AI translation of all letters to and from Pope Hormidas

 I made an AI translation of Pope Hormisdas' letters he made or received found in PL 63! However, there are so many letters, it would be a burden to post here. I will look for options on how to post.

The Papal letters are overwhelming about concerned with the Acacian schism where Constantinople fell into heresy, denying Chalcedon. Many of the correspondences are with the Emperor Justin, and the future emperor Justinian who was still on good terms with the papacy!

Update: I will post the first 21 or so here, maybe more. The file is parallel text with Latin and English but it is too time consuming to do this. If you email me, I can give you the link to my drive. I miss having my free website that I could easily upload this to!

PL 63:367 and on:

ANASTASIUS TO POPE HORMISDAS

The emperor entreats the pontiff to convene a council to resolve the disputes that have arisen in the regions of Scythia.

Victor Anastasius, pious, fortunate, illustrious, triumphant, ever Augustus, to Hormisdas, the most holy and most reverend archbishop and patriarch.

Against Anastasius, the emperor who expelled the orthodox bishops, God raised up Vitalian, the Scythian master of horse (magister equitum). After seizing several provinces and advancing to Constantinople while plundering, Vitalian declared—as Marcellinus records in his Chronicle—that he acted solely for the faith of the orthodox and to restore Macedonius, the bishop of Constantinople whom the emperor had exiled.

Seeing his affairs in dire straits, Anastasius sought peace, swearing before the senate that he would recall the exiled bishops, restore Macedonius and Flavian to their sees, hold a council at Heraclea, and invite the Roman pontiff to attend.

Accordingly, a council was summoned at Heraclea on the 25th of December in the year of the Lord 514.

ADMONITIONS TO TIMOTHY, THE HERETICAL BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, THROUGH THE AFOREMENTIONED LEGATES. EFFORTS MUST BE MADE FOR THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH.

Hormisdas to Timothy, Bishop of Constantinople.

Your beloved will not be surprised at the reason for my previous silence if you consider all that has preceded; nor will you be surprised at my present address if you weigh the force of charity. For we have learned, through the teaching of the Apostle to the Gentiles (1 Corinthians 13), that charity endures all things; and if, as that same doctrine holds, it seeks not its own, am I acting improperly by exercising my privilege in a way that may benefit you? For it was fitting that I should wait for you to be free from association with those in error, and thus to see you, corrected by love, separated from what is to be condemned, and so to embrace you in written discourse. But why should I delay in calling back one whom I desire to see returned, though he lingers? Why should moderation not be given a place when nothing is detracted from justice? Those things that benefit the struggling must be offered, provided they do not defile us with the contagion of association. This is the reason for my present letter: to exhort and admonish you not to allow our land to lie fallow, neglected and barren. A diligent farmer does not long permit a fruitless tree to occupy the soil: he waits patiently, but does he endure its barrenness indefinitely? Called to salvation, you will not perish. He who returns to innocence without delay does not stray far from it. Moved by the admonitions of the Fathers and steadfastly following their faithful footsteps without stumble or error, wash away past faults through future actions. It is now within your power, by inciting the people to righteousness and by humbly following the principal footsteps of the faith, to guide what is astray and strengthen what is uncertain. It befits you to take great pains to ensure that the diligence of your actions rightly covers the causes of past times. Indeed, he who contributes something to the universal Church benefits his own soul. And so it stands that if you persist with zeal and tirelessness, the common cause will become beneficial to you. Given as above (in the year of the Lord 517).

TO ALL THE HERETICAL BISHOPS OF THE EAST, SENT THROUGH THE SECOND LEGATION.

THE UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH MUST BE PRESERVED.

Hormisdas to all the bishops established in the regions of the East.

Although my admonition earnestly desires your attention, it would be fitting for you, mindful of your own duty, not to neglect carelessly what all ought zealously to observe for the salvation of their souls, so that the discipline of heavenly commandments may shine forth not through another’s effort but through your own resolve. For while it is not without praise to obey good counsels, he who anticipates what is right is far more distinguished in the honor of wisdom than he who follows established precepts, as teaching is more illustrious than learning. Let each one recall the calling by which he was summoned by the Lord and consider what is expected of him. It is wretched to fall short of the merit of one’s purpose when what is proclaimed in name is not shown in action. We have earned great things if we fulfill what the granted (or decreed) commandments demand. He who rejoices in being chosen to feed the sheep of the Lord’s flock should reflect on the judgment concerning the governance entrusted to him. Constant vigilance must be applied, unceasing watchfulness maintained, no opportunity given to ravenous wolves, and no one left abandoned to any perils: for the neglected error of the sheep is the fault of the shepherds. He will come who will examine the accounts of the stewardship entrusted. It is clear that justice applies to all, and no one is permitted impunity in sinning. But who does not know that there are degrees of merit, and just as rewards are not equal, so too are punishments diverse? Those who know multiply their wounds: few lashes are recorded for ignorance. If this is so, as it undoubtedly is, consider what resolve befits him to whom the errors of others must also be imputed. The Holy Spirit cries out through the prophet: “O shepherds of Israel, do shepherds feed themselves?” (Ezekiel 34). It is certain that more is demanded from him to whom more is entrusted; and we become all the more accountable the more abundantly we have been honored by grace. The good teacher, who illuminates through obscurities and reveals truth through the enigmas of parables, does not accuse the servant entrusted with a talent as unfaithful for merely preserving it without increase, but condemns him as useless (Matthew 25). Hence, it is clear what fear should seize him who loses the Lord’s coin, if even he who preserved what he received without diminution was blamed (Luke 19). Let no one be content with his own innocence, for to our God, who sees all things, we owe an account not only of our own resolve but also of others’ through the assiduity of preaching. Broad knowledge befits teachers. The Christian faith does not love secrecy; whoever whispers it only in the ear hides it. The preaching of the word is commanded to the apostles through all nations, and how inexcusably can anyone remain silent about this commission? What does it profit anyone to preserve reverence for the paternal rules if he allows them to be shaken by others or patiently accepts their dishonor? He shows weak affection who does not defend what he loves. The sacred institutions are everywhere assailed by the faithless, and wickedness, repeatedly suppressed, continually revives from its excesses. How, I ask, does one prove piety toward God by concealing nefarious deeds? Let us recall with what great assemblies of Catholic priests those councils we rely upon were celebrated: neither weakness hindered them, nor burdensome old age delayed them. The intervals of vast regions seemed small, and the labors themselves were joyful as a kind of consolation, while under the guidance of the spirit of holy assemblies, late in life they received wisdom to preserve. And yet, while the impious attack these things after their root perfidy has been condemned, he who knows his commission remains silent: “Lift up your voice, you who bring good news to Jerusalem; lift it up, do not fear” (Isaiah 40). Did not the teacher of the Gentiles, with this before his eyes, instruct his disciple to preach the Gospel unceasingly, admonishing: “Pay attention to yourself and to your teaching; persist in them, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you” (1 Timothy 4)? Therefore, whether stirred by prophetic spurs or instructed by the norms of apostolic teaching, take up the care of salvific preaching. Cherish and defend the judgments approved by the pious, hostile to the faithless. And returning to the rock upon which the Church is founded, absolve yourselves even before the spirit of those Fathers whose venerable institutions are wickedly undermined, considering that when the Lord comes for the examination that is awaited, what kind of judgment was entrusted to the apostles, what was proven by the doubts of some who tested it, what was promised by the angel’s announcement: whether it is better to be reproved by them or to be joined with their company? Whether to confess the Lord as He will appear or as the impious deny Him? Let nothing hold you back from salvation: return swiftly to the path. A fall does not burden the one who rises again. The Lord’s doctrine is rich in clemency: the chains of error are harmful while they bind. Justice hates the obstinate, but clemency cherishes those who correct themselves. Given on the third day before the Nones of April, in the consulship of Agapitus, vir clarissimus (April 3, in the year of the Lord 517).

TO BISHOP POSSESSOR. PERSEVERANCE IN THE CATHOLIC FAITH IS NECESSARY.

Hormisdas to Bishop Possessor.

Hearing of the excellent zeal of your charity and recognizing the upright path of life you defend without clamor, we unceasingly give thanks to our God, that you may persist in this disposition and be able to provide an example for others to follow. These are heavenly gifts; these are signs of divine recompense; these are God’s judgments, which have refused to separate you from the fellowship of Catholic priests. Therefore, dearest brother, we exhort you with these present words to persevere in the constancy with which you were chosen and to add growth to your commendable beginnings, for a good work, especially one pertaining to the doctrine of the faith, seems to diminish unless it continually increases. And if worldly tribulation should arise, we counsel you with apostolic admonition, placing future rewards before your eyes, saying: “The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that will be revealed in us” (2 Corinthians 4:17, not 10 as cited). Yet we hope for better things, for God, who through the blessed Apostle said, “He has not allowed you to be tempted beyond what you can bear” (1 Corinthians 10:13, not Romans 8 as cited), in His mercy will, as always, deliver those He has chosen to be His own from the snares of adversaries. We have received through our returning legates your beloved’s libellus concerning the confession of the true faith, and we have recognized the sincerity of your brotherhood in it, for you did not hesitate to proclaim publicly under attestation what you rightly believe. Given on the day before the Nones of April, in the consulship of Agapitus, vir clarissimus (April 4, in the year of the Lord 517). 

 TO THE PEOPLE AND MONKS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, SENT THROUGH THE SAME LEGATES.

[Exhortation] to abstain from communion with heretics and to persevere in the Catholic faith.

Hormisdas to the clergy, people, and orthodox monks residing in Constantinople.

Possessor, the African bishop, was exiled in Constantinople for the Catholic faith and there made his profession of the Catholic faith before the first legation. During this time, he greatly benefited and aided all the Catholics dwelling in Constantinople. (Baronius, year 517, no. 26; SEV. BINIUS).

If one who, following the Lord’s command, offers a cup of cold water shall receive the reward of his good deed from the very Lord who taught this (Matt. 10:42), shall not he who neglects to proclaim the truth to so great a multitude of the faithful justly incur the penalty of damnation?

Fearing, therefore, the threat of the heavenly command (for in matters pertaining to God, what must be said should not be silenced), and moved by concern for your salvation, I have taken up this admonition as the present necessity demands. I solemnly charge all who desire to preserve the Christian religion with an undefiled faith to shun and flee with all their strength those who reject the holy Council of Chalcedon and the letters of the blessed Leo on the Catholic faith. For these are the very men, tainted by the heresy of Eutyches and Dioscorus of Alexandria—or rather, by the abominable contagion of the Manichaeans—who, though they seem to oppose the decrees of the Fathers in word, in reality rise up against the very incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Remember, beloved, the schemes attempted under Basiliscus’s rule in the imperial palace. Recall the deeds, sights, and reports of those times—how wicked was the audacity of Timothy, surnamed Aelurus, how brazen and monstrous his presumption! Yet how fervently your faith then shone forth throughout the world! The people of Constantinople proved then how pure it is for believers to uphold the Christian mysteries. Would that those struggles had passed for good, and that times like these did not now return! But once more, these same heretics lift their wicked heads from the depths in which they were submerged.

Therefore, I beg, exhort, and admonish your love: separate yourselves from their assemblies and communion. Remember your former zeal, and let the light of spiritual fire shine once more in you! Do not let the cunning of the wicked rejoice in having extinguished in you the simple love of truth.

For now, let this suffice as a warning against the present danger and a call to vigilance against the impious. Yet I trust that if this admonition bears fruit, it will profit both you and me—for God will be glorified in your salvation, and the fruit of our care will be made manifest.

Given on the 5th of April, in the consulship of the most illustrious Agapitus (A.D. 517).

TO BISHOPS ENNODIUS AND PEREGRINUS.

(Hormisdas writes that he has become aware of the attempts made against John of Nicopolis by the Bishop of Thessalonica, and he has entrusted a new matter concerning the Apostolic See to them for examination through this letter.)

Hormisdas to Bishops Ennodius and Peregrinus. After your charity had departed, the Nicopolitan deacon—who also met you on the way—arrived in Rome. We saw him beyond the expected delay, considering whether there might be something we ought to add for the instruction of the legation entrusted to you—a concern which the matter itself has now reasonably made evident.

For he presented to us a letter from his bishop, John, and another from the synod of the suffragan churches of Nicopolis, in which they complain that the Bishop of Thessalonica has roused both civil and judicial authorities against them. They are severely afflicted by extortions and losses because the Nicopolitan bishop did not send a report concerning his ordination to the Bishop of Thessalonica, according to ancient custom. On this account, they hoped that we would consider a remedy, even requesting that we grant them permission to send the customary report to the designated bishop.

Therefore, after deliberation, we admonished the Bishop of Nicopolis not to dare attempt such a thing if he wishes to remain in communion with us—lest, by seeking confirmation from one who is alienated from our communion, our own communion might suffer contamination. We have informed you of these things so that you may be fully aware. As for what must be done in this matter with God’s favor, the enclosed documents will make clear.

Given on the day before the Ides of April, in the consulship of Agapitus.

 TO THE SAME [EN NODIUS AND PEREGRINUS]. HE PRESCRIBES WHAT IS TO BE DONE IN THE CASE OF THE NICOPOLITAN CHURCH WITH THE BISHOP OF THESSALONICA.

Hormisdas to Bishops Ennodius and Peregrinus.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the intercession and assistance of the saints, regarding what is to be done in the matter of the Nicopolitan Church. First, when, with God’s help, you arrive in Thessalonica, deliver our letters, which we have sent concerning this matter, to the bishop of Thessalonica, observing the protocol in greeting him that you know we have mandated for those who do not communicate with the apostolic see, that is, the Catholic Church. Once the letters are delivered, you must urgently insist that he refrain from disturbing that Church, providing the reason that one who has not returned to communion and to the body of the Church cannot have anything in common with those who have not yet returned, and that we do not revoke the privileges granted by our predecessors unless he himself abandons ecclesiastical norms. Certainly, let him return to unity, and we will work with him to ensure that all privileges, whatsoever, that his Church has received from the apostolic see are preserved inviolate. Also, state openly that he shows himself to be an enemy of the faith if he persecutes those he sees returning to Catholic communion. If, with God’s favor, you are able to resolve the matter there, inform the bishop of Nicopolis in writing of what your efforts have accomplished. However, if he remains obstinate and refuses to cease his persecution, act in accordance with the letters we sent to the most clement emperor, presenting the case of the Nicopolitan Church before the emperor as follows: Bishop Alcyson of Nicopolis satisfied the Catholic Church, was received, and restored to communion; his successor, Bishop John, keeping God before his eyes, mindful of his own salvation, and following the good example of his predecessor, sent representatives to the see of Blessed Peter the Apostle, condemning heretics or transgressors, and was received. Now, the bishop of Thessalonica plots against him and disturbs him, demanding things contrary to what he has done. Hence, your father and all the orthodox beseech that, by your commands, this harassment be removed from him, lest it appear to people that he suffers persecution for returning to communion with the apostolic see, and lest those who expect unity to be achieved through you begin to believe otherwise if they see your piety overlook this or treat it negligently. It seemed expedient to us that the letters we sent to the bishop of Thessalonica concerning the Nicopolitan case be published by your prudence in various places, in any order, but especially in the city of Thessalonica, because by doing so, the persecution of our people can be halted, and we believe it will contribute to his salvation if he corrects himself.

 TO EMPEROR ANASTASIUS

 

[Pope Hormisdas] commends John of Nicopolis to him.

 

Hormisdas to Emperor Anastasius, through Bishops Ennodius and Peregrinus.

 

When I reflect upon the profound wisdom of Your Clemency, most merciful Emperor, I do not believe that those who act with foresight for their own salvation could displease you. For neither divine commandments nor human laws decree that one who fosters good hope should be blamed under any reproach—especially since Your Piety itself declares its fervent desire for unity and peace.

This very matter has compelled me, both out of trust in your conscience and the duty of the stewardship entrusted to me, not to remain silent in this pressing affair. John, my brother and fellow bishop, the prelate of the city of Nicopolis, following the example of his predecessor, the sainted Alypius of holy memory, has sought communion with the blessed Apostle Peter and his synod, condemning those whom the Church detests. Yet now he is wearied by grave intrigues.

 

I beseech Your Gentleness: oppose those who plot unjustly, remove these harassments, and support the one who has been corrected—though insistence should have been laid upon him sooner to amend his ways. For those who delay will know themselves guilty when they see those now returned favored by you.

I confess, most merciful Emperor, I marvel at the obstinacy of those who scheme, unmoved either by fear of God or regard for you. For those who hate in others the zeal for good—judging them by their own standards—persecute even those returning to righteousness. They are rightly to be condemned if they do not convert the erring.

Give clear proof of your faith, if you truly intend to support with all duty and encouragement all who are brought back to unity.

TO BISHOP JOHN OF NICOPOLIS

[Exhortation] to endure trials for the faith with courage and to strengthen the provincial bishops in the unity of the faith.

Hormisdas to John, Bishop of Nicopolis.

Upon the return of our subdeacon Pullio, we received your letter of fraternal love, rejoicing in the steadfastness of your faith and your devotion to communion with the Apostolic See. Yet we were saddened to hear that you are suffering certain hardships.

But such trials cannot last forever, for where God is purely worshiped, even adversities are turned to blessings, as the Apostle says: "Hope does not disappoint" (Rom. 5:5). When the Prince of the Apostles doubted while walking on the sea, he struggled (Matt. 14:30), but as soon as he called upon the Lord, help was at hand—One who, with outstretched arm, would not let him perish.

Therefore, following the example of our forefathers and remaining firm in their faith, let us implore the aid of Him of whom it is written: "God will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear" (1 Cor. 10:13).

Thus, greeting you with affection, we urge you—as we have said before—to persevere in the good you have begun, "for the one who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 10:22). Do not cease to relieve our concern with frequent updates. Strengthen also the priests of your diocese with fitting encouragement, for in doing so, you will multiply the talent entrusted to you day by day (Matt. 25:14-30).

As for the matter you requested—that our petitions reach the most merciful Emperor for the peace of all—we are considering it. Only continue unceasingly to support our desire and efforts with fitting prayers, for without God’s help, we can accomplish nothing in this task.

Given on the 3rd of March, in the consulship of the most illustrious Agapitus (A.D. 517).

 TO THE SAME BISHOP JOHN

Hormisdas to John, Bishop of Nicopolis, with his synod.

We would wish, dearest brothers, that you were free from all waves of trouble—that you might pass your days in the calm of peace, serving our God without the turmoil of worldly storms stirring your hearts... For what we do not wish to happen, we must grieve when it does.

But this world abounds in hardships and trials. The age in which we sojourn is like a vast ship exposed on every side to the raging winds. Thus, the minds of the faithful are assailed by the devil’s snares, and as it is written: "All who desire to live godly in Christ will suffer persecution" (2 Tim. 3:12). Yet hope consoles us—the hope promised by the Just Judge, for "blessed is he who is not scandalized in the Lord" (Matt. 11:6).

Let not the soldiers of God be cast down by fleeting assaults. He who stands with the valiant takes no pleasure in the cowardly. These passing trials are easily despised if we fix our minds on what endures. Embrace this time of testing, for though the burdens of labor are heavy, the rewards of virtue are greater. What recompense will be given to one who proves unequal to the trial?

Let us not grow sluggish in courage if we desire to attain the promises. Who needs the voice of man when the sentence of Truth rings daily in our ears: "Blessed are those who suffer for righteousness’ sake" (Matt. 5:10)?

But do not think, dearest brothers—though spiritual consolations are great for the faithful—that I offer these alone for your strengthening. For I have not ceased, as far as human effort allows, to seek remedies for your tribulation. Through envoys sent to the Emperor of the East and through the Bishop of Thessalonica, I have urged that your persecution cease. I have even appended petitions pleading with the Emperor.

These are the measures taken for the present. But what pertains to future hope must be held more firmly in your hearts.

Yet I confess my astonishment that amid your trials, this concern crept into your devout minds—that you sought my permission, under the guise of consolation, to send formal letters to the Bishop of Thessalonica. Should I authorize what, if done without my knowledge, I would condemn? Far be such perversity! Hear the apostolic voice—adapted fittingly to my office: "If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor" (Gal. 2:18).

Do not, I beg you, return to the contagions you once fled. Do not let your feet, pulled from the mire, be plunged back into it. Let the past be blotted out. "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62). Those who turn their eyes backward are hindered in their course. Ecclesiastical discipline has no love for those who cling to the memory of their former treachery. They must be wholly cut off from error, for those who return to what they once scorned are so detestable that the blessed Apostle Peter declared it "better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back" (2 Pet. 2:21).

It is clear with what tenacity the faith once delivered must be guarded—if it is more tolerable to persist in error than to be entangled again in the defilements one has escaped.

Given on the 12th of April, in the consulship of the most illustrious Agapitus.

Letter 22 PL 63:408-40: 

 To Dorotheus, Bishop of Thessalonica.

Hormisdas, Bishop, to Dorotheus, Bishop of Thessalonica.

My brother and fellow bishop, John, the overseer of the city of Nicopolis, together with his synod, grievously complains that he is afflicted by various disturbances and losses. This is because, having separated himself from the wickedness of transgressors and having earned communion with the Apostolic See, he did not direct the beginnings of his ordination to the Church of Thessalonica. He could have been deemed culpable of neglect if there were a single mystery of charity uniting all. But since many have separated themselves from the solidity of that rock, which is Christ, who would not wish to be sundered from the company of the erring, so as to be worthy to be joined with those who stand in the truth? Therefore, it is not that custom has been neglected, but that contagion has been avoided. How, then, can anyone accuse him of error when they recognize that his caution was wisely considered?

But you, who should have been the first to take up this cause, we believed could at least have followed after the examples of others. Is it not enough to linger in error, unless, to the heap of reproaches, you also show envy toward those around you who return to the path? What else can it be, but that those who pursue those who seek refuge at the altars of the blessed Peter’s See—something that cannot be said without impiety—hate the very gift given by the Lord? With what shame, I ask, do you desire the privileges of those around you to remain, whose commands you do not keep? And do you seek to have ecclesiastical authority granted to you with the reverence you do not show to the faith?

If you walked in the same footsteps as the Catholics strive to follow, you should still avoid persecuting your neighbor, knowing, according to the teachings of our Lord and Savior, whom we worship, that he who causes one of the least to stumble is guilty of great sins (Mark 9). Where is the humility, O Lord, that you taught under the occasion of your disciples contending over the quality of their position? You showed that he is the greatest who strives to present himself as the least. Look down from heaven, see: visit this vineyard planted by your cultivation (Psalm 79). Consider the least who keep your commandments and those exalted in the pursuit of honor.

Why do you desire new things and abandon the old, neglecting the highest matters while caring for the small? Is this not to tithe the worthless things while despising the precepts of the law? Keep those things that are in harmony with God, and those things that come from men will easily follow. Rather, take up the care of salvation and sigh that another has preceded you in the truth. Lest, if you persist in persecuting those who return to the members of the Church, you too be joined with those whom the apostolic judgment explicitly condemns.

Given on the day before the Ides of April, in the consulship of the most distinguished Agapitus.

 ANASTASIUS TO HORMISDAS. 

Anastasius rebukes Hormisdas for excessive harshness. Emperor Anastasius to Pope Hormisdas.

Though silence is often considered significant, we who marvel at God's mercy must nevertheless speak continually. For it is known to all that the foundation of faith which our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ taught us excels in the forgiveness of sins. He Himself, through His own suffering, cleansed all of Adam's sins - this was the purpose of His humility, that He might deliver both Adam and all our brethren from the bondage of sin, having willingly taken the form of a servant. As the blessed Apostle Paul taught us in writing to the Romans: "Death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned" (Rom 5:14). From this it has been clearly shown to all creation through God's general dispensation and miracles that particular examples must (a) once (b) follow so great a law (c) of commandments, and (d) be confirmed by such pious goodness, so that all the doctrine He delivered to His disciples stands firm upon this foundation. He drove away diseases and various kinds of sufferings; He loosed the bonds of sin through His own passion, as was said; and in His actions He instructed His disciples both by deeds and words to fulfill similar works. But if, as some strive to show, certain of His apostles neglected to practice this holy doctrine through disobedience, we know not where the teaching of our merciful Lord and great God may reach us. Yet we do not believe it reasonable that we who have learned mercy should be considered unmerciful. But from this time forward we restrain our petition with silence, judging it unreasonable to extend the kindness of our prayers to those who refuse to be entreated and obstinately reject them. For we can endure insult and rejection, but we cannot endure being commanded. Given on the fifth day before the Ides of July at Constantinople, in the fourth consulship of Anastasius Augustus and the consulship of the most illustrious Agapitus (July 11, 517 A.D.)

To be continued. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gregory Palamas PG 151:885-900

 This post serves no apologetics purposes, I was looking for something else completely and found nothing, so here is the accidental product of my futile labor, I did an AI translation of PG 151:885-900 on the EO theology Gregory Palamas, the beginning and ends are missing, maybe someday I will do the rest, though that is unlikely. Some of his discourse is overtly antiCatholic but he is debating a contemporary of his. I also have the OCR Greek text I can post possibly in the future.

"To the Third and Fourth Discourse of the Same Gregory Concerning Divine Participation, Energy, and Grace, a Sixth Refutative Discourse."

.....Then, leaving aside, as it were, the entire sequence and connection of the sacred words, he attacks the theology of the Holy Spirit as taught by the Church’s sacred teacher, Anastasius, I say, the wise, and through him, the sacred synodal tome, slandering both him and it, and doing so far worse and more absurdly than he had already done against the great Cyril. For the synodal tome, presenting the divine Anastasius along with the sacred theology of the Spirit, states as follows: It agrees with what the divine Paul said about the Spirit; for he called those who have believed temples of God, having received the indwelling grace of the Spirit: “For do you not know that you are a temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?” And again, “Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” These words clearly teach that the all-holy Spirit is of the divine nature; for if those who have believed are called temples of God because they have received the grace of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is from God. For having the grace of the Spirit dwelling within them, they are called temples of God. Thus, with the teacher having spoken these things about the divine Spirit, this philosopher, puffed up with propositions, middle terms, conclusions, and the vanity of human reasoning and syllogisms, all but sacrificing to the refuted wisdom of the outsiders, frequently reproaching the simplicity and ignorance of those who converse with the wisdom of the Gospel and the true and primary wisdom, shows himself to be ignorant, unwise, and uneducated in both divine and human wisdom, as if his brain were shaken and he neither knows what he says nor what he affirms. For having completely misunderstood the teacher’s aim, which above all else should be considered according to the theologians, especially by one who reads the divine Scriptures and their interpreters and theologians, or rather, having concealed that sacred teacher of the Church, whether willingly through great malice and perversity, or through excessive ignorance of the sacred words, he, being contentious, utterly ignorant, and uninitiated in divine matters, seizes the teacher’s theology, stripping away the apostolic saying, as we just noted above, and as the teacher himself had used it, but distorted and incomplete. Attributing it to the synod and the tome with great shamelessness, as if it were poorly stated by them, he then takes the subsequent interpretation and construction of the argument, and the conclusion from the teacher, as if it were a sharpened sword, as if it were ours and of our reasoning, as he thought, using it against us. Through his shameless slander against us, he clearly speaks and writes against the sacred theology of the teacher, things of which only he who speaks and writes is worthy. Perhaps only the devil, along with him, would dare to speak against the Church of Christ. What, then, does he say? For it is just to mention some of these things as an example, since it is not possible to cover them all.

The hearer Agathangelos reports a few of the holy sayings, obviously from those stated in the tome; then, connecting the Apostle’s words very faultily, as if they were spoken by the synod, as I already mentioned, he adds those things. These, he says, having brought the divine sayings, the champion of piety, the divine Gregory, I say, left the rest uninterpreted, but for the latter saying of the Apostle, he provided a brief interpretation, yet proceeded again to other things in the same way. And this is: For if those who have believed are called temples of God because they have received the grace of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is from God; for having the grace of the Spirit dwelling within them, they are called temples of God. Having presented these as if they were ours through his own Agathangelos, listen now to how he flows sharply and groundlessly against us, as if driving the theology of the saints as a common calamity of the Church through us, doing so most shamefully with long-winded slander and calumny, as is fitting for him. For what, he says, do you see, O friend, how he is always caught circling around the same things, publicly displaying his ignorance without much shame? For with a malicious soul, neither can virtue ever be taught, nor can it ever be captured by will. And learning and shame are parts of virtue. These have neither entered his malicious soul nor ever will. And in between, prattling and insulting with things far worse and more absurd than these, he adds: Thus, it often occurred to me to say that if there were only ten heresiarchs from the beginning of time, I would not consider him one of the ten, but nine of the ten. Now, with so many and countless ones, I do not consider him one of them, nor even among the many, but rather surpassing all of them, or rather, not surpassing one, but surpassing all entirely. For having gathered the impiety of all, he has not only surpassed all in ignorance and shamelessness but also those he blasphemes.

These things, I think, no one among all people, O Gregoras, would have so easily devised or, having devised, would not have hesitated to immediately put into words and writings with such zeal, as you have done against yourself and your own head, as if celebrating. For if you say and write all these things against us, as if we misinterpret the divine Scriptures and openly blaspheme against God and His theologians, it has been shown that what we say is not our own misinterpretation and blasphemy, as you wrongly supposed, but the divinely fitting interpretation and theology of the Church’s divine teachers. How is it not clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that the revered tome and the synod that issued it strongly agree with the theology of the saints, nobly contending against heresies with them, and indeed are glorified with them, who worthily theologize and glorify God? For, as He says, “Those who glorify Me, I will glorify.” But you, aligning with those who fight against them and God, have made yourself one with their condemnation and lot, or rather, you alone have drawn upon your own head the condemnation of all heresiarchs together. For your own votes and decisions say this, and in addition, what you just said against us, that with a malicious soul, neither can virtue ever be taught nor captured by will, and that learning and shame, being parts of virtue, have not entered your malicious soul. For these things are yours and fittingly belong to your catalog of praises and crown of insult, which you have justly woven for yourself and your own head, not for those you wrongly spoke against. For you yourself, not another, have driven away all practice and knowledge of sacred words from the threshold of your soul, as I already mentioned, casting aside the shame proper to Christians. With such shamelessness, you have attacked the great and primary theology, the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures, and indeed the sacred words of the teachers, as if by this alone you have declared yourself a Cynic, or rather, far worse than them in shamelessness. For it is not about the same things, but we must return the discourse to those matters again.

The divine Anastasius, considering the theology of the divinity of the Spirit and intending to show the Paraclete as one God, consubstantial and coessential with the Father and the Son, naturally uses many other arguments to support his discourse, including those previously said to the Corinthians by the wise Paul: “For do you not know,” he says, “that you are a temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?” And again: “Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” From this, the teacher, as if receiving a given premise, not humanly like Gregoras or some other vain sophist of his kind, but theologically and divinely fitting, reasons and excellently concludes his aim and the truth. For these things, he says, clearly teach that the all-holy Spirit is of the divine nature. For if those who have believed are called temples of God because they have received the grace of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is from God; for having the grace of the Spirit dwelling within them, they are called temples of God. For the teacher, taking both premises from the oracles, concludes that the Holy Spirit is God, which was his aim to show. The great Basil says the same about these matters, proving that the Spirit is God because the divine Paul taught that those who have it dwelling within them are temples of God. Our sacred synod of the Fathers, since its aim was to show that what the deified partake of is not the divine essence—for how could it be, unless we are to proclaim all as sons of God by nature and Christs?—but His natural grace and deifying energy, cited this theologian among others, saying that the faithful are called temples of God by the Apostle because they have received the grace of the Spirit. And again, he says, temples of God they are called, having the grace of the Spirit dwelling within. Why, then, O philosopher, do you say that the Fathers spoke in these matters without reasoning, artlessly, and ignorantly, you who wrongly worship syllogisms instead of the Gospel, not even using these with the proper reason? For they, taking the premises, the middle and common term, about which you proudly teach as if it were some great and lofty thing, the conclusion, and simply all together, from that teacher of the Church, have nothing of their own added to those sacred sayings, but bring the teacher’s theology bare as a witness to the truth of piety. For I say these things because of you and your prattling and vain speech, presuming to think you say great things to your companions and associates; for such things are far from the divine court, the apostolic, and the patristic assembly, which the sixth ecumenical synod, having presided, immediately expelled from the divine assembly as soon as they appeared, saying they have nothing in common with Aristotelian, evangelical, and apostolic words. And rightly so, for, as it says, there is no fellowship between light and darkness, nor agreement between Christ and Belial. But what do you say to these things? To whom do you attach your slander, long-winded insult, blasphemous calumny, and untimely and insatiable attack? To Anastasius, that is, the teacher of the Church, and the oracles he uses to theologize about the divine Spirit, or to the revered tome and the Fathers who issued it? Or to both him and them together? Rather, using them as a mask, as if on some stage or drama, you dare to attach blasphemy and insult to all of them; for their words are all theirs, not these, as has been shown. But in truth, your blasphemy is neither against these nor those. For it is easier to shoot down and strike the sky or the sun of this day than to make the heralds of truth, both these and those, accountable for your blasphemies, even if you burst saying and writing such things, even if you multiply tenfold your decalogue from the evil one, twice, thrice, and many times. For hear what the philosopher writes and blasphemes against the saints and, I say, the God of the saints Himself. For, he says, claiming to show an uncreated energy, partaken and divided among creatures, and not at all the divine essence as the only uncreated, he clearly declared the Holy Spirit without any concealment. But this is entirely the opposite of what he intended to abolish.

In three absurdities, Gregory falls in these brief steps, openly opposing apostolic and patristic theology. For he denies the divine energy, and because of this, he claims that the divine essence is merely uncreated, so that he might drag the natural power of God down to the level of creatures and assert that the divine essence is participable. This is something that only Barlaam and Akindynos, his mystagogues, first and alone dared to say, having been initiated by Satan. For almost none of the ancient heretics, despite the many and varied heresies that have arisen, has ever been found to have explicitly stated this. And thirdly, in addition to these, he denies that divine participation occurs through the Holy Spirit—that is, through His natural gift and grace—rejecting all holy Scripture and divine theology that clearly proclaim this, and teaching that the Fathers who follow them go in the opposite direction. It is as if someone, he says, intending to travel to Susa or Ecbatana, instead heads toward the laws of the Britons.

But more on this later, O philosopher. For now, speak and add to it, and set forth the subsequent blasphemies and distortions of theological words, so that all those who have spoken evil may themselves bring about their own downfall and resolution. For, he says, to make the last point the starting point, both because this is more striking to the ear than what was previously stated, and because while the other points pass by unexplained, this one, though brief, provides some interpretation. For he cites the divine Apostle saying, “Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” (1 Corinthians 6:19). And in interpreting this, he employs a kind of hypothetical syllogism—or rather, he does not employ it, but wishes to do so, yet fails. For he neither hits the mark nor knows what a syllogism is, nor what a term, a premise, or a conclusion is, nor how these must relate to one another according to the rules of logic. It goes like this: If those who have believed are a temple of God because they have received the grace of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is from God. For, having the grace of the Spirit dwelling within them, they are called temples of God.

But these things, as if they were ours, he takes from the saints against us, slandering us in the most shameful and audacious way, and brazenly and boldly insulting the theology of the saints. Not only does he do this with the points mentioned, but also with things far more absurd and worse, as I have already said, which the discourse has passed over to avoid the filth and frequent disgust of his words. Let us now turn the discussion to his theology—or rather, to his audacious blasphemy against the divine—and so that the novelties of his heresy may be more clearly exposed once again.

I do not know, he says, whether I should say his ignorance is the cause of his impiety, or his impiety the cause of his ignorance, or both of both. For, passing over the rest, he himself, from his own initiative, moved by I know not what, has made it clear and evident from the scriptural testimonies he brought forth in his defense—so clear that even the most foolish could perceive it without any proof—that the very essence of the divine Spirit is what is said to dwell ineffably in those worthy among men, and for this reason, they are called temples of God. Yet he seems insensible even to what he himself appears to propose.

For before this, as you yourself know better, having brought these things to us, he cites the great Athanasius saying that the Spirit is within us, and the Word who grants this is within us, and the Father is in the Word. And thus it is said, “We will come, I and the Father, and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). From this, it becomes even clearer that the very essence of the Trinity dwells in those who are worthy and makes its abode among men. And at the same time, the accursed words of this man, claiming that there are energies distinct from the divine essence—not only of the Holy Spirit but also of the Father and the Son—are refuted.

For do you not see that the testimony of the saint declares that the essence of the holy Trinity dwells in those who are worthy, while he, not understanding, falls back into his habitual malice, dragging the saint’s meaning into his own insubstantial and non-existent energies? And this utterly shameless man is not restrained but, taking the plural form of the saint’s words as referring to the three hypostases, he seeks to distort it into a declaration of infinite, insubstantial, and non-existent energies and divinities. In his perverse mind and tongue, he openly slanders the great Dionysius, bringing him forward as a witness to his own madness, as you have heard briefly above. For Dionysius, he says, speaking of the illuminations in the plural, showed that they are not the essence of God. For the essence is never expressed in the plural. Calling them illuminations, he says, and describing them as unoriginate and unending, he showed them to be divine and uncreated energies.

---

Has anyone, after the incarnate presence of Christ, even among the many who have blasphemed in various ways and at different times against the majesty of the divinity and its ineffable economy, as has been said, ever so audaciously and without any pretense uttered such blasphemy as this wretched and utterly reckless man? Not only does he think this, but he also proclaims it in writings and words, and so persistently? I think not—unless one refers again to Barlaam and Akindynos, the originators of this new heresy and, indeed, the fathers of this man. Tell us, O philosopher, from what sources and principles have you philosophized this empty theology—or rather, blasphemy? For the interpreters and teachers of sacred theology, upon whom the Fathers of the synod relied when they issued their decree, universally declare: “It is not permitted to say or think anything about the superessential and hidden divinity beyond what has been divinely revealed to us through the sacred oracles.” For the superessential knowledge of this divinity, which transcends reason, mind, and essence, must be entrusted to its own superessential ignorance. And again: “Concerning this superessential and hidden divinity, as has been said, it is not permitted to say or think anything beyond what has been divinely revealed to us through the sacred oracles.” For, as it has graciously delivered concerning itself in the oracles, its knowledge and contemplation, whatever it may be, are inaccessible to all beings, as it is superessentially exalted above all.

These are their teachings, and others like them—for now is not the time to list them all in sequence. But where did you take your ideas from? For they, knowing God as both expressible and inexpressible, known and unknown, participable and imparticipable, distinguish some things as belonging to Him in Himself and others as pertaining to what is around Him. As they say, they now explicitly teach that the worthy become partakers of God through the natural grace and gift of the Spirit, as you have heard the holy Athanasius, explaining the apostolic saying, state once and twice shortly before: just as they also say that all things exist within God, according to His creative and providential principles. For there is nothing at all outside His creative and providential energy and power, whether in heaven or on earth. And when they say that all things—whether the living and lifeless things created by Him or those worthy of His adoption and deifying indwelling—simply partake of God, they teach us to understand what they themselves explain elsewhere, as has been said: that those who partake of His natural gift and grace become, according to them, divinely radiant by grace, which is what they mean when they say that they are called gods and holy ones by their nearness and likeness to the only Holy One and God by nature. But all things partake of God’s voluntary and creative power as its works and products, according to what the theological Fathers have already stated, and, moreover, they are sustained in existence by His providence according to the principles by which they were created.

But how, then, do you say that the very essence of the holy Trinity dwells in the worthy? And what is this participation in God, and of what kind? For it is neither creative nor providential. First, because you do not accept that there is a natural and divinely fitting energy of God; and if, according to you, this does not exist, then God neither acts nor creates. For, as the wise Maximus says, “Just as there can be no existence without being, so there can be no action without energy.” Secondly, because not only the worthy of God partake of His creative and providential power and energy, nor even only the unworthy, but simply all beings. For “He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created” (Psalm 33:9). And all things partake of providence, as the holy Dionysius says, proceeding from the all-causing divinity. But neither is participation in His essence itself ever possible, he says. For the essence is itself, even if it is contemplated as what it is—namely, that we call one thing essence and another hypostasis—but it does not exist apart from its hypostases. For, as the theological Fathers say, the hypostasis is nothing other than essence with its hypostatic properties. Therefore, it remains that, according to you, the essence of the Trinity dwells in the worthy only in terms of its hypostatic properties. For it is in this sense that the Trinity is the Trinity. If, then, the three divine hypostases, as you say, dwell in each of the worthy of God, then each of those deified would, according to you, have more than the divine temple—namely, the one in whom the Only-Begotten Son of God dwelt beyond reason for our sake—since the Son had only one of the Trinity united in Himself by hypostasis. For, as the holy Dionysius says, neither the Father nor the Spirit communed with Him in any way, except perhaps in His benevolent and philanthropic will and in all His transcendent and divine activity. Yet each of the God-bearing ones, according to you, bears not only the Son of God but also the Father and the Spirit essentially united within themselves. What could equal this mythology and monstrosity—or rather, this new and absurd fight against God?

For the temple assumed from the all-holy Virgin, united hypostatically to the Only-Begotten Son of God, is both the Son of God and Christ. For the Only-Begotten Son of God, even after the incarnation, is the same perfect God and perfect man, anointed not by energy, as the other anointed ones, as the Theologian Gregory says, but by the presence of the Anointer in His entirety. And He adopts the faithful by grace through the Spirit to Himself, to the Father, and to the Spirit, making them other anointed ones in Himself, according to the divine Apostle. For this is the essence of the economy for our sake. But if this is not so according to sacred theology and mystagogy, but the tri-hypostatic divinity dwells in each of the worthy either by essence or by hypostases, as you say, then none of them is naturally a son of God. For the temple, united hypostatically only to the Son of God, did not have only the hypostasis of the Son in itself, but, according to you, all three hypostases together. And how, or whose Son, would he be? Moreover, since there is one natural Son, the Only-Begotten, neither could he become a son by grace. For to whom would he be adopted, being, according to you, united to the Trinity by its hypostases? Nor would such a one be Christ. For the assumed temple, even if by the presence of the entire Anointer, is not anointed by energy like the other holy anointed ones, nor does he possess all the powers and energies of the Spirit in himself, but he is not united hypostatically to the Spirit. For otherwise, Christ would also be the Holy Spirit by hypostatic union with it, just as He is truly the Son through such a union. But He is not. For there is one Holy Spirit, just as there is one Only-Begotten Son of God, even after the incarnation—unless someone looks to the Sabellian confusion, and how could one take pleasure in saying so? But one who, according to you, has the Trinity dwelling essentially in their body would be united hypostatically to the Spirit, were it not that, according to you, they are also united to the paternal and filial hypostases. Since, as you say, they are similarly united to these, they would no more be the Spirit than the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Nor, according to you, would such a one be Christ by grace, not only because you deny such a divinely fitting grace, which is the cause of all this controversy, but also because one united hypostatically to the Spirit, according to you, cannot partake of the Spirit’s grace.

But this absurd heresy—or rather, these heresies—cannot be purely traced to any of the ancient heresies, so far does it surpass them all in its evil. Perhaps one might compare it to the Massalians, for it somewhat resembles them. For they, too, proposed these same things as you, saying that the essence of God dwells in those purified among them and distorting that dominical saying in the Gospels, “I and the Father will come and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). The holy synod of the orthodox, convened against them, declared: “There is a visitation of the Paraclete, and God dwells in the worthy, but not as the divinity has by nature.” I am at a loss as to how this natural indwelling of the three divine hypostases in the worthy, according to Gregory’s monstrosity, could occur, or how those who partake would partake of the very essence of God. For to partake is to take a part of the whole, as the very term “participation” indicates. Thus, the divine Luke, in recounting the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles in the Acts, says, “And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed” (Acts 2:3). The divine Chrysostom, interpreting this, says: “He rightly said ‘distributed.’ For they were from one root, so that you may know it is an energy sent from the Paraclete.” And the great Paul, enumerating the various gifts of the divine Spirit, says: “But all these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as He wills” (1 Corinthians 12:11). But the essence and its divine hypostases are indivisible. Therefore, there can never be participation in them, except through their natural energies. Hence, the divine Chrysostom, explaining that evangelical saying, “For God does not give the Spirit by measure” (John 3:34), says: “We all,” speaking of the apostles, “have received the energy of the Spirit by measure (for here ‘Spirit’ means the energy; for this is what is distributed). But He has the entire energy without measure.” If His energy is without measure, how much more His essence? Nor does the union of hypostases occur in such a way that one hypostasis, joined to another, results in a single hypostasis from both. For this union does not belong to the Church of Christ but rather to Nestorius, as I have already said, who wickedly introduced a duality of sons. Indeed, Nestorius, raving about such unions and saying that the hypostases are united by relation, did not say that a single hypostasis results from both, divine and human, but spoke of two hypostases, introducing a duality of sons and wickedly dividing the one and Only-Begotten Son of God, even after the incarnation, into two. But this Gregory, attributing the indwelling of the divine Trinity to each of the worthy, alone would say what follows from this and how far he surpasses even Nestorius’ nonsense in this evil. Hence, the Church of Christ, teaching that the union of Christ’s two natures occurred hypostatically without confusion, does not say that the divine hypostasis of the Only-Begotten dwells in the human hypostasis—for then there would necessarily be two hypostases and two sons. Let the Nestorian error perish, they say, along with those who think like him. Rather, the Only-Begotten Son of God, having assumed a perfect human nature in His own hypostasis, has shown one hypostasis of both His natures, divine and human, and thus, even after the ineffable union, the one Only-Begotten Son of God is known and worshipped rightly and believed in two perfect natures, divine and human.

But Gregory, as if asleep and snoring in response to all this, or drunk without wine, passes over the divine Scripture’s numerous and varied statements about divine participation and the energies of the saints, which lie before his very eyes, as if they were silent or nonexistent. Instead, he maliciously tears out parts of their theology and then distorts and misapplies them, misinterpreting that dominical saying in the Gospels, “I and the Father will come and make our abode with him” (John 14:23), in the manner of the Massalians. From this, he thinks he deduces that the essence of God is participable, showing no reverence for the decision of the holy synod against them, which stands between the synodal decree and the theological statements.

But it would be good for us to bring forth again the words of the holy Fathers concerning divine participation and the theology from the synodal decree, which Gregory wickedly concealed. And first of all, let the great Athanasius be introduced into the discussion to teach about these matters, since it is shown that Gregory, more than others, has torn apart and plundered his words from the synodal decree. But before setting forth those sayings of the Theologian as they stand, let us first bring into the open Gregory’s sacrilege against his words, so that it may become clear to all how far he has strayed from the truth. He says to his listener Agathangelos, as you yourself know better, having brought these things to us: “The great Athanasius says that the Spirit is in us, and the Word who grants this is in us, and the Father is in the Word, and thus it is said, ‘We will come, I and the Father, and make our abode with him.’” And this the philosopher says unphilosophically and most shamefully, virtually eliminating the teacher’s entire sacred theology concerning the divine Spirit, bringing it forth against us as if we were misusing it contrary to the Theologian’s intent. He cuts out a tiny portion of the whole discourse for himself, namely that which was stolen by the Massalians from the divine oracles, which sufficed at the time for the synod’s condemnation of them: “God dwells in the worthy,” as all the Fathers say, “but not as the divinity has by nature.” But let the decree again speak and expound its own contents—or rather, those of the theological Fathers, securely and without adulteration.

The great Athanasius, in his letter to Serapion, says: “All that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son. Therefore, the gifts given by the Son in the Spirit are the Father’s gifts, and when the Spirit is in us, the Word who grants this is in us, and the Father is in the Word. And thus it is said, ‘We will come, I and the Father, and make our abode with him,’ as has been stated. For where the light is, there is the radiance, and where the radiance is, there is its energy and essential grace.”

And teaching this again, Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians, saying: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). For the grace and gift given are given in the Trinity, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. For just as the grace given is from the Father through the Son, so the fellowship of the gift cannot occur in us except in the Holy Spirit. For by partaking of this, we have the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the fellowship of the Spirit itself. Thus, a single energy of the Trinity is shown from these.

What do you say to this, O Gregory? Who is it that cuts and distorts the divine Scriptures? For you constantly call the writings of the theologians divine Scriptures, not even knowing the term correctly, nor understanding what the divine Scriptures are—those of the Old and New Testaments—and what are the words, explanations, and interpretations of the teachers and theologians, which are not divine Scriptures. Who is it that distorts and erases these, and not simply, but when you attempt to oppose and contradict the Church of Christ through them? Who is the absurd and reckless blasphemer and sacrilegious one, whom you have often falsely accused us of being? Is it the decree, the synod, and its holy protector Gregory, or you? It is clear that it is you, and you cannot escape or deny it, with the refutations coming so brilliantly against you from your own words. And I am astonished besides, wondering what reasoning Gregory used to so wickedly misuse this novelty against the teacher’s words. For since he planned to oppose all those main points, taking them for himself from the synodal decree, he should have addressed them all equally, resolving each one thoroughly with the supports they rely on, rather than passing over most in silence, cutting out certain parts of the whole, making them his own work, and thus falsely labeling his words as refutations of the decree. For one who holds to the intent and argument of the matters at hand in such disputes, resolving objections for the interlocutor and defending soundly and according to divine laws against the scriptural and theological testimonies brought forth by the other, even if they pass over most of the opponent’s points, still preserves the intent and premise, as I said, and does no harm to the whole. For it is as if they extend their defense to all those points, and through what is said, they no less effectively address what was omitted due to length. This is customary among the theological Fathers in their refutations from ancient times, and we have followed the same teachers in the same way, for it is not permitted otherwise. But one who speaks neither to the intent nor the argument directly, saying nothing sound, nor resolving objections in any way, and—worse and most absurd of all—passing over the common axioms of the faith and their interpreters and theologians, so many and so great, some in silence, others by slander, and boldly washing them away with insults, as if it were the decree and us, giving most to oblivion’s waves, stealing small parts of the whole and thinking through them to wickedly attack the whole—these are the things Gregory frequently dares in his words. What could one say of such a man that would be worthy of his folly and audacity? I mean both the other things and the fact that he hoped to escape notice while so openly committing outrages against divine things.

Come then, Gregory, teach us your intent and your arguments yourself. For we cannot accurately discern them on our own. Did you think those words were spoken for your sake and your glory, or against us and the synodal decree, or against none of us theologians, but simply and randomly cast out by us? If the first, it would be novel and fall into a riddle, if you, stirring everything up, as is said, composing so many books against us, stirring up all Greek words, myths, and proverbs, misinterpreting nearly all sacred sayings, fabricating things against us that do not exist, and passing over the many and great words of the theologians that are against us, as if deliberately contradicting yourself and ensuring your own defeat. But if you thought they were against us and the truth, then deemed it necessary to hide them out of shame, giving your argument to silence and darkness, how were you not more ashamed, attempting the impossible? For “the light shines in the darkness,” as divine oracles say, and “the word of God is not bound” (2 Timothy 2:9). Rather, you should have done one of two things: either approach the Church and subscribe to its decree, having learned the truth as you ought, and thus you would have done the work of a pious and philosophical man—for the words are for God and His truth—or at least remain silent, withdraw, and sink away, not grumbling. Thus, you would at least be consistent with yourself. But if the third, you still should not have torn apart or completely hidden the words of the teachers. You should have brought them forth against us and proclaimed them, preserving their honor and what is due to them, and shaming those who use them randomly and contrary to their intent, thus no less securing victory for yourself from this. But now, your words are nonsense and a great laughingstock, all openly vain, as they say, and nothing sound.

But let us consider, if it seems good, the aforementioned words of the great Athanasius concerning the divine Spirit and divine participation, and comparing what we and the philosopher have set forth, let us examine both the difference and the similarity. Since God is partaken of, and the Spirit dwells in the worthy according to the sacred Scriptures and the explanations and theologies of the teachers—and even Gregory himself, though not rightly, seems to somehow confess this—we say that this participation in God and this ineffable indwelling occur not by essence but by natural energy and grace. For this is what all Scripture and inspired teaching intend and proclaim, and the other is not permitted at all. But Gregory says it is not by energy or grace at all. For, according to him, there is no natural and uncreated thing around God—neither power, nor energy, nor grace—but all these are names spoken of the divine essence, and there is only the essence. Therefore, he says that the very essence of the divine Trinity dwells in the worthy, and this is what they partake of, not something else. Let us, then, bring forth the great Athanasius, as I have already said, and examine our position in him; for he will judge well for both sides. And first, let us consider the intent and purpose of his discourse. For his purpose in the letter to Serapion, concerning the divine Spirit, is to show that it is consubstantial, co-powerful, and, if I may say, co-divine with the Father and the Son. He demonstrates this, reasoning sacredly from both the sacred experience of divine realities granted to him and the apostolic theology, that the divine gifts given to the worthy in the holy Trinity are given from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Those who give the same things from themselves have the same power and energy. Therefore, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, giving the same divine gifts, have one and the same energy. From this, the consubstantiality and co-divinity of the divine Trinity are immediately demonstrated, based on the natural and theological axiom that those who share the same energy and power are of the same essence, just as, conversely, those not of the same energy are not of the same essence. This is most beautifully philosophized by him and the other theological Fathers, and also by the wise Basil. Where, then, O philosopher, does the great Athanasius say that the very essence of the divine Spirit, the very essence of the holy Trinity, dwells in the worthy, as you claim? For the gift, the grace, and the love—which we speak of above, below, and simply everywhere in the discourse—he mentions, but where the essence? Surely nowhere. Show it yourself, and we will be silent. Not only did the teacher completely pass over this, as it is not even to be considered, but he also interprets that divine oracle, “I and the Father will come and make our abode with him,” to show how it must be understood, lest anyone suppose, as you do, that God is partaken of by essence, but rather by grace and gift, as he himself indicated. And so, that theological passage, from the very beginning, says: “All that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son. Therefore, the gifts given by the Son in the Spirit are the Father’s gifts; and when the Spirit is in us, the Word who grants this is in us. And thus it is said, ‘We will come, I and the Father, and make our abode with him,’ as has been stated.”

What do you say these are, O philosopher? That the gifts of the Father, given by the Son in the Spirit, are the gifts of the Spirit; and when the Spirit is in us, the Word who grants this is in us. And thus it is said, “We will come, I and the Father, and make our abode with him,” as has been stated. These are not creatures, for how could they be? For when these occur in us, this theologian says the Holy Spirit is in us, and in the Spirit, the Son with the Father. Likewise, the divine Cyril, responding to Hermias, who asked how the indwelling of the Father and the Son in us should be understood and accomplished, being one and not different, says: “There is nothing difficult or unattainable in this. For how else could it be, except through the Holy Spirit filling us with divine gifts through itself and making us partakers of the ineffable nature?” And in his Thesaurus, the same Cyril says: “But if the Holy Spirit were truly a creature, according to the madness of the heretics, how could it possess the entire energy of God? For no one, I think, would so far cry out against right thinking as to dare even to say that the divine essence is ministered through some external instruments brought into being for the energy that naturally passes from it to those suitable to receive it.”....