Statue de Saint-Loup, évêque de Troyes, écrasant le dragon "La Chair Salée" (représentation d'Attila) : église d'Estissac (Aube)
Saint Loup de Troyes
Evêque (+ 478)
ou saint Leu.
D'abord moine à Lérins,
puis évêque de Troyes pendant près de cinquante ans, il accompagna saint
Germain d'Auxerre en Angleterre pour combattre l'hérésie du pélagianisme.
Retenu quelque temps comme otage par Attila, il exerça sur lui une heureuse
influence, ce qui fit que la Champagne fut épargnée par l'envahisseur.
L'évangélisation apporte
à Troyes son premier évêché au IVe siècle. Loup, originaire de Toul, devint
évêque de Troyes en 426, après de nombreuses années passées au monastère de
Lérins. C'est lui qui, vers 451, sauva la ville de l'invasion d'Attila, en se
livrant comme otage et dut les suivre comme otage jusqu'au Rhin. Loup revint de
ce périple, et mourut finalement à Troyes en 479.
La première origine de
l'abbaye de Saint Loup remonte au Ve siècle. Selon la légende, Loup aimait à se
retirer hors des murs de la petite cité gallo-romaine pour méditer sur le
terrain actuel de l'abbaye, qui n'était alors que forêt et broussailles. Il
fonda un monastère hors du quadrilatère que formait alors la petite cité
d'Augustobona, sur l'actuel emplacement de Saint Martin Es Aires, pour abriter
ses nombreux disciples. A sa mort, Saint Loup fut inhumé dans cette chapelle,
et la jeune abbaye jusque là dénommée "Notre Dame hors les murs" fut
rebaptisée Saint Loup.
(Source: site du Vieux
Troyes)
À Troyes, vers 478, saint
Loup, évêque. Avec saint Germain d’Auxerre, il se rendit en Grande-Bretagne
pour y combattre l’hérésie pélagienne; par sa prière, il défendit sa ville de
la fureur d’Attila et, après cinquante-deux ans de ministère épiscopal, il
s’endormit dans le Seigneur.
Martyrologe romain
SOURCE : http://nominis.cef.fr/contenus/saint/1588/Saint-Loup-de-Troyes.html
Saint Vincent de Lérins
Moine (+ 445)
Vincent était originaire
d'une bonne famille gauloise. Il fait de bonnes études tant profanes que
théologiques. Mais les choses religieuses ne l'attirent guère. Il avouera
lui-même n'être arrivé que fort tard "au port de la religion" après
avoir été entraîné longtemps "dans le tourbillon amer et incohérent de la
vie du monde." En ce temps-là, Honorat avait fondé, dans une des îles de
Lérins, au large de Cannes, une petite communauté qui devint l'abbaye de
Lérins. C'est là que Dieu appelle Vincent, dans "ce lieu écarté (la petite
île s'appelle aujourd'hui Saint-Honorat) et, dans ce lieu, la cellule d'un
monastère." Dans cette retraite, la culture acquise dans sa jeunesse trouvera
à s'employer. Il rédigera plusieurs écrits: un recueil de morceaux choisis de
saint Augustin et surtout, sous le pseudonyme de Peregrinus (l'étranger, le
migrant), le "Commonitorium" ou aide-mémoire dont le but est de
donner une règle sûre permettant "de distinguer la vraie foi catholique de
l'erreur des hérésies." Ce fut longtemps une des lectures des hommes
d'Église dans l'Occident. Elle mériterait de l'être encore dans notre monde
moderne.
Vincent de Lérins (Ve
siècle) est un écrivain ecclésiastique, issu d’une famille illustre des Gaules.
Il exerce d’abord le métier des armes puis se retire au monastère de Lérins...
(Histoire des saints de Provence - diocèse de Fréjus-Toulon)
Au monastère de Lérins en
Provence, vers 450, saint Vincent, moine prêtre. Remarquable par sa science
chrétienne et la sainteté de sa vie, il eut le mérite de mettre en lumière la
notion de développement de la foi.
Martyrologe romain
SOURCE : http://nominis.cef.fr/contenus/saint/1212/Saint-Vincent-de-Lerins.html
.jpg)
Vitrail
d'Henri-Louis-Victor Gesta représentant la rencontre entre l'évêque saint Loup
de Troyes et Attila, église de Saint-Loup, Creuse, France.
Saint Loup, évêque
et Saint Vincent de Lérins, abbé
Au temps de St Alchas, ou
peut-être de son successeur St Celsin, les deux frères Toulois, St Loup de
Troyes et St Vincent de Lérins sont inséparables.
L’Église de Toul a la
gloire d’avoir enfanté des prélats et des prêtres dont l’Église universelle a
salué la science, proclamé et mis a profit les talents, puis, qu’elle a
inscrits dans ses dyptiques après avoir placé leurs mortelles dépouilles sur
ses autels. Il y a pour nous religion et patriotisme à les citer, chacun en son
lieu, et c’est pour nous acquitter de ce doux et noble devoir que nous allons
rappeler la mémoire de deux saints toulois : Loup et Vincent.
D’après Godescard, le
Bréviaire de Rome, au propre du diocèse de Nancy, Vincent avait d’abord
embrassé le parti des armes et brillé dans le monde. Touché de la grâce et,
peut-être, entraîné par l’exemple de son vertueux frère, il alla s’enfermer au
monastère de Lérins pour n’y songer plus qu’à l’œuvre de son salut.
Affecté douloureusement
de voir l’Église déchirée par les hérétiques et voulant contribuer, pour sa
part, à prémunir les simples fidèles contre les sophismes de l’erreur, il
composa, vers l’an 434, trois ans après le concile d’Éphèse qui proscrivit le
nestorianisme, un livre qu’il intitula : Commonitorium ou Avertissement
contre les hérétiques. C’est dans ce bel et solide ouvrage qu’il trace cette
règle à laquelle, plus strictement que jamais, il importe de se
conformer : Dans l’Église catholique, il faut apporter le plus grand soin
à tenir ce qui a été cru partout, toujours et par tous. In ipsa Catholica
Eeclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod
ab omnibus creditum est.
Saint Vincent de Lérins
mourut avant la fin de 450, sous le règne de l’empereur Théodose II et
Valentinien III. Ses reliques, dit-on, sont respectueusement gardées à
Lérins ; nous croyons cependant en avoir vu des parcelles quelque part
ailleurs.
D’après l’Abbé Guillaume, Histoire
de diocèse de Toul et de celui de Nancy, t.1, p. 125-129.
Saint Loup fut élevé
dans les sciences humaines et dans la piété chrétienne, par les soins
d’Allistique, son oncle, qu’en mourant, son père, Epitoque lui avait laissé
pour tuteur. Ayant fait d’excellentes études, il parut au barreau et s’y fit
une brillante réputation. Il épousa Piméniole, sœur de saint Hilaire d’Arles,
qu’il trouva disposée comme il l’était lui-même à servir Dieu avec ferveur.
Après qu’ils eurent ensemble passé six années, ils résolurent de mener un genre
de vie plus parfait. D’un mutuel consentement, ils se séparèrent et
s’engagèrent l’un et l’autre, par vœu, à garder désormais la continence. Loup
se retira dans la célèbre abbaye de Lérins où son beau- frère Hilaire l’avait
précédé, où son frère Vincent le suivit, et qui alors était gouvernée par saint
Honorat. Il y vécut un an dans la plus parfaite régularité, ajoutant encore
diverses austérités à celles qui se pratiquaient parmi les frères. Il eut à
venir à Mâcon, en Bourgogne, pour s’y défaire d’une terre qu’il possédait dans
ce pays, en distribuer le produit aux pauvres, ainsi qu’il en était convenu
avec sa femme, avant leur séparation, et se constituer ainsi dans l’état d’une
absolue pauvreté. Tous ces projets étant exécutés, il se disposait à retourner
à Lérins ; mais les députés de l’Église de Troyes le demandèrent pour évêque,
ayant perdu saint Ours, leur pasteur, mort en 426. Loup fit d’inutiles efforts
pour s’opposer à son élection, et fut sacré par les évêques de la province de
Sens.
Agricola, disciple de
Pelage et de Célestius ayant infesté 1a Grande-Bretagne des erreurs de ces
hérésiarques, les catholiques de cette île eurent recours aux évêques des
Gaules et les prièrent de leur envoyer des ministres évangéliques qui pussent
arrêter chez eux les progrès du mal.
Les prélats assemblés en
429, dans la ville d’Arles, croit-on, élurent Germain d’Auxerre et Loup de
Troyes, pour aller combattre l’hérésie. Ces deux saints évêques acceptèrent
avec résolution la tâche qui leur était imposée ; ils passèrent dans la
Grande-Bretagne d’où, par leurs prières, leurs prédications et les miracles
dont Dieu les fit l’instrument, ils bannirent l’erreur après l’avoir démasquée
et vaincue.
Rentré dans son diocèse,
Loup s’appliqua, plus activement que jamais, à la réformation des mœurs de son
troupeau. Il montra, dans cette œuvre, autant de sagesse que de piété : aussi
reçut-il les plus beaux éloges de Sidoine-Apollinaire qui l’appelle : « Le père
des pères, l’évêque des évêques, le chef des prélats des Gaules, la règle des
mœurs, la colonne de la vérité, l’ami de Dieu, le médiateur des hommes auprès
du ciel. »
Saint Loup écrivit, à
différentes personnes, des lettres qui ne sont point parvenues jusqu’à nous. On
a cependant celle qu’il écrivit à saint Sidoine pour le féliciter de sa
promotion à l’épiscopat dont, en même temps, il lui montrait les travaux, les
difficultés et les dangers. Dans le même temps, l’empire d’Occident fut affligé
de diverses calamités par les incursions des barbares. Attila, roi des Huns,
fondit sur les Gaules avec une armée innombrable. Ses coups allaient tomber sur
Troyes dont les habitants étaient dans la plus grande consternation. Saint Loup
intercéda pour son peuple ; il se livra d’abord, pendant plusieurs jours, à de
ferventes prières qu’il accompagna de jeûnes et de larmes : puis, confiant en
la protection du ciel, il se revêtit de, ses habits pontificaux et se rendit
auprès d’Attila qui était à la tète de son armée. Le prince barbare ne put se
défendre d’un sentiment de respect à la vue du saint évêque, et comme il se
disait « Le fléau de Dieu » : « Nous respectons, répliqua le bon pasteur, ce
qui nous vient de la part de Dieu ; mais si vous êtes le fléau par lequel il
nous châtie, souvenez-vous de ne faire que ce qui vous est permis. » Attila
frappé de ce discours promit d’épargner Troyes. Ainsi les prières de saint
Loup, protégèrent une ville dépourvue de tout secours, contre une armée de
quatre cent mille hommes qui avait porté, de toutes parts, la terreur et la
désolation.
Le roi des Huns s’étant
retiré dans la plaine de Méry-sur-Seine, à cinq lieues de Troyes, y fut attaqué
et défait par les Romains que commandait Aétius. Forcé d’opérer une retraite,
il fit prier saint Loup de l’accompagner jusqu’au Rhin, s’imaginant que la
présence d’un si grand serviteur du vrai Dieu serait une sauvegarde pour son
armée et pour lui. L’évêque ne crut pas devoir se refuser à cette démarche ;
mais elle déplut aux généraux de l’empire qui soupçonnèrent Loup d’avoir favorisé
l’évasion des barbares et le poursuivirent jusque là, qu’il fut obligé de
s’éloigner de Troyes, pendant deux années. Mais sa patience et sa charité
triomphèrent de la malice de ses ennemis. Il lui fut permis de rentrer dans son
diocèse, où il mourut en 478, après l’avoir administré pendant cinquante-deux
ans. On garde, à Troyes, son corps dans l’église qui porte son nom. Saint Loup
forma plusieurs disciples qui méritèrent les honneurs de l’épiscopat :
Polychrone de Verdun , Sévère de Trêves, Alpin de Châlons-sur-Marne et Camilien
de Troyes. On l’honore le 29 de juillet dans les diocèses de Paris, de
Soissons, de Toul [1], de Toulouse et de Metz.
D’après l’Abbé
Guillaume, Histoire de diocèse de Toul et de celui de Nancy, t.1, p.
125-129.
[1] Le 29 ou le 30 selon les différents
calendriers du XIXe et XXe siècles à Nancy.
SOURCES : http://www.introibo.fr/Saint-Loup-eveque
et http://www.introibo.fr/Saint-Vincent-de-Lerins-abbe
Vitraux
représentant Saint Loup sauvant la ville de Troyes contre les Huns d'Attila en
451 et conservés en l'Église Saint-Pierre Saint-Paul (Épernay, Marne,
Grand-Est, France).
San Lupo protegge Troyes da Attila, vetrata della chiesa dei santi Pietro e Paolo, Épernay.
Saint Loup (ou Saint Leu)
Évêque de Troyes
(383-479)
Loup naît à Toul au
sein d'une famille de notables dans un empire romain occidental de plus en plus
menacé par les invasions venues de l'Est. Des Asiatiques issus des grandes
steppes bousculent vers l'ouest de nombreuses peuplades germaniques. Celles-ci
déferlent massivement dans le vieil empire romain aux frontières devenues
poreuses. Dure époque marquée par le déclin et la destruction de la paix
romaine. Les institutions civiles et militaires se décomposent. Les populations
sont victimes des envahisseurs et de l'anarchie. L'Église , forte de la récente
conversion chrétienne de l'empire romain, est elle-même menacée de
décomposition par des hérésies. La plus grave, l'arianisme, niait la nature
divine de Jésus.
Le fait le plus marquant
du Ve siècle vécu par Saint Loup est la chute de l'empire romain
d'occident, véritable séisme. La chrétienté tient bon. Elle surmonte ses
divisions grâce aux "Pères de l'Église " qui structurent et unifient
la théologie catholique. Un ordre monastique, celui de Saint Benoît, est fondé,
peu avant l'essor des moines irlandais. Enfin, pour protéger les populations,
des personnalités émergent dans la Gaule envahie, comme Sainte Geneviève, les
évêques Saint Germain l'Auxerrois et Saint Loup de Troyes.
Ce dernier reçoit une
excellente éducation. Son nom procède, à l'origine, d'une tradition animiste
issue d'une époque alors récente où l'être humain était en contact étroit avec
le monde animal. Le jeune Loup perd son père en bas âge. Un oncle l'adopte. Il
devient avocat. Son éloquence et sa sagesse assoient sa renommée en Gaule. Il
épouse par amour Piméniola à l'âge de 34 ans. Ils n'ont pas d'enfants.
Ils décident après sept
ans de mariage de se séparer pour entreprendre chacun une vie monastique. Loup
rejoint alors Saint Honorat, fondateur de l'abbaye de Lérins sur l'îlot de même
nom près de Cannes. Il y demeure deux ans. Sorti de Lérins pour aller à Mâcon
donner ses derniers biens, il poursuit sa vie ascétique, ne mangeant et ne
dormant qu'une nuit sur deux, portant le cilice et prêchant sans manquer
l'occasion de soulager les pauvres ou de visiter les prisonniers. En 426, Ours,
évêque de Troyes, bientôt canonisé, meurt. Les chrétiens de son diocèse réunis
en assemblée, élisent alors Loup pour le remplacer. Celui-ci, malgré les
devoirs nouveaux de cette lourde charge, ne change rien à sa vie de sacrifices.
En 429, sur l'invitation
du pape Célestin, il part en Grande Bretagne avec Saint Germain l'Auxerrois
prêcher contre l'hérésie pélagienne. Celle-ci privilégiait les mérites de
l'être humain pour accéder au salut au détriment de la grâce divine jugée non
indispensable. Par ses miracles et ses paroles, il ramène la plupart des
personnes qu'il rencontre au bercail. Revenu à Troyes, il fonde le monastère de
Saint-Martin-ès-Aires ainsi qu'une école pour former des prêtres et des
disciples. Plusieurs d'entre eux compteront parmi les plus illustres évêques de
leur temps. Loup dirigeait son diocèse "avec les rênes d'une sainteté
attentive".
En 451, Attila, à la tête
d'une coalition de Huns mongoles et de Germains, sema l'épouvante en détruisant
et massacrant villes et campagnes. Pour protéger Troyes, Loup décide, au risque
de sa vie, de rencontrer le chef barbare qui s'apprêtait à tout y tuer et
raser. Impressionné par la prestance du saint évêque, Attila épargne Troyes,
mais emmène Loup en otage jusqu'au Rhin pour protéger sa retraite. Soupçonné à
son retour d'intelligence avec les Huns, il se retire deux ans sur le Mont
Lassois, à quinze lieues au sud de Troyes, puis à Mâcon. Là, il obtient du roi
des Alamans la libération de tous les captifs qu'il détenait. De retour à
Troyes en 453, Saint Loup répare les dommages spirituels et matériels que
l'armée d'Attila avait tout de même causés à la population de son diocèse.
Huit ans avant son décès en 479, au terme d'une vie de près d'un siècle, l'évêque de Clermont, Saint Sidoine Apollinaire, lui fit cet éloge : « Vous êtes le père des pères, l'évêque des évêques, ... Vos collègues, quand ils sont rassemblés, obtempèrent à ce que vous avez proposé et tremblent devant votre censure. Face à votre gravité, même ceux qui sont âgés ont le sentiment d'être enfants. Après vous être exercé dans les rudes exercices de la milice de Lérins et avoir passé neuf lustres sur le siège apostolique, l'armée spirituelle des saints de l'un et de l'autre ordre vous vénère comme l'un de ses chefs spirituels les plus renommés. »
Cette renommée est si
forte que, cent après, en 579, les trois fils de Clovis jusqu'alors en guerre,
Gontran, Sigebert et Chilpéric, se réconcilièrent sur la tombe de Saint Loup.
Gardée intacte dans la cathédrale de Troyes pendant mille trois cents ans, cette
sépulture sera profanée sous la Terreur en janvier 1794. Les ossements seront
brûlés dans la sacristie à l'exception du quelques fragments soustraits
clandestinement à la destruction fanatique par de courageux chrétiens. Bien des
villages portent le nom de Saint Loup ou Saint Leu. Ce personnage de légende
véridique est placé au cœur des racines chrétiennes de la France.
Martyrologe Romain :
À Troyes, vers 478, saint Loup, évêque. Avec saint Germain d’Auxerre, il
se rendit en Grande-Bretagne pour y combattre l’hérésie pélagienne; par sa
prière, il défendit sa ville de la fureur d’Attila et, après cinquante-deux ans
de ministère épiscopal, il s’endormit dans le Seigneur.
SOURCE : https://www.levangileauquotidien.org/FR/display-saint/7f585b7c-1912-4e6b-91ca-1df8f9056024
Saint Vincent de
Lérins
Vincent était moine de Lérins († avant 450). Il écrit son Commonitorium sous le pseudonyme de Peregrinus,« à peu près trois ans » après le concile d’Éphèse (431).
Cet ouvrage, véritable discours de la méthode en théologie, donne les règles
fondamentales qui permettent de discerner l’erreur hérétique de la foi
catholique. Vincent met en exergue trois critères : l’universalité, l’antiquité
et l’unanimité. Pour contrebalancer ce qu’ont de rigide ces trois repères,
Vincent ajoute qu’il existe un progrès dans les sciences théologiques, mais
toujours « selon leur nature particulière, c’est-à-dire dans le même dogme,
dans le même sens, et dans la même pensée. »
SOURCE : http://www.patristique.org/Vincent-de-Lerins-Commonitorium
Saint Vincent de Lérins
Saint Vincent de Lérins, ainsi appelé du lieu de sa retraite (les îles de
Lérins, au large de Cannes, avec son monastère, fondé par saint Honorat, qui
fut une pépinière de saints dont beaucoup ont évangélisé l’Europe), fut un
prêtre aussi distingué par sa doctrine que par sa sainteté.
Il est surtout célèbre
par ses travaux contre toutes les sectes hérétiques qui, de son temps,
c’est-à-dire au commencement du Ve siècle déchiraient à l’envi l’Église de
Jésus-Christ.
Il composa dans ce but
son Commonitorium ou « avertissement contre les hérétiques ». Doctrine,
érudition, style, piété, cet ouvrage réunit tout ce qui peut exciter l’intérêt
et le rendre un des plus précieux qui aient été composés sur cette matière.
Le saint, par humilité,
ne l’a pas signé de son vrai nom, mais du nom supposé de Peregrinus,
c’est-à-dire sur la terre, sequestré du monde. Il n’y a point de livre de
controverse qui renferme tant de choses en si peu de mots.
Saint Vincent mourut l’an
450, saint Léon le Grand étant pape, Valentinien III empereur, Théodose II
empereur d’Orient et Mérovée roi de France. Ses reliques se conservent
précieusement à Lérins.
Présentation de Vincent
de Lérins
(mort avant 450)
Un seul livre a suffi à
rendre célèbre Vincent de Lérins, un des livres les plus lus, des plus souvent
traduits, au cours des siècles, le Commonitorium ou «aide-mémoire» que nous
publions ici.
Vincent faisait partie de
la célèbre abbaye de l'île de Lérins qu'il a illustrée comme Eucher de Lyon,
Fauste de Riez. Ce fut, au Ve siècle, un des hauts lieux de la Gaule et une
pépinière d'évêques. C'est là qu'il rédigea son ouvrage, dans la solitude et la
paix.
Nous ne savons à peu près
rien de la vie de Vincent. D'où venait- t-il ? Sans doute de Gaule. Il semble
avoir été de bonne naissance, à en juger d'après sa culture. Il paraît être
venu assez tard à la vie monastique, après avoir connu «le tourbillon amer et
incohérent de la vie du monde». Il vient rejoindre à Lérins des fils de
familles, patriciennes, qui s'étaient groupés autour du fondateur, Honorat, qui
devint évêque d'Arles. Vincent, prêtre au monastère de Lérins, acquit une
solide formation biblique et théologique, qui se font jour dans son œuvre.
Son ouvrage ne contribua
pas peu au renom théologique de Lérins. Peu de livres de l'antiquité chrétienne
ont eu une fortune aussi brillante dans les temps modernes, puisqu'on compte
plus de 150 éditions et traductions.
INTRODUCTION
« Existe-t-il une règle
sûre, d'application générale, canonique en quelque sorte, qui me permette de
distinguer la vraie foi catholique de l'erreur des hérésies ? » Cette
interrogation fondamentale, qui était celle de Vincent de Lérins lorsqu'il
écrivait son Commonitorium, demeure fondamentale pour les croyants de tous les
temps. Il n'apparaît guère possible de professer consciemment la foi catholique
sans se demander : comment vérifier la continuité de la même foi à travers les
siècles ? Comment contrôler la communion dans la même foi des croyants
dispersés parmi les continents et les cultures ? Faut-il attacher une
importance particulière à l'expression de la foi des origines ? Quand
dévie-t-on de la Tradition catholique et qui peut se prononcer à ce sujet ?…
Toutes questions inévitables, mais qui ont revêtu une importance particulière
dans les périodes d'effervescence ou de perturbation qu'a connues l’Église :
lorsque la foi, née de l'Evangile de Pâques et de Pentecôte, fut particulièrement
affrontée à l'épreuve du temps, entraînant l'épreuve de la diversité des
cultures. Il ne fait pas de doute que de nombreux croyants soient amenés
aujourd'hui à faire leurs ces questions. La révision des langages et les
interprétations de la foi traditionnelle, la diversité des théologies, les
recherches critiques largement vulgarisées, une certaine relativisation de
l'autorité du Magistère ecclésial l'expliquent facilement. Beaucoup
souhaiteraient acquérir une méthode de réflexion chrétienne qui leur
permettrait, sans devenir pour autant des théologiens professionnels, d'accéder
à une certaine autonomie pour vérifier l'authenticité de la foi qu'ils
professent. C'est précisément à ces croyants en recherche que s'adresse la
présente édition de l'œuvre majeure de Vincent de Lérins : sans s'attendre à
trouver chez un auteur du 5e siècle une réponse exactement adéquate à leur
questionnement de chrétiens du 20e siècle, il leur sera bénéfique de fréquenter
le premier théologien qui ait, de façon quelque peu systématique, fait écho à
un tel questionnement.
Vincent de Lérins
Celui que l'on nomme
ainsi nous est historiquement peu connu. Il a pris soin de cacher son nom sous
le pseudonyme de Peregrinus (le « Transumant », le Pèlerin) et nous devons à l'historien
Gennadius de Marseille, dans son catalogue des hommes illustres, écrit dans la
deuxième moitié du 5e siècle, de l'appeler Vincent. Il appartenait à ce groupe
de moines chrétiens établi, dès le début du 5e siècle, dans une des Îles de
Lérins. Un groupe monastique fortement identifié, composé de gens cultivés, qui
devait obtenir un crédit considérable dans l'Église de son temps. Vincent
décrit son lieu : « Loin de l'affluence des villes, loin de la foule, nous
habitons une petite propriété écartée, et dans cette petite propriété la
cellule d'un monastère où, sans être distrait, on peut mettre en pratique la
parole du Psalmiste : « Demeurez en repos et voyez que je suis le Seigneur.
Enfin le genre de vie que nous avons adopté nous encourage aussi dans notre
dessein » (chap. 1). Ce monastère est aussi un foyer théologique [NOTE 1].
C'est aux environs des
années 430-435 que Vincent écrit son Commonitorium. Qu'est-ce à dire ? Le terme
latin désigne les instructions écrites que recevait, pour une affaire à
traiter, un fonctionnaire de l'Empire : aide-mémoire, avertissement (du verbe
commoneo, faire souvenir, conseiller). Ce « mémoire » théologique est d'abord
destiné à l'auteur qui y résume ses notes de travail sur un sujet qui le
préoccupe : les hérésies dans l'Église. Mais il n'est pas exclu qu'il ait eu
l'intention de lui donner, en en améliorant la forme, une certaine diffusion
car son intention est d'éclairer, de prendre parti, d'alerter : « La subtilité
des nouveaux hérétiques, écrit-il, réclame de nous beaucoup de soin et
d'attention » (chap. 1).
Pour rédiger ce « mémoire
», Vincent a disposé d'un grand nombre de manuscrits et a beaucoup lu. Quelque
peu dépassé par l'ampleur de sa documentation, il décide de faire un premier
tome avec vingt-huit chapitres. Le chapitre 28e se termine ainsi : « Pour plus
de commodité, j'achève ici ces notes. On trouvera le reste ailleurs. » Après
quoi il se lance dans la rédaction d'un autre tome dont ne subsiste qu'un
résumé (que les manuscrits appellent « Second Commonitorium ») : récapitulation
de l'œuvre principale et appendice documentaire .
Le thème du Commonitorium [NOTE
2]
La plupart des manuscrits
dont nous disposons se terminent par la finale : « Ici s'achève le traité de
Peregrinus contre les hérétiques. » Ce qui explique que l'historien Gennadius
intitule l’œuvre de Vincent : «Contre les hérétiques». Cela rend effectivement
compte du ton de l'ensemble du mémoire, même si cela n'en constitue pas, pour
le lecteur contemporain, l'intérêt principal. Vincent est véritablement
tourmenté par la multiplicité des déviances doctrinales qui ont pris à partie
la foi catholique, depuis que l'Apôtre Paul, dont il se réclame avec
insistance, écrivait aux Galates : « Si quelqu'un, même nous ou un ange du
Ciel, vous annonçait un Évangile différent de celui que nous vous avons
annoncé, qu'il soit anathème ! » (Ga 1, 8 ; commenté dans les chapitres 8 et
9). Sa documentation l'a informé des débats qui ont conduit aux Conciles de
Nicée et d'Ephèse. A travers Augustin, il est au courant des doctrines
donatistes et du pélagianisme. Ce qu'il rapporte des opinions hétérodoxes
d'Origène et de Tertullien (chapitres 17 et 18) est sans concession. D'une
façon générale, il est porté à noircir le tableau et à se comporter en censeur
impitoyable. Une telle sévérité procède, pour Vincent, de cette conviction : «
Nous devons grandement redouter le sacrilège qui consiste à altérer la doctrine
et à profaner la religion » (chap. 7). « II s'ensuit que tout catholique
désireux de prouver qu'il est fils légitime de notre mère l'Église, doit
adhérer à la sainte foi de nos pères, s'y attacher et y mourir. Il doit aussi
détester les nouveautés impies, les haïr, les combattre et les pourchasser »
(chap. 33).
Cette obsession
anti-hérétique explique, pour une part, que le Commonitorium ne constitue pas
un traité rigoureusement construit. De nombreuses digressions y trouvent place.
Des chapitres plus doctrinaux et plus méthodologiques y alternent avec des
chapitres plus rhétoriques ou plus documentaires, sans ordre nécessaire. Les
formules frappées se dégradent parfois en jugements à l'emporte-pièce. On ne
doit pas oublier, d'ailleurs, qu'il s'agit de notes de travail rédigées « pour
suppléer aux défaillances de la mémoire » (chap. 1). Il reste que, provoqué par
sa passion d'orthodoxie, Vincent en vient à poser les questions, que nous
évoquions plus haut, concernant les critères de la foi vraiment catholique
(principalement dans les chapitres 2, 23, 25, 27, 28) et qu'il témoigne, sur
des points fondamentaux, de la foi de l’Église clarifiée par les grands
Conciles du 4e et du 5e siècles (dans les chapitres 13, 14, 15, en
particulier).
L'influence du Commonitorium
On est mal informé sur
l'influence immédiate qu'a pu avoir le Commonitorium, en dehors de l'école
théologique de Lérins. La théologie du Moyen-Age semble avoir ignoré cet
ouvrage. La théologie des temps modernes l'a redécouvert et n'a cessé de s'y
intéresser, jusqu'à nos jours. Il a été invoqué dans les controverses entre
catholiques et protestants du 17e et du 18e siècles ; il a été présent dans les
débats sur la foi au Concile de Vatican I ; on a fait appel à lui dans les
lendemains de ce Concile, chez les Vieux-Catholiques ; on s'y est largement
référé dans les polémiques au temps du modernisme catholique et dans la
théologie qui a suivi.
Cet intérêt moderne — et
souvent trop polémique — pour le Commonitorium s'attache, en vérité, à quelques
pages seulement. Mais, pour être sélectif, l'intérêt n'est pas arbitraire. Il
rejoint sans doute ce qui était le plus neuf et le plus éclairant dans la
pensée de Vincent de Lérins : les critères proprement théologiques de la
communion dans la foi. Vincent aime ce terme de communion, comme d'ailleurs
toute l'Antiquité chrétienne : il loue les chrétiens d'Afrique qui, se séparant
de Donat, « restèrent en communion avec les Églises du monde entier » (chap. 4)
; il recommande qu'on fasse confiance « aux Pères qui ont constamment vécu dans
la foi et la communion catholiques » (chap. 28).
Trois critères de la communion
sont explicités par Vincent de Lérins, par contraste avec l'hérésie. Le premier
consiste dans l'unité de la foi à travers le temps et l'espace : « Il faut
veiller avec le plus grand soin à tenir pour vrai ce qui a été cru partout,
toujours et par tous » (chap. 2). Le deuxième consiste à vérifier la cohérence
du progrès dans la foi : « Il faut donc que croissent et progressent beaucoup
l'intelligence, la connaissance, la sagesse de chacun des chrétiens et de tous,
celle de l'individu comme celle de l’Église entière, au cours des siècles et
des générations, pourvu qu'elles croissent selon leur genre propre,
c'est-à-dire dans le même sens, selon le même dogme et la même pensée » (chap.
23). Le troisième consiste à lire les Écritures dans la Tradition : « Le Canon
divin doit être interprété selon les traditions de l'Église universelle et les
règles du dogme catholique » (chap. 27). Ces trois critères ne sont pas
nouveaux — Vincent l'affirme à plusieurs reprises — et on les trouve déjà plus
ou moins formulés, chez Irénée au deuxième siècle, chez Tertullien au troisième
siècle, chez Augustin plus récemment. Mais Vincent leur donne une forme plus
argumentée et fixe ainsi une étape dans l'histoire de la réflexion théologique.
Il importe donc d'en mesurer l'importance et les limites pour lire correctement
le Commonitorium.
Le « Canon lérinien »
On a ainsi nommé de
longue date le premier critère : « Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus
creditum est ». Ce qui a été cru partout : en Orient comme en Occident, car «
il n'y a qu'une seule foi, vraie, celle que confesse l'Église entière, répandue
sun toute la terre » (chap. 2). Ce qui a été cru toujours : depuis les origines
et sans discontinuer « puisqu'en aucune manière nous ne nous écartons de ce
qu'ont jadis proclamé nos pères et nos pieux ancêtres » (ibid.). Ce qui a été
cru par tous car « ce que tous, ou la plupart d'entre eux, ont affirmé
clairement, d'un même accord, fréquemment, avec insistance, tels une réunion de
théologiens unanimes, ce qu'ils nous aurons transmis après l'avoir reçu de la
Tradition, cela doit être tenu pour indubitable, certain et définitif » (chap.
28).
Le canon lérinien ne
rencontre aucune difficulté lorsqu'il s'agit du kérygme chrétien, de la
confession de foi qui rejoint le centre de l'Évangile : il ne peut y avoir
qu'unanimité entre les croyants de tous les temps et de tous les espaces à ce
niveau de l'expression primordiale de l'Évangile fondateur. Si du moins l'on
admet que l'unanimité laisse place à des expressions diverses du même message,
ainsi qu'il apparaît dans la rédaction des quatre Évangiles.
Le canon lérinien ne
rencontre pas davantage de difficulté si on l'applique négativement : à savoir
que ne sera jamais reconnu comme vrai par la foi ce qui ne serait affirmé que
par quelques-uns, de façon nouvelle et dans im groupe particulier. On aurait
clairement affaire à la nouveauté hérétique. Comme le dit Vincent : « Le vrai
et authentique catholique sait que toute doctrine nouvelle, jamais encore
entendue, professée par un seul homme en dehors de l’avis général des saints ou
contre cet avis, n'a rien à voir avec la vraie foi » (chap. 20).
Mais la limite du canon
lérinien apparaît lorsqu'on entreprend de l'appliquer de façon absolue pour
chacun des articles de la foi catholique : soit que l'antiquité n'en témoigne
pas de façon explicite (ainsi des dogmes concernant l'institution ecclésiale) ;
soit que l'ampleur de l'adhésion hétérodoxe laisse planer provisoirement des
doutes ; soit que certaines communautés fassent silence sur ce que professent
d'autres, durant un certain temps. On sera, dans ces cas, amené à réduire le
fonctionnement du canon lérinien à celui d'une visée régulatrice et à tempérer
l'exigence absolue. Peut-être à faire appel à d'autres critères
complémentaires.
On comprend que, au cours
des siècles, ce canon ait été utilisé par des traditionnalistes et des
fixistes, soucieux d'une tradition répétitive, littérale et archéologique,
contre des affirmations dogmatiques de la foi catholique. Vincent de Lérins, en
certaines de ses pages, semble tellement craintif devant les nouveautés qu'on
voit difficilement la place laissée à des perceptions novatrices à l'intérieur
de la foi. Ainsi : « Ce fut toujours la coutume, dans l'Église, d'estimer le
degré de ferveur de chacun à la promptitude de son refus des innovations »
(chap. 6) ; et ailleurs : « Si, en effet, il faut éviter la nouveauté, c'est
donc qu'il faut s'en tenir à l'antiquité. Si la nouveauté est impie,
l'ancienneté est sacrée » (chap. 21). Il faudra donc s'expliquer sur ce que
l'on appelle nouveauté, et déjà Vincent ente ouvre la porte lorsque, à la fin
du chapitre 22, il écrit : « Enseigne seulement ce que tu as appris ; fais le
d'une manière nouvelle, mais garde-toi d'y introduire des nouveautés. »
Il n'y a pas à s'étonner
de ce que, dans les controverses de jadis entre catholiques et protestants, le
canon lérinien ait été utilisé par les deux parties au bénéfice de leurs
démonstrations respectives : les catholiques pour convaincre les protestants
qu'ils rejetaient indûment certains articles de foi portés par la Tradition ;
les protestants pour prouver aux catholiques qu'ils ajoutaient des nouveautés à
la foi traditionnelle. Cela n'infirme pas le canon, car il demeure évident
qu'une doctrine unanimement et universellement reconnue depuis toujours par les
chrétiens est, par là même, de foi authentique. Mais cela manifeste néanmoins
que le canon ne peut être, malgré le caractère frappé de sa formulation, tenu
pour le seul critère de communion si on l'applique toujours à la lettre. Sans
doute est-ce là le motif pour lequel le magistère ecclésiastique ne l'a jamais
officiellement repris à son compte [NOTE 3].
Le progrès dans la foi
Le deuxième critère de
Vincent de Lérins a eu davantage la faveur du magistère ecclésiastique : il a
été cité explicitement par le Concile du Vatican I (chapitre 4 de la
Constitution sur la foi : cf. Denzinger 3020). Déjà la Bulle Ineffabilis Deus,
du 8 décembre 1854, dans laquelle Pie IX définissait le dogme de l'Immaculée
Conception de Marie, s'y référait (cf. Denzinger 2801). Le serment
antimoderniste reprendra les termes (cf. Denzinger 3541). Le Concile du Vatican
II, dans la Constitution sur la Révélation, fera un renvoi à la citation de
Vatican I (Dei Verbum, 8) [NOTE 4].
Plus encore que le canon
lérinien, le chapitre 23 du Commonitorium a été utilisé dans des sens divers.
Tantôt on en retenait de préférence l'affirmation d'un progrès dans la foi « Ne
peut-iI exister quelque progrès de la religion dans I'Église du Christ ?
Assurément oui, et un progrès très grand. » Tantôt on insistait sur la suite :
« À condition que ce progrès soit réellement un progrès pour la foi et non un
changement… (Un progrès) dans le même sens, selon le même dogme et la même
pensée. » À retenir la seule affirmation du progrès et l'analogie vitale par
laquelle l'illustre Vincent de Lérins, on pouvait légitimer une évolution
créatrice de la foi, ce que firent certains modernistes : mais c'était
évidemment contredire le canon lérinien et livrer la pensée de Vincent à sa
propre contradiction. À trop insister sur les conditions qui limitent le progrès
dans la foi, on tombait à l'inverse, dans le risque de reprendre ce que l'on
venait de concéder.
La pensée exacte de
Vincent, si l'on se souvient du canon lérinien, semble pencher, en dépit du
lyrisme avec lequel il parle du progrès, vers un progrès bien canalisé :
progrès des formulations, de la conceptualisation, des langages, mais sans
doute pas un progrès des affirmations. Newman l'a bien compris ainsi et a
volontairement développé la pensée de Vincent au-delà de celle-ci. II semble
légitime de le faire, compte tenu de ce qu'un théologien du 5e siècle ne
pouvait faire face aux problèmes du dogme catholique dans son développement
ultérieur [NOTE 5].
Ce que dit Vincent de
Lérins du progrès dans la foi permet du moins de lever largement le soupçon de
fixisme que l'examen du Canon lérinien faisait peser sur lui. C'est en
confrontant et en faisant fonctionner ensemble les deux critères que l'on a
quelque chance de saisir la pensée profonde de Vincent.
Écriture, Tradition,
règles du dogme catholique
Vincent de Lérins est
amené à constater que les hérétiques s'appuient sur l'Écriture pour contredire
l'orthodoxie : « Ils se servent de l'Écriture, et avec passion ! On les voit
courir de livre en livre à travers la Sainte loi, de Moïse aux livres des Rois,
des Psaumes aux Apôtres, des Évangiles aux Prophètes ! » (chap. 25). Il importe
donc d'établir un critère de l'usage de l'Écriture pour établir l'authenticité
de la foi catholique. Il ne vient pas à l'esprit de Vincent de minimiser si peu
que ce soit l'importance de l'Écriture, qu'il appelle « la loi de Dieu ». Pour
lui l'Écriture, en elle-même, témoigne de la véritable foi. Mais il faut la
garantir contre les interprétations erronées, et pour cela confronter les dires
de l'Écriture avec les affirmations de la tradition de l'Église catholique
ainsi qu'avec les enseignements des Conciles si il y en a. Ainsi s'esquisse
dans le Commonitorium le principe d'une herméneutique ecclésiale qui se
développera après la Réforme protestante.
Certains passages de
l'ouvrage pourraient accréditer la position des deux sources de la foi :
Écriture et Tradition. Il ne semble pas que ce soit la pensée de Vincent de
Lérins. Parfois il emploie Tradition au sens fondamental, déjà accrédité par
Irénée, que devait remettre en valeur le Concile de Vatican II : en ce sens où
l'Ecriture fait partie de la Tradition. En d'autres passages, la Tradition est
constituée par le témoignage des docteurs et des saints — les Pères — qui se
joints à l'Écriture pour une mutuelle reconnaissance : « Qui sont ces Pères
dont nous confrontons les idées ? Ce sont eux qui ont constamment vécu dans la
foi et la communion catholiques : ceux qui ont constamment enseigné et sont
toujours demeurés dans la foi qui sont morts fidèles au Christ ou qui ont
mérité le bonheur de mourir pour lui » (chap. 28) [NOTE 6].
En même temps qu'à la
Tradition des Pères, Vincent fait appel à l'autorité du Concile universel pour
appuyer l'Écriture et guider son interprétation. Il pensait, sans nul doute,
aux Conciles de Nicée et d'Ephèse, dont il connaissait bien les enseignements.
« L'Église universelle et, plus spécialement, tout le corps des évêques,
doivent d'abord posséder une connaissance pure de la religion et ensuite la
transmettre à autrui » (chap. 22). Et au chapitre 29 : « Il faut prendre garde
à deux choses, si l'on ne veut pas devenir hérétique : d'abord, existe-t-il un
ancien décret, pris par tous les évêques de l'Église catholique, sous
l'autorité d'un Concile universel ? Ensuite, si une nouvelle question se
présente sur laquelle un Concile ne se soit pas encore prononcé, il faut
recourir à l'opinion des Pères, mais de ceux-là seuls qui, à leur époque et en
leur pays sont demeurés dans la communion et la foi et passent pour des maîtres
éprouvés. Ce qu'il ont affirmé en plein accord peut être tenu pour vrai et
catholique. » On voit ici comment la Tradition des Pères et le Concile se
renvoient l'un à l'autre pour se confronter ensemble à l'Écriture : « Il est
indispensable que l'exégèse scripturaire soit guidée par une seule règle, celle
du sens ecclésial, tout particulièrement dans les problèmes qui constituent les
fondements même du dogme catholique » (chap. 29).
[PAGE 20] Nous voulions
seulement, dans cette introduction, éveiller le désir de lire le Commonitorium,
en manifestant l'actualité des problèmes théologiques qui y étaient traités. Le
lecteur contemporain, si il veut bien passer sur la rhétorique anti-hérétique
pour faire siennes les questions posées par Vincent de Lérins, et les prolonger,
ne sera pas déçu, croyons-nous.
P.A. Liégé, 1978
NOTES de l'introduction
1. Cf. F. BRUNETIÈRE et
P. DE LABRIOLLE, Saint Vincent de Lérins, Bloud, 1906.
2. Excellentes
introduction, traduction et annotation du Commonitorium par M.
MESLIN, Editions du Soleil Levant, Namur, 1959.
3. Cf. Y. CONGAR, La
foi et la théologie, Desclée, 1952 (pages 151-154, Note additionnelle : Le «
Canon lérinien »). — W.S. REILLY, Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab
omnibus : étude sur la règle de foi de Vincent de Lérins, Paris, 1903.
4. On notera avec intérêt
que le chapitre 23 du Commonitorium figure parmi les lectures de
la Liturgia Horarium, Rome, 1971 (traduction française Livre des
Jours, Desclée, 1976) pour le Vendredi de la 27e semaine du temps ordinaire.
5. J.H. NEWMAN, Essai
sur le développement, trad. J. Goudon, Paris, 1948.
6. Cf. J. MADOZ, El
concepto de la Tradición en S. Vincente de Lérins, Rome, Gregoriana, 1933.
SOURCE : http://www.migne.fr/Commonitorium.htm
Saint Vincent de Lérins
Mort en 450 à Lérins.
Saint Vincent, né à Toul, frère de saint Loup,
s’engagea dans l’armée et mena une vie relâchée. Quittant le monde, il gagne le
monastère de Lérins, où son frère avait résidé un an. Ces frères furent
ordonnés prêtres, Loup était devenu évêque de Troyes, tandis que Vincent
demeure cénobite sur l’île de Lérins. Il s’occupa notamment avec Salvien de
l’éducation des deux fils de saint Eucher et de Galla : saint Salon de
Genève et saint Véran de Vence.
Les récents numéros de L’Etoile de la Mer de
décembre et d’avril mentionnaient les hérésies d’alors, auxquelles s’adjoint en
428 le nestorianisme. Nestorius, patriarche de Constantinople, prélat le plus
éminent après le pape, prétend que le Christ n’est Dieu qu’en vertu de ses
mérites ! Arianisme subtil, le nestorianisme est condamné au concile
d’Ephèse en 431, lequel concile condamne et dépose Nestorius de son siège
patriarcal, et promeut l’invocation : Sainte Marie, Mère de Dieu,
priez pour nous, pauvres pécheurs.
Face à tant d’hérésies troublant nombre de chrétiens,
Vincent écrit en 434 un Commonitorium (aide-mémoire) apportant la
lumière.
Vincent écrit que « la foi pure se munit, avec
l’aide du Seigneur, de l’autorité de la loi divine et de la tradition de
l’Eglise catholique[1],
contre les pièges des hérétiques… Dans l’Eglise catholique, il faut tenir
avec le plus grand soin ce qui a été cru partout, ce qui a été cru toujours,
et ce qui a été cru par tous. [2] Ceci
est en effet vraiment et proprement catholique… Or nous suivons l’antiquité, si
nous ne nous détachons pas des sens que nos maîtres et pères ont manifestement
célébrés ; nous suivons aussi ce même consentement, si, dans cette même
ancienneté, nous suivons toutes les sentences et les définitions de tous ou de
presque tous les évêques ou docteurs… »
IX Annoncer donc quelque chose d’autre aux
Chrétiens catholiques que ce qu’ils ont reçu n’a jamais été permis, n’est
permis nulle part, et ne sera jamais permis ; et jamais il n’a pas été
opportun, ni nulle part il n’est pas opportun, ni jamais il ne sera pas
opportun d’anathématiser ceux qui annoncent quelque chose d’autre que ce qui a
été reçu une première fois… Est vrai et légitime catholique qui juge qu’il lui
faut tenir et croire tout ce que l’église catholique savait universellement et
anciennement être tenu…. Ainsi, il exhorte à suivre la tradition de l’Eglise
Catholique dans l’interprétation des Saintes Ecritures. Saint Vincent remarque
que deux Pères de l’Eglise, Tertullien et Origène, devinrent hérétiques, et
livre ce commentaire à leur sujet : tous les vrais catholiques
doivent recevoir les Docteurs avec l’Eglise, mais non pas abandonner la foi de
l’Eglise avec les Docteurs.
X Pourquoi Dieu permet-il que des personnages
éminents, occupant un rang dans l’Eglise, annoncent aux catholiques des
doctrines nouvelles ?
XXII 6–7 Taille les pierres précieuses du dogme
divin, sertis-les fidèlement, orne-les sagement ; ajoutes‑y de l’éclat, de
la grâce, de la beauté ; que par tes explications, on comprenne plus
clairement ce qui, auparavant, était cru plus obscurément[3]. Que
grâce à toi la postérité se félicite d’avoir compris ce que l’antiquité
vénérait sans le comprendre. Mais enseigne les mêmes choses que tu as apprises,
dis les choses d’une manière nouvelle sans dire pourtant des choses nouvelles.
Vincent répond à l’objection suivante : XXIII Quelqu’un
dira peut-être : Ne peut-il donc y avoir de progrès pour la religion dans
l’Eglise du Christ ? – Qu’il y en ait, et qu’il y en ait beaucoup. Car qui
serait si malveillant pour les hommes, si maudit de Dieu, que d’empêcher ce
progrès ? Mais, il faut néanmoins que ce soit vraiment un progrès, et non
pas un changement. Ce qui constitue le progrès d’une chose, c’est qu’elle
prenne de l’accroissement, sans changer d’essence ; ce qui en fait au
contraire un changement, c’est qu’elle passe d’une nature à une autre.
2 Il est donc nécessaire que l’intelligence, la
science, la sagesse de chacun comme de tous, d’un seul homme comme de l’Eglise
entière, suivant l’âge et le siècle, croissent et grandissent beaucoup, mais
toutefois en leur espèce, c’est-à-dire, en conservant la même doctrine, le
même sens, la même pensée. [4]
4–5 Que la religion des âmes imite l’état du
corps, qui, tout en se développant et en grandissant avec les années, ne laisse
pas néanmoins d’être le même. Il y a bien de la différence entre la fleur de la
jeunesse et la maturité de la vieillesse ; mais, celui qui est aujourd’hui
vieillard, n’est pas autre chose que celui qui fut autrefois adolescent ;
en sorte qu’un seul et même individu a beau changer d’état et de disposition,
il ne change néanmoins ni de nature, ni de personne. Les membres sont petits
dans un enfant à la mamelle, grands dans un jeune homme ; ils sont
toutefois les mêmes dans l’un et dans l’autre. Autant les enfants ont de
membres, autant en ont les hommes ; et s’il est des parties qui se
développent dans un âge plus mûr, elles existaient toutefois dans le principe
de leur origine, en sorte que rien de nouveau ne paraît dans un vieillard, qui
ne fût caché en lui lorsqu’il était enfant. Ainsi donc, il n’en faut point
douter, la droite et légitime règle d’un beau développement, l’ordre parfait et
invariable d’une belle croissance, c’est quand le nombre des années vient à
découvrir dans un jeune homme les parties et les formes que la sagesse du
Créateur avait d’abord cachées dans un enfant. Mais si l’homme, avec le temps,
se change en une figure qui ne soit pas la sienne ; si le nombre de ses
membres augmente ou diminue, il faut bien, dans ce cas, ou que tout le corps
périsse [5], ou qu’il devienne monstrueux, ou qu’il
s’affaiblisse tout au moins.
9 De même, le dogme de la religion chrétienne
doit suivre ces lois de perfectionnement, se consolider par les années,
s’étendre avec le temps, s’élever avec l’âge [6],
mais demeurer cependant pure et intacte, se montrer pleine et entière dans toutes
le mesures de ses parties, comme dans ses sens et ses membres en quelque sorte,
n’admettre aucun changement, ne rien perdre de ce qui lui est propre, et ne
subir aucune variation dans les points définis.
Nos ancêtres ont jadis ensemencé le champ de l’Eglise
avec le blé de la foi. Il serait injuste et inconvenant pour nous, leurs
descendants, de récolter l’ivraie de l’erreur au lieu du froment de la vérité.
Au contraire, il est normal et il convient que la fin ne renie pas l’origine,
et qu’au moment où le blé de la doctrine a levé, nous moissonnions l’épi du
dogme, Ainsi, lorsque le grain des semailles a évolué avec le temps et se
réjouit maintenant de mûrir, rien cependant ne change des caractères propres
du germe. (… )
14–15 Si l’on tolérait une seule fois cette
licence de l’erreur impie (c’est-à-dire la nouveauté), je tremble de dire toute
l’étendue des dangers qui en résulteraient et n’iraient à rien de moins qu’à
détruire, à anéantir, à abolir la religion. Sitôt qu’on aura cédé sur un point
quelconque du dogme catholique, un autre suivra, puis un autre encore, puis
d’autres et d’autres encore. Ces abdications deviendraient, en quelque sorte,
coutumières et licites. De plus, si les parties sont ainsi rejetées une à une,
qu’arriverait-il à la fin ? Le tout sera rejeté de même. Or si, d’autre
part, on commence à mêler le nouveau à l’ancien, les idées étrangères et les
idées domestiques, le profane et le sacré, nécessairement cette habitude se
propagera au point de tout envahir.
(… ) Pour l’Eglise du Christ, soigneuse et prudente
gardienne des dogmes à elle confiés, elle n’y change rien, n’y diminue rien,
n’y ajoute rien ; elle n’en retranche pas ce qui est nécessaire, elle
n’introduit rien de superflu, elle ne laisse rien perdre de qui lui appartient,
elle n’usurpe rien d’étranger ; 17 (… ) Il est légitime que ces
anciens dogmes de la philosophie céleste se dégrossissent, se liment, se
polissent avec le développement des temps : ce qui est criminel, c’est de
les altérer, de les tronquer, de les mutiler. Ils peuvent recevoir plus
d’évidence, plus de lumière et de précision, oui ; mais il est
indispensable qu’ils gardent leur plénitude, leur intégrité, leur sens propre…
mais elle met toute son industrie à traiter fidèlement et sagement les choses
anciennes, à façonner et à polir ce qu’il put y avoir autrefois de commencé,
d’ébauché ; à consolider, à affermir ce qui fut exprimé, développé ;
à garder ce qui fut confirmé, défini[7]. 18–19 Quel
but s’est-elle efforcée d’atteindre dans les décrets des conciles, sinon de
proposer à une croyance plus réfléchie ce qui était cru auparavant en toute
simplicité ; de prêcher avec plus d’insistance les vérités prêchées jusque
là d’une façon plus molle, de faire honorer plus diligemment ce qu’auparavant
on honorait avec une plus tranquille sécurité ? Voilà ce que,
provoquée par les nouveautés des hérétiques, l’Eglise catholique a toujours
fait par les décrets de ses conciles, et rien de plus : ce qu’elle avait
reçu des ancêtres par l’intermédiaire de la seule tradition, elle a voulu le
remettre aussi, en des documents écrits, à la postérité ; elle a résumé en
quelques mots quantité de choses et, le plus souvent pour en éclaircir
l’intelligence, elle a caractérisé par des termes nouveaux et appropriés tel
article de foi qui n’avait rien de nouveau[8].
XXVI Voici par quelles promesses les hérétiques
ont l’habitude de duper étrangement ceux qui ne se tiennent pas sur leurs
gardes. Ils osent promettre et enseigner que, dans leur Eglise, c’est-à-dire
dans le conventicule de leur communion, on trouve une grâce divine
considérable, spéciale, tout-à-fait personnelle ; en sorte que, sans aucun
travail, sans aucun effort, sans aucune peine, et quand bien même ils ne
demanderaient, ni ne chercheraient, ni ne frapperaient, tous ceux qui sont des
leurs reçoivent de Dieu une telle assistance que, soutenus par la main des
anges, autrement dit couverts de la protection des anges ; ils ne peuvent
jamais heurter du pied contre une pierre, c’est-à-dire être jamais victime d’un
scandale.
XXVIII Il nous faut rechercher avec un grand zèle
et suivre certainement et principalement comme règle de foi le consensus ancien
des saints pères… Tout ce que tel aura pensé en dehors de l’opinion
générale ou même contre elle, quelque saint et savant qu’il soit, fût-il
évêque, fût-il confesseur et martyr, doit être relégué parmi les menues
opinions personnelles secrètes et privées, dépourvues de l’autorité qui
s’attache à une opinion commune, publique et générale. N’allons pas, pour le
plus grand péril de notre salut éternel, agir selon l’habitude sacrilège des
hérétiques et des schismatiques et renoncer à l’antique vérité d’un dogme
universel pour suivre l’erreur nouvelle d’un seul homme.
S. Vincent signa son ouvrage sous le nom de Peregrinus
(nom courant de l’époque qui signifie pèlerin) ; il décéda le 24 mai 450, mais
le diocèse de Fréjus le fête le 7 juin. Ses reliques demeurent à Lérins.
Abbé Laurent Serres-Ponthieu, prêtre de la Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint-Pie X
Notes de bas de page
[1] Suivant la maxime du pape saint Etienne 1er au sujet du baptême des hérétiques : Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est.
[2] In ipsa item catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.
[3] Intellegatur, te exponente, illustrius, quod antea obscurius credebatur.
[4] Crescat igitur oportet et multum vehementerque proficiat, tam singulorum quam omnium, tam unius hominis quam totius Ecclesiae, aetatum ac saeculorum gradibus intellegentia, scientia, sapientia : sed in suo dumtaxat genere, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia.
[5] Cancer, gangrène.
[6] Ita etiam christianae religionis dogma sequatur has decet proféctuum leges, ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate.
[7] Omni industria hoc unum studet ut vetera fideliter sapienterque tractando, si qua sunt illa antiquitus informata et inchoata, accuret et poliat, si qua jam expressa et enucleata, consolidet et firmet ; si qua jam confirmata et definita, instituat.
[8] Et plerumque propter intelligentiae lucem non novum fidei sensum novae appellationis proprietate signando.
SOURCE : https://laportelatine.org/spiritualite/vies-de-saints/saint-vincent-de-lerins
« Saint Loup », début XVIe s., calcaire, porche de l'église de la Nativité, Noës-près-Troyes (Aube)
Also known as
Leu
Loup
Lupo
formerly 24 July
Profile
Married the
sister of Saint Hilary
for seven years at which point they separated so that Lupus could become
a monk at Lérins
Abbey. Bishop of Troyes, France in 426. Travelled with Saint Germanus
of Auxerre to fight Pelagianism in
Britain. Saved Troyes from
the attack of Attila the Hun in 453.
Born
–
priest or bishop celebrating Mass as
a diamond falls
from the sky to land on the altar or
directly into the chalice
priest or bishop holding
a chalice with
a diamond in
it
priest or bishop giving
a diamond to
a king
Additional Information
Lives
of the Saints, by Father Alban
Butler
Lives
of the Saints, by Father Francis
Xavier Weninger
Saints
of the Day, by Katherine Rabenstein
Short
Lives of the Saints, by Eleanor Cecilia Donnelly
books
Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Saints
Oxford Dictionary of Saints, by David Hugh Farmer
Saints
and Their Attributes, by Helen Roeder
other sites in english
images
sitios en español
Martirologio Romano, 2001 edición
sites en français
fonti in italiano
nettsteder i norsk
MLA Citation
“Saint Lupus of Troyes“. CatholicSaints.Info. 21
January 2024. Web. 27 June 2025.
<https://catholicsaints.info/saint-lupus-of-troyes/>
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/saint-lupus-of-troyes/
Statue
de saint Loup. Tréguier, cathédrale Saint-Tugdual
St. Lupus
Feastday: July 29
Birth: 383
Death: 478
Lupus, called in French
"Loup", was born at Toul, Gaul. He married the sister of St. Hilary of
Arles, but after six years of marriage they parted by mutual agreement. He gave
his wealth to the poor, entered Lerins Abbey under
St. Honoratus, and about 426 was named Bishop of
Troyes. In 429, he accompanied St. Germanus of
Auxerre to Britain to combat Pelagianism there, and on his return, devoted
himself to his episcopal duties. When Attila invaded Gaul, he persuaded him in
453 to spare Troyes, though he took Lupus with
him as hostage. When Attila was defeated at Chalons, Lupus was
accused of helping him escape and was forced to leave Troyes. He lived as a
hermit for two years and then was allowed to return to Troyes. Many
scholars doubt the
veracity of the account of the Attila incident. His feast day is July 29th.
SOURCE : https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=712
Statue
de Saint-Leu. Église Notre-Dame Beauficel-en-Lyons
Lupus (Leu, Loup) of
Troyes
B (RM)
Born at Toul, France, c.
383; died at Troyes, c. 478. The noble, eloquent, and erudite Saint Lupus had
all the qualities needed to succeed in his chosen profession of law. He
practiced for some time and earned a good reputation as a barrister. Lupus
married Pimeniola, a sister of Saint Hilary of Arles. Six years later (426)
husband and wife took a mutual vow of perpetual continence and Lupus became a
monk at Lérins with his wife's blessing. He sold much of his estate and gave it
to the poor. For about a year he lived under obedience to Saint Honoratus until
he was named bishop of Troyes and Honoratus, bishop of Arles.
It is said that when
Honoratus was named bishop, Lupus returned to Maçon in Burgundy to dispose of
an estate. En route back to Lérins, he was met by deputies of the Church of
Troyes, bringing news of the death of Saint Ursus and his own selection to the
see. In his humility, he initially refused but finally compromised by receiving
consecration at the hands of the prelates of Sens and continuing the practices
of a monk. Even as bishop he wore only sackcloth and a single tunic, lay upon
boards, prayed throughout every other night, often fasted completely for three
days and then ate only barley bread.
Throughout his
episcopate, he labored with apostolic zeal despite his austerities. Lupus
displayed such prudence and piety that Saint Sidonius Apollinaris calls him,
"The father of fathers and bishop of bishops, the chief of the Gallican
prelates, the rule of manners, the pillar of truth, the friend of God, and the
intercessor to him for men." He spared no pains to save one lost sheep,
and his work was often crowned with a success which seemed miraculous. For
example, when a man named Gallus forsook his wife and withdrew to Clermont,
Lupus wrote to him through Bishop Sidonius of Clermont. After Gallus read the
prudent letter that was tempered with sweetness he immediately returned to his
wife. Upon witnessing this, Sidonius cried out, "What is more wonderful
than a single reprimand, which both affrights a sinner into compunction and
makes him love his censor!"
This saint is commonly
identified with the Lupus who accompanied Saint Germanus of Auxerre on his
first visit to Britain to rid the country of Pelagianism. Near the end of the
4th century, the British monk Pelagius and the Scottish Celestius introduced
their heresy into Africa, Italy, and the East. They denied the corruption of
human nature by original sin, and the necessity of Divine grace. The British prelates
asked those of Gaul for assistance in eradicating this evil, and, during the
council of Arles in 429, Germanus and Lupus were deputed. They accepted the
commission with zeal and ended the heresy through their prayers, preaching, and
miracles.
It was said that when
Attila, calling himself 'the Scourge of God,' and his Huns overran Rheims,
Cambray, Besançon, Auxerre, and Langres in 451, and was threatening Troyes,
Lupus took a decisive part in saving his province from the invaders, but the
story is almost certainly a fiction. It says that Lupus prostrated himself in
prayer for many days, fasted, and wept that God might spare his people. Then he
dressed in the full episcopal regalia and went to meet Attila. The story
continues that Attila was moved by reverence at the sight of the bishop at the
head of a procession of his clergy. After a conversation in which Lupus reminds
Attila that he can do only what God allows, Attila spared the city. It goes on
to say that when Attila was defeated by the Roman general Aetius at Chalons,
Attila requested that Lupus accompany him in retreat as far as the Rhein
because he believed that the presence of the prelate would protect him and his
army. The Romans, believing that Lupus was helping the Huns to escape, forced the
bishop to leave Troyes for two years during which time he lived as a hermit in
the mountains.
He died after having
governed the see of Troyes for 52 years. At first he was buried in the
Augustinian church of Saint Martin in Areis, then out of the walls of Troyes.
The head of Saint Lupus is housed in one of the richest shrines in France. It
is in the form of a bishop made of silver and adorned with jewels, including
diamonds. The rest of his relics are in another silver shrine in the
Augustinian abbey church of Saint Lupus. Many churches in England bear his
name, as do the members of the family surnamed 'Sentlow,' which is derived from
'Saint Leu' (Attwater, Benedictines, Encyclopedia, Farmer, Husenbeth).
In art, Saint Lupus is
depicted with a diamond falling from heaven as he celebrates Mass. He may be
shown (1) holding a chalice with a diamond in it or (2) at the altar, giving a
diamond to a king (Roeder).
SOURCE : http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0729.shtml
.jpg)
Trésor
de la cathédrale Saint-Pierre-et-Saint-Paul de Troyes (Aube, France) :
statue de saint Loup
Treasure of Saints Peter and Paul cathedral of Troyes (Aube, France) : statue of Saint Lupus
Saint Lupus
Lupus (383 – 478),
called in French "Loup", was born at Toul, Gaul. He married the
sister of St. Hilary of Arles, but after six years of marriage they parted by
mutual agreement. He gave his wealth to the poor, entered Lerins Abbey under
St. Honoratus, and about 426 was named Bishop of Troyes. In 429, he accompanied
St. Germanus of Auxerre to Britain to combat Pelagianism there, and on his
return, devoted himself to his episcopal duties. When Attila invaded Gaul, he
persuaded him in 453 to spare Troyes, though he took Lupus with him as hostage.
When Attila was defeated at Chalons, Lupus was accused of helping him escape
and was forced to leave Troyes. He lived as a hermit for two years and then was
allowed to return to Troyes. Many scholars doubt the veracity of the account of
the Attila incident. His feast day is July 29th.
SOURCE : http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=712
Statue de Saint Loup dans une niche de l'église Saint Saturnin de Thaumiers
From his ancient accurate
life, extant in Surius, and illustrated with notes by F. Bosch the Bollandist,
Julij, t. 7, p. 19. See also Ceillier, t. 15, p. 40. Tillemont, t. 16, p. 127.
Rivet. Hist. Littér, t. 2, p. 486. Calmet, Hist. de Lorraine, t. 1, l. 6, n.
44, p. 274; and Camuzat, Catal. Episc. Trecens. p. 153, et Antiquitates
Tricassinæ, &c., 8vo. 1610.
A.D. 478.
ST. LUPUS, called in the
French St. Leu, was born of a noble family at Toul, and being learned and
eloquent, pleaded at the bar for some years with great reputation. He married
Pimeniola, a virtuous sister of St. Hilary of Arles. After six years spent in
holy wedlock, fired with an ardent desire of serving God with greater
perfection, they parted by mutual consent, and made a mutual vow of perpetual
continency. Lupus betook himself to the famous abbey of Lerins, then governed
by St. Honoratus. He lived there a year, and added many austerities to those
prescribed by the rule, yet always regulated his fervour by the advice of St.
Honoratus. He sold great part of his estate for the benefit of the poor, when
he renounced the world. After the first year, when St. Honoratus was made
bishop of Arles, he went to Macon in Burgundy to dispose of an estate he had
left there in charitable uses. He was preparing to return to Lerins when he was
met by the deputies of the church of Troyes, which, upon the death of St.
Ursus, in 426, had chosen him bishop, the eighth from St. Amator, founder of
this see. His resistance was to no purpose, and he was consecrated by the
prelates of the province of Sens. In this dignity he continued the same
practices of humility, mortification, and as much as possible even of poverty.
He never wore any other garments than a sackcloth and a single tunic, lay upon
boards, and alloted every second night entire to watching in prayer. He often
passed three days without taking any nourishment, and after so rigorous a fast
allowed himself nothing but a little barley bread. Thus he lived above twenty
years; labouring at the same time in all his pastoral functions with a zeal
worthy an apostle. 1
About the latter end of
the fourth century, Pelagius, a British monk, and Celestius a Scot, broached
their heresy in Africa, Italy, and the East, denying the corruption of human
nature by original sin, and the necessity of divine grace. One Agricola, a
disciple of these heresiarchs, had spread this poison in Britain. The Catholics
addressed themselves to their neighbours the bishops of Gaul, begging their
assistance to check the growing evil. An assembly of bishops, probably held at
Arles in 429, deputed St. Germanus of Auxerre and St. Lupus of Troyes, to go
over into our island to oppose this mischief. The two holy pastors, burning
with zeal for the glory of Christ, accepted the commission the more willingly
as it seemed laborious and painful. They came over and entirely banished the
heresy by their prayers, preaching, and miracles. St. Lupus, after his return,
set himself with fresh vigour to reform the manners of his own flock. In this
he displayed such great prudence and piety, that St. Sidonius Apollinaris calls
him: “The father of fathers and bishop of bishops, the chief of the Gallican
prelates, the rule of manners, the pillar of truth, the friend of God, and the
intercessor to him for men.” 1 He spared no pains to save one lost sheep, and
his labours were often crowned with a success which seemed miraculous. Among
other instances it is recorded that a certain person of his diocess, named
Gallus, had forsaken his wife and withdrawn to Clermont. St. Lupus could not
see this soul perish, but wrote to St. Sidonius, then bishop of Clermont, a
strong letter so prudently tempered with sweetness, that Gallus by reading it
was at once terrified and persuaded, and immediately set out to return to his
wife. Upon which St. Sidonius cried out: “What is more wonderful than a single
reprimand, which both affrights a sinner into compunction, and makes him love
his censor!” This letter of St. Lupus and several others are lost; but we have
one by which he congratulated Sidonius upon his promotion to his see, having
passed from a secular prefecture or government to the episcopacy, which charge
he shows to be laborious, difficult, and dangerous. He strongly exhorts him,
above all things, to humility. This letter was written in 471, and is given us
by D’Achery. 2
God at that time
afflicted the western empire with grievous calamities, and Attila with a
numberless army of Huns overran Gaul, calling himself, “The Scourge of God,” to
punish the sins of the people. Rheims, Cambray, Besançon, Auxerre, and Langres
had already felt the effects of his fury, and Troyes was the next place
threatened. The holy bishop had recourse to God in behalf of his people by
fervent prayer, which he continued for many days, prostrate on the ground,
fasting and weeping without intermission. At length putting on his bishop’s
attire, full of confidence in God, he went out to meet the barbarian at the
head of his army. Attila, though an infidel, seeing him, was moved to reverence
the man of God, who came up to him boldly, followed by his clergy in
procession, with a cross carried before them. He spoke to the king first, and
asked him who he was? “I am,” said Attila, “the scourge of God.” “Let us
respect whatever comes to us from God,” replied the bishop; “but if you are the
scourge with which heaven chastises us, remember you are to do nothing but what
that almighty hand, which governs and moves you, permits.” Attila, struck with
these words, promised the prelate to spare the city. Thus the saint’s prayer
was a better defence than the most impregnable ramparts. It protected a city
which had neither arms, nor garrison, nor walls, against an army of at least
four hundred thousand men, which, after plundering Thrace, Illyricum, and
Greece, crossing the Rhine, had filled with blood and desolation the most
flourishing countries of France. Attila, turning with his army from Troyes, was
met on the plains of Chalons by Aëtius, the brave Roman general, and there
defeated. In his retreat he sent for St. Lupus, and caused him to accompany him
as far as the Rhine, imagining that the presence of so great a servant of God
would be a safeguard to himself and his army; and sending him back he
recommended himself to his prayers. This action of the good bishop was
misconstrued by the Roman generals, as if he had favoured the escape of the
barbarian, and he was obliged to leave Troyes for two years. He spent that time
in religious retirement, in great austerity and continual contemplation. When
his charity and patience had at length overcome the envy and malice of men, he
went back to his church, which he governed fifty-two years, dying in the year
479. The chief part of his body is kept in a rich silver shrine; his skull and
principal part of his head in another far more precious, in the figure of a
bishop, formed of silver, adorned with jewels and diamonds, said by some to be
the richest in France. Both are in the abbatial church of regular canons of St.
Austin, which bears the name of St. Lupus. He was first buried in the church of
St. Martin in Areis, of the same Order, then out of the walls, though long
since within them. Many churches in England bear his name. The family name of
Sentlow among us is derived from St. Leu, as Camden remarks. 3
It was by powerful prayer
that the saints performed such great wonders. By it Moses could ward off the
destruction of many thousands, and by a kind of holy violence disarm the divine
vengeance. 3 By it Elias called down fire and rain from heaven. By it Manasses
in chains found mercy, and recovered his throne; Ezechias saw his health
restored, and life prolonged: the Ninivites were preserved from destruction;
Daniel was delivered from the lions, St. Peter from his chains, and St. Thecla
from the fire. By it Judith and Esther saved God’s people. By the same have the
servants of God so often commanded nature, defeated armies, removed mountains,
cast out devils, cured the sick, raised the dead, drawn down divine blessings,
and averted the most dreadful judgments from the world, which, as an ancient
father says, subsists by the prayers of the saints. 4
Note 1. B. 6, ep. 1.
Note 2. Spicileg. t. 5,
p. 579.
Note 3. Exod. xxxii. 10.
Note 4. Sanctorum
precibus stat mundus. Rufin. Præf. in Vitas Patrum.
Rev. Alban Butler
(1711–73). Volume VII: July. The Lives of the Saints. 1866.
SOURCE : http://www.bartleby.com/210/7/241.html
_-_04.jpg)
Dans
une niche du retable du maître-autel, à gauche du tableau central, statue de saint
Loup en costume d'évêque. Église Saint-Michel de Saint-Michel-en-Grève, Côtes-d'Armor
Weninger’s
Lives of the Saints – Saint Lupus, Bishop of Troyes
Article
Saint Lupus was bom in
Lotharingia or Lorraine, not far from Metz. Having early lost his father, an
uncle of his charged himself with his education. Arrived at manhood, he married
a sister of the holy bishop Saint Hilary; but, with her consent, left her after
seven years, as both had resolved, in future, to serve God more perfectly in
retirement from the world. Hence Lupus repaired to the famous monastery at
Lerins, which, in his time, was celebrated above all others on account of its
discipline. He remained there one year, eagerly striving after spiritual
perfection; then went to Macon, sold his estate and gave the money to the poor.
Just at that time, the episcopal See of Troyes became vacant, and a worthy
successor to the late Prelate was sought for. Lupus had already gained such
high repute for his virtues and remarkable learning, that the Clergy who had to
choose the new bishop, hesitated not to offer him the See. He received it,
humbly recognizing in the election the divine Will, and hoping to be thus able
to work more effectually for the salvation of souls. This pious hope was not
deceived. He preached daily to those in his charge, and instructed them with
great solicitude in the true faith, and in the manner of leading a pious life;
by which means he converted many hardened sinners, strengthened those whose
faith was weak, and animated others to be more zealous in the service of the
Most High. The example of his holy life gave power and persuasion to his
sermons and instructions. He occupied the greater part of the night in
devotional exercises, and the few hours that he gave to sleep were not passed
in a soft bed, but upon hard boards. He fasted almost daily, sometimes touched
no food for several successive days; and continually wore a rough hair-shirt.
The poor, the sick and prisoners received almost his entire income.
The temporal and
spiritual welfare of his flock was his only pleasure, his only thought, and he
guarded and watched over them like a true Shepherd and Apostle. God, however,
soon sent him an opportunity to manifest his zeal in other regions.
In England, there was, in
those days, a certain heretic, named Pelagius, who disseminated his doctrines
everywhere, without fear or shame, and the bishops were not able to oppose him
with sufficient force. Hence they wrote to the bishops of France, to send some
men who could assist them in withstanding this more and more wide-spreading
heresy, and to strengthen the Catholics in their faith. Saint Lupus and Saint Germanus,
bishop of Auxerre, were chosen by the bishops of France for this holy work, and
after the Pope had approved of the choice, both set out upon their journey,
animated with great hope. A terrible storm which they encountered on sea,
endangered the lives of all on board; but when Saint Lupus poured a few drops
of the sacred oil he had with him upon the foaming waves, the sea became
suddenly as calm as a lake, and the holy men arrived safely in England. They
immediately began their pious labor,. confuted with great energy the heretical
doctrines, strengthened the Catholics in their faith, and restored the former
peace to the Church. Most of the heretics renounced their error, others
secretly left the country. Some of them, however, sought to protect themselves;
by arms and called upon the Saxons to help them. This savage people came very
willingly, made an inroad into the land and caused great damage by plunder and
devastation. The two holy bishops, Lupus and Germanus, assembled all the
Catholics, and having filled them with courage and fortitude, marched at their
head against the raging enemy, attacked them fearlessly, with the repeated cry:
“Hallelujah!” and thus drove them out of the land at last. After this glorious
victory over the enemy of the true faith, the holy bishops made such
regulations as were necessary for the preservation and protection of the
Catholic Church, and then returned to France to their own Sees.
Lupus labored with his
accustomed zeal in his sacred functions; but he and his flock were, after a few
years, visited with great trials. Attila, the celebrated King of the Huns, had
invaded France with an immense army, devastating the country, wherever he went,
with fire and sword. He came to Troyes, and Saint Lupus, seeing that human aid was
powerless, turned to God, and sought His help by prayers and austere penances,
exhorting his flock to follow his example. When informed that Attila was
approaching the city, he clothed himself in his Episcopal robes, and,
accompanied by the Clergy and a great many citizens, went to meet him before
the gates of the city. “Who art thou?” he said to him with fearless dignity;
“who art thou, who so barbarously rages in cities and country, devastating so
many kingdoms, and laying them in dust and ashes, while endeavoring to subject
them to thee?” The King answered: “I am Attila, the King of the Huns, the
scourge of God.” “Come on, then,” said the Saint; “if you art the scourge of
God, who will be able to oppose thee? Welcome, scourge of the Almighty! Raise
thyself above us and lash us as much and as long as God will permit thee!”
Having thus spoken, he opened the gate of the city, and invited him to enter.
But the savage heart of Attila was suddenly changed; he spared the city and
requested the bishop to accompany him to the Rhine. This miraculous deliverance
of the city from entire destruction won for the holy bishop the greatest esteem
of all the inhabitants of the land. His flock added to the love they had always
borne him the deepest veneration, and regarding him as their deliverer, knew
not how to express their gratitude. After having for fifty-two years
administered his pastoral functions with holy zeal, he was called, by a happy
death, to. receive his eternal reward.
Practical Considerations
• Attila, the tyrant, who
devastated France, called himself, “the scourge of God.” God made use of this
scourge to punish the iniquities of men. In our times, also, the Almighty uses
different scourges to punish us. Such are, diseases, poverty, divers miseries,
misfortunes and persecutions. With these God not only punishes sinners to move
them to repentance, but also the pious, in order that they may gather more
merits for eternity. Do you feel the lashes of such a scourge? Turn to your God
who directs the strokes, and submitting to Him, say with David: “I am ready for
scourges!” (Psalm 37) It is a good sign if the Almighty scourges you in this
world, as you may thus escape the lashes with which the Divine justice
ceaselessly punishes the wicked in the other world. Pray that He may spare you
these. Say in the words of Saint Augustine: “Lord, in this world, bum and cut;
but have mercy on me in eternity.”
• Saint Lupus
administered his see fifty-two years, constantly laboring for the spiritual
welfare of his flock; after this time, he was called to receive his eternal
reward. Attila, the tyrant, reigned, according to some authors, forty-four
years, made his name renowned and feared in the world, by causing bloody wars
and destruction; and was then called by a sudden death into everlasting
punishment. He was suffocated in his own blood on the night of his wedding-day.
Consider attentively the word, “Eternal.” The labors of Saint Lupus ended, but
the reward which they gained him from God has no end. He has enjoyed his
recompense already more than a thousand years, much longer than his labor
lasted, and will be in the possession of it longer than another thousand years,
for it will never be taken from him. The reward is Eternal! The reign of
Attila, his wars, his cruelties, his spoils, his honors and enjoyments; all
have ended, but his punishment in hell is endless. It has lasted already longer
than a thousand years, will still last longer than another thousand years; for,
it will never end. The punishment is Eternal! With whom do you wish to be in
eternity? Most assuredly not with the unhappy Attila, but with Saint Lupus. If
this is your desire, work unweariedly for your salvation. You may not have
fifty-two years before you – perhaps not as many months. But if you had still
more time, if you had a thousand years to labor, what difference would it make?
The reward would still last immeasurably longer. “Consider and compare the work
or misery, and the glory or recompense;” says Saint Peter Damian. “Compare the
moment which flies, with Eternity; that which is trifling with that which is of
importance. The work thou hast to perform, the trials you hast to suffer, are
momentary; but the glory awaiting thee in heaven is Eternal. Small and trifling
is that which you must suffer; great and important that which awaits thee.”
From the life of Saint James learn: First, that pious people and Saints thought
bathing, as it is done in our time by the young, and often also by grown
persons, immodest and punishable. What am I saying? Only the pious and Saints?
Nay, even the heathens detested and punished it. They declared that those who
indulged in it, had lost all modesty. How does a Christian reply to this, of
whom Saint Paul requires before all things, modesty or retirement, when he says:
“Let ycwr modesty be known to all men.” (Philippians 4) Does anyone dare to say
that, being exposed as those generally are who bathe is not sinful? Will any
one pretend to say, that it is not sinful when we wantonly place ourselves in
danger of death? The same danger threatens those who think they understand
swimming perfectly; for it has become a proverb, “the best swimmers drown in
the water.” We hear yearly, that here and there people are drowned while
bathing. What can we think of the death of such persons? Can we reasonably
suppose that it is a happy one? Those may believe so who like, but I cannot be
convinced of it. I should fear to be condemned for all eternity, if I should
die such a death. Whoever desires to die happily, must avoid all such wantonness.
Those who have the charge of young people are obliged to prevent them from it
and to punish them accordingly, if they have indulged in such dangerous
pastime. Modest eyes will not even look at such impudence, or rather, at such
wickedness, but will endeavor to prevent it as an offence to God. Secondly,
learn how powerful are the prayers of a Saint, and what benefit they may bring
to a whole city. Thirdly, learn to praise the omnipotence of the Most High. By
small, despicable insects, He put to flight a large army with weapons and
shields. How easily can He cast you, weak, poor, miserable worm of the earth,
to the ground – yes, even into hell? Dare you offend so mighty a God? Dare you
refuse due obedience to Him, and disregard His commands? Have you not just
reason to fear Him? “What is more to be feared,” asks Saint Bernard, “than a
power which you cannot withstand, a wisdom from which nothing is concealed? If
the Lord did not possess one of these, you would have less reason to fear Him.
But since He has an eye that sees all, a hand able to do all things, you may
well fear Him.”
MLA
Citation
Father Francis Xavier
Weninger, DD, SJ. “Saint Lupus, Bishop of Troyes”. Lives
of the Saints, 1876. CatholicSaints.Info.
24 March 2018. Web. 27 June 2025.
<https://catholicsaints.info/weningers-lives-of-the-saints-saint-lupus-bishop-of-troyes/>
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/weningers-lives-of-the-saints-saint-lupus-bishop-of-troyes/
Also
known as
Vincentius
Profile
May have been born to
the Gallic nobility.
Career soldier.
Retired to become a monk at
Lerins, France. Wrote the Commonitory,
a great defense of the faith.
Born
Toulouse, France
c.445 in
Lerins, France of
natural causes
Additional
Information
Book
of Saints, by the Monks of
Ramsgate
Commonitory,
by Saint Vincent
of Lérins
Lives
of the Saints, by Father Alban
Butler
Saints
of the Day, by Katherine Rabenstein
books
Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Saints
other
sites in english
Catholic Book Blogger: Saint Vincent: Universality,
Antiquity and Consent
video
sitios
en español
Martirologio Romano, 2001 edición
sites
en français
fonti
in italiano
MLA
Citation
“Saint Vincent of
Lérins“. CatholicSaints.Info. 5 April 2024. Web. 27 June 2025.
<https://catholicsaints.info/saint-vincent-of-lerins/>
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/saint-vincent-of-lerins/
Book of Saints –
Vincent of Lerins
Article
(Saint)
(May
24) (5th
century) Of a noble family in Gaul,
he had elected a military career
for himself; but, favoured with a singular grace by Almighty God, he retired to
the Isle of Lerins, off the Mediterranean coast of France,
where he became a monk and
received priests‘
Orders. Being of great ability he occupied himself in writing on
the Church controversies of his time. His book, called the Commonitorium,
is constantly cited, even in our own day, and is undoubtedly a work of real
value. Saint Vincent died in
his monastery, A.D. 450.
MLA
Citation
Monks of Ramsgate.
“Vincent of Lerins”. Book of Saints, 1921. CatholicSaints.Info.
27 June 2017. Web. 27 June 2025.
<https://catholicsaints.info/book-of-saints-vincent-of-lerins/>
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/book-of-saints-vincent-of-lerins/
St. Vincent of Lerins
Feastday: May 24
Death: 445
Monk and writer. Born to
a noble family of
Gaul (modern France), he was probably the brother of St. Lupus of
Troyes. Vincent initially served as a soldier but gave it up to become a monk on
the island of Lerins off the southern French coast near Cannes. He was ordained
there and in about 434 authored his famous work the Commonitorium. Written
under the pseudonym Peregrinus the
Commonitorium offered a guide to orthodox teaching and included his famous
maxim, the Vincentian Canon, by which he hoped to be able to differentiate
between true and false tradition: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus
credituni est ("what has been believed everywhere, always, and by
all"). He believed that the ultimate source of Christian truth was
Holy Scripture and
that the authority of the Church was to be invoked to guarantee the correct
interpretation of Scripture. A proponent of Semi-Pelagianism, he op-posed the
Augustinian model of Grace and
was probably the recipient of Prosper of Aquitaine's Responsiones ad Capitula
Objectionum Vincentianarum.
SOURCE : https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=2006
Vincent of Lérins (RM)
Died c. 445. Vincent, a member of a noble family of Gaul, called himself a
stranger and pilgrim who had fled from the service of the world to serve Christ
in the seclusion of the cloister. He abandoned his military career to become a
monk at Lérins, off the coast of Provence, where he was ordained a priest. He
is best known as the writer of the Commonitorium or Commonitory for the
Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, in which he deals with the
doctrine of exterior development in dogma and formulates the principle that
only such doctrines are to be considered true as have been held "always,
everywhere, and by all the faithful" (Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab
omnibus)-- which is a difficult statement to interpret. He deals with the discernment
of truth from falsehood and the relationship between Scripture and Tradition,
which is needed to correctly interpret Scripture.
In reacting against some excesses of Saint Augustine of Hippo concerning
predestination, he adopted some semi-Pelagian tenets that were later considered
unorthodox. Although his views were supported by such luminaries as Saint
Robert Bellarmine, they were not quoted by Vatican II or the new Catechism of
the Catholic Church (Benedictines, Farmer).
SOURCE : http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0524.shtml
St. Vincent of Lérins
Feast on 24 May, an ecclesiastical writer
in Southern Gaul in the fifth century. His work is much better known
than his life. Almost all our information concerning him is contained in Gennadius,
"De viris illustribus" (lxiv). He entered the monastery of Lérins (today
Isle St. Honorat), where under the pseudonym of Peregrinus he wrote
his "Commonitorium" (434). He died before 450, and probably shortly
after 434. St.
Eucherius of Lyonscalls
him a holy man, conspicuous for eloquence and knowledge;
there is no reliable authority for identifyingVincent with Marius
Mercator, but it is likely, if not certain, that he is the writer against
whom Prosper, St. Augustine's friend, directs his
"Responsiones ad capitula objectionum Vincentianarum". He was
a Semipelagian and
so opposed to the doctrine of St.
Augustine. It is believed now that he uses
against Augustine his great principle: "what
all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be
regarded as true". Living in
a centre deeply imbued with Semipelagianism, Vincent's writings
show several points of doctrine akin
to Casian or to Faustus
of Riez, who became Abbot of Lérins at
the time Vincent wrote his "Commonitorium"; he uses
technical expressions similar to those employed by
the Semipelagians against Augustine; but, as Benedict
XIV observes, that happened before the controversy was decided by the Church.
The "Commonitorium"
is Vincent'sonly certainly authentic work extant. The
"Objectiones Vincentianae" are known to us only
through Prosper'srefutation. It seems probable that he collaborated, or at
least inspired, the "Objectiones Gallorum", against which
also Prosper writes his book. The work
against Photinus, Apollinaris, Nestorius, etc., which he
intended to compose (Commonitorium, xvi), has not been discovered, if it was
ever written. The "Commonitorium",destined to help the
author's memory and thus guide him in his belief according
to the traditions of theFathers, was intended to comprise two
different commonitoria, the second of which no longer exists, except in
the résumé at the end of the first, made by its
author; Vincent complains that it had been stolen from
him. Neither Gennadius,
who wrote about 467-80, nor any known manuscripts,
enable us to find any trace of it.
It is difficult to
determine in what the second "Commonitorium" precisely differed from
the first. The one preserved to us develops (chapters i-ii) a practical rule
for distinguishing heresy from true doctrine,
namely Holy
Writ, and if this does not suffice, the tradition of the Catholic Church.
Here is found the famous principle, the source of so much discussion
particularly at the time of the Vatican
Council, "Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod
semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est". Should some new doctrine arise
in one part of the Church, Donatism for
example, then firm adherence must be given to the belief of
the UniversalChurch, and supposing the new doctrine to
be of such nature as to contaminate almost the entirety of the
latter, as did Arianism,
then it is to antiquity one must cling; if even here some error is
encountered, one must stand by the general
councils and, in default of these, by the consent of those
who at diverse times and in different places remained steadfast in the
unanimity of the Catholic Faith (iii-iv). Applications of
these principles have been made by St.
Ambrose and the martyrs,
in the struggle with the Donatists and
the Arians;
and by St. Stephen who fought against rebaptism; St.
Paul also taught them (viii-ix). If God allows
newdoctrines, whether erroneous or heretical,
to be taught by distinguished men, as for example Tertullian, Origen, Nestorius, Apollinaris,
etc. (x-xix), it is but to test us. The Catholic admits
none of these new-fangled doctrines, as we see from 1
Timothy 6:20-21 (20-22, 24). Not to remove all chance of progress in
the faith,
but that it may grow after the manner of the grain and the acorn, provided it
be in the same sense, eodem sensu ac sententia; here comes the well known
passage on dogmatic development. "crescat igitur. . ."
(xxiii). The fact that heretics make
use of the Bible in
no way prevents them from being heretics,
since they put it to a use that is bad, in a way worthy of the devil (xxv-xxvi).
The Catholic interprets Scripture according
to the rules given above (xxvii-xxviii). Then follows a recapitulation of the
whole "Commonitorium" (xxix-xxx).
All this is written in
a literary style, full of classical expressions, although the line of
development is rather familiar and easy, multiplying digressions and always
more and more communicative. The two chief ideas which
have principally attracted attention in the whole book are those which
concern faithfulness to Tradition(iii and xxix) and the progress
of Catholic
doctrine (xxiii). The first one, called very often
the canon of Vincent of Lérins, which Newman considered
as more fit to determine what is not then what is the Catholic
doctrine, has been frequently involved in controversies. According to its
author, this principle ought to decide the value of a new point of doctrine prior to
the judgment of the Church. Vincent proposes
it as a means of testing a novelty arising anywhere in a point of doctrine.
This canon has been variously interpreted; some writers think that
its true meaning
is not that which answered Vincent's purpose, when making use of it
against Augustine'sideas.
It is hardly deniable that despite the lucidity of its formula, the explanation
of the principle and its application to historical facts are not
always easy; even theologians such
as de San and Franzelin,
who are generally in agreement in their views, are here at
variance. Vincent clearly shows that his principle is to be
understood is a relative and disjunctive sense, and not absolutely and by
uniting the three criteria in one:ubique, semper, ab omnibus; antiquity is not
to be understood in a relative meaning, but in the sense of a relative
consensus of antiquity. When he speaks of the beliefs generally
admitted, it is more difficult to settle whether he means beliefs explicitly
or implicitly admitted; in the latter case the canon is true and
applicable in both senses, affirmative (what is Catholic),
and negative or exclusive (what is not Catholic);
in the former, the canon is true and
applicable in its affirmative bearing; but may it be said to be so in its
negative or exclusive bearing, without placing Vincent completely at
variance with all he says on the progress of revealed doctrine?
The
"Commonitorium" has been frequently printed and translated. We may
quote here the first edition of 1528 by Sichardus and that of Baluze (1663,
1669, 1684, Paris),
the latter being the best of the three, accomplished with the help of the
four known manuscripts;
these have been used again in a new accurate collation by Rauschen, for his
edition ("Florilegium patristicum", V, Bonn, 1906); a school-edition
has been given byJulicher (Frieburg, 1895), and by Hurter (Innsbruck,
1880, "SS. Patrum opuscula selecta", IX) with useful notes.
Sources
BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology (St.
Louis, 1908), 520-2; Kiln, Patrologie, II (1908), 371-5; KOCH, Vincent von
Lérins und Gennadius in Texte und Untersuchungen, XXXI, 2 (1907);
BUNETIERE, and DE LABRIOLLE, S. Vincent de Lérins; La pensée chrétienne (Paris,
1906).
Ghellinck, Joseph
de. "St. Vincent of Lérins." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol.
15. New York: Robert Appleton
Company, 1912. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15439b.htm>.
Transcription. This
article was transcribed for New Advent by Barbara Jane Barrett.
Ecclesiastical
approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.,
Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Copyright © 2023 by Kevin Knight.
Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
SOURCE : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15439b.htm
Vincent of Lerins
Vincent of Lerins a monk
and priest, holds an important place in the dogmatics of the Church of Rome
through his little book Commonitoria Duo pro Catholicae Fidei Antiquitate
et. Universitate adv. Profanas Omnium Haereticorum Novitates; but history has
preserved very little respecting the circumstances of his life, and that little
is drawn simply from the preface of the Commonitorium and from a few
scattered notices in Gennadius, De Viris Illustribus, ch. 6. He was a
native of Gaul, became monk and priest at Lerins, lived under Theodosius II,
and died in the reign of Valenitinian I, according to the Roman martyrology,
May 23, A.D. 450. The Commonitorium was composed about three years
subsequent to the Synod of Ephesus (Comm. ch. 42), or in 434, and shows,
despite its quiet argumentative tone and the absence of any polemical
reference, that it grew out of the conditions of the time in which the author
lived. The draft of the greater part of the second book was stolen from the
author, and its substance was consequently incorporated by him in the first.
There are also still in existence sixteen Observationes Vincentianae against
Augustine's predestinationism, to which Prosper of Aquitania responded
(Augustine, Opp. 10 App. p. 1843 sq.), and which may have been
written by his pen.
The question which
engaged the thought of the Church in the time of Vincent was the contest
between Semi-Pelagianism and strict Augustinism, and this fact furnishes the
key to the interpretation of the Commonitorieum (comp. ch. 37
"Magna et specialis ae plane personalis quaedam sit Dei gratia, adeo ut
sine ullo labore, sine ullo studio, sine ulla industria, etiamsi nec petant,
nec quserant, nec pulsent, quicunque illi ad numerum suum pertinent-nunquam
possint offendere ad lapidem pedem suum, id est nunquam scandalizari;" and
also ch. 14 "Quia magna pars illa Christianorum Catholicorum fidelium
atque sanctorum, quse ad ruinam et perditionem praedestinata est, etiamsi petat
a Deo sanctitatis perseverentiam, non impetrabit"). A further key to the
motive of the book is found in the fact that monasticism did not take kindly to
Augustinism, and that in Southern Gaul especially it was, penetrated with the
views and spirit of the Eastern Church, of which statements Hilary of Arles
(q.v.), who came forth from Lerins, and Faustus of Reji, who was perhaps the
abbot of Lerins when Vincent wrote his book, are in proof.
The Commonitorium begins
with demanding an objective guarantee for the truth, and finds the required
criterion in Scripture and the tradition of the Catholic Church, the latter
being necessary because of diversities of interpretation of the former. This
position marked the result of the conflicts by which the Church had progressed
thus far in shaping its own constitution and in forming the New Test. canon.
But then comes the question, Does tradition itself require a criterion by which
it may be tested? How determine what is and what is not Catholic? Is there a
completed canon of tradition as there is a canon of Scripture? Vincent responds
with the rule, now famous, that we must be chiefly concerned "ut id
teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est." He is, however,
disposed to overrate the worth of antiquity, and to search rather for that
which was held by the ancients than for that which is true; and he fails to
remember that antiquity, within the pale of the Catholic Church itself, was
divided upon many questions, though he gives the definition that what a
majority of sacerdotes and magistri have determined is
Catholic. He requires even councils to legitimate themselves by the tests
of universitas and antiquitas, and argues that the Catholic
body of doctrine is an organism which grows, but affords place to nothing that
is absolutely new; and then he applies the principles he has labored to
establish to destroy the infallibility of certain great ones who have made use
of the confidence with which they were regarded to introduce novel teachings
into the Church the object of his attack being assuredly none other than the
great bishop of Hippo, whose reputation excelled even that of the Roman bishop.
In a word, Vincent endeavors to find in antiquity a protection against the arbitrary
spirit of the ecclesiastical powers of the present. The weakness in the scheme
of Vincent is the disregard of the fact that the consent of antiquity cannot be
established unless the factor of interpretation be applied to tradition itself.
He accordingly failed to take the step in advance, which logical consistency
required, of making the Church itself the court of last appeal. The Jesuitism
of our day has satisfied this demand of logic, but at the cost of sacrificing
the rule of Vincent, as may be seen in the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception, etc. Vincent marks a turning-point in the dogmatic spirit of the
Church. No previous teacher had so explicitly insisted on a purely outward
guarantee for the truth. The fathers had, even in their strongest utterances,
manifested confidence in the abiding presence of the Spirit with the Church.
The feeling that the Spirit has departed from the Church finds its first
pronounced expression here, and this specifically Romish doctrine is thus shown
to have had its origin in the Semi- Pelagianism of our monk's attack on
Augustinism.
Editions of Vincent were
published by Baluzius, Coster, and Kliipfel-the latter in Augsburg, 1843.
Concerning him, see Tillemont, Mémoires, 15:143-147; Dupin, Nouvelle
Biblioth. 4, 114 sq.; Cave, Hist. Lit. 1, 425; Elpelt, Des
heil. Vinc. 5. Lerinum Ermahnungsbuch, sein Leben u. s. Lehre (Breslau,
1840); Vossius, Hist. Pelagiana, p. 575; Norisius, Hist.
Pelagiana, 2, 2, 3, 11; Walch, Ketzergesch.; Wiggers, Augustinismus
u. Semipelag. 2, 195,208-216; Baur, Das Christenthum vom 4. bis
zum 6. Jahrhundert; Gengler, in the Quartalschr. fur kathol.
Theologie, 1833, p. 579; Kollner, Symbolik d. kathol. Kirche. —
Herzog, Real-Encyklop. s.v.
SOURCE : https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/V/vincent-of-lerins.html
St. Vincent of Lerins,
Confessor
See his Commonitorium
adversus Hæreticos, with the English preface of Mr. Reeves, t. 2. Also Ceillier
and Orsi; and his Justification and Life in Papebroke, Acta Sanctor. t. 5, p.
284.
A.D. 450.
ST. VINCENT was of
Gaulish extraction, had a polite education, was afterwards for some time an
officer in the army, and lived with dignity in the world. He informs us in his
prologue, that having been some time tossed about in the storms of a bustling
military life, he began seriously to consider the dangers with which he was
surrounded, and the vanity and folly of his pursuits. He desired to take
shelter in the harbour of religion, which he calls the safest refuge from the
world. 1 His
view in this resolution was that he might strenuously labour to divest his soul
of its ruffling passions, of pride and vanity, and to offer to God the
acceptable sacrifice of an humble and Christian spirit; and that being further
removed from worldly temptations, he might endeavour more easily to avoid not
only the wrecks of the present life but also the burnings of that which is to
come. In these dispositions he retired from the crowds of cities, and made for
the desired haven with all the sail he could. The place he chose for his
retirement was in a small remote island, sheltered from the noise of the world.
This Gennadius assures us to have been the famous monastery of Lerins, situated
in the lesser of the two agreeable green islands which formerly bore the name
of Lerins not far from the coast of Lower Provence towards Antibes. In this
place he shut himself up, that he might attend solely to what God commands us,
and study to know him. Vincent reflected that time is always snatching
something from us: its fleeting moments pass as quick as they come, never,
never more to return, as water which is gone from its source runs to it no
more. Our course is almost run out; the past time appears as a shadow; so will
that which is now to come when it shall be once over, and no tears, no
entreaties, no endeavours, can recal the least moment we have already let slip
unimproved. In these reflections the fervent servant of God assures us, that he
earnestly strove to redeem time, 2 and
to be always turning it to the best account, that this invaluable grace might
not rise up at the last day in judgment against him. He considered that true
faith is necessary to salvation no less than morality, and that the former is
the foundation of Christian virtue; and he grieved to see the church at that
time pestered with numberless heresies, which sucked their poison from their
very antidote, the holy scriptures, and which by various wiles spread on every
side their dangerous snares. To guard the faithful against the false and
perplexing glosses of modern subtle refiners, and to open the eyes of those who
had been already seduced by them, he, with great clearness, eloquence, and
force of reasoning, wrote a book, which he entitled, A Commonitory against
Heretics, which he composed in 434, three years after the general council of
Ephesus had condemned the Nestorians. He had chiefly in view the heretics of
his own times, especially the Nestorians and the Apollinarists, but he confuted
them by general clear principles, which overturn all heresies to the end of the
world. Together with the ornaments of eloquence and erudition, the inward
beauty of his mind, and the brightness of his devotion, sparkle in every page
of his book.
Out of humility he
disguises himself under the name of Peregrinus, to express the quality of being
a pilgrim or stranger on earth, and one by his monastic state in a more
particular manner estranged from the world. He styles himself, the least
of all the servants of God, and less than the least of all the saints, unworthy
to bear the holy name of a Christian. He layeth down this rule or fundamental
principle, in which he found, by a diligent inquiry, all Catholic pastors and
the ancient fathers to agree, that such doctrine is truly Catholic as hath been
believed in all places, at all times, and by all the faithful. 3 By
this test of universality, antiquity, and consent, he saith, all controverted
points in belief must be tried. He showeth, that whilst Novatian, Photinus,
Sabellius, Donatus, Arius, Eunomius, Jovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, and
Nestorius expound the divine oracles different ways, to avoid the perplexity of
errors, we must interpret the holy scriptures by the tradition of the Catholic
Church, as the clue to conduct us in the truth. For this tradition, derived
from the apostles, manifesteth the true meaning of the holy scriptures, and all
novelty in faith is a certain mark of heresy; and in religion nothing is more
to be dreaded than itching ears after new teachers. He saith: “They who have
made bold with one article of faith will proceed on to others; and what will be
the consequence of this reforming of religion, but only that these refiners
will never have done till they have reformed it quite away.” 4 He
elegantly expatiates on the divine charge given to the church, to maintain
inviolable the sacred depositum of faith. 5 He
takes notice that heretics quote the sacred writings at every word, and that in
the works of Paulas Samosatenus, Priscillian, Eunomius, Jovinian, and other
like pests of Christendom, almost every page is painted and laid on thick with
scripture texts, which Tertullian also remarks. But in this, saith St. Vincent,
heretics are like those poisoners or quacks who put off their destructive
potions under inscriptions of good drugs, and under the title of infallible
cures. 6 They
imitate the father of lies, who quoted scripture against the Son of God when he
tempted him. 7 The
saint adds, that if a doubt arise in interpreting the meaning of the scriptures
in any point of faith, we must summon in the holy fathers who have lived and
died in the faith and communion of the Catholic Church, and by this test we
shall prove the false doctrine to be novel. For that only we must look upon as
indubitably certain and unalterable which all, or the major part of these
fathers have delivered, like the harmonious consent of a general council. But
if any one among them, be he ever so holy, ever so learned, holds anything
besides, or in opposition to the rest, that is to be placed in the rank of
singular and private opinions, and never to be looked upon as the public,
general, authoritative doctrine of the church. 8 After
a point has been decided in a general council the definition is irrefragable.
These general principles, by which all heresies are easily confounded, St.
Vincent explains with equal eloquence and perspicuity. 9 His
diction is pure and agreeable, his reasoning close and solid; and no
controversial book ever expressed so much, and such deep sense, in so few
words. The same rules are laid down by Tertullian in his book of Prescriptions,
by St. Irenæus and other fathers. St. Vincent died in the reigns of Theodosius
II. and Valentinian III., consequently before the close of the year 450. 10 His
relics are preserved with respect at Lerins, and his name occurs in the Roman
Martyrology.
St. Vincent observes 11 that
souls which have lost the anchorage of the Catholic faith, “are tossed and
shattered with inward storms of clashing thoughts, that by this restless
posture of mind they may be made sensible of their danger; and taking down the
sails of pride and vanity which they have unhappily spread before every gust of
heresy, they may make all the sail they can into the safe and peaceful harbour
of their holy mother the Catholic Church; and being sick from a surfeit of
errors, may there discharge those foul and bitter waters to make room for the
pure waters of life. There they may unlearn well what they have learned ill;
may get a right notion of all those doctrines of the church they are capable of
understanding, and believe those that surpass all understanding.”
Note 1. In portum
religionis cunctis semper fidissimum. Prolog. Commonit. [back]
Note 3. Quod ubique,
quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est etenim vere proprieque
catholicum.—Comm. c. 3. [back]
Note 4. C.
29. [back]
Note 5. C. 27, et
30. [back]
Note 6. C.
31. [back]
Note 7. C.
32. [back]
Note 8. C.
33. [back]
Note 9. The best
edition of St. Vincent’s Commonitorium is that given by Baluze. On the eminent
usefulness of this book see Orsi, and that learned Roman controvertist, the
late Cardinal Gotti, in his book against John Clerc. [back]
Note 10. The
Vincentian objections against the doctrine of St. Austin could not come from
the pen of St. Vincent, who condemns with great warmth Pelagius and his
followers over and over again, and highly extols the letter of Celestine to the
bishops of Gaul; in which that pope reprehends their neglect of watchfulness
and duty in suffering the profane novelties of Semi-pelagianism to spring up
and grow among them. We find two other Vincents living at Marseilles at that
very time, and there might be others of the same name: one of whom might be a
Semi-Pelagian. [back]
Note 11. C.
25. [back]
Rev. Alban
Butler (1711–73). Volume V: May. The Lives of the Saints. 1866.
SOURCE : http://www.bartleby.com/210/5/241.html
St. Vincent of Lerins
Commonitory
For the Antiquity and
Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All
Heresies.
Chapter 1.
The Object of the
Following Treatise.
[1.] I, Peregrinus,
who am the least of all the servants of God, remembering the
admonition of Scripture, Ask your fathers and they will tell you, your
elders and they will declare unto you, Deuteronomy 32:7 and
again, Bow down your ear to the words of the wise, Proverbs 22:17 and
once more, My son, forget not these instructions, but let your heart keep
my words: Proverbs 3:1 remembering
these admonitions, I say, I, Peregrinus, am persuaded, that, the Lord helping
me, it will be of no little use and certainly as regards my own feeble powers,
it is most necessary, that I should put down in writing the things which I
have truthfully received
from the holy Fathers,
since I shall then have ready at hand wherewith by constant reading to make
amends for the weakness of my memory.
[2.] To this I am incited
not only by regard to the fruit to be expected from my labour but also by the
consideration of time and the opportuneness of place:
By the consideration of
time — for seeing that time seizes upon all things human, we also in turn
ought to snatch from it something which may profit us to eternal life,
especially since a certain awful expectation of the approach of the divine
judgment importunately demands increased earnestness in religion, while the
subtle craftiness of new heretics calls for
no ordinary care and attention.
I am incited also by the
opportuneness of place, in that, avoiding the concourse and crowds of cities, I
am dwelling in the seclusion of a Monastery, situated in a remote grange,
where, I can follow without distraction the Psalmist's admonition, Be
still, and know that
I am God.
Moreover, it suits well
with my purpose in adopting this life; for, whereas I was at one time involved
in the manifold and deplorable tempests of secular warfare, I have now at
length, under Christ's auspices, cast anchor in the harbour of religion, a
harbour to all always most safe, in order that, having there been freed from
the blasts of vanity and pride, and propitiating
God by the sacrifice of Christian humility,
I may be able to escape not only the shipwrecks of the present life, but also
the flames of the world to come.
[3.] But now, in the
Lord's name, I will set about the object I have in view; that is to say, to
record with the fidelity of a narrator rather than the presumption of an
author, the things which our forefathers have handed down to us and committed
to our keeping, yet observing this rule in what I write, that I shall by no
means touch upon everything that might be said, but only upon what is
necessary; nor yet in an ornate and exact style, but in simple and ordinary
language, so that the most part may seem to be intimated, rather than set forth
in detail. Let those cultivate elegance and exactness who are confident of
their ability or are moved by a sense of duty. For me it will be enough to have
provided a Commonitory (or Remembrancer) for myself, such as may aid
my memory, or rather, provide against my forgetfulness: which same Commonitory
however, I shall endeavor, the Lord helping me, to amend and make more complete
little by little, day by day, by recalling to mind what I have learned. I
mention this at the outset, that if by chance what I write should slip out of
my possession and come into the hands of holy men, they may
forbear to blame anything therein hastily, when they see that there is a
promise that it will yet be amended and made more complete.
Chapter 2.
A General Rule for
distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical
Pravity.
[4.] I have often then
inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and
learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to
distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from
the falsehood of heretical pravity;
and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this
effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and
avoid the snares of heretics as
they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord
helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the
Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
[5.] But here some one
perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of
itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join
with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason —
because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do
not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one
way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many
interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds
it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius,
Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another,
Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another.
Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such
various error,
that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be
framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
[6.] Moreover, in
the Catholic Church itself, all
possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has
been believed everywhere,
always, by all. For that is truly and in the
strictest sense Catholic, which,
as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all
universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity,
consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the
whole Church throughout
the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those
interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and
fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the
consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost
all priests and
doctors.
Chapter 3.
What is to be done if one
or more dissent from the rest.
[7.] What then will
a Catholic Christian do, if a
small portion of the Church have
cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but
prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and
corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an
insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole?
Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot
possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
[8.] But what, if in
antiquity itself there be found error on the part
of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it
will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an
ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few.
But what, if some error should
spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and
consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who,
though living in various times and places, yet continuing in the communion
and faith of
the one Catholic Church, stand forth
acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to
have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all,
equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must
understand that he himself also is to believe without
any doubt or
hesitation.
Chapter 4.
The evil resulting from
the bringing in of Novel Doctrine shown in the instances of the Donatists and
Arians.
[9.] But that we may make
what we say more intelligible, we must illustrate it by individual examples,
and enlarge upon it somewhat more fully, lest by aiming at too great brevity
important matters be hurried over and lost sight of.
In the time of Donatus,
from whom his followers were called Donatists, when great
numbers in Africa were rushing headlong into their own mad error, and unmindful of
their name, their religion, their profession, were preferring the sacrilegious temerity
of one man before the Church of Christ, then they alone
throughout Africa were safe within the sacred precincts of the Catholic faith, who, detesting
the profane schism,
continued in communion with the universal Church, leaving to posterity an
illustrious example, how, and how well in future the soundness of the whole
body should be preferred before the madness of one, or
at most of a few.
[10.] So also when
the Arian poison
had infected not an insignificant portion of the Church but almost
the whole world, so that a sort of blindness had fallen upon almost all
the bishops of
the Latin tongue, circumvented partly by force partly by fraud, and was
preventing them from seeing what was most expedient to be done in the midst of
so much confusion, then whoever was a true lover and
worshipper of Christ,
preferring the ancient belief to the novel misbelief, escaped the pestilent
infection.
[11.] By the peril of
which time was abundantly shown how great a calamity the introduction of a
novel doctrine causes. For then truly not only
interests of small account, but others of the very gravest importance, were
subverted. For not only affinities, relationships, friendships, families, but moreover,
cities, peoples, provinces, nations, at last the whole Roman Empire, were
shaken to their foundation and ruined. For when this same profane Arian novelty, like
a Bellona or a Fury, had first taken captive the Emperor, and had then
subjected all the principal persons of the
palace to new laws,
from that time it never ceased to involve everything in confusion, disturbing
all things, public and private, sacred and profane, paying no regard to what
was good and true, but, as though
holding a position of authority, smiting whomsoever it pleased. Then wives were
violated, widows ravished, virgins profaned, monasteries demolished,
clergymen ejected, the inferior clergy scourged, priests driven into
exile, jails, prisons, mines, filled with saints, of whom the
greater part, forbidden to enter into cities, thrust forth from their homes to
wander in deserts and caves, among rocks and the haunts of wild beasts, exposed
to nakedness, hunger, thirst, were worn out and consumed. Of all of which was
there any other cause than
that, while human superstitions are
being brought in to supplant heavenly doctrine, while well established
antiquity is being subverted by wicked novelty,
while the institutions of former ages are being set at naught, while the
decrees of our fathers are being rescinded, while the determinations of our
ancestors are being torn in pieces, the lust of profane and
novel curiosity refuses to restrict itself within the most chaste limits of
hallowed and uncorrupt antiquity?
Chapter 5.
The Example set us by the
Martyrs, whom no force could hinder from defending the Faith of their
Predecessors.
[12.] But it may be, we
invent these charges out of hatred to novelty
and zeal for
antiquity. Whoever is disposed to listen to such an insinuation, let him at
least believe the
blessed Ambrose, who, deploring the acerbity of the time, says, in the second
book of his work addressed to the Emperor Gratian: Enough
now, O God Almighty! Have we expiated with our own ruin, with our own blood,
the slaughter of Confessors, the banishment of priests, and the wickedness of such
extreme impiety. It is clear, beyond question, that they who have violated
the faith cannot
remain in safety.
And again in the third book
of the same work, Let us observe the precepts of our predecessors, and not
transgress with rude rashness the landmarks which we have inherited from them.
That sealed Book of Prophecy no Elders, no Powers, no Angels, no Archangels,
dared to open. To Christ alone was reserved the prerogative of explaining
it. Revelation 5:1-5 Who
of us may dare to unseal the Sacerdotal Book sealed by Confessors, and consecrated already
by the martyrdom of
numbers, which they who had been compelled by force to unseal afterwards
resealed, condemning the fraud which had been practised upon them; while they
who had not ventured to tamper with it proved themselves
Confessors and martyrs?
How can we deny the faith of
those whose victory we proclaim?
[13.] We proclaim
it truly, O
venerable Ambrose, we proclaim it, and applaud and admire. For who is there so
demented, who, though not able to overtake, does not at least earnestly desire
to follow those whom no force could deter from defending the faith of their
ancestors, no threats, no blandishments, not life, not death, not the palace,
not the Imperial Guards, not the Emperor, not the empire itself, not men,
not demons?—
whom, I say, as a recompense for their steadfastness in adhering to religious
antiquity, the Lord counted worthy of so great a reward, that by their
instrumentality He restored churches which had been destroyed, quickened with
new life peoples who were spiritually dead, replaced on the heads of priests the crowns
which had been torn from them, washed out those abominable, I will not say
letters, but blotches (non literas, sed lituras) of novel impiety, with a
fountain of believing tears, which God opened in the
hearts of the bishops?—
lastly, when almost the whole world was overwhelmed by a ruthless tempest of
unlooked for heresy,
recalled it from novel misbelief to the ancient faith, from the madness of novelty
to the soundness of antiquity, from the blindness of novelty to pristine light?
[14.] But in this
divine virtue,
as we may call it, exhibited by these Confessors, we must note especially that
the defense which they then undertook in appealing to the Ancient Church, was
the defense, not of a part, but of the whole body. For it was not right that
men of such eminence should uphold with so huge an effort the vague and
conflicting notions of one or two men, or should exert themselves in the
defense of some ill-advised combination of some petty province; but adhering to
the decrees and definitions of the universal priesthood of Holy Church, the heirs
of Apostolic and Catholic truth, they chose rather
to deliver up themselves than to betray the faith of
universality and antiquity. For which cause they were
deemed worthy of so great glory as not only
to be accounted Confessors, but rightly, and deservedly to be accounted
foremost among Confessors.
Chapter 6.
The example of Pope
Stephen in resisting the Iteration of Baptism.
[15.] Great then is the
example of these same blessed men, an example plainly divine, and worthy to be
called to mind,
and meditated upon continually by every true Catholic, who, like the
seven-branched candlestick, shining with the sevenfold light of the Holy Spirit, showed to
posterity how thenceforward the audaciousness of profane novelty, in all the
several rantings of error,
might be crushed by the authority of hallowed antiquity.
Nor is there anything new
in this? For it has always been the case in the Church, that the more a
man is under the influence of religion, so much the more prompt is he to oppose
innovations. Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take
one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that
it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how
great zeal, with
how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have
constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once
received.
[16.] Once on a time
then, Agripinnus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable
memory, held the doctrine — and he was the first who held it — that Baptism
ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the
universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors.
This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only
gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all
sorts, but proved an
occasion of error to
certain Catholics even.
When then all men protested
against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere,
each as his zeal prompted
him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in
conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood
it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as
he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the
devotion of his faith.
In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this
rule: Let there be no innovation — nothing but what has been handed
down. For that holy and prudent man
well knew that true piety admits no
other rule than that whatsoever things have been faithfully received from our
fathers the same are to be faithfully consigned to our children; and that it is
our duty, not to lead religion whither we would, but rather to follow religion
whither it leads; and that it is the part of Christian modesty
and gravity not to hand down our own beliefs or observances to those who come
after us, but to preserve and keep what we have received from those who went
before us. What then was the issue of the whole matter? What but the usual and
customary one? Antiquity was retained, novelty was rejected.
[17.] But it may be,
the cause of
innovation at that time lacked patronage. On the contrary, it had in its favor
such powerful talent, such copious eloquence, such a number of partisans, so
much resemblance to truth,
such weighty support in Scripture (only interpreted in a novel and perverse
sense), that it seems to me that that whole conspiracy could not possibly have
been defeated, unless the sole cause of this
extraordinary stir, the very novelty of what was so undertaken, so defended, so
belauded, had proved wanting
to it. In the end, what result, under God, had that same
African Council or decree? None whatever. The whole affair, as though a dream,
a fable, a thing of no possible account, was annulled, cancelled, and trodden
underfoot.
[18.] And O marvellous
revolution! The authors of this same doctrine are judged Catholics, the
followers heretics;
the teachers are absolved, the disciples condemned;
the writers of the books will be children of the Kingdom, the defenders of them
will have their portion in Hell. For who is so demented as to doubt that that
blessed light among all holy bishops and martyrs, Cyprian,
together with the rest of his colleagues, will reign with Christ; or, who on
the other hand so sacrilegious as
to deny that the Donatists and
those other pests, who boast the authority of that council for their iteration
of baptism, will
be consigned to eternal
fire with the devil?
Chapter 7.
How Heretics, craftily
cite obscure passages in ancient writers in support of their own novelties.
[19.] This condemnation,
indeed, seems to have been providentially promulgated as though with a special
view to the fraud of those who, contriving to dress up a heresy under a name
other than its own, get hold often of the works of some ancient writer, not
very clearly expressed, which, owing to the very obscurity of their own
doctrine, have the appearance of agreeing with it, so that they get the credit
of being neither the first nor the only persons who have
held it. This wickedness of
theirs, in my judgment, is doubly hateful: first, because they are not afraid
to invite others to drink of the poison of heresy; and secondly,
because with profane breath, as though fanning smouldering embers into flame,
they blow upon the memory of each holy man, and
spread an evil report
of what ought to be buried in silence by bringing it again under notice, thus
treading in the footsteps of their father Ham, who not only forebore to cover
the nakedness of the venerable Noah, but told it to the
others that they might laugh at it, offending thereby so grievously against the
duty of filial piety,
that even his descendants were involved with him in the curse which he drew
down, widely differing from those blessed brothers of his, who would neither
pollute their own eyes by looking upon the nakedness of their revered father,
nor would suffer others to do so, but went backwards, as the Scripture says, and
covered him, that is, they neither approved nor betrayed the fault of the holy man, for
which cause they
were rewarded with a benediction on themselves and their posterity. Genesis 9:22
[20.] But to return to
the matter in hand: It behooves us then to have a great dread of the crime of
perverting the faith and
adulterating religion, a crime from which we are deterred not only by the
Church's discipline, but also by the censure of apostolic authority.
For every one knows how
gravely, how severely, how vehemently, the blessed apostle Paul inveighs
against certain, who, with marvellous levity, had been so soon removed
from him who had called them to the grace of Christ to
another Gospel,
which was not another; Galatians 1:6 who
had heaped to themselves teachers after their own lusts, turning away
their ears from the truth,
and being turned aside unto fables; 2 Timothy 4:3-4 having
damnation because they had cast off their first faith; 1 Timothy 5:12 who
had been deceived by those of whom the same apostle writes to the Roman Christians, Now, I
beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For
they that are such serve not the Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by good
words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple, Romans 16:17-18 who
enter into houses, and lead captive silly women laden
with sins, led
away with diverse lusts,
ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of
the truth; 2 Timothy 3:6 vain
talkers and deceivers, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they
ought not, for filthy lucre's sake; Titus 1:10 men
of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith; 2 Timothy 3:8 proud knowing nothing,
but doting about questions and strifes of words, destitute of the truth, supposing that
godliness is gain, 1 Timothy 6:4 withal
learning to be idle, wandering about from house to house, and not only idle,
but tattlers also and busy-bodies, speaking things which they ought not, 1 Timothy 5:13 who
having put away a good conscience have
made shipwreck concerning the faith; 1 Timothy 1:19 whose
profane and vain babblings increase unto more ungodliness, and their word does
eat as does a cancer. 2 Timothy 2:16-17 Well,
also, is it written of them: But they shall proceed no further: for their
folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 2 Timothy 3:9
Chapter 8.
Exposition of St. Paul's
Words, Gal. i.
8.
[21.] When therefore
certain of this sort wandering about provinces and cities, and carrying with
them their venal errors,
had found their way to Galatia, and when the Galatians, on hearing them, nauseating
the truth, and
vomiting up the manna of
Apostolic and Catholic doctrine,
were delighted with the garbage of heretical novelty,
the apostle putting in exercise the authority of his office, delivered his
sentence with the utmost severity, Though we, he says, or an angel from heaven,
preach any other Gospel unto
you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8
[22.] Why does he
say Though we? Why not rather though I? He means, though Peter,
though Andrew, though John, in a word, though the whole company of apostles, preach unto
you other than we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Tremendous
severity! He spares neither himself nor his fellow apostles, so he may
preserve unaltered the faith which was at
first delivered. Nay, this is not all. He goes on Even though an angel from heaven
preach unto you any other Gospel than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. It was not enough
for the preservation of the faith once
delivered to have referred to man; he must needs comprehend angels also. Though
we, he says, or an angel from
heaven. Not that the holy angels of heaven
are now capable of sinning. But what he means is: Even if that were to happen
which cannot happen — if any one, be he who he may, attempt to alter the faith once for all
delivered, let him be accursed.
[23.] But it may be, he
spoke thus in the first instance inconsiderately, giving vent to human impetuosity
rather than expressing himself under divine guidance. Far from it. He follows
up what he had said, and urges it with intense reiterated earnestness, As
we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other Gospel to you than
that you have received, let him be accursed. He does not say, If any
man deliver to you another message than that you have received, let him be
blessed, praised, welcomed,— no; but let him be accursed, [anathema] i.e.,
separated, segregated, excluded, lest the dire contagion of a single sheep
contaminate the guiltless flock of Christ by his poisonous intermixture with
them.
Chapter 9.
His warning to the
Galatians a warning to all.
[24.] But, possibly, this
warning was intended for the Galatians only. Be it so; then those other
exhortations which follow in the same Epistle were intended for the Galatians
only, such as, If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk
in the Spirit;
let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one
another, envying one another, etc.; Galatians 5:25 which
alternative if it be absurd, and the injunctions were meant equally for all,
then it follows, that as these injunctions which relate to morals, so those
warnings which relate to faith are meant
equally for all; and just as it is unlawful for all to provoke one another, or
to envy one
another, so, likewise, it is unlawful for all to receive any other Gospel than that
which the Catholic Church preaches
everywhere.
[25.] Or perhaps
the anathema pronounced
on any one who should preach another Gospel than that
which had been preached was meant for those times, not for the present. Then,
also, the exhortation, Walk in the Spirit and you
shall not fulfil the lust of
the flesh, Galatians 5:16 was
meant for those times, not for the present. But if it be both impious and
pernicious to believe this,
then it follows necessarily, that as these injunctions are to be observed by
all ages, so those warnings also which forbid alteration of the faith are warnings
intended for all ages. To preach any doctrine therefore to Catholic Christians other
than what they have received never was lawful, never is lawful, never will be
lawful: and to anathematize those
who preach anything other than what has once been received, always was a duty,
always is a duty, always will be a duty.
[26.] Which being the
case, is there any one either so audacious as to preach any other doctrine than
that which the Church preaches,
or so inconstant as to receive any other doctrine than that which he has
received from the Church?
That elect vessel, that teacher of the Gentiles, that trumpet
of the apostles,
that preacher whose commission was to the whole earth, that man who was caught
up to heaven, 2 Corinthians 12:2 cries
and cries again in his Epistles to all, always, in all places, If any man
preach any new doctrine, let him be accursed. On the other hand, an
ephemeral, moribund set of frogs, fleas, and flies, such as the Pelagians, call out in
opposition, and that to Catholics, Take our
word, follow our lead, accept our exposition, condemn what you used to hold,
hold what you used to condemn, cast aside the ancient faith, the institutes of
your fathers, the trusts left for you by your ancestors and receive instead —
what? I tremble to utter it: for it is so full of arrogance and self-conceit,
that it seems to me that not only to affirm it, but even to refute it, cannot
be done without guilt in some sort.
Chapter 10.
Why Eminent Men are
permitted by God to become Authors of Novelties in the Church.
[27.] But some one will
ask, How is it then, that certain excellent persons, and of position
in the Church,
are often permitted by God to preach novel
doctrines to Catholics?
A proper question, certainly, and one which ought to be very carefully and
fully dealt with, but answered at the same time, not in reliance upon one's own
ability, but by the authority of the divine Law, and by appeal to the Church's
determination.
Let us listen, then, to
Holy Moses, and
let him teach us why learned men, and such as because of their knowledge are even
called Prophets by the apostle, are sometimes permitted to put forth novel
doctrines, which the Old
Testament is wont, by way of allegory, to call strange
gods, forasmuch as heretics pay the
same sort of reverence to their notions that the Gentiles do to
their gods.
[28.] Blessed Moses, then, writes thus
in Deuteronomy: If there arise among you a prophet or a
dreamer of dreams, that is, one holding office as a Doctor in the Church, who is believed by
his disciples or
auditors to teach by revelation: well — what follows? and gives you a sign
or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he spoke,— he is
pointing to some eminent doctor, whose learning is such that his
followers believe him
not only to know things human, but, moreover, to
foreknow things superhuman, such as, their disciples commonly
boast, were Valentinus,
Donatus, Photinus, Apollinaris,
and the rest of that sort! What next? And shall say to you, Let us go
after other gods, whom you know not, and serve them. What are those other
gods but strange errors which
you know not, that is, new and such as were never heard of before? And let
us serve them; that is, Let us believe them,
follow them. What last? You shall not hearken to the words of
that prophet or
dreamer of dreams. And why, I pray you, does not God forbid to be taught
what God forbids to be heard? For the Lord, your God, tries you, to know whether
you love Him
with all your heart and with all your soul. The reason is
clearer than day why Divine
Providence sometimes permits certain doctors of the Churches to preach
new doctrines — That the Lord your God may try you; he says. And
assuredly it is a great trial when one whom you believe to be a prophet, a disciple of prophets, a doctor and
defender of the truth,
whom you have folded to your breast with the utmost veneration and love, when such a one of
a sudden secretly and furtively brings in noxious errors, which you can
neither quickly detect, being held by the prestige of former authority, nor lightly
think it right to condemn, being prevented by affection for your old master.
Chapter 11.
Examples from Church
History, confirming the words of Moses —Nestorius, Photinus,
Apollinaris.
[29.] Here, perhaps, some
one will require us to illustrate the words of holy Moses by examples
from Church History. The demand is a fair one, nor shall it wait long for
satisfaction.
For to take first a very
recent and very plain case: what sort of trial, think we, was that which
the Church had
experience of the other day, when that unhappy Nestorius, all at once
metamorphosed from a sheep into a wolf, began to make havoc of the flock
of Christ, while
as yet a large proportion of those whom he was devouring believed him to be
a sheep, and consequently were the more exposed to his attacks? For who would
readily suppose him to be in error, who was known to have been
elected by the high choice of the Emperor, and to be held in the greatest
esteem by the priesthood?
Who would readily suppose him to be in error, who, greatly
beloved by the holy brethren,
and in high favor with the populace, expounded the Scriptures in public
daily, and confuted the pestilent errors both
of Jews and
Heathens? Who could choose but believe that his
teaching was Orthodox, his preaching Orthodox, his belief Orthodox, who, that he
might open the way to one heresy of his own,
was zealously inveighing
against the blasphemies of
all heresies?
But this was the very thing which Moses says: The
Lord your God does try you that He may know whether
you love Him
or not.
[30.] Leaving Nestorius, in whom there
was always more that men admired than they were profited by, more of show than
of reality, whom natural ability, rather than divine grace, magnified,
for a time in the opinion of the common people, let us pass on to speak of
those who, being persons of
great attainments and of much industry, proved no small
trial to Catholics.
Such, for instance, was Photinus, in Pannonia, who, in the memory of our
fathers, is said to have been a trial to the Church of Sirmium,
where, when he had been raised to the priesthood with
universal approbation, and had discharged the office for some time as a Catholic, all of a
sudden, like that evil prophet or dreamer
of dreams whom Moses refers
to, he began to persuade the people whom God had entrusted, to his charge, to
follow strange gods, that is, strange errors, which before
they knew not.
But there was nothing unusual in this: the mischief of the matter was, that for
the perpetration of so great wickedness he
availed himself of no ordinary helps. For he was of great natural ability and
of powerful eloquence, and had a wealth of learning,
disputing and writing copiously and forcibly in both languages, as his books
which remain, composed partly in Greek, partly in Latin, testify. But happily
the sheep of Christ committed to him, vigilant and wary for the Catholic faith, quickly turned
their eyes to the premonitory words of Moses, and, though
admiring the eloquence of their prophet and pastor,
were not blind to the trial. For from thenceforward they began to flee from him
as a wolf, whom formerly they had followed as the ram of the flock.
[31.] Nor is it only in
the instance of Photinus that we learn the danger of this trial to the Church, and are
admonished withal of the need of double diligence in guarding the faith. Apollinaris holds
out a like warning. For he gave rise to great burning questions and sore
perplexities among his disciples, the Church's
authority drawing them one way, their Master's influence the opposite; so that,
wavering and tossed here and there between the two, they were at a loss what
course to take.
But perhaps he was a
person of no weight of character. On the contrary, he was so eminent and so
highly esteemed that his word would only too readily be taken on whatsoever
subject. For what could exceed his acuteness, his adroitness, his learning? How
many heresies did
he, in many volumes, annihilate! How many errors, hostile to
the faith, did
he confute! A proof of
which is that most noble and vast work, of not less than thirty books, in
which, with a great mass of arguments, he repelled the insane calumnies of
Porphyry. It would take a long time to enumerate all his works, which assuredly
would have placed him on a level with the very chief of the Church's builders,
if that profane lust of heretical curiosity
had not led him to devise I know not what
novelty which as though through the contagion of a sort of leprosy both
defiled all his labours, and caused his teachings to be pronounced the Church's
trial instead of the Church's edification.
Chapter 12.
A fuller account of the
Errors of Photinus, Apollinaris and Nestorius.
[32.] Here, possibly, I
may be asked for some account of the above mentioned heresies; those, namely,
of Nestorius, Apollinaris, and
Photinus. This, indeed, does not belong to the matter in hand: for our object
is not to enlarge upon the errors of
individuals, but to produce instances of a few, in whom the applicability
of Moses' words
may be evidently and clearly seen; that is to say, that if at any time some
Master in the Church,
himself also a prophet in
interpreting the mysteries of
the prophets,
should attempt to introduce some novel doctrine into the Church of God, Divine Providence permits
this to happen in order to try us. It will be useful, therefore, by way of
digression, to give a brief account of the opinions of the above-named heretics,
Photinus, Apollinaris, Nestorius.
[33.] The heresy of Photinus,
then, is as follows: He says that God is singular and sole, and is to be
regarded as the Jews regarded
Him. He denies the completeness of the Trinity, and does not believe that there
is any Person of God
the Word, or any Person of the Holy Ghost. Christ he
affirms to be a mere man, whose original was from Mary. Hence he insists with
the utmost obstinacy that we are to render worship only to the Person of God the Father, and that we are
to honour Christ
as man only. This is the doctrine of Photinus.
[34.] Apollinaris, affecting
to agree with the Church as
to the unity of the Trinity, though not this even with entire soundness of
belief, as to the Incarnation of the Lord, blasphemes openly. For he says that
the flesh of our Saviour was either altogether devoid of a human soul, or, at all events,
was devoid of a rational soul. Moreover, he says
that this same flesh of the Lord was not received from the flesh of the holy Virgin Mary,
but came down from heaven into the Virgin; and, ever wavering and undecided, he
preaches one while that it was co-eternal with God the Word, another
that it was made of the divine nature of the Word. For, denying that there are
two substances in Christ,
one divine, the other human,
one from the Father,
the other from his mother, he holds that the very nature of the Word was
divided, as though one part of it remained in God, the other was
converted into flesh: so that whereas the truth says that of
two substances there is one Christ, he affirms, contrary to the truth, that of the one
divinity of Christ there have become two substances. This, then, is the
doctrine of Apollinaris.
[35.] Nestorius, whose disease
is of an opposite kind, while pretending that he holds two distinct substances
in Christ,
brings in of a sudden two Persons, and with unheard of wickedness would
have two sons of God,
two Christs, — one, God,
the other, man, one, begotten of his Father, the other, born of his mother. For
which reason he maintains that Saint Mary ought to be called, not Theotocos (the
mother of God), but Christotocos (the mother of Christ), seeing that
she gave birth not to the Christ who is God, but to the Christ
who is man. But if any one supposes that in his writings he speaks of one
Christ, and preaches one Person of Christ, let him not
lightly credit it. For either this is a crafty device, that by means of good he
may the more easily persuade evil, according to that
of the apostle, That which is good was made death
to me, Romans 7:13 —
either, I say, he craftily affects in some places in his writings to believe one Christ
and one Person of Christ,
or else he says that after the Virgin had brought forth, the two Persons were
united into one Christ, though at the time of her conception or parturition,
and for some short time afterwards, there were two Christs; so that forsooth,
though Christ was born at first an ordinary man and nothing more, and not as
yet associated in unity of Person with the Word of God, yet
afterwards the Person of the Word assuming descended upon Him; and though now
the Person assumed remains in the glory of God, yet once there
would seem to have been no difference between Him and all other men.
Chapter 13.
The Catholic Doctrine of
the Trinity and the Incarnation explained.
[36.] In these ways then
do these rabid dogs, Nestorius, Apollinaris, and
Photinus, bark against the Catholic faith: Photinus, by
denying the Trinity; Apollinaris,
by teaching that the nature of
the Word is mutable, and refusing to acknowledge that there are two substances
in Christ,
denying moreover either that Christ had a soul at all, or, at
all events, that he had a rational soul, and asserting that
the Word of God supplied
the place of the rational soul; Nestorius, by affirming
that there were always or at any rate that once there were two Christs. But
the Catholic Church, holding
the right faith both
concerning God and concerning our Saviour, is guilty of blasphemy neither
in the mystery of
the Trinity, nor in that of the Incarnation of Christ. For she worships
both one Godhead in the plenitude of the Trinity, and the equality of the
Trinity in one and the same majesty, and she confesses one Christ Jesus, not
two; the same both God and man, the one as truly as the other.
One Person indeed she believes in Him, but two substances; two substances but
one Person: Two substances, because the Word of God is not
mutable, so as to be convertible into flesh; one Person, lest by acknowledging
two sons she should seem to worship not a Trinity, but a Quaternity.
[37.] But it will be well
to unfold this same doctrine more distinctly and explicitly again and again.
In God there is one
substance, but three Persons; in Christ two substances, but one Person. In the
Trinity, another and another Person, not another and another substance
(distinct Persons, not distinct substances); in the Saviour another and another
substance, not another and another Person, (distinct substances, not distinct
Persons). How in the Trinity another and another Person (distinct Persons) not
another and another substance (distinct substances)? Because there is one
Person of the Father,
another of the Son,
another of the Holy
Ghost; but yet there is not another and another nature (distinct natures)
but one and the same nature. How in the Saviour another and another substance,
not another and another Person (two distinct substances, not two distinct
Persons)? Because there is one substance of the Godhead, another of the
manhood. But yet the Godhead and the manhood are not another and another Person
(two distinct Persons), but one and the same Christ, one and the same Son of God, and one and
the same Person of one and the same Christ and Son of God, in like
manner as in man the flesh is one thing and the soul another, but
one and the same man, both soul and flesh. In
Peter and Paul the soul is one thing,
the flesh another; yet there are not two Peters — one soul, the other flesh,
or two Pauls, one soul,
the other flesh — but one and the same Peter, and one and the same Paul, consisting each of
two diverse natures, soul and
body. Thus, then, in one and the same Christ there are two substances, one
divine, the other human;
one of (ex) God the Father, the other of
(ex) the Virgin Mother; one co-eternal with and co-equal with the Father, the other
temporal and inferior to the Father; one consubstantial with his Father, the
other, consubstantial with his Mother, but one and the same Christ in both
substances. There is not, therefore, one Christ God, the other man, not
one uncreated, the other created; not one impassible, the other passible; not
one equal to the Father,
the other inferior to the Father; not one of his Father (ex), the other of his
Mother (ex), but one and the same Christ, God and man, the same uncreated
and created, the same unchangeable and incapable of suffering, the same
acquainted by experience with both change and suffering, the same equal to the
Father and inferior to the Father, the same
begotten of the Father before time, (before the world), the same born of his
mother in time (in the world), perfect God, perfect Man. In God
supreme divinity, in man perfect humanity. Perfect humanity, I say, forasmuch
as it has both soul and
flesh; the flesh, very flesh; our flesh, his mother's flesh; the soul, intellectual,
endowed with mind and reason. There is then in Christ the Word, the soul, the flesh; but the
whole is one Christ, one Son of God, and one our
Saviour and Redeemer: One, not by I know not what
corruptible confusion of Godhead and manhood, but by a certain entire and
singular unity of Person. For the conjunction has not converted and changed the
one nature into the other, (which is the characteristic error of the Arians), but rather has
in such wise compacted both into one, that while there always remains in Christ
the singularity of one and the self-same Person, there abides eternally withal
the characteristic property of each nature; whence it follows, that neither
does God (i.e., the divine nature) ever begin to be body, nor does the body
ever cease to be body. The which may be illustrated in human nature: for not only in
the present life, but in the future also, each individual man will consist
of soul and
body; nor will his body ever be converted into soul, or his soul into body; but
while each individual man will live for ever, the distinction between the two
substances will continue in each individual man forever. So likewise in Christ
each substance will for ever retain its own characteristic property, yet without
prejudice to the unity of Person.
Chapter 14.
Jesus Christ Man in
Truth, not in Semblance.
[38.] But when we use the
word Person, and say that God became man by means of a Person, there
is reason to fear that
our meaning may be taken to be, that God the Word assumed
our nature merely in imitation, and performed the actions of man, being man not in
reality, but only in semblance, just as in a theatre, one man within a brief
space represents several persons, not one of whom
himself is. For when one undertakes to sustain the part of another, he performs
the offices, or does the acts, of the person whose part he sustains, but he is
not himself that person. So, to take an illustration from secular life and one
in high favour with the Manichees, when a tragedian represents a priest or a king,
he is not really a priest or
a king. For, as soon as the play is over, the person or character whom he
represented ceases to be. God forbid that we should have anything to do with
such nefarious and wicked mockery.
Be it the infatuation of the Manichees, those preachers of hallucination, who
say that the Son of
God, God,
was not a human person
really and truly,
but that He counterfeited the person of a man in feigned conversation and
manner of life.
[39.] But the Catholic Faith
teaches that the Word
of God became man in such wise, that He took upon Him our nature, not
feignedly and in semblance, but in reality and truth, and
performed human actions,
not as though He were imitating the actions of another, but as performing His
own, and as being in reality the person whose part He sustained. Just as we
ourselves also, when we speak, reason, live, subsist, do not imitate men, but
are men. Peter and John, for instance, were men, not by imitation, but by being
men in reality. Paul did
not counterfeit an apostle,
or feign himself to be Paul, but was an apostle, was Paul. So, also, that
which God the Word did,
in His condescension, in assuming and having flesh, in speaking, acting, and
suffering, through the instrumentality of flesh, yet without any marring of His
own divine nature, came in one word to this:— He did not imitate or feign
Himself to be perfect man, but He showed Himself to be very man in reality and truth. Therefore, as
the soul united
to the flesh, but yet not changed into flesh, does not imitate man, but is man,
and man not feignedly but substantially, so also God the Word, without
any conversion of Himself, in uniting Himself to man, became man, not by
confusion, not by imitation, but by actually being and subsisting. Away then,
once and for all, with the notion of His Person as of an assumed fictitious
character, where always what is is one thing, what is counterfeited another,
where the man who acts never is the man whose part he acts. God forbid that we
should believe God the Word to
have taken upon Himself the person of a man in this illusory way. Rather let us
acknowledge that while His own unchangeable substance remained, and while He
took upon Himself the nature of
perfect man, Himself actually was flesh, Himself actually was man, Himself
actually was personally man; not feignedly, but in truth, not in imitation,
but in substance; not, finally, so as to cease to be when the performance was
over, but so as to be, and continue to be substantially and permanently.
Chapter 15.
The Union of the Divine
with the Human Nature took place in the very Conception of the Virgin. The
appellation The Mother of God.
[40.] This unity of
Person, then, in Christ was not effected after His birth of the Virgin, but was
compacted and perfected in her very womb. For we must take most special heed
that we confess Christ not only one, but always one. For it were
intolerable blasphemy,
if while you confess Him one now, you should maintain that once He was not one,
but two; one forsooth since His baptism, but two at His
birth. Which monstrous sacrilege we shall assuredly in no wise avoid unless we
acknowledge the manhood united to the Godhead (but by unity of Person), not
from the ascension, or the resurrection, or the baptism, but even in His
mother, even in the womb, even in the Virgin's very conception. In consequence
of which unity of Person, both those attributes which are proper to God are
ascribed to man,
and those which are proper to the flesh to God, indifferently and
promiscuously. For hence it is written by divine guidance, on the one hand,
that the Son of man came
down from heaven; John 3:13 and
on the other, that the Lord of glory was crucified
on earth. 1 Corinthians 2:8 Hence
it is also that since the Lord's flesh was made, since the Lord's flesh was
created, the very Word
of God is said to have been made, the very omniscient Wisdom of God to
have been created, just as prophetically His
hands and His feet are described as having been pierced. From this unity of
Person it follows, by reason of a like mystery, that, since the
flesh of the Word was born of an undefiled mother, God the Word Himself is
most Catholicly believed,
most impiously denied, to have been born of the Virgin; which being the case,
God forbid that any one should seek to defraud Holy Mary of her prerogative
of divine grace and
her special glory.
For by the singular gift of Him who is our Lord and God, and withal, her own
son, she is to be confessed most truly and most
blessedly — The mother of God Theotocos, but not in the sense in
which it is imagined by a certain impious heresy which maintains,
that she is to be called the Mother of God for
no other reason than because she gave birth to that man who afterwards
became God, just
as we speak of a woman as
the mother of a priest,
or the mother of a bishop,
meaning that she was such, not by giving birth to one already a priest or a bishop, but by giving
birth to one who afterwards became a priest or a bishop. Not thus, I say,
was the holy Mary Theotocos, the
mother of God,
but rather, as was said before, because in her sacred womb was wrought that
most sacred mystery whereby,
on account of the singular and unique unity of Person, as the Word in flesh is
flesh, so Man in God is God.
Chapter 16.
Recapitulation of what
was said of the Catholic Faith and of divers Heresies, Chapters xi-xv.
[41.] But now that we may
refresh our remembrance of what has been briefly said concerning either the
afore-mentioned heresies or
the Catholic Faith,
let us go over it again more briefly and concisely, that being repeated it may
be more thoroughly understood, and being pressed home more firmly held.
Accursed then be
Photinus, who does not receive the Trinity complete, but asserts that Christ is mere man.
Accursed be Apollinaris, who affirms
that the Godhead of Christ is marred by conversion, and defrauds Him of the property
of perfect humanity.
Accursed be Nestorius, who denies
that God was born of the Virgin, affirms two Christs, and rejecting the belief
of the Trinity, brings in a Quaternity.
But blessed be the Catholic Church, which worships
one God in the completeness of the Trinity, and at the same time adores the
equality of the Trinity in the unity of the Godhead, so that neither the
singularity of substance confounds the propriety of the Persons, not the
distinction of the Persons in the Trinity separates the unity of the Godhead.
Blessed, I say, be
the Church,
which believes that in Christ there are two true and perfect
substances but one Person, so that neither does the distinction of natures
divide the unity of Person, nor the unity of Person confound the distinction of
substances.
Blessed, I say, be
the Church,
which understands God to have become Man, not by conversion of nature, but by
reason of a Person, but of a Person not feigned and transient, but substantial
and permanent.
Blessed, I say, be
the Church,
which declares this unity of Person to be so real and effectual, that because
of it, in a marvellous and ineffable mystery, she ascribes
divine attributes to man,
and human to God; because of it, on
the one hand, she does not deny that Man, as God, came down from
heaven, on the other, she believes that God, as Man, was
created, suffered, and was crucified on earth; because of it, finally, she
confesses Man the Son
of God, and God the Son of the Virgin.
Blessed, then, and
venerable, blessed and most sacred, and altogether worthy to be compared with
those celestial praises of the Angelic Host, be the confession which
ascribes glory to
the one Lord God with a threefold ascription of holiness. For this
reason moreover she insists emphatically upon the oneness of the Person
of Christ, that
she may not go beyond the mystery of the
Trinity (that is by making in effect a Quaternity.)
Thus much by way of
digression. On another occasion, please God, we will deal with
the subject and unfold it more fully. Now let us return to the matter in hand.
Chapter 17.
The Error of Origen a great
Trial to the Church.
[42.] We said above that
in the Church of God the
teacher's error is
the people's trial, a trial by so much the greater in proportion to the greater
learning of the erring teacher. This we showed first by the authority of
Scripture, and then by instances from Church History, of persons who having
at one time had the reputation of
being sound in the faith,
eventually either fell away to some sect already
in existence, or
else founded a heresy of
their own. An important fact truly, useful to be
learned, and necessary to be remembered, and to be illustrated and enforced
again and again, by example upon example, in order that all true Catholics may
understand that it behooves them with the Church to receive
Teachers, not with Teachers to desert the faith of the Church.
[43.] My belief is, that
among many instances of this sort of trial which might be produced, there is
not one to be compared with that of Origen, in whom there
were many things so excellent, so unique, so admirable, that antecedently any
one would readily deem that implicit faith was to be
placed all his assertions. For if the conversation and manner of life carry
authority, great was his industry, great his modesty, his patience, his
endurance; if his descent or his erudition, what more noble than his birth of a
house rendered illustrious by martyrdom? Afterwards,
when in the cause of
Christ he had been deprived not only of his father, but also of all his
property, he attained so high a standard in the midst of the straits of holy poverty, that
he suffered several times, it is said, as a Confessor. Nor were these the only
circumstances connected with him, all of which afterwards proved an occasion
of trial. He had a genius so powerful, so profound, so acute, so elegant, that
there was hardly any one whom he did not very far surpass. The splendour of his
learning, and of his erudition generally, was such that there were few points
of divine philosophy,
hardly any of human which
he did not thoroughly master. When Greek had yielded to his industry, he made
himself a proficient in Hebrew. What shall I say of his eloquence, the style of
which was so charming, so soft, so sweet, that honey rather than words seemed
to flow from his mouth! What subjects were there, however difficult, which he
did not render clear and perspicuous by the force of his reasoning? What
undertakings, however hard to accomplish, which he did not make to appear most
easy? But perhaps his assertions rested simply on ingeniously woven
argumentation? On the contrary, no teacher ever used more proofs drawn from
Scripture. Then I suppose he wrote little? No man more, so that, if I mistake
not, his writings not only cannot all be read through, they cannot all be
found; for that nothing might be wanting to his opportunities of
obtaining knowledge,
he had the additional advantage of a life greatly prolonged. But perhaps he was
not particularly happy in
his disciples?
Who ever more so? From his school came forth doctors, priests,
confessors, martyrs,
without number. Then who can express how much he was admired by all, how great
his renown, how wide his influence? Who was there whose religion was at all
above the common standard that did not hasten to him from the ends of the
earth? What Christian did
not reverence him almost as a prophet; what philosopher as a
master? How great was the veneration with which he was regarded, not only by
private persons,
but also by the Court, is declared by the histories which relate how he was
sent for by the mother of the Emperor Alexander, moved by the heavenly wisdom
with the love of
which she, as he, was inflamed. To this also his letters bear witness, which, with the
authority which he assumed as a Christian Teacher,
he wrote to the Emperor Philip, the first Roman prince that was a Christian. As to his
incredible learning, if any one is unwilling to receive the testimony of Christians at our
hands, let him at least accept that of heathens at the
hands of philosophers.
For that impious Porphyry says that when he was little more than a boy, incited
by his fame, he went to Alexandria, and there
saw him, then an old man, but a man evidently of so great attainments, that he
had reached the summit of universal knowledge.
[44.] Time would fail me
to recount, even in a very small measure, the excellencies of this man, all of
which, nevertheless, not only contributed to the glory of religion,
but also increased the magnitude of the trial. For who in the world would
lightly desert a man of so great genius, so great learning, so great influence,
and would not rather adopt that saying, That he would rather be wrong
with Origen,
than be right with others.
What shall I say more?
The result was that very many were led astray from the integrity of the faith, not by any human excellencies
of this so great man, this so great doctor, this so great prophet, but, as the
event showed, by the too perilous trial which he proved to be. Hence
it came to pass, that this Origen, such and so
great as he was, wantonly abusing the grace of God, rashly following
the bent of his own genius, and placing overmuch confidence in himself, making
light account of the ancient simplicity of the Christian religion,
presuming that he knew more
than all the world besides, despising the traditions of the Church and the
determinations of the ancients, and interpreting certain passages of Scripture
in a novel way, deserved for himself the warning given to the Church of God, as
applicable in his case as in that of others, If there arise a prophet in the
midst of you,... you shall not hearken to the words of that prophet,...because the
Lord your God does make trial of you, whether you love Him or
not. Deuteronomy 13:1 Truly,
thus of a sudden to seduce the Church which was
devoted to him, and hung upon him through admiration of his genius, his
learning, his eloquence, his manner of life and influence, while she had
no fear, no
suspicion for herself — thus, I say, to seduce the Church, slowly and
little by little, from the old religion to a new profaneness, was not only a
trial, but a great trial.
[45.] But some one will
say, Origen's books
have been corrupted. I do not deny it; nay, I grant it readily. For that such
is the case has been handed down both orally and in writing, not only by Catholics, but by heretics as well.
But the point is, that though himself be not, yet books published under his
name are, a great trial, which, abounding in many hurtful blasphemies, are both
read and delighted in, not as being some one else's, but as being believed to be his,
so that, although there was no error in Origen's original
meaning, yet Origen's authority
appears to be an effectual cause in leading
people to embrace error.
Chapter 18.
Tertullian a great Trial
to the Church.
[46.] The case is the
same with Tertullian.
For as Origen holds
by far the first place among the Greeks, so does Tertullian among
the Latins. For who more learned than he, who more versed in knowledge whether
divine or human?
With marvellous capacity of mind he comprehended all philosophy, and had
a knowledge of
all schools of philosophers,
and of the founders and upholders of schools, and was acquainted with all their
rules and observances, and with their various histories and studies. Was not
his genius of such unrivalled strength and vehemence that there was scarcely
any obstacle which he proposed to himself to overcome, that he did not
penetrate by acuteness, or crush by weight? As to his style, who can
sufficiently set forth its praise? It was knit together with so much cogency of
argument that it compelled assent, even where it failed to persuade. Every word
almost was a sentence; every sentence a victory. This know the Marcions,
the Apelleses,
the Praxeases, the Hermogeneses, the Jews, the Heathens,
the Gnostics,
and the rest, whose blasphemies he
overthrew by the force of his many and ponderous volumes, as with so many
thunderbolts. Yet this man also, notwithstanding all that I have mentioned, this Tertullian, I say, too
little tenacious of Catholic doctrine,
that is, of the universal and ancient faith, more eloquent by
far than faithful, changed his belief, and justified what the blessed
Confessor, Hilary, writes of him, namely, that by his subsequent error he detracted
from the authority of his approved writings. He also was a great trial in
the Church. But
of Tertullian I
am unwilling to say more. This only I will add, that, contrary to the
injunction of Moses,
by asserting the novel furies of Montanus which
arose in the Church,
and those mad dreams of new doctrine dreamed by mad women, to be true prophecies, he
deservedly made both himself and his writings obnoxious to the words, If
there arise a prophet in
the midst of you,...you shall not hearken to the words of that prophet. For
why? Because the Lord your God does make trial of you, whether you love Him or not.
Chapter 19.
What we ought to learn
from these Examples.
[47.] It behooves us,
then, to give heed to these instances from Church History, so many and so
great, and others of the same description, and to understand distinctly, in
accordance with the rule laid down in Deuteronomy, that if at any time a Doctor
in the Church have
erred from the faith, Divine Providence permits
it in order to make trial of us, whether or not we love God with all
our heart and with all our mind.
Chapter 20.
The Notes of a true
Catholic.
[48.] This being the
case, he is the true and
genuine Catholic who
loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the
Body of Christ,
who esteems divine religion and the Catholic Faith
above every thing, above the authority, above the regard, above the genius,
above the eloquence, above the philosophy, of every man
whatsoever; who sets light by all of these, and continuing steadfast and
established in the faith,
resolves that he will believe that,
and that only, which he is sure the Catholic Church has held
universally and from ancient time; but that whatsoever new and unheard-of
doctrine he shall find to have been furtively introduced by some one or
another, besides that of all, or contrary to that of all the saints, this, he will
understand, does not pertain to religion, but is permitted as a trial, being
instructed especially by the words of the blessed Apostle Paul, who writes
thus in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, There must needs be heresies, that they who
are approved may be made manifest among you: 1 Corinthians 2:9 as
though he should say, This is the reason why the authors of Heresies are not
immediately rooted up by God, namely, that they
who are approved may be made manifest; that is, that it may be apparent of each
individual, how tenacious and faithful and steadfast he is in his love of the Catholic faith.
[49.] And in truth, as each novelty
springs up incontinently is discerned the difference between the weight of the
wheat and the lightness of the chaff. Then that which had no weight to keep it
on the floor is without difficulty blown away. For some at once fly off
entirely; others having been only shaken out, afraid of perishing, wounded,
half alive, half dead, are ashamed to return. They have, in fact swallowed
a quantity of
poison — not enough to kill, yet more than can be got rid of; it neither causes
death, nor suffers to live. O wretched condition! With what surging tempestuous
cares are they tossed about! One while, the error being set in
motion, they are hurried wherever the wind drives them; another, returning upon
themselves like refluent waves, they are dashed back: one while, with rash
presumption, they give their approval to what seems uncertain; another, with
irrational fear,
they are frightened out of their wits at what is certain, in doubt whither to
go, whither to return, what to seek, what to shun, what to keep, what to throw
away.
[50.] This affliction,
indeed, of a hesitating and miserably vacillating mind is, if they are wise, a
medicine intended for them by God's compassion. For therefore it is that
outside the most secure harbour of the Catholic Faith,
they are tossed about, beaten, and almost killed, by various tempestuous
cogitations, in order that they may take in the sails of self-conceit, which,
they had with ill advice unfurled to the blasts of novelty, and may betake
themselves again to, and remain stationary within, the most secure harbour of
their placid and good mother, and may begin by vomiting up those bitter and
turbid floods of error which
they had swallowed, that thenceforward they may be able to drink the streams of
fresh and living water. Let them unlearn well what they had learned not well,
and let them receive so much of the entire doctrine of the Church as they can
understand: what they cannot understand let them believe.
Chapter 21.
Exposition of St. Paul's
Words.— 1
Tim. vi. 20.
[51.] Such being the
case, when I think over these things, and revolve them in my mind again and
again, I cannot sufficiently wonder at the madness of certain
men, at the impiety of their blinded understanding, at their lust of error, such that, not
content with the rule of faith delivered
once for all, and received from the times of old, they are every day seeking
one novelty after another, and are constantly longing to add, change, take
away, in religion, as though the doctrine, Let what has once for all been
revealed suffice, were not a heavenly but an earthly rule — a rule which
could not be complied with except by continual emendation, nay, rather by
continual fault-finding; whereas the divine Oracles cry aloud, Remove not
the landmarks, which your fathers have set, Proverbs 22:28 and Go
not to law with a Judge, Sirach 8:14 and Whoever
breaks through a fence a serpent shall bite him, Ecclesiastes 10:8 and
that saying of the Apostle wherewith, as with a spiritual sword, all the wicked novelties of
all heresies often
have been, and will always have to be, decapitated, O Timothy, keep the
deposit, shunning profane novelties of words and oppositions of the knowledge falsely so called,
which some professing have erred concerning the faith. 1 Timothy 6:20
[52.] After words such as
these, is there any one of so hardened a front, such anvil-like impudence, such
adamantine pertinacity, as not to succumb to so huge a mass, not to be crushed
by so ponderous a weight, not to be shaken in pieces by such heavy blows, not
to be annihilated by such dreadful thunderbolts of divine eloquence? Shun
profane novelties, he says. He does not say shun antiquity. But
he plainly points to what ought to follow by the rule of contrary. For if
novelty is to be shunned, antiquity is to be held fast; if novelty is profane,
antiquity is sacred. He adds, And oppositions of science falsely so
called. Falsely called indeed, as applied to the doctrines of heretics, where ignorance is
disguised under the name of knowledge, fog of
sunshine, darkness of light. Which some professing have erred concerning
the faith. Professing
what? What but some (I know not what) new
and unheard-of doctrine. For you may hear some of these same doctors
say, Come, O silly wretches, who go by the name of Catholics, come and
learn the true faith, which no one but
ourselves is acquainted with, which same has lain hid these many ages, but has
recently been revealed and made manifest. But learn it by stealth and in
secret, for you will be delighted with it. Moreover, when you have learned it,
teach it furtively, that the world may not hear, that the Church may
not know. For
there are but few to whom it is granted to receive the secret of so great
a mystery. Are
not these the words of that harlot who, in the proverbs of Solomon, calls to
the passengers who go right on their ways, Whoever is simple let him turn
in hither. And as for them that are void of understanding, she exhorts
them saying: Drink stolen waters, for they are sweet, and eat bread in
secret for it is pleasant. What next? But he knows not that the
sons of earth perish in her house. Proverbs 9:16-18 Who
are those sons of earth? Let the apostle explain: Those who have
erred concerning the faith.
Chapter 22.
A more particular
Exposition of 1
Tim. vi. 20.
[53.] But it is worth
while to expound the whole of that passage of the apostle more fully, O
Timothy, keep the deposit, avoiding profane novelties of words.
O! The exclamation
implies fore-knowledge as
well as charity. For he mourned in anticipation over the errors which he
foresaw. Who is the Timothy of today, but either generally the Universal
Church, or in particular, the whole body of The Prelacy, whom it behooves
either themselves to possess or to communicate to others a complete knowledge of
religion? What is Keep the deposit? Keep it, because of thieves,
because of adversaries, lest, while men sleep, they sow tares over that good wheat
which the Son of Man had
sown in his field. Keep the deposit. What is The deposit? That
which has been entrusted to you, not that which you have yourself devised: a
matter not of wit, but of learning; not of private adoption, but of public
tradition; a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, wherein you are bound
to be not an author but a keeper, not a teacher but a disciple, not a leader
but a follower. Keep the deposit. Preserve the talent of Catholic Faith
inviolate, unadulterate. That which has been entrusted to you, let it continue
in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold; give
gold in turn. Do not substitute one thing for another. Do not for gold
impudently substitute lead or brass. Give real gold, not counterfeit.
O Timothy! O Priest! O
Expositor! O Doctor! If the divine gift has qualified you by wit, by skill, by
learning, be a Bazaleel of the spiritual tabernacle, engrave the precious gems
of divine doctrine, fit them in accurately, adorn them skilfully, add
splendor, grace,
beauty. Let that which formerly was believed, though
imperfectly apprehended, as expounded by you be clearly understood. Let
posterity welcome, understood through your exposition, what antiquity venerated
without understanding. Yet teach still the same truths which you have learned,
so that though you speak after a new fashion, what you speak may not be new.
Chapter 23.
On Development in
Religious Knowledge.
[54.] But some one will
say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly;
all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to
forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of
the faith. For
progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be
transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom,
as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the
course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress;
but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same
sense, and in the same meaning.
[55.] The growth of
religion in the soul must
be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is
developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a
wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they
who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch
that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his
nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs
are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same.
Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children;
and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already
present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was
not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate
rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that
mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of
the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were
changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number
of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole
body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be
impaired and enfeebled.
[56.] In like manner, it
behooves Christian doctrine
to follow the same laws of
progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age,
and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect
in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper
members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property,
no variation in its limits.
[57.] For example: Our
forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church's field. It would be most
unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of grain,
should reap the counterfeit error of tares.
This rather should be the result — there should be no discrepancy between the
first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in
the increase, doctrine of the same kind — wheat also; so that when in process
of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under
cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may
supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind
must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation
should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual
paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam, darnel and wolfsbane should of a
sudden shoot forth.
Therefore, whatever has
been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God's Church, the
same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their
children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and
go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of
heavenly philosophy should,
as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be
changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated.
They may receive proof,
illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness,
their integrity, their characteristic properties.
[58.] For if once this
license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger
religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one
part of Catholic truth be given up,
another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of
course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will
follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is
new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with
sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last
the Church will
have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound,
nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and
undefiled truth,
thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God's mercy
avert this wickedness from
the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly.
[59.] But the Church of Christ, the careful and
watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes
anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is
necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not
appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously
with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view — if there be
anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and
polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate
and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it.
Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than
to provide that what was before believed in
simplicity should in future be believed intelligently,
that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly,
that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised
with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the
novelties of heretics,
has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils — this, and nothing else — she
has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from
those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in
a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old
article of the faith by
the characteristic of a new name.
Chapter 24.
Continuation of the
Exposition of 1
Tim. vi. 20.
[60.] But let us return
to the apostle. O Timothy, he says, Guard the deposit, shunning
profane novelties of words. Shun them as you would a viper, as you would a
scorpion, as you would a basilisk, lest they smite you not only with their
touch, but even with their eyes and breath. What is to shun? Not even
to eat 1 Corinthians 5:11 with
a person of this sort. What is shun? If anyone, says St. John,
come to you and bring not this doctrine. What doctrine? What but the Catholic and
universal doctrine, which has continued one and the same through the several
successions of ages by the uncorrupt tradition of the truth and so will
continue for ever — Receive him not into your house, neither bid him
Godspeed, for he that bids him Godspeed communicates with him in his evil deeds. 2 John 10
[61.] Profane
novelties of words. What words are these? Such as have nothing sacred,
nothing religious, words utterly remote from the inmost sanctuary of the Church which is the
temple of God.
Profane novelties of words, that is, of doctrines, subjects, opinions, such as
are contrary to antiquity and the faith of the olden
time. Which if they be received, it follows necessarily that the faith of the
blessed fathers is violated either in whole, or at all events in great part; it
follows necessarily that all the faithful of all ages, all the saints, the chaste, the
continent, the virgins,
all the clergy,
Deacons and Priests, so many thousands of Confessors, so vast an army of martyrs, such multitudes
of cities and of peoples, so many islands, provinces, kings, tribes, kingdoms,
nations, in a word, almost the whole earth, incorporated in Christ the Head,
through the Catholic faith, have been ignorant for so
long a tract of time, have been mistaken, have blasphemed, have
not known what
to believe, what
to confess.
[62.] Shun profane
novelties of words, which to receive and follow was never the part
of Catholics; of heretics always
was. In truth, what heresy ever
burst forth save under a definite name, at a definite place, at a definite
time? Who ever originated a heresy that did not
first dissever himself from the consentient agreement of the universality and
antiquity of the Catholic Church? That this is so
is demonstrated in the clearest way by examples. For who ever before that
profane Pelagius attributed so much antecedent strength to Free-will, as to
deny the necessity of
God's grace to
aid it towards good in every single act? Who ever before his monstrous disciple Cœlestius
denied that the whole human
race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin? Who ever
before sacrilegious Arius dared to rend
asunder the unity of the Trinity? Who before impious Sabellius was so audacious
as to confound the Trinity of the Unity? Who before cruellest Novatian represented
God as cruel in that He had rather the wicked should die
than that he should be converted and live? Who before Simon Magus, who was
smitten by the apostle's rebuke, and from whom that ancient sink of every thing
vile has flowed by a secret continuous succession even to Priscillian of our
own time — who, I say, before this Simon Magus, dared to
say that God,
the Creator, is the author of evil, that is, of our
wickednesses, impieties, flagitiousnesses, inasmuch as he asserts that He
created with His own hands a human nature of such a
description, that of its own motion, and by the impulse of its
necessity-constrained will, it can do nothing else, can will nothing else,
but sin, seeing
that tossed to and fro, and set on fire by the furies of all sorts of vices, it is hurried
away by unquenchable lust into
the utmost extremes of baseness?
[63.] There are
innumerable instances of this kind, which for brevity's sake, pass over; by all
of which, however, it is manifestly and clearly shown, that it is an
established law, in the case of almost all heresies, that they
evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and,
through oppositions of science falsely so called,
make shipwreck of the faith.
On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep
that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers, to
condemn profane novelties, and, in the apostle's words, once and again
repeated, to anathematize every
one who preaches any other doctrine than that which has been received. Galatians 2:9
Chapter 25.
Heretics appeal to Scripture
that they may more easily succeed in deceiving.
[64.] Here, possibly,
some one may ask, Do heretics also
appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them
scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture —
through the books of Moses,
the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles,
the Gospels, the
Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in
public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets,
hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not
endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata,
of Priscillian,
of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and the rest of those pests, and you will see
an infinite heap
of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible
quotations from the New
Testament or the Old.
[65.] But the more
secretly they conceal themselves under shelter of the Divine Law, so much the
more are they to be feared and guarded against. For they know that the evil stench of
their doctrine will hardly find acceptance with any one if it be exhaled pure
and simple. They sprinkle it over, therefore, with the perfume of heavenly
language, in order that one who would be ready to despise human error, may hesitate to
condemn divine words. They do, in fact, what nurses do when they would prepare
some bitter draught for children; they smear the edge of the cup all round with
honey, that the unsuspecting child, having first tasted the sweet, may have
no fear of
the bitter. So too do these act, who disguise poisonous herbs and noxious
juices under the names of medicines, so that no one almost, when he reads the
label, suspects the poison.
[66.] It was for this
reason that the Saviour cried, Beware of false prophets who
come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:15 What
is meant by sheep's clothing? What but the words which prophets and apostles with the
guilelessness of sheep wove beforehand as fleeces, for that immaculate Lamb
which takes away the sin of
the world? What are the ravening wolves? What but the savage and rabid glosses
of heretics, who
continually infest the Church's folds, and tear in pieces the flock of Christ
wherever they are able? But that they may with more successful guile steal upon
the unsuspecting sheep, retaining the ferocity of the wolf, they put off his
appearance, and wrap themselves, so to say, in the language of the Divine Law,
as in a fleece, so that one, having felt the softness of wool, may have no
dread of the wolf's fangs. But what says the Saviour? By their fruits you
shall know them; that
is, when they have begun not only to quote those divine words, but also to
expound them, not as yet only to make a boast of them as on their side, but
also to interpret them, then will that bitterness, that acerbity, that rage, be
understood; then will the ill-savour of that novel poison be perceived, then
will those profane novelties be disclosed, then may you see first the hedge
broken through, then the landmarks of the Fathers removed, then the Catholic faith assailed,
then the doctrine of the Church torn in
pieces.
[67.] Such were they whom
the Apostle Paul rebukes
in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, when he says, For of this sort
are false apostles,
deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:12 The apostles brought
forward instances from Holy
Scripture; these men did the same. The apostles cited the
authority of the Psalms; these men did so likewise. The apostles brought
forward passages from the prophets; these men
still did the same. But when they began to interpret in different senses the
passages which both had agreed in appealing to, then were discerned the
guileless from the crafty, the genuine from the counterfeit, the straight from
the crooked, then, in one word, the true apostles from the
false apostles. And
no wonder, he says, for Satan himself
transforms himself into an angel of light. It
is no marvel then if his servants are transformed as the servants of
righteousness. Therefore, according to the authority of the Apostle Paul, as often
as either false apostles or
false teachers cite passages from the Divine Law, by means of which,
misinterpreted, they seek to prop up their own errors, there is
no doubt that
they are following the cunning devices of their father, which assuredly he
would never have devised, but that he knew that where he
could fraudulently and
by stealth introduce error,
there is no easier way of effecting his impious purpose than by pretending the
authority of Holy
Scripture.
Chapter 26.
Heretics, in quoting
Scripture, follow the example of the Devil.
[68.] But some one will
say, What proof have
we that the Devil is
wont to appeal to Holy
Scripture? Let him read the Gospels wherein it
is written, Then the Devil took Him (the
Lord the Saviour) and set Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple, and said to Him:
If you be the Son of
God, cast yourself down, for it is written, He shall give His angels charge
concerning you, that they may keep you in all your ways: In their hands they
shall bear you up, lest perchance you dash your foot against a stone. What
sort of treatment must men, insignificant wretches that they are, look for at
the hands of him who assailed even the Lord of Glory with quotations from
Scripture? If you be the Son of God, says
he, cast yourself down. Wherefore? For, says he, it is
written. It behooves us to pay special attention to this passage and bear
it in mind,
that, warned by so important an instance of Evangelical authority, we may be
assured beyond doubt,
when we find people alleging passages from the Apostles or Prophets against
the Catholic Faith,
that the Devil speaks
through their mouths. For as then the Head spoke to the Head, so now also the
members speak to the members, the members of the Devil to the
members of Christ,
misbelievers to believers, sacrilegious to
religious, in one word, Heretics to Catholics.
[69.] But what do they
say? If you be the Son of God, cast
yourself down; that is, If you would be a son of God, and would
receive the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven, cast yourself
down; that is, cast yourself down from the doctrine and tradition of that sublime
Church, which is imagined to be nothing less than the very temple of God. And if one should
ask one of the heretics who
gives this advice, How do you prove? What ground have you, for saying, that I
ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? He has the
answer ready, For it is written; and immediately he produces a
thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the Law,
from the Psalms,
from the apostles,
from the Prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong principle,
the unhappy soul may
be precipitated from the height of Catholic truth to the lowest
abyss of heresy.
Then, with the accompanying promises, the heretics are wont
marvellously to beguile the incautious. For they dare to teach and promise,
that in their church, that is, in the conventicle of their communion, there is
a certain great and special and altogether personal grace of God, so that whosoever
pertain to their number, without any labour, without any effort, without any
industry, even though they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock, have such a
dispensation from God,
that, borne up by angel hands,
that is, preserved by the protection of angels, it is impossible
they should ever dash their feet against a stone, that is, that they should
ever be offended.
Chapter 27.
What Rule is to be
observed in the Interpretation of Scripture.
[70.] But it will be
said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to
by the Devil and
his disciples,
of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and
false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the
sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the
sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in
the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned
men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon
according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the
rules of Catholic doctrine,
in which Catholic and
Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent.
And if at any time a part opposes itself to the whole, novelty to antiquity,
the dissent of one or a few who are in error to the
consent of all or at all events of the great majority of Catholics, then they
must prefer the soundness of the whole to the corruption of a part; in which
same whole they must prefer the religion of antiquity to the profaneness of
novelty; and in antiquity itself in like manner, to the temerity of one or of a
very few they must prefer, first of all, the general decrees, if such there be,
of a Universal Council, or if there be no such, then, what is next best, they
must follow the consentient belief of many and great masters. Which rule having
been faithfully, soberly, and scrupulously observed, we shall with little
difficulty detect the noxious errors of heretics as they
arise.
Chapter 28.
In what Way, on collating
the consentient opinions of the Ancient Masters, the Novelties of Heretics may
be detected and condemned.
[71.] And here I perceive
that, as a necessary sequel to the foregoing, I ought to show by examples in
what way, by collating the consentient opinions of the ancient masters, the
profane novelties of heretics may
be detected and condemned. Yet in the investigation of this ancient consent of
the holy Fathers
we are to bestow our pains not on every minor question of the Divine Law, but
only, at all events especially, where the Rule of Faith is concerned. Nor is
this way of dealing with heresy to be
resorted to always, or in every instance, but only in the case of those heresies which are
new and recent, and that on their first arising, before they have had time to
deprave the Rules of the Ancient Faith, and before they endeavour, while the
poison spreads and diffuses itself, to corrupt the writings of the ancients.
But heresies already
widely diffused and of old standing are by no means to be thus dealt with,
seeing that through lapse of time they have long had opportunity of corrupting
the truth. And
therefore, as to the more ancient schisms or heresies, we ought
either to confute them, if need be, by the sole authority of the Scriptures, or at any
rate, to shun them as having been already of old convicted and condemned by
universal councils of the Catholic Priesthood.
[72.] Therefore, as soon
as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to
break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture,
and expounding them fraudulently and
deceitfully, immediately, the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of
the Canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty, and consequently the
profaneness, whatever it may be, that arises, may both without any doubt be exposed,
and without any tergiversation be condemned. But the opinions of those Fathers
only are to be used for comparison, who living and teaching, holily, wisely,
and with constancy, in the Catholic faith and
communion, were counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ, or to suffer
death happily for Christ. Whom yet we are to believe in this
condition, that that only is to be accounted indubitable, certain, established,
which either all, or the more part, have supported and confirmed manifestly,
frequently, persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it were, a
consentient council of doctors, all receiving, holding, handing on the same
doctrine. But whatsoever a teacher holds, other than all, or contrary to all,
be he holy and
learned, be he a bishop,
be he a Confessor, be he a martyr, let that be
regarded as a private fancy of his own, and be separated from the authority of
common, public, general persuasion, lest, after the sacrilegious custom
of heretics and
schismatics, rejecting the ancient truth of the
universal Creed, we follow, at the utmost peril of our eternal salvation, the newly
devised error of
one man.
[73.] Lest any one
perchance should rashly think the holy and Catholic consent of
these blessed fathers to be despised, the Apostle says, in the First Epistle to
the Corinthians, God has
placed some in the Church, first Apostles, 1 Corinthians 12:27-28 of
whom himself was one; secondly Prophets, such as Agabus, of whom we read
in the Acts of the Apostles; Acts 11:28 then
doctors, who are now called Homilists, Expositors, whom the same apostle
sometimes calls also Prophets, because by them the mysteries of the
Prophets are opened to the people. Whosoever, therefore, shall despise these,
who had their appointment of God in His Church
in their several times and places, when they are unanimous in Christ, in the
interpretation of some one point of Catholic doctrine,
despises not man, but God,
from whose unity in the truth, lest any one
should vary, the same Apostle earnestly protests, I beseech you, brethren,
that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you,
but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:10 But
if any one dissent from their unanimous decision, let him listen to the words
of the same apostle, God is
not the God of
dissension but of peace; 1 Corinthians 14:33 that
is, not of him who departs from the unity of consent, but of those who remain
steadfast in the peace of consent: as, he continues, I teach in
all Churches of the saints, that
is, of Catholics,
which churches are therefore churches of the saints, because they
continue steadfast in the communion of the faith.
[74.] And lest any one,
disregarding every one else, should arrogantly claim to be listened to himself
alone, himself alone to be believed, the Apostle
goes on to say, Did the word of God proceed from you, or did it come to
you only? And, lest this should be thought lightly spoken, he
continues, If any man seem to be a prophet or a
spiritual person, let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you
are the Lord's commands. As to which, unless a man be a prophet or a
spiritual person, that is, a master in spiritual matters, let him be as
observant as possible of impartiality and unity, so as neither to prefer his
own opinions to those of every one besides, nor to recede from the belief of
the whole body. Which injunction, whoever ignores, shall be himself
ignored; 1 Corinthians 14:33 that
is, he who either does not learn what he does not know, or treats with
contempt what he knows,
shall be ignored, that is, shall be deemed unworthy to be ranked of God with
those who are united to each other by faith, and equalled with
each other by humility, than which I cannot imagine a more
terrible evil.
This it is however which, according to the Apostle's threatening, we see to
have befallen Julian the Pelagian, who either neglected to associate himself
with the belief of his fellow Christians, or presumed
to dissociate himself from it.
[75.] But it is now time
to bring forward the exemplification which we promised, where and how the
sentences of the holy Fathers
have been collected together, so that in accordance with them, by the decree
and authority of a council, the rule of the Church's faith may be
settled. Which that it may be done the more conveniently, let this present
Commonitory end here, so that the remainder which is to follow may be begun
from a fresh beginning.
[The Second Book of the
Commonitory is lost. Nothing of it remains but the conclusion: in other words,
the recapitulation which follows.]
Chapter 29.
Recapitulation.
[76.] This being the
case, it is now time that we should recapitulate, at the close of this second
Commonitory, what was said in that and in the preceding.
We said above, that it
has always been the custom of Catholics, and still is,
to prove the true faith in these two
ways; first by the authority of the Divine Canon, and next by the tradition of
the Catholic Church. Not that the
Canon alone does not of itself suffice for every question, but seeing that the
more part, interpreting the divine words according to their own persuasion,
take up various erroneous opinions, it is therefore necessary that the
interpretation of divine
Scripture should be ruled according to the one standard of the
Church's belief, especially in those articles on which the foundations of
all Catholic doctrine
rest.
[77.] We said likewise,
that in the Church itself
regard must be had to the consentient voice of universality equally with that
of antiquity, lest we either be torn from the integrity of unity and carried
away to schism,
or be precipitated from the religion of antiquity into heretical novelties.
We said, further, that in this same ecclesiastical antiquity
two points are very carefully and earnestly to be held in view by those who
would keep clear of heresy:
first, they should ascertain whether any decision has been given in ancient
times as to the matter in question by the whole priesthood of
the Catholic Church, with the
authority of a General Council: and, secondly, if some new question should
arise on which no such decision has been given, they should then have recourse
to the opinions of the holy Fathers, of
those at least, who, each in his own time and place, remaining in the unity of
communion and of the faith,
were accepted as approved masters; and whatsoever these may be found to have
held, with one mind and with one consent, this ought to be accounted the true and Catholic doctrine
of the Church,
without any doubt or
scruple.
[78.] Which lest we
should seem to allege presumptuously on our own warrant rather than on the
authority of the Church,
we appealed to the example of the holy council which
some three years ago was held at Ephesus in Asia, in the consulship of Bassus
and Antiochus, where, when question was raised as to the authoritative
determining of rules of faith, lest, perchance,
any profane novelty should creep in, as did the perversion of the truth at Ariminum,
the whole body of priests there
assembled, nearly two hundred in number, approved of this as the most Catholic, the most
trustworthy, and the best course, viz., to bring forth into the midst the
sentiments of the holy Fathers,
some of whom it was well known had been martyrs, some
Confessors, but all had been, and continued to the end to be, Catholic priests, in order that
by their consentient determination the reverence due to ancient truth might be duly
and solemnly confirmed, and the blasphemy of
profane novelty condemned. Which having been done, that impious Nestorius was
lawfully and deservedly adjudged to be opposed to Catholic antiquity,
and contrariwise blessed Cyril to be in agreement with it. And that nothing
might be wanting to the credibility of the matter, we recorded the names and
the number (though we had forgotten the order) of the Fathers, according to
whose consentient and unanimous judgment, both the sacred preliminaries of
judicial procedure were expounded, and the rule of divine truth established.
Whom, that we may strengthen our memory, it will be no superfluous labour to
mention again here also.
Chapter 30.
The Council of Ephesus.
[79.] These then are the
men whose writings, whether as judges or as witnesses, were recited in the
Council: St. Peter, bishop of
Alexandria, a most excellent Doctor and most blessed martyr, St. Athanasius, bishop of the same
city, a most faithful Teacher, and most eminent Confessor, St. Theophilus,
also bishop of
the same city, a man illustrious for his faith, his life,
his knowledge,
whose successor, the revered Cyril, now adorns the Alexandrian Church. [This
marks Vincentius's date within very narrow limits — after the Council of
Ephesus, and before Cyril's death. Cyril died in 444.] And lest perchance
the doctrine ratified by the Council should be thought peculiar to one city and
province, there were added also those lights of Cappadocia, St. Gregory of
Nazianzus, bishop and
Confessor, St. Basil of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, bishop and
Confessor, and the other St. Gregory, St. Gregory of Nyssa, for his faith, his conversation,
his integrity, and his wisdom, most worthy to be the brother of Basil. And lest
Greece or the East should seem to stand alone, to prove that the Western and
Latin world also have always held the same belief, there were read in the
Council certain Epistles of St. Felix, martyr, and St. Julius,
both bishops of
Rome. And that not only the Head, but the other parts, of the world also might
bear witness to
the judgment of the council, there was added from the South the most blessed
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage and martyr, and from the
North St. Ambrose, bishop of
Milan.
[80.] These all then, to
the sacred number of the decalogue, were produced at Ephesus as doctors,
councillors, witnesses, judges. And that blessed council holding their
doctrine, following their counsel, believing their witness, submitting to
their judgment without haste, without foregone conclusion, without partiality,
gave their determination concerning the Rules of Faith. A much greater number
of the ancients might have been adduced; but it was needless, because neither
was it fit that the time should be occupied by a multitude of witnesses, nor
does any one suppose that those ten were really of a different mind from the
rest of their colleagues.
Chapter 31.
The Constancy of the
Ephesine Fathers in driving away Novelty and maintaining Antiquity.
[81.] After the preceding
we added also the sentence of blessed Cyril, which is contained in these same
Ecclesiastical Proceedings. For when the Epistle of Capreolus, bishop of Carthage, had been read,
wherein he earnestly intreats that novelty may be driven away and antiquity
maintained, Cyril made and carried the proposal, which it may not be out of
place to insert here: For says he, at the close of the proceedings, Let
the Epistle of Capreolus also, the reverend and very religious bishop of Carthage, which has been
read, be inserted in the acts. His mind is obvious, for he intreats that the
doctrines of the ancient faith be confirmed,
such as are novel, wantonly devised, and impiously promulgated, reprobated and
condemned. All the bishops cried
out, These are the words of all; this we all say, this we all
desire. What mean the words of all, what mean the desires
of all, but that what has been handed down from antiquity should be
retained, what has been newly devised, rejected with disdain?
[82.] Next we expressed
our admiration of the humility and sanctity of that
Council, such that, though the number of priests was so
great, almost the more part of them metropolitans, so erudite, so learned, that
almost all were capable of taking part in doctrinal discussions, whom the very
circumstance of their being assembled for the purpose, might seem to embolden
to make some determination on their own authority, yet they innovated nothing,
presumed nothing, arrogated to themselves absolutely nothing, but used all
possible care to hand down nothing to posterity but what they had themselves
received from their Fathers. And not only did they dispose satisfactorily of
the matter presently in hand, but they also set an example to those who should
come after them, how they also should adhere to the determinations of sacred
antiquity, and condemn the devices of profane novelty.
[83.] We inveighed also
against the wicked presumption
of Nestorius in
boasting that he was the first and the only one who understood holy Scripture, and
that all those teachers were ignorant, who before him
had expounded the sacred oracles, forsooth, the whole body of priests, the whole body
of Confessors and martyrs,
of whom some had published commentaries upon the Law of God, others had agreed
with them in their comments, or had acquiesced in them. In a word, he
confidently asserted that the whole Church was even now
in error, and
always had been in error,
in that, as it seemed to him, it had followed, and was following, ignorant and
misguided teachers.
Chapter 32.
The zeal of Celestine and
Sixtus, bishops of Rome, in opposing Novelty.
[84.] The foregoing would
be enough and very much more than enough, to crush and annihilate every profane
novelty. But yet that nothing might be wanting to such completeness of proof, we added, at the
close, the twofold authority of the Apostolic See, first,
that of holy Pope
Sixtus, the venerable prelate who now adorns the Roman Church; and secondly
that of his predecessor, Pope Celestine of blessed memory, which same we think
it necessary to insert here also.
Holy Pope Sixtus then
says in an Epistle which he wrote on Nestorius's matter
to the bishop of Antioch, Therefore,
because, as the Apostle says, the faith is one —
evidently the faith which
has obtained hitherto — let us believe the things
that are to be said, and say the things that are to be held. What are the
things that are to be believed and
to be said? He goes on: Let no license be allowed to novelty, because it
is not fit that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the
clear faith and
belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture. A truly apostolic
sentiment! He enhances the belief of the Fathers by the epithet of clearness;
profane novelties he calls muddy.
[85.] Holy Pope Celestine
also expresses himself in like manner and to the same effect. For in the
Epistle which he wrote to the priests of Gaul, charging them with
connivance with error,
in that by their silence they failed in their duty to the ancient faith, and allowed
profane novelties to spring up, he says: We are deservedly to blame if we
encourage error by
silence. Therefore rebuke these people. Restrain their liberty of
preaching. But here some one may doubt who they are
whose liberty to preach as they list he forbids — the preachers of antiquity or
the devisers of novelty. Let himself tell us; let himself resolve the
reader's doubt.
For he goes on: If the case be so (that is, if the case be so as certain persons complain to
me touching your cities and provinces, that by your hurtful dissimulation
you cause them
to consent to certain novelties), if the case be so, let novelty cease to
assail antiquity. This, then, was the sentence of blessed Celestine, not
that antiquity should cease to subvert novelty, but that novelty should cease
to assail antiquity.
Chapter 33.
The Children of the
Catholic Church ought to adhere to the Faith of their Fathers and die for it.
[86.] Whoever then
gainsays these Apostolic and Catholic determinations,
first of all necessarily insults the memory of holy Celestine, who
decreed that novelty should cease to assail antiquity; and in the next place
sets at naught the decision of holy Sixtus, whose
sentence was, Let no license be allowed to novelty, since it is not fit
that any addition be made to antiquity; moreover, he condemns the
determination of blessed Cyril, who extolled with high praise the zeal of the
venerable Capreolus, in that he would fain have the ancient doctrines of
the faith confirmed,
and novel inventions condemned; yet more, he tramples upon the Council of
Ephesus, that is, on the decisions of the holy bishops of almost
the whole East, who decreed, under divine guidance, that nothing ought to
be believed by
posterity save what the sacred antiquity of the holy Fathers,
consentient in Christ,
had held, who with one voice, and with loud acclaim, testified that these were
the words of all, this was the wish of all, this was the sentence of all, that
as almost all heretics before Nestorius, despising
antiquity and upholding novelty, had been condemned, so Nestorius, the author of
novelty and the assailant of antiquity, should be condemned also. Whose
consentient determination, inspired by the gift of sacred and celestial grace, whoever
disapproves must needs hold the profaneness of Nestorius to have
been condemned unjustly;
finally, he despises as vile and worthless the whole Church of Christ, and its
doctors, apostles,
and prophets,
and especially the blessed Apostle Paul: he
despises the Church,
in that she has never failed in loyalty to the duty of cherishing and
preserving the faith once
for all delivered to her; he despises St. Paul, who
wrote, O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you, shunning profane
novelties of words; 1 Timothy 6:20 and
again, if any man preach unto you other than you have received, let him be
accursed. Galatians 1:9 But
if neither apostolic injunctions
nor ecclesiastical decrees
may be violated, by which, in accordance with the sacred consent of
universality and antiquity, all heretics always,
and, last of all, Pelagius, Cœlestius, and Nestorius have been
rightly and deservedly condemned, then assuredly it is incumbent on all Catholics who are
anxious to approve themselves genuine sons of Mother Church, to adhere
henceforward to the holy faith of the holy Fathers, to be
wedded to it, to die in it; but as to the profane novelties of profane men — to
detest them, abhor them, oppose them, give them no quarter.
[87.] These matters,
handled more at large in the two preceding Commonitories, I have now put
together more briefly by way of recapitulation, in order that my memory, to aid
which I composed them, may, on the one hand, be refreshed by frequent
reference, and, on the other, may avoid being wearied by prolixity.
About this page
Source. Translated
by C.A. Heurtley. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol.
11. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian
Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent
by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm>.
Contact information. The
editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org.
(To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I
can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially
notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.
Copyright © 2023 by Kevin Knight.
Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
SOURCE : https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
%2C_2011%2C_Cappella_campestre_di_San_Lupo._(2).jpg)
San Lupo di Troyes Vescovo
Festa: 29 luglio
Toul, Alsazia, 383 c. -
479
Nato a Toul, in Alsazia,
intorno al 383, Lupo si fece monaco nell'abbazia di Lèrins dopo aver
distribuito ai poveri tutti i suoi beni. Eletto vescovo di Troyes nel 426,
difese la città dalla furia devastatrice degli Unni e combatté strenuamente il
dilagante clima eretico. Il martirologio romano nel ricordo romano ne ricorda
la «deposizione» il 29 luglio, giorno in cui la Chiesa beneventana ne ha sempre
celebrato la memoria. Il culto di san Lupo, in Benevento e nella sua diocesi,
risale almeno al IX-X secolo. Già nel IX secolo esisteva in Benevento una badia
benedettina intitolata a suo nome, i cui abati esercitavano giurisdizione
spirituale e temporale sul villaggio fortificato di san Lupo (arcidiocesi e
provincia di Benevento). Quando, nel 1450, Papa Niccolò V soppresse la badia, i
beni e la giurisdizione furono annessi al capitolo metropolitano, che da quel
tempo onora il santo vescovo trecense come suo insigne patrono. Patrono di san
Lupo (BN) che lo venera dal 27 al 29 luglio con la processione del grano. (Avvenire)
Martirologio
Romano: A Troyes nella Gallia lugdunense, nell’odierna Francia, san Lupo,
vescovo, che si recò in Bretagna insieme a san Germano di Auxerre per debellare
l’eresia pelagiana, difese con la preghiera la sua città dalla furia di Attila
e, compiuti onorevolmente cinquantadue anni di sacerdozio, riposò in pace.
Nato a Toul, in Alsazia, intorno al 383, Lupo si fece monaco nell'abbazia di Lèrins dopo aver distribuito ai poveri tutti i suoi beni. Eletto vescovo di Troyes nel 426, difese la città dalla furia devastatrice degli Unni e combattè strenuamente la pullulante eresie aria. Il martirologio romano nel ricordo romano ne ricorda la "deposizione" il 29 luglio, giorno in cui la Chiesa Beneventana ne ha sempre celebrato la memoria. Il culto di san Lupo, in Benevento e nella sua diocesi, risale almeno al IX-X secolo. Già nel IX secolo esisteva in Benevento una badia benedettina intitolata al suo nome, i cui abati esercitavano giurisdizione spirituale e temporale sul villagio fortificato di san Lupo (arcidiocesi e provincia di Benevento).
Quando, nel 1450, papa Niccolò V soppresse la badia, i beni e la agiurisdizione
di essa furono annessi al capitolo metropolitano, che da quel tempo onora il
santo vescovo trecense come suo insigne patrono.
Patrono di san Lupo (BN) che lo venera dal 27 al 29 luglio con la processione
del grano.
Fonte : www.diocesidibenevento.org
SOURCE : https://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/91806
.JPG)
San Lupo
Vescovo
Nato a Toul, in Alsazia,
intorno al 383, Lupo si fece monaco nell'abbazia di Lèrins dopo aver
distribuito ai poveri tutti i suoi beni. Eletto vescovo di Troyes nel 426,
difese la città dalla furia devastatrice degli Unni e combattè strenuamente la
pullulante eresie aria. Il martirologio romano nel ricordo romano ne ricorda la
"deposizione" il 29 luglio, giorno in cui la Chiesa Beneventana ne ha
sempre celebrato la memoria. Il culto di san Lupo, in Benevento e nella sua
diocesi, risale almeno al IX-X secolo. Già nel IX secolo esisteva in Benevento
una badia benedettina intitolata al suo nome, i cui abati esercitavano
giurisdizione spirituale e temporale sul villagio fortificato di san Lupo
(arcidiocesi e provincia di Benevento).
Quando, nel 1450, papa Niccolò V soppresse la badia, i beni e la agiurisdizione
di essa furono annessi al capitolo metropolitano, che da quel tempo onora il
santo vescovo trecense come suo insigne patrono.
Église
Saint-Loup-de-Troyes de Bléneau, Yonne, France
Den hellige Lupus av
Troyes (~393-479)
Minnedag:
29. juli
Skytshelgen for Troyes,
Benevento og San Lupo; mot demonbesettelse, lammelse og epilepsi
Den hellige Lupus (fr:
Loup, Leu) (latin = ulv) ble født rundt 393 i Toul i dagens departement
Meurthe-et-Moselle i regionen Lorraine i Nordøst-Frankrike. Han kalles av noen
kilder også Bleiddian (Blewdian, Brinddian) (Bleiddian: walisisk = ulv).
Tradisjonelt heter det at han ble født rundt 383, men rundt 393 synes nå mer
sannsynlig. Han kom fra en fornem familie og ble foreldreløs i ung alder, men
han fikk en utmerket utdannelse fra en onkel. I tillegg var han veltalende og
lærd, så han hadde alle kvaliteter som var nødvendige for å lykkes i den
profesjonen han valgte, nemlig jussen. Han praktiserte som advokat en tid og
opparbeidet seg et godt ry. Han gikk også i tjeneste for den hellige Germanus av Auxerre (ca
378-448), som da hadde den høye stillingen som guvernør for grenseprovinsen
Armorica (Bretagne), men som i 418 ble valgt til biskop av Auxerre.
Rundt 420 giftet Lupus
seg med Pimeniola (fr: Piméniole), en søster av den hellige erkebiskop Hilarius av Arles (ca
400-449). Men etter seks års ekteskap ble de i 426 enige om å skille lag og gå
i kloster på hver sin kant. Lupus solgte sine eiendommer med sin hustrus
samtykke og ble munk i det nylig grunnlagte klosteret Lérins på den lille øya
Saint-Honorat utenfor Cannes. Han avla løftene under den hellige Honoratus,
klosterets grunnlegger og første abbed og en nær slektning av Hilarius, som
også var munk i klosteret. Men allerede samme år (426) ble Honoratus valgt til
erkebiskop av Arles, og siden han var en gammel mann, insisterte han på at
Hilarius skulle bli med ham som hans personlige assistent.
Året etter (427), da
Honoratus var valgt til erkebiskop, dro Lupus på en reise til Mâcon i Burgund
for å selge en eiendom han hadde der. Etter at han hadde brukt kjøpesummen til
nestekjærlig arbeid, la han av gårde på veien tilbake til Lérins. Men han ble
møtt av utsendinger fra Kirken i Troyes (Trecensis) i Gallia
Lugdunense, sør for Reims, som kunne fortelle at deres biskop, den
hellige Ursus (fr:
Ours), var død i 426 etter bare noen måneder som biskop, og at Lupus var valgt
til ny biskop av folket i Troyes. Dette var i strid med hans egne planer, og av
ydmykhet avslo han først, men til slutt aksepterte han valget til biskop under
forutsetning av at han kunne fortsette å leve som en munk.
Lupus sparte ingen
anstrengelser for å berge ett eneste tapt får, og hans arbeid var ofte kronet
med en suksess som syntes mirakuløs. For eksempel da en mann ved navn Gallus
forstøtte sin hustru og trakk seg tilbake til Clermont, skrev Lupus til ham
gjennom biskop Sidonius av Clermont. Etter at Gallus leste det kloke brevet som
var mildnet med godhet, vendte han straks tilbake til sin hustru. Da Sidonius
var vitne til dette, ropte han ut: «Hva er vel mer vidunderlig enn en enkel
reprimande som både skremmer en synder til samvittighetsnag og får ham til å
elske sin kritiker!»
Lupus av Troyes
identifiseres vanligvis med den Lupus som fulgte Germanus av Auxerre på hans
første besøk til England for å utrydde pelagianismen i landet. På slutten av
300-tallet hadde den britiskfødte munken Pelagius og
den skotske Celestius introdusert dette kjetteriet i Afrika, Italia og Østen.
De benektet at menneskenaturen var korrumpert gjennom arvesynd samt nødvendigheten
av guddommelig nåde. Agricola, en disippel av disse vranglærerne, hadde brakt
deres kjetteri også til Britannia. De britiske biskopene ba om assistanse fra
den hellige pave Celestin I (422-32),
og han ba biskopene i Gallia hjelpe sine britiske kolleger med å få utryddet
dette ondet.
På konsilet i Arles i 429
ble dette oppdraget gitt til Germanus og Lupus. De aksepterte med stor glød og
dro til England samme år. Deres oppgave var ikke bare å motarbeide den
kjetterske pelagianismen, som hadde slått rot i Britannia, men også å styrke
den britiske Kirken etter at den romerske hæren hadde trukket seg ut. Germanus
og Lupus overvant den falske læren på et møte i Verulamium. Da Lupus kom tilbake
til Gallia, viet han seg igjen til sine biskoppelige plikter. Germanus dro
tilbake til England enda en gang rundt 445, men da uten Lupus. Denne gangen
reiste han sammen med biskop Severus av Trier (d. ca 455), som var en disippel
av Lupus.
Ifølge tradisjonen dro de
to biskopene gjennom Nanterre på veien til Britannia, og der møtte de en ung
jente som betrodde dem at hun ville leve bare for Gud. Det var den unge
hellige Genovefa (fr:
Geneviève) (ca 422-ca 500). Germanus oppmuntret hennes gode vilje, og hennes
eldste biografi sier at han så hennes fremtidige hellighet og viet henne til
Gud ved å legge sine hender på hennes hode under en vigilie. Legenden forteller
at i 451 forsvarte Genovefa og Lupus heroisk sine byer Paris og Troyes mot
Attila og hans hær.
Biskop Lupus bestemte seg
da for selv å dra til Attila. Det blir sagt han prostrerte seg i bønn i mange
dager, fastet og gråt og ba om at Gud måtte spare hans folk. Deretter ikledde
han seg fulle episkopale regalier og dro for å møte Attila. Historien forteller
videre at Attila ble beveget av ærbødighet da han så biskopen i spissen for en
prosesjon av sitt presteskap. Etter en samtale hvor Lupus minnet Attila om at
han bare kan gjøre det Gud tillater, sparte Attila byen. I virkeligheten dro
hunerne inn i byen uten å gjøre den minste skade, og deretter dannet det seg en
legende om at hæren på Lupus’ forbønn ikke hadde sett byen, selv om de
marsjerte gjennom den. Et slikt mirakel skal ha gjentatt seg ved portene til
Roma av den hellige pave Leo (d. 461), og fra da av ble det sagt at den
fryktinngytende hunerkongen Attila bare kunne temmes av en løve (Leo) og en ulv
(Lupus).
Etter at man hadde
erkjent hans uskyld, fikk han vende tilbake til sitt bispesete i Troyes og
styrte bispedømmet til sin død. Flere berømte biskoper på 400-tallet som ofte
fikk betydningsfulle stillinger, var hans elever, blant dem Severus av Trier,
Polychronius av Verdun, Alpin av Châlons-sur-Marne og Camelian av Troyes. Flere
av hans skrifter er bevart. Betydningen av klosteret Saint-Loup som han
grunnla, ble overskygget av nonneklosteret som var kjent som
Notre-Dame-aux-Nonnains, som eide store skoler og hadde store privilegier i
byen, og i noen områder utøvde myndighet over biskopene selv.
Lupus døde i 478 eller
479, rundt 86 år gammel og etter 52 år som biskop av Troyes. Han ble etterfulgt
av den hellige Camelian (479-536).
Han ble først gravlagt i augustinerkirken Saint-Martin-ès-Aires, som den gang
lå utenfor bymurene i Troyes. I 570 kom den hellige kong Guntram av Burgund (561-92)
og kong Kilperik I av Neustria (567-84) til Lupus’ grav og sverget en gjensidig
fred.
Rundt 890 ble Lupus’
levninger overført til den nybygde katedralen Notre-Dame i sentrum av byen. Fra
det øyeblikket var kirken kjent som Abbaye Saint-Loup. Under den franske
revolusjonen ble Lupus’ relikvier vanhelliget og spredt natten mellom 9. og 10.
januar 1794, bortsett fra en del av hodet som oppbevares i katedralen i Troyes.
Dette er et av Frankrikes rikeste relikvarer. Det er utformet som en biskop av
sølv og utsmykket med edelsteiner, inkludert diamanter. Resten av hans
relikvier befinner seg i et annet sølvskrin i den augustinske klosterkirken St.
Lupus.
Lupus av Troyes ble
tidligere feiret den 24. juli, men hans minnedag i den nyeste utgaven av
Martyrologium Romanum (2004) er 29. juli, som etter tradisjonen er hans
begravelse (depositio), mens hans translasjonsfest feires den 10. mai
i Troyes. Han påkalles mot demonbesettelse, lammelse og epilepsi. I
Martyrologium Romanum heter det:
Trecis in Gállia
Lugdunénsis, sancti Lupi, epíscopi, qui cum sancto Germáno Autissiodorénsi ad
expugnándam Pelagianórum haéresim in Británniam Minórem perréxit, urbem suam a
furóre Attilae oratióne deféndit et quinquagínta duos annos sacerdótio
venerabíliter functus in pace quiévit.
I Troyes i Gallia
Lugdunense [i dagens Frankrike], den hellige Lupus, biskop, som sammen med den
hellige Germanus av Auxerre dro til Britannia for å utrydde det pelagianske
kjetteri, forsvarte gjennom bønn sin by fra Attilas raseri og fullførte
ærefullt 52 års prestetjeneste før han hvilte i fred.
I kunsten avbildes Lupus
med en diamant som faller ned fra himmelen mens han feirer messe. På andre
avbildninger holder han en kalk med en diamant i, eller han står ved alteret og
gir en diamant til en konge. Hans skrin i skattkammeret i katedralen i Troyes
viser mange scener fra den store biskopens liv.
Kulten for Lupus (it:
Lupo) i Benevento i regionen Campania i Sør-Italia stammer minst fra
800/900-tallet. På 800-tallet eksisterte det allerede et benediktinerkloster
med hans navn i Benevento, og abbeden der utøvde åndelig og verdslig
jurisdiksjon over den befestede landsbyen San Lupo i erkebispedømmet og
provinsen Benevento. Da pave Nikolas V (1447-55) stengte klosteret i 1450, gikk
dets eiendommer og jurisdiksjon over til erkebispedømmet Benevento, som fra den
tid ærer den hellige biskopen av Troyes som sin skytshelgen. Lupus er alltid
feiret den 29. juli i Benevento. Han er også skytshelgen for San Lupo i
Benevento, som ærer ham med prosesjoner med den nye grøden fra 27. til 29.
juli.
En øy i Loire heter
Saint-Loup. Han er skytshelgen for Bergesserin, Dracy-Saint-Loup
Saint-Loup-de-la-Salle, som alle ligger i det sentrale Frankrike. Han var i
tidligere tider også skytshelgen for Lanloup i departementet Côtes-du-Nord i
Bretagne, men han ble erstattet av sin navnebror, den hellige Lupus av Sens (573-623).
I England bærer også mange kirker hans navn, og det samme gjør medlemmene av
familien Sentlow, et navn som er utledet av «Saint-Leu».
Kilder:
Attwater/John, Attwater/Cumming, Farmer, Butler (VII), Benedictines, Bunson,
Schauber/Schindler, MR2004, KIR, CE, CSO, CatholicSaints.Info, Infocatho,
Heiligenlexikon, santiebeati.it, fr.wikipedia.org, Butler 1866, zeno.org,
heiligen-3s.nl, introibo.fr - Kompilasjon og oversettelse: p. Per Einar Odden
Opprettet: 20. mai 1998
SOURCE : https://www.katolsk.no/biografier/historisk/ltroyes
.JPG)
Église
Saint-Loup de Châlons-en-Champagne (Marne, France) : statue de saint Loup
à droite du portail principal
Saint
Lupus church of Châlons-en-Champagne (Marne, France) : statue of saint
Lupus, right of the main portal
Église Saint-Loup de
Châlons-en-Champagne (Marne, France) : statue de saint Loup à droite du
portail principal
Saint Lupus church of Châlons-en-Champagne (Marne, France) : statue of saint Lupus, right of the main portal
San LUPO DE TROYES.
(384/90 - 478).
Martirologio Romano: En
Troyes, ciudad de la Galia Lugdunense, san Lupo, obispo, que con san Germán de
Auxerre fue a Bretaña para luchar contra la herejía de los pelagianos, defendió
después con la oración a su ciudad del furor de Atila y, habiendo ejercido de
modo admirable el sacerdocio durante cincuenta años, descansó en paz.
Nació en Toul dentro de
una noble familia. Practicó la abogacía durante algunos años con gran
reputación. Se casó con Pimeriola, una hermana de san Hilario de Arles; después
de siete años, de común acuerdo se separaron. Lupo ingresó en la abadía de
Lerins, gobernada por san Honorato; cuando el abad fue nombrado obispo de
Arles, se marchó a Macon en Burgundia para disponer de un patrimonio que había
dejado allí en caridades. Se estaba preparando para volver a Lerins cuando, en
el 426, fue nombrado obispo de Troyes.
Una asamblea de obispos
en Arles, comisionó a san Germán de Auxerre y a Lupo de Troyes en un viaje
evangélico a Britania que fue muy provechoso entre los pelagianos que habían
invadido aquellas tierras con su herejía; en ese viaje se encontraron con santa
Genoveva, aún niña, en Nanterre y la consagraron a Dios.
Regresó a su diócesis, y
renovó las costumbres de los fieles. Frenó a Atila para que respetase su ciudad
en el 453; se dice que el rey de los hunos cuando fue vencido llamó a Lupo para
que lo acompañara a sus tierras, este gesto fue mal interpretado y tuvo que estar
durante dos años fuera de su diócesis, dedicándose a la oración en un retiro.
Cuando su caridad y su paciencia vencieron a las malas lenguas, regresó a su
diócesis, que gobernó durante 52 años. Murió a los 94 años. No todos estos
particulares son verificables históricamente.
SOURCE : https://hagiopedia.blogspot.com/2013/07/san-lupo-de-troyes-38490-478.html
San Vincenzo di
Lerino Abate
Festa: 24 maggio
† 450 circa
Si hanno scarse
informazioni su di lui. Gallo di nazionalità, entrò già avanti negli anni del
monastero di Lérins, fondato da San Onorato. In questo fiorente centro di
cultura e di spiritualità compose il Commonitorium, opuscolo di notevole
importanza contro l'eresia, e altri testi cristologici e trinitari. Profondo
conoscitore delle Sacre Scritture e dotato di una cultura umanistica, i suoi
scritti sono notevoli per vigore ed eleganza stilistica, e per chiarezza e
precisione di pensiero. Muore verso il 450.
Il suo Commonitorium ha avuto una straordinaria diffusione dalla Riforma ad
oggi. Dibattuto dai cattolici e protestanti, vi si trova condensata la dottrina
dei Padri sulle fonti della fede cristiana e i criteri per distinguere la
dottrina ortodossa.
Etimologia: Vincenzo
= vittorioso, dal latino
Emblema: Bastone
pastorale
Martirologio
Romano: Nel monastero di Lérins in Provenza, in Francia, san Vincenzo,
sacerdote e monaco, insigne per dottrina cristiana e santità di vita e
premurosamente dedito al progresso delle anime nella fede.
Dopo che la Chiesa ebbe via libera con l'editto dell'imperatore Costantino e potè uscire allo scoperto, entrando a far parte di diritto della nuova società che nasceva dalle ceneri del secolare impero romano, molti cristiani avvertivano un più struggente desiderio di "distacco dal mondo", e il richiamo al "deserto", cioè alla quiete della vita contemplativa, si tradusse in varie forme di vita monastica o comunitaria. S. Girolamo visse a lungo in una grotta presso Betlem; Paolino da Nola si spogliò di tutte le ricchezze per vivere in una piccola stanza accanto alla tomba del martire S. Felice. Molti sceglievano il deserto vero e proprio, come S. Antonio abate; altri mettevano tra sé e la tumultuosa società il mare e si rifugiavano in una isoletta.
Tra i principali rifugi monastici del V secolo fu l'isola di Lerins, o Lerino nel Mediterraneo, davanti a Cannes. Fondato da S. Onorato, futuro vescovo di Arles, il monastero di Lerino diventò un semenzaio di vescovi, di santi e di scrittori. Ricordiamo Eucherio, che, prima di diventare vescovo di Lione, soggiornò a lungo nell'isoletta, con la moglie e i figli e vi scrisse due libri dal titolo significativo: Elogio della solitudine e Il disprezzo del mondo. Ma il nome più celebre uscito da questa "nutrice di santi" è S. Vincenzo di Lerino.
Non abbiamo molte notizie sulla sua vita. La sua notorietà è legata ad un libretto sulla tradizione della Chiesa, dal titolo Commonitorium, che S. Roberto Bellarmino definì "un libro tutto d'oro". Si tratta di un manuale di regole di condotta da seguire per vivere integralmente il messaggio evangelico. Non c'erano grandi novità. Nel 434 (l'anno in cui vide la luce il prezioso libretto), il monaco forniva ai teologi futuri il famoso canone dell'ortodossia, cioè il metro per giudicare la bontà di una affermazione teologica: "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est": atteniamoci, cioè, a ciò che è stato creduto ovunque, sempre e da tutti. S. Vincenzo auspica tuttavia un progresso: "E’ necessario che crescano e che vigorosissimamente progrediscano la comprensione, la scienza e la sapienza da parte sia dei singoli che di tutti, sia di un solo uomo che di tutta la Chiesa, via via che passano le età e i secoli".
Vissuto negli anni della lotta della Chiesa contro l'eresia pelagiana, Vincenzo di Lerino, nato nella Francia settentrionale, forse nel Belgio, e approdato definitivamente a Lerino, nella cui pace morì verso il 450, con i suoi scritti fornì un'arma molto efficace contro "le frodi e i lacci degli eretici".
Autore: Piero Bargellini
SOURCE : https://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/54550
San
Vincenzo di Lerino: Regola per distinguere la Verità Cattolica dall’errore
Nella Chiesa Cattolica
bisogna avere la più grande cura nel ritenere ciò che è stato creduto
dappertutto, sempre e da tutti. Questo è veramente e propriamente cattolico,
secondo l'idea di universalità racchiusa nell'etimologia stessa della parola.
Ma questo avverrà se noi seguiremo l'universalità, l'antichità, il consenso
generale. Seguiremo l'universalità se confesseremo come vera e unica fede
quella che la Chiesa intera professa per tutto il mondo; l'antichità, se non ci
scostiamo per nulla dai sentimenti che notoriamente proclamarono i nostri santi
predecessori e padri; il consenso generale, infine, se, in questa stessa
antichità, noi abbracciamo le definizioni e le dottrine di tutti, o quasi, i
Vescovi e i Maestri.
- Come, dunque,
dovrà comportarsi un cristiano cattolico se qualche piccola frazione, della
Chiesa si stacca dalla comunione con la fede universale?
Dovrà senz'altro
anteporre a un membro marcio e pestifero la sanità del corpo intero.
- Se, però, si
tratta di una novità eretica che non è limitata a un piccolo gruppo, ma tenta
di contagiare e contaminare la Chiesa intera?
In tal caso, il cristiano
dovrà darsi da fare per aderire all'antichità, la quale non può evidentemente
essere alterata da nessuna nuova menzogna.
- E se nella stessa
antichità si scopre che un errore è stato condiviso da più persone o
addirittura da una città o da una provincia intera?
In questo caso avrà la massima cura di preferire alla temerità e all'ignoranza di quelli, i decreti, se ve ne sono, di un antico concilio universale.
- E se sorge una nuova opinione, per la quale nulla si trovi di già definito?
Allora egli ricercherà e confronterà le opinioni dei nostri maggiori, di quelli
soltanto però che, pur appartenendo a tempi e luoghi diversi, rimasero sempre
nella comunione e nella fede dell'unica Chiesa Cattolica e ne divennero maestri
approvati. Tutto ciò che troverà che non da uno o due soltanto, ma da tutti
insieme, in pieno accordo, è stato ritenuto, scritto, insegnato apertamente,
frequentemente e costantemente, sappia che anch'egli lo può credere senza
alcuna esitazione.
SOURCE : https://unafides33.blogspot.com/2010/03/san-vincenzo-di-lerino-regola-per.html
Vincent de
Lérins Commonitorium (aide-mémoire) :
http://www.patristique.org/sites/patristique.org/IMG/pdf/vincent.pdf
http://www.migne.fr/Commonitorium.htm
Saint Vincent de Lérins
: http://orthodoxievco.net/ecrits/vies/synaxair/mai/vincent.pdf
