Victor of Vita, the council of Carthage (484), the Book of the Catholic Faith, and the Johannine Comma

In 484 A.D. an unusual council of bishops was convened by the Vandal king Huneric (also spelled Huniric and Hunirix) in Carthage North Africa. The Germanic Vandals had conquered most of North Africa west of Alexandria, taking control of the region from the Roman empire, and establishing Carthage as its capital in 439 A.D. The Vandals had converted to Christianity before leaving Hispania (i.e. the Iberian Peninsula) in 429 A.D for North Africa, though the form of Christianity they had embraced was Homoianism, not Catholic Homoousianism.

By 484 A.D. this region of North Africa had been under Homoian Vandal rule for over four decades, but the majority of Christians remained Catholic. As such, of the hundreds of bishops that attended the 484 A.D. council, the vast majority—461 according to Heffle*—were Catholic bishops.

Recently, I was able to obtain John Moorheads’s English translation of an extensive historical document that provides the proceedings of this council, and the events leading up to it—Victor of Vita’s, History of the Vandal Persecution (Google Books; Scribd pdf).

The first book of Victor's tome is a chronicle of the Vandal invasion of North Africa under the leadership of their king Geiseric. 

The second book begins with the death of Geiseric and succession to the throne by his eldest son, Huniric. Concerning Huniric's rule, Victor writes:

First of all the tyrant decreed, in a dreadful command, that no-one could hold an office in his palace or carry out public duties without becoming an Arian. (Victor of Vita: History of the Vandal Persecution, English translation John Moorhead - Liverpool University Press, 1992, Book II, chapter 23, p. 32)

In chapter 26 he relates the following:

But with what floods of tears shall I proceed? He sent bishops, priests, deacons and other members of the church, to the number of 4,966, to exile in the desert Among them were very many who had gout, and others who had lost their worldly sight through age. Among their number was the blessed Felix, bishop of Abbir (Henchir el-Khandaq), who had then been a bishop for 44 years; having been struck with the disease of paralysis he did not feel anything, nor was he capable of speech. (Ibid. p.33)

An edict from Huniric/Hunirix is provided in chapter 39:

"Hunirix, king of the Vandals and Alans, to all the homousian bishops. It is well known that not once but quite often your priests have been forbidden to celebrate any liturgies at all in the territory of the Vandals, in case they seduce Christian souls and destroy them. Many of them have despised this and, contrary to the prohibition, have been discovered to have said mass in the territories of the Vandals, claiming that they hold to the rule of the Christian faith in its fullness. And because we do not wish for scandal in the provinces granted us by God, therefore know that by the providence of God and with the consent of our holy bishops we have decreed this: that on the first of February next you are all to come to Carthage, making no excuse that you are frightened, so that you will be able to debate concerning the principles of faith with our venerable bishops and establish the propriety of the faith of the Homousians, which you defend, from the divine scriptures. From this it will be clear whether you hold the faith in its fullness. We have sent a copy of this edict to all your fellow bishops throughout Africa. Given on 20 May 483 in the seventh year of Hunirix." (Ibid. pp. 37-38)

From the above edict we learn that Hunirix [Huniric] has decreed that “all the homousian bishops” are to meet on February 1, 484 A.D. in Carthage “to debate concerning the principles of faith with our venerable bishops and establish the propriety of the faith of the Homousians, which you defend, from the divine scriptures.”

A few chapters later, Victor penned the following:

52 That day of treachery which the king had appointed, 1 February, was now drawing near. There came together not only the bishops of the whole of Africa, but also those of many of the islands, worn out with suffering and grief. Silence was observed for many days, until he separated every skilled and learned man from among them, so that they could be put to death on the basis of false charges. For he committed to the flames one of that choir of the learned, whose name was Laetus. a vigorous and most learned man, after he had long endured a squalid imprisonment. He thought that making an example of him would strike fear into the others and enable him to wear them down.

53 Finally the debate took place, needless to say at a place their enemies had selected. Our people chose to avoid the disturbances which loud voices would have caused, in case the Arians were later to say that they had been overpowered by weight of numbers, and chose ten of their number who would answer on behalf of them all. Cyrila, with his lackeys, most arrogantly placed a throne for himself in a high place, while our people were standing. And our bishops said: "It is always pleasant to be at a meeting at which the exaltation of power does not proudly hold sway, but general consent is arrived at, so that the truth is recognized from what the judges decree, in accordance with the actions of the parties. But who is to be the judge on this occasion, who will weigh the evidence so that the scales of justice may confirm what has been argued well or show unsound propositions to be false?"

54 While these and other things were being said, the king's notary answered: "The patriarch Cyrila has named some people." Our people, abominating the proud and unlawful title which he had usurped, said: "Read out to us who gave permission for Cyrila to take this title for himself!" At this our enemies made a loud clamour and began to bring false accusations. And because our people had sought that, if the throng of sensible people were not allowed to ask questions, they could at least look on, the order was given that all the children of the catholic church who were present were to be beaten with a hundred blows each. Then blessed Eugenius began to cry out: "May God see the violence we endure, let him know the affliction we suffer from the persecutors!"

55 Our people turned round and said to Cyrila: "Say what you intend to do." Cyrila said: "I do not know Latin." Our bishops said: "We know very well that you have always spoken Latin; you should not excuse yourself now, especially since you have set this fire going." And, seeing that the catholic bishops were better prepared for the debate, he flatly refused to give them a hearing, relying on various quibbles. But our people had foreseen this and written a short work concerning the faith, composed quite fittingly and with the necessary detail. They said: "If you wish to know our faith, this is the truth we hold."

THE BOOK OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH

56 We are enjoined by a royal command to provide an account of the catholic faith which we hold. So we are setting out to indicate briefly the things which we believe and proclaim, aware of our lack of ability but supported by divine assistance. We recognize, then, that the first thing we must do is give an explanation of the unity of the substance of the Father and the Son, which the Greeks call homousion.

Therefore: we acknowledge the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the unity of the divine nature in such a way that we can say with a faithful confession that the Father subsists as a distinct person, and the Son equally exists in his own person, and that the Holy Spirit retains the distinctiveness of his own person, not asserting that the Father is the same as the Son, nor confessing that the Son is the same as the Father or the Holy Spirit, nor understanding the Holy Spirit in such a way that he is the Father or the Son; but we believe the unbegotten Father and the Son begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father to be of one substance and essence, because the unbegotten Father and the begotten Son and the Holy Spirit who proceeds have one divine nature in common; nevertheless, there are three distinct persons.

57 A heresy arose and brought forth something new against this catholic and apostolic faith. It maintained that the Son was not born of the substance of the Father but came into being from no existing things, that is, out of nothing. To refute and completely destroy this wicked profession which had come forth against the faith, a Greek word, homousion, was coined. This means 'of one substance and essence,' and signifies that the Son was not born from no existing things nor from any substance, but of the Father. Therefore, whoever thinks that the word homousion is to be laid aside wishes to assert that the Son came to exist out of nothing. But if the Son is not 'of nothing,' he is without doubt of the Father, and rightly homousion, that is, of one substance with the Father.

58 That he is of the Father, that is, of one substance with the Father, is demonstrated by these testimonies. The apostle says: 'who, while he is the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance, also upholds all things by the word of his power.' (Heb 1:3) [Ibid. pp. 43-45]

This apologia for the Catholic Faith continues for another 43 chapters (pp. 45-63). It contains dozens of supporting Scriptural quotes, including the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7,8. Note the following:

82 And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for setvitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: 'There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.' Surely he does he not say 'three separated by a difference in quality' or 'divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them?' No, he says that the 'three are one.' (Ibid. p. 56)

THE BOOK OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH ends with:

101 This is our faith, confirmed by evangelical and apostolic traditions and authority, and founded on the association of all the catholic churches which are in this world; in which faith we trust and hope we shall remain, by the grace of almighty God, until the end of this life. Amen.

This is the end of the book sent on 20 April by Januarius of Zattara (Kef Benzioune) and Villaticus of Casae Medianae, bishops of Numidia, and Boniface of Foratiana and Boniface of Gratiana, bishops of Byzacena. (Ibid. p. 63)

 

And with the ending the Catholic defense, I shall end this post…

 

Grace and peace,

David 

*Charles Joseph Heffle, History of the Councils - Vol. IV, A.D. 451 to  A.D. 680, 1895, p. 36.

Book Recommendation - Christopher Beeley's, The Unity of Christ - Continuity and Conflict in Patristic Tradition

This is the second book of Christopher Beeley's published works that I have now read. I first became aware of Dr. Beeley via a link provided by Iohannes in THIS COMMENT. [See also this Google Books Preview.]

I was thoroughly impressed by his, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God, so when I discovered The Unity of Christ during some recent online research, I knew I had to obtain it—I was not disappointed—this book has reinforced my opinion that Dr. Beeley is firmly establishing himself as one of the most gifted Patristic scholars of the early 21st century.

In The Unity of Christ, Dr. Beeley delves into the theology of the following Church Fathers: Origen of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, and Leo the Great, with an emphasis on development of doctrine and the formation of the early creeds produced by the councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451).

Though all the chapters of the book are quite good, I particularly appreciated the one devoted to Eusebius of Caesarea (chapter 2, pp. 49-104). For a number of years now, I have felt that Eusebius' theological contributions have been either ignored or significantly under appreciated by most patristic scholars. Dr. Beeley is of the same opinion; he demonstrates that Eusebius offers much more than his valuable history of the Church, and that he was a major contributor concerning the issue of the monarchy of God the Father.

Anyway, I wanted to bring this excellent book to the attention of readers who have an interest in patristic studies. Selections from the book can be read online via this, Google Books Preview.

For those who make the decision to purchase the book, I would be very interested in hearing from you once you have had the opportunity to read it.

Grace and peace,

David

An important event for Christendom

Yesterday, Nick—who blogs at Nick's Catholic Blog—brought to my attention an ongoing event (June 18-27, 2016) that is sure to have both current, and future, ramifications for Christ's visible Church:

Holy and Great Council

There are "six items on the agenda of the Council" (link):

1. The mission of the Orthodox Church in the contemporary world;

2. The Orthodox diaspora;

3. Autonomy and the manner of its proclamation;

4. The sacrament of marriage and its impediments;

5. The importance of fasting and its observance today;

6. The relationship of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world.

Of particular interest to me is #6 on the agenda. Directly related to this issue, is the following informative post at Eclectic Orthodoxy:

Is the Palamite Distinction Ecumenical Dogma?

Anyway, I thought others might share my interest in this ongoing event.

Grace and peace,

David

The Nicene Creed, Council of Ephesus and Cyril of Alexandria: the Son of God begotten from the Father's essence

A number of Reformed folk (including Calvin himself) are quite adamant in their doctrinal stance concerning what is meant by the concept of the Son of God being begotten from God the Father; specifically, that the Son is begotten from the Father's person ONLY, emphatically denying that it is also from the Father's essence/substance (οὐσία).

Persons following this blog are well aware that the original Nicene Creed explicitly contradicted the above denial; yet once again, from the opening of the Nicene Creed of 325 we read:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible ; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father... (NPNF - 2nd series, Vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 3 - bold emphasis mine.)

The Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries who wrote on this subject were almost unanimous in their assent of the above. I have recently provided selections from some of those Church Fathers (e.g. Athanasius, Basil), and at this time would like to add Cyril of Alexander's assessment (which was officially adopted at the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431). After quoting the entire Nicene Creed of 325, Cyril continued with:

Following in all points the confessions of the Holy Fathers which they made (the Holy Ghost speaking in them), and following the scope of their opinions, and going, as it were, in the royal way, we confess that the Only begotten Word of God, begotten of the same substance of the Father... (Ibid.. p. 202 - bold emphasis mine.)

Now, what I find interesting is the fact that most confessional Reformed folk claim they accept the creeds and definitions of the 1st four Ecumenical councils; and yet, a number of those same folk deny that the Son of God was begotten from the essence/substance of the Father. How can this be anything but a blatant contradiction?

Grace and peace,

David

Basil 'the Great': Letter CXXV - an excellent defense of the original Nicene Creed, with clarifications

St. Basil 'the Great', was one of the famous three 'Cappadocian Fathers' (the other two being his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, and his very close friend, Gregory Nazianzus). In 364 AD, at the request of the famous Church historian Eusebius, then bishop of Caesarea, he left his monastic life to defend the orthodox, Catholic faith. After the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the creed produced there was coming under intense attacks from two opposing sides: the Arians and the modalists. In 373 AD (three years after being appointed bishop of Caesarea following the death of Eusebius), Basil composed an epistle, wherein he quotes the original Nicene Creed of 325 AD, clarifying and defending its contents—as a 'statement of faith' so to speak—which he then sent to one Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste in Pontus, whose orthodoxy was being questioned. IMO, not only was this letter an excellent defense of the Nicene Creed, but it also offered clarifications that are of importance to us modern folk who seek to understand what the Creed meant to it's Catholic defenders in the 4th century.

The following is the full letter (without the footnotes) as translated by Dr. Roy J. Deferrari in volume 2 (1928) of the 4 volume set, Saint Basil - The Letters. (This set includes the original Greek, side by side, with the English translation, and is part of the famous Loeb Classical Library.)

LETTER CXXV

A Transcript of Faith Dictated by the most Holy Basil, to Which Eustathius, the Bishop of Sebaste, Subscribed

Those who have formerly been committed to an unorthodox confession of Faith and wish to pass over into unity with the orthodox, or those who now for the first time wish to be instructed in the doctrine of truth, must be taught in the articles of Faith as drawn up by the blessed Fathers in the synod once convened at Nicaea. And this same thing would also be useful for those who are suspected of being opposed to the sound doctrine and who seek to cloak with specious subterfuges their unorthodox views. For even for these the creed embodied therein suffices. For either they may correct their hidden malady, or, if they still conceal it in the depth of their hearts, they will themselves bear the responsibility for their deception, but for us they will make easy our defence on the Day of Judgment, when the Lord "will reveal the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the heart." It is therefore fitting to receive them when they confess that they believe according to the words set forth by our Fathers at Nicaea and according to the meaning disclosed by those words when soundly interpreted.

For there are some who even in this creed pervert the doctrine of truth and stretch the sense of the words in it to suit their own purpose. For instance, even Marcellus, acting impiously toward the person  of our Lord Jesus Christ and explaining Him as mere " Word," had the effrontery to profess that he had taken his principles from that creed, perversely explaining the meaning of "consubstantial." And some of those from the impious sect of the Libyan Sabellius, understanding person and substance to be the same, draw from that creed the beginnings they use for the establishment of their own blasphemy, from the fact of its having been written in the creed that "if anyone says the Son is of a different substance or person, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes him." For it is not said therein that the substance and the person are the same. For if the words revealed one and the same meaning, what was the need of each separately? But it is evident that, since some denied that the Son is of the substance of the Father, and others said that He was not of the substance but of some other person, thus they condemned both positions as foreign to the opinion of the Church. For, when they came to revealing their opinion, they said that the Son was of the substance of the Father, not going on to add "of the person." Thus the former statement is laid down as a rejection of faulty opinion, while the latter contains the declaration of the doctrine of salvation. It is necessary, therefore, to confess the Son as of the same substance as the Father, as it is written, and to confess the Father in His own proper person, and the Son in His own, and the Holy Ghost in His own, according as the Fathers themselves have clearly set forth. For sufficiently and clearly have they shown this when they said, "Light of Light, the One which begot Light and the Other which was begotten, and yet Light and Light," so that the definition of the substance is one and the same. Now let the creed itself, composed at Nicaea, be added by us.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Father, the only Begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father ; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God ; begotten not made ; consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth ; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, and was made Man. He suffered and arose on the third day, and He ascended into heaven and shall come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. And as for such who say "There was a time when He was not," and "Before He was begotten He was not," or that "He came into existence from what was not," or who profess that the Son of God is of a different person or substance, or that He changeth, or is variable, such as these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Since, therefore, all points with but one exception have been sufficiently and accurately defined herein, some as an emendation for what had been perverted, and others as a precaution against what was expected to arise—for the doctrine of the Holy Ghost was laid down cursorily, not being considered as necessary of elaboration, because at that time this question had not yet been agitated, but the sense of it was unassailably inherent in the souls of the faithful—but since, coming forth little by little, the baneful seeds of impiety, which had been sown before by Arius, the author of the heresy, and later by those who wickedly succeeded to his opinions, have been nurtured to the harm of the churches, and the succession of impiety has broken forth into blasphemy against the Spirit, in view of these things it is necessary to hold before those who have no pity for themselves nor foresee the inevitable threat which our Lord held over those who blaspheme the Holy Ghost, this conclusion—that we must anathematize those who call the Holy Spirit a creature, both those who think so, and those who will not confess that He is holy by nature, even as the Father is holy by nature, and as the Son is holy by nature, but deprive Him of His divine and blessed nature. And the proof of orthodox opinion is not to separate Him from the Father and the Son (for we must be baptized as we have received the words of baptism, and we must behave as we are baptized and we must give glory as we have believed, to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), but to abstain from communion with those, as open blasphemers, who call Him a creature ; since this point is agreed upon (for comment is necessary because of the slanders), that we neither speak of the Holy Spirit as unbegotten—for we recognize One unbegotten and One Beginning of all existing things, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ—nor speak of Him as begotten—for we have been taught One only begotten in the tradition of our Faith ; and having been taught that the Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Father, we confess it to be from God without any act of creation. And we must anathematize also those who speak of the Holy Ghost as ministering, on the ground that by this expression they lower Him to the order of creatures. For Scripture has handed down to us the ministering spirits as creatures, saying, "All are ministering spirits sent to minister." And on account of those who confuse everything and do not preserve the teaching of the Gospel, it is necessary to lay down this principle also—that we must avoid those who change the order which our Lord had left us, as being clearly enemies of religion, and place the Son before the Father and put the Holy Spirit before the Son. For it is meet that we keep unaltered and untampered with that order which we received from the very words of Our Lord, when He said, "Going teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Signature of Eustathius, Bishop.

I, Eustathius, bishop, after reading to you, Basil, have understood, and have approved what has been written above. And I have signed in the presence of my brothers, our Fronto, the suffragan-bishop Severus, and certain other members of the clergy.

[Online pdf document]

Now, a few notes and observations—the English words, "Consubstantial", "substance" and "person", in the above translation, are from the following Greek terms:

ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) = Consubstantial

οὐσία (ousia) = substance

ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) = person

Further, I found his explanation concerning those "who profess that the Son of God is of a different person or substance" to be quite excellent—supporting the view that the Son of God owes His existence to both the "person" and "substance" of God the Father (an essential teaching pertaining to the doctrine of the monarchy of God the Father). And concerning the Holy Spirit, one should note there is no hint of the filioque to be found.

Sincerely hope that all find Basil's letter as informative and inspirational as I have.

Grace and peace,

David