the Third Century of Chapters on Charity: “.”

391C-394A
On the contrary, the great Dionysius says, On the Divine Names: “.” And again, “.” And furthermore, “.” All of which the divine Maximus illustrates in his Scholia, saying, among other things: “When you hear ‘inferior deities,’ understand angels and just men.”

394A-B

394B-396D

395D-397B

398B-397C

398C-399B

399B-D

399D-402A

402A – transcribed
Sed et deifica dicta est haec imitatio, vel quod secundum eam imbuti sumus, qui per gratiam dii sumus, ac similitiduinem incolumem servamus; vel quod causa est atqque ratio ut tales evadamus. Quemadmodum etiam dinvinam baptisma deificum donum continne [?] appellatum est, vocatque Dionysius deifica lumina Scripturae oracula.

402B – transcribed
Siquidem igitur divinitatis bonitatisque principium imitatio est, eorum quae Deum imitantur, et participatio eorum quae participant ex imitatione obveniens, quibus omnibus Deus eminet, palam est illud creatum esse. Nam ut auctor est magnus Basilius: “Quae a Deo secunda sunt, creaturae sunt et nobis conserva, tametsi alia aliis prœstentiora ac nobiliora sint.”

402B-C

402C-D

402D-403B

403B-406A

406A-C

406C-408D

407D-410B
Moreover, with Athanasius we say against the Arians: “.” From this we conclude, as has been said,

410B-C

410C-411A – transcribed
Moreover, agreeing with Basil the Great in what he wrote to Amphilochius [On the Holy Spirit 19:49 in PG 32:156D], we say: “Even if you think something above the ages, even that is lower than the Spirit”; ipsi in Tomo, ea quae saeculis superiora sunt, praeeterna esse existimant. Quae vero ante saecula sunt, increata, quibus Basilius Spiritum superiorem dixerit. Hincque, uti dicebamus, concludunt the divine energy is inferior to the divine Essence. Nescierunt enim hoc velle sanctum, nedum has creaturas. The Holy Spirit is one with the Father and the Son, and they, together, are one God; sed et longe his plures ??dhucque si liceat mentis cogitatis, superatis etiam saeculis, quorum Spiritus conditor est, creaturas effectusque concipere, quidquid denique animus informarit, supra illa esse Spiritum sanctum, nec quicquam votare quid [?] illa creare possit. Deus enim est Patres et Verbo consubstantialis. Idcirco etiam dixit: “Even if you think something above the ages, even that is lower than the Spirit, et extra Spiritum exsistit. Quae autem extra Spiritum sunt, etiam nobis conserva sunt, quantumvis majore praestantia excellentiisque, alia aliis nobiliora sint.”

411A-B – transcribed
And again the divine Dionysius says [On the Divine Names 4:8]: “divinas mentes moveri circulariter, dum principio fincque carentibus pulchri bonique splenodribus uniuntur,” inde arbritrati sunt esse principii expertes quasdam virtutues et deificationes, ipsosque, qui deificentur principii expertes ac increatos pronuntiarunt. Sane quidem nullum angelos habitudos finem, una omnium fides est; principii vero expertes quonam modo quis credat, those beings who were born in the beginning, and created in time? Non bene itaque hic quoque intellexerunt, appellare sanctum, quae circa Deum versantur, angelorum intellectiones, motus ac considerationes. Subdit enim: “Sive admissiones exceptionesque vocare decet, sive considerationes.” Quodque intellectiones hae et notitiae ac illustrationes ab eodem in eumdum desinunt, et circa Deum versantur, moveri eos circulariter dixit; quodque circa principii act finis expertem sint il motus, “principii et finis expertes” dicit. “Pulchri” autem “ac boni” dicuntur, vel quia ob primo pulchrum ac bonum eas nacti sunt angeli, quomodo pulchri bonique creatio dicitur, vel quia ad pulchrum et bonum referuntur, and are the images of goodness and beauty.

411C-413B

And Gregory of Nyssa says in his book Against Eunomius: “God is not what His essence is not.”

414D-415A – transcribed
Omitto dicere, quod non est sanctum [Dionysius, On the Divine Names 11], nec divinum neque regium, ut ipsi loquantur (a temeritatem projectamque audaciam!) in Deo naturale, increatum eique coaeternum esse. Haec cum dicant, taliaque per blasphemiam emovant, eoque dementiae provexerint, in quibus pudere illos deberet, ac quorum nomine par esset absscondi; ille secus etiam insultant, eosque qui eorum blasphemiis morem non gerant, criminantur, and the Sixth Ecumenical Council contradicere aiunt; wherein it is said of Christ: “He is perfect God and perfect man, atque utriusque naturae utramque nosse operationem, quae ex utraque indivise substantia atque nature procedit.” Existimant enim ex illis se errorem suam concludere, “understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm” [1 Tim 1:7]. Cum multa habeam dicere, unius duntaxat mentionem faciam, quod pervicacioribus sufficiat.

415A-C

415C-418B

Cambefis, note 32.

418B-C – transcribed
Sin vero etiam amplius aliquid dicendum est, non hoc ipsum spectabat synodus, ut essentia divinae a divina operatione distinctionem monstraret, sed quod cum Christus diae naturae esset (divinity and humanity of course) in one hypostasis or person, indeque two wills or energies, nunc quidem ut Deus miracula ederet, nunc vero ut homo operaretur, nulla vitii labe; cum haeretici one nature in Christ, vel unam effectam divinam voluntatem blasphemia dicerent, sive per commissionem, sive quod absorptum esset quod spectabat ad hominis naturam. Itaque necesse est, ut utraque natura sic se habeat ad suam operationem, ut et illa se natura habet at seipsam. Quia vero divina natura simplex est et uniformis ac qualitatis expers, quae praeter se nullius sit eapax, it is manifest that hanc quoque operationem esse, si quid illa sibi ipsa est; humanam autem, quae una quidem subjecto sit, at quae multas res complectatur, pro sui ratione itidem convenientem operationem habere.

418D – transcribed
Sed neque prepositio “from” causam ubique significat; neque auctorem et quod est from the author inducit. Neque enim quando ex nihilo cuncta dicimus, nihilum auctorem vel causam significamus. Quid enim etiam nihilum praestiterit? At neque cum theologi, modo quidem Deum ex seipso procedere dixerint; modo vero, quae vere est, ipsam deitatem ex seipsa nullo auctore vel causa esse; multaque alia, Deum qua Deus, in causam et quod ex causa est, ob eam propositionem dividere, necesse habebimus. Quamobrem nec cum synodis energy and essence dicit, cause and that which is from the cause intelligemus; sin autem, many absurdities result.

419A-D

419D-422A

422A-C

422D

422D-423B

423B-C

423C-426B

426B-D

426D

426D-427A

427A-C