Pasquier Quesnel, Variae lectiones, notae et observationes in Epistolas S. Leonis Magni, cum Balleriniorum annotationibus

(unlettered; under the heading BALLERINIORUM ANNOTATIONES) ‹anchor: not visible› · no call visible; note set at foot of col 1263 In editione Balleriana notae Quesnelli rejiciuntur ad calcem tomi secundi: unde, distributione typographica permittente, revocavimus ut in eodem volumine lector haberet et textum et in eum omnes annotationes digestas. In tomo autem secundo nostro lacunam complevimus opere eximio P. Cacciarii nuncupato: Exercitationes in S. Leonem EDIT.

In the Ballerini edition Quesnel's notes are relegated to the end of the second volume: hence, the typographical arrangement permitting, we have brought them back, so that the reader might have in the same volume both the text and all the annotations on it set in order. In our second volume, however, we have filled the gap with the excellent work of Father Cacciari entitled: Exercitationes in S. Leonem. EDITOR.

(printed under page 637)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1263 or 1264 (not visible)

Quoad tempus et nomen episcopi Aquileiensis cui haec epistola data fuit, videsis admonitionem eidem praemissam § 5.

As to the date and the name of the bishop of Aquileia to whom this letter was addressed, see, if you will, the notice prefixed to it, § 5.

(printed under page 637)

(b) ‹anchor: erroris auctores;› · call in col 1264

Satis fuit Pelagium, qui errores libris insperserat, judicium non adire, ut jure damnaretur ab Innocentio I, unde auditus et discussus dici nequit. Immo cum errores ejus ex suis libris constarent, idem pen- (continues)

It was enough that Pelagius, who had scattered his errors through his books, did not come to judgement, for him to be rightly condemned by Innocent I; hence he cannot be said to have been heard and examined. Indeed, since his errors were established from his own books, the same pen- (continues)

(printed under page 637)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1265 or 1266 (not visible)

Cum S. Leo a Pelagianis qui ad Ecclesiam redirent, apertas professiones exigi voluit, quibus et errores, et errorum auctores expresse et sine ullo fuco damnarent; allegans decreta synodalia, quae ad excisionem hujus haereseos apostolicae sedis confirmavit auctoritas, decreta respexit synodorum Africae, quae cum Zosimus confirmavit per celebrem tractoriam toto orbe vulgatam, haec quidem haeresis in universa Ecclesia excisa fuit; unde Prosper in Chronico ad an. 418: Concilio, inquit, apud Carthaginem habito ducentorum quatuordecim episcoporum, ad papam Zosimum SYNODALIA DECRETA perlata: quibus probatis per totum mundum haeresis Pelagiana damnata est. Leo eodem sensu quo Prosper coaevus et sibi intimus locutus est. Quid ergo Quesnellus hic Ephesinam synodum ingerit, de qua S. pontifex hac in re ne cogitavit quidem? Num indicare voluit, a nemine posse exigi ut vel errores, vel errorum auctores damnentur, nisi postquam generalis concilii judicium accesserit? Nonne ante Ephesinum concilium universa Ecclesia subscripsit Zosimi tractoriae qua Pelagiani errores eorumque auctores anathemate plectebantur? Nonne hae subscriptiones fuerunt ante eamdem synodum praeceptae; et Julianus caeterique complices ejus subscribere detrectantes, non solum imperialibus legibus, sed et sacerdotalibus statutis depositi atque exauctorati ex omni Italia deturbati sunt, ut Marius Mercator in Commentario tradit?

When St. Leo willed that open professions be required of Pelagians returning to the Church, by which they should condemn expressly and without any disguise both the errors and the authors of the errors, citing "the synodal decrees which the authority of the apostolic see confirmed for the cutting out of this heresy," he had in view the decrees of the synods of Africa; and when Zosimus confirmed these by the celebrated tractoria published throughout the whole world, this heresy was indeed cut out in the universal Church; whence Prosper in the Chronicle, at the year 418, says: "A council of two hundred and fourteen bishops having been held at Carthage, the SYNODAL DECREES were conveyed to Pope Zosimus; and when these were approved, the Pelagian heresy was condemned throughout the whole world." Leo spoke in the same sense as Prosper, his contemporary and intimate. Why then does Quesnel here thrust in the synod of Ephesus, of which the holy pontiff did not so much as think in this matter? Did he mean to indicate that no one can be required to condemn either errors or the authors of errors until the judgement of a general council has been added? Did not the universal Church, before the council of Ephesus, subscribe Zosimus's tractoria, by which the Pelagian errors and their authors were smitten with anathema? Were not these subscriptions enjoined before that same synod; and were not Julian and his other accomplices, refusing to subscribe, deposed and stripped of office not only by imperial laws but also by episcopal statutes, and driven out of all Italy, as Marius Mercator relates in the Commonitory?

(printed under page 638)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1265 or 1266 (not visible)

Quod irretractabile solum appellat oecumeniacae Ephesinae synodi decretum, ac si judicia sedis apostolicae, nisi a generali synodo firmentur, retractari queant, fusius refellimus annotat. 2 (Col. 1046, II. (l) in epist. 120.

That he calls only the decree of the ecumenical synod of Ephesus "irreformable," as if the judgements of the apostolic see could be revised unless confirmed by a general synod, we refute more fully in annotation 2 (col. 1046, II, (l)) on letter 120.

(printed under page 638)

(a) ‹anchor: prima nostra editione.› · call in col 1267

Hanc epistolam a suppositionis nota eruimus in admonitione eidem praemissa num. 10, 13, 14 et 19.

We have rescued this letter from the charge of being spurious in the notice prefixed to it, nos. 10, 13, 14 and 19.

(printed under page 639)

(b) ‹anchor: primo quidem ita› · call in col 1267

Istam objectionem ibidem refellimus num. 19 et 20.

We refute that objection in the same place, nos. 19 and 20.

(printed under page 639)

(c) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1268 (not visible)

Responsum in eadem admonitione invenies num. 13.

You will find the answer in the same notice, no. 13.

(printed under page 639)

(d) ‹anchor: epistolae inserta :› · call in col 1268

Lege num. 14 ejusdem admonitionis.

Read no. 14 of the same notice.

(printed under page 639)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1269 or 1270 (not visible)

Hoc negativum argumentum ex silentio Photii, vel potius actorum quae Photius recensuit, contra argumenta positiva, quae pro vindicanda hac Leonis epistola in laudata admonitione attulimus, nihil evincere potest. Immo cum eadem acta ac ex iis Photius certam faciant Septimi episcopi epistolam ad S. Leonem, quis hunc ei rescripsisse in dubium vocet?

This negative argument from the silence of Photius, or rather of the acts which Photius reviewed, can prove nothing against the positive arguments which we brought forward in the aforesaid notice for vindicating this letter of Leo. Indeed, since those same acts, and Photius from them, make certain the letter of bishop Septimus to St. Leo, who would call in doubt that Leo wrote back to him?

(printed under page 640)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1269 or 1270 (not visible)

Ad eosdem Pelagianos utramque epistolam, diverso licet anno scriptam, pertinere probavimus annot. 5 (Col. 707, n. c) et 6 (Col. 707, n. e) in epist. 18.

That both letters, though written in different years, concern the same Pelagians we have proved in annotation 5 (col. 707, note c) and 6 (col. 707, note e) on letter 18.

(printed under page 640)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1271 or 1272 (not visible)

Confer annot. 10 (Col. 607, n. d) in epist. 3.

Compare annotation 10 (col. 607, note d) on letter 3.

(printed under page 641)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1271 or 1272 (not visible)

Hic Latinorum cyclus annorum 84 ante annum 382 erat in usu, uti ex antiquis Fastis consularibus probavit noster card. Norisius dissert. 1.

This cycle of 84 years of the Latins was in use before the year 382, as our Cardinal Noris has proved from the ancient consular Fasti, dissertation 1.

(printed under page 641)

(a) ‹anchor: Hebraeorum seu legalem› · call in col 1272

Confer annot. 10 (Col. 607, n. d) in epist. 3.

Compare annotation 10 (col. 607, note d) on letter 3.

(printed under page 641)

(b) ‹anchor: reductus fuerit› · call in col 1272

Hic Latinorum cyclus annorum 84 ante annum 382 erat in usu, uti ex antiquis Fastis consularibus probavit noster card. Norisius dissert. 1.

This cycle of the Latins, of 84 years, was in use before the year 382, as our Cardinal Noris has proved from the ancient consular Fasti, dissertation 1.

(printed under page 641)

(c) ‹anchor: conditioni obligati sunt.› · call in col 1272

Aliam lectionem ex praestantioribus mss. inductam constituimus annot. 16 (Col. 661, n. f) in hanc epistolam.

We have established another reading, brought in from the better manuscripts, in annotation 16 (col. 661, note f) on this letter.

(printed under page 641)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1273 or 1274 (not visible)

Si reservationem discussionis, ubi aliqua dubitatio incideret, S. Leo non solum ad suburbicarias, sed ad universas etiam provincias his litteris extendisset, nihil esset mirum, cum Romanus pontifex pro ea potestate qua toti Ecclesiae omnibusque provinciis ex primatu praesidet, non modo suburbicariis, sed aliarum quoque provinciarum episcopis praecipere possit, ut alia multa Leo praecepit Gallis, Hispanis, Afris, etc., nisi forte reservationem discussionis ejusmodi in quaestionibus facti ad remotiora loca extendere ob nonnulla incommoda et difficultates non expedire credatur. Non improbabilis tamen est conjectura P. Coustantii in praefat. ad tom. I. Epist. Roman. pontif., n. 47, hanc epistolam Leonis primo directam fuisse ad solos episcopos per Campaniam Picenum et Iusciam, ad quas provincias pertinere videntur verba c. 2: Haec ergo ad provincias vestras per Innocentium, Legitimum et Segelium fratres et coepiscopos nostros scripta direximus; sed aliis subinde aliarum provinciarum episcopis communicatam fuisse ut aliis Romanorum pontificum decretalibus ad certas provincias missis contigit, et hac ratione communem epistolam evasisse, atque ideo in ejus inscriptione adjectas fuisse voces et universas provincias; quod aliis exemplis confirmat.

If St. Leo had by this letter extended the reservation of the inquiry, wherever some doubt should arise, not only to the suburbicarian provinces but to "all the provinces" as well, it would be nothing "strange," since the Roman pontiff, by that power with which, in virtue of the primacy, he presides over the whole Church and all the provinces, can give commands not only to the suburbicarian bishops but also to those of other provinces, as Leo commanded many other things to the Gauls, the Spaniards, the Africans, etc.; unless perhaps it be thought inexpedient, on account of certain inconveniences and difficulties, to extend a reservation of "inquiry" of this kind, in questions of fact, to more distant places. Not improbable, however, is the conjecture of Father Coustant in the preface to vol. I of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, no. 47, that this letter of Leo was at first addressed only to the bishops "throughout Campania, Picenum and Tuscia" [printed "Iusciam"], to which provinces the words of ch. 2 seem to refer: "These writings, therefore, we have sent to your provinces by Innocent, Legitimus and Segetius [printed "Segelium"], our brothers and fellow bishops"; but that it was afterwards communicated to other bishops of other provinces, as happened with other decretals of the Roman pontiffs sent to particular provinces, and in this way became a general letter, and that for this reason the words "and all the provinces" were added in its superscription; which he confirms by other examples.

(printed under page 642)

(b) ‹anchor: exercere pecuniam.› · call in col 1274

Hic nonnulla animadversione digna sunt. Praeter Illiberitanam synodum, usuras in laicis reprehendit etiam concilium Carthaginense sub Grato can. 13, et Basilius in epistola I canonica ad Amphilochium can. 14, injustum lucrum etiam in laicis appellat. Quod si canones non ita multi hac in re suppetunt, certum tamen est Ecclesiae Patres in concionibus et catechesibus contra idem vitium antiquissimis, quoque temporibus disseruisse; iidemque cum ejus injustitiam notarunt (ut inter caeteros legimus apud Clementem Alexandrinum lib. II Stromatum c. 18. Lactantium lib VI Instit. c. 18, S. Hilarium in psal. XIV, n. 15, Gregorium Nyssenum hom. 4. in Ezechielem, S. Ambrosium de Bono mortis num. 57, et alios), restitutionis debitum satis docuere. Quis enim nescit restituendum quod fuit injuste perceptum? Hinc porro falsum est episcopos istorum temporum non ausos fuisse palam et publice damnare hoc scelus, quod Scriptura manifeste condemnat: eadem semper traditio et doctrina viguit. Quod si non ita multa ac expressiora eorum temporum testimonia suppetunt, id non ex doctrinae, sed ex librorum vel occasionum quae hanc scriptionem postularent, defectu evenit, ut alia non pauca iisdem de causis desunt testimonia in aliis certissimis doctrinae capitibus, quae nihilominus prioribus quoque saeculis tradita fuisse nihil ambigimus.

Here several things deserve remark. Besides the synod of Elvira, the council of Carthage under Gratus, can. 13, also censures usury in laymen, and Basil in the first canonical letter to Amphilochius, can. 14, calls it "unjust gain" even in laymen. And if not so very many canons are at hand on this matter, it is nevertheless certain that the Fathers of the Church discoursed against this same vice in sermons and catecheses even in the most ancient times; and when they marked its injustice (as we read, among others, in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata bk. II, ch. 18; Lactantius, Institutes bk. VI, ch. 18; St. Hilary on Psalm XIV, no. 15; Gregory of Nyssa, homily 4 on Ezekiel [so printed]; St. Ambrose, On the Good of Death, no. 57; and others), they taught the duty of restitution plainly enough. For who does not know that what has been unjustly taken must be restored? Hence, further, it is false that the bishops of those times did not dare to condemn openly and publicly this crime, which Scripture manifestly condemns: the same tradition and doctrine was always in force. And if not so many, nor such explicit, testimonies of those times are at hand, this came about not from a want of the doctrine but from a want of books, or of occasions that would call for such writing; just as, for the same reasons, not a few other testimonies are lacking on other most certain heads of doctrine, which we nonetheless have no doubt were handed down in the earlier centuries also.

(printed under page 642)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1275 or 1276 (not visible)

Duo in sequentem Quesnelli notam observanda sunt. Primum quod ait idcirco promulgata tradi decretalia constituta praedecessorum Leonis, quia Codici canonum, quem Romanae Ecclesiae codicem publico editum putat, inserta leguntur, falsae hypothesi innititur, cujus falsitatem ostendemus in observationibus ad dissert. 12 Quesnelli de Codice canonum Romanae Ecclesiae, quae tom. III inseretur. Promulgata autem eatenus dicta sunt, quia ad episcopos per provincias missa publice prodierunt; et licet non pauca constituta ad certas tantum provincias directa fuerint, exinde tamen communicata fuerunt eorum exemplaria aliis atque aliis provinciis vicinioribus, ita ut universim innotuerint; quemadmodum probe statuit P. Coustantius in praefatione ad t. I Epist. Roman pontif. n. 47. Alterum est quod obtrudit quasi ex Leonis atque Hincmari sententia, nullum robur obtinere decretalia constituta, quae contra canonum disciplinam fuerint promulgata. At in laudatis S. Leonis locis de Romanorum pontificum decretalibus sermo non est, sed de canone Chalcedonensi pro statuenda praerogativa Constantinopolitanae sedis edito, qui cum adversaretur canonibus Nicaenis, eum S. Pontifex noluit confirmare, sed potius cassum et irritum declaravit. Hincmarus quoque nihil pronuntiat de decretalibus pontificiis. Solum urget testimonia quibus Leo et alii pontifices custodiam sacrorum canonum praecipientes, eos crimine notarunt, qui ab eorum observantia temere discederent. Inter plura autem testimonia Leonis verba recitat, quibus indicatum Chalcedonense decretum respiciens, quidquid Nicaenis constitutis repugnat, nihil auctoritatis habere voluit. Quod si idem Hincmarus Innocentii decretum de causis vel contentionibus clericorum in provincia terminandis laudavit, reservationem tamen majorum causarum ab eodem pontifice confirmatam statim subjecit inquiens: Et ibi post aliquanta: Si quae autem majoris causae in medio fuerint devolutae, ad sedem apostolicam, sicut synodus statuit (scilicet Sardicensis) et vetus consuetudo exigit, post judicium episcopale referantur. Cur priorem tantum Hincmari partem Quesnellus descripsit? Nec Leo igitur, nec Hincmarus ullibi indicant. nullum robur obtinere decretalia constituta quae contra canonum disciplinam fuerint promulgata. Hac in sententia numquam mutari posset disciplina quam canones semel statuissent; nec ulla cujusque auctoritate ferri possent decreta, quae pro varietate temporum atque circumstantiarum aliter constituerent. Confer quae in hanc rem animadvertimus in observ. ad serm. 4 S. Leonis, tom. I. col. 465, ubi alium Quesnelli locum excussimus.

Two things are to be observed on the following note of Quesnel. First, his statement that the decretal constitutions of Leo's predecessors are said to be "promulgated" because they are read inserted in the Code of canons, which he supposes to be the code of the Roman Church issued by public authority, rests on a false hypothesis, the falsity of which we shall show in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 12, On the Code of Canons of the Roman Church, which will be inserted in vol. III. They are called "promulgated" in this sense, that, being sent to the bishops throughout the provinces, they went forth publicly; and although not a few constitutions were addressed only to particular provinces, copies of them were thereafter communicated to one after another of the neighbouring provinces, so that they became generally known; as Father Coustant rightly establishes in the preface to vol. I of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, no. 47. The second is that he foists upon us, as though from the opinion of Leo and of Hincmar, that "decretal constitutions which have been promulgated against the discipline of the canons have no force." But in the passages of St. Leo cited there is no question of the decretals of the Roman pontiffs, but of the canon of Chalcedon issued to establish the prerogative of the see of Constantinople; since this was opposed to the canons of Nicaea, the holy Pontiff would not confirm it, but rather declared it null and void. Hincmar likewise pronounces nothing about papal decretals. He only presses the testimonies by which Leo and other pontiffs, enjoining the keeping of the sacred canons, branded as guilty those who rashly departed from their observance. Among several testimonies, moreover, he quotes the words of Leo in which, having in view the aforesaid decree of Chalcedon, he willed that whatever conflicts with the Nicene enactments should have no authority. And if the same Hincmar cited Innocent's decree on the cases or disputes of clerics being settled in the province, he nevertheless immediately subjoined the reservation of the greater cases confirmed by the same pontiff, saying: "And there, after some other things: But if any greater cases shall have been brought forward, let them be referred to the apostolic see, as the synod has decreed" (namely, that of Sardica) "and ancient custom requires, after the episcopal judgement." Why did Quesnel transcribe only the first part of Hincmar? Neither Leo, therefore, nor Hincmar anywhere indicates that "decretal constitutions which have been promulgated against the discipline of the canons have no force." On this opinion, a discipline which the canons had once established could never be changed; nor could any decrees be passed, by anyone's authority, that should ordain otherwise according to the diversity of times and circumstances. Compare what we have remarked on this matter in the observations on sermon 4 of St. Leo, vol. I, col. 465, where we examined another passage of Quesnel.

(printed under page 643)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1277 or 1278 (not visible)

Quo sensu S. Leo petram super quam Ecclesia aedificata est, explicaverit de fide, non excluso Petro, nec apostolicae sedis auctoritate ullatenus imminuta, fusius ostendimus in observat. ad serm. 2.

In what sense St. Leo explained "the rock upon which the Church is built" of the faith, without excluding Peter and without in any way lessening the authority of the apostolic see, we have shown more fully in the observations on sermon 2.

(printed under page 644)

(b) ‹anchor: videtur asserere,› · call in col 1277

Etsi relationis jus, praesertim in majoribus causis, quod sedi apostolicae competit, in sacris canonibus asseratur, ex altiori tamen primatus jure, quod divinam originem agnoscit, provenit. Hinc ante omnes canones, qui de hac relatione decernerent, aliquot ejusmodi relationes ad Romanos pontifices delatae inveniuntur inter ea pauca documenta quae ex prioribus saeculis supersunt. Appellationum quidem jus in causis majoribus ex primatu divini juris proficisci ostendimus in observationibus ad dissert. 5 Quesnelli part. I, c. 7.

Although the right of reference, especially in the greater cases, which belongs to the apostolic see, is asserted in the sacred canons, it nevertheless proceeds from the higher right of the primacy, which owns a divine origin. Hence, before all canons that made any decree about this reference, several references of this kind brought to the Roman pontiffs are found among those few documents that survive from the earlier centuries. That the right of appeals in the greater cases indeed derives from the primacy, which is of divine right, we have shown in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 5, part I, ch. 7.

(printed under page 644)

(c) ‹anchor: Sed› · call in col 1277

Cum in canonibus Sardicensibus de causis clericorum inferioris ordinis nihil constituatur, nisi canone 16, ubi finitimos episcopos interpellare permittitur, probabilior est Hincmari sententia, quam P. Coustantius propugnat in Innocentii epist, 1, tom. I Epist. Rom. pontif. pag. 749, not. a (Patrol. XX, col. 463).

Since in the canons of Sardica nothing is laid down about the cases of clerics of the lower order, except in canon 16, where it is permitted to appeal to the neighbouring bishops, the more probable opinion is that of Hincmar, which Father Coustant defends on Innocent's letter 1, vol. I of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, p. 749, note a (Patrologia XX, col. 463).

(printed under page 644)

(a) ‹anchor: nec personale› · call in col 1279

Immo vero personale privilegium fuisse, quod morte cujusque pontificis expiraret, hinc colligi posse videtur, qui Anastasius licet a Xysto antea creatus apostolicae sedis in Illyrico vicarius, ejusdem tamen praerogativae confirmationem a Leone petiit, et S. pontifex ipsi annuens, idem privilegium ita concessit, ut encyclicam ea de re ad omnes Illyrici metropolitanos transmiserit: quae novae delegationis notitiam necessariam praesumunt.

Nay rather, that it was a personal privilege, which expired at the death of each pontiff, seems capable of being gathered from this, that [printed "qui"] Anastasius, although previously made vicar of the apostolic see in Illyricum by Xystus, nevertheless sought from Leo confirmation of the same prerogative, and the holy pontiff, assenting to him, granted the same privilege in such a way that he sent an encyclical on the matter to all the metropolitans of Illyricum: which things presuppose that notice of a new delegation was necessary.

(printed under page 645)

(b) ‹anchor: maxime› · call in col 1279

Non satis fuit Quesnello maxime; restringendam adhuc duxit vicariorum apostolicorum auctoritatem et unice, ac si praeter id quod ad custodiam canonum pertinet, nihil aliud vicariis apostolicis tribui facultatis possit. At cum Romanus pontifex praeter custodiam canonum, pro suo divini juris primatu multa alia potest in tota Ecclesia; tum alia potest quibusdam vice sua in provinciis committere, prout ex circumstantiarum ac temporum varietate crediderit expedire. Ita vel antiquis temporibus quaedam demandata leguntur episcopo Thessalonicensi, aliisve in aliis provinciis, quae ad custodiam canonum necessaria non erant. Num huic fini opus erat Thessalonicensi reservare metropolitarum ordinationes? Num causarum episcopalium cognitionem et definitionem ipsi tribuere? Num synodis cogendis ejus consensum aut praesidentiam requirere? Num formatorum jus eidem vindicare? quae tamen in litteris Coelestini, Xysti ac Leonis episcopis Thessalonicensibus tribuuntur.

"Chiefly" was not enough for Quesnel; he thought the authority of the apostolic vicars should be restricted still further, "and solely," as if, beyond what pertains to the keeping of the canons, no other faculty could be granted to apostolic vicars. But as the Roman pontiff, besides the keeping of the canons, can do many other things in the whole Church by his primacy of divine right, so he can commit other things to certain persons in the provinces in his stead, as he shall judge expedient according to the diversity of circumstances and times. Thus even in ancient times certain things are read to have been entrusted to the bishop of Thessalonica, or to others in other provinces, which were not necessary for the keeping of the canons. Was it needful for this end to reserve to the bishop of Thessalonica the ordinations of metropolitans? To grant him the hearing and deciding of episcopal cases? To require his consent or presidency for the assembling of synods? To claim for him the right of letters of commendation (formatae)? Yet these are granted to the bishops of Thessalonica in the letters of Celestine, Xystus and Leo.

(printed under page 645)

(c) ‹anchor: vicariatus a se› · call in col 1280

Jugum ne appellari potest vicariatus apostolicus, quo Romani pontifices jam inde a Damaso vel Siricio pro suo, quod postea vocarunt patriarchalem, in totum Occidentem jure, ob disciplinae canonumque custodiam in Illyrico instituerunt?

Can the apostolic vicariate be called a "yoke," which the Roman pontiffs, from as early as Damasus or Siricius, in virtue of their right over the whole West, which they afterwards called patriarchal, established in Illyricum for the safeguarding of discipline and the canons?

(printed under page 645)

(d) ‹anchor: Ratio exceptionis est,› · call in col 1280

Si Illyricianarum provinciarum appellationes ad Romanum pontificem jure peculiari pertinebant, nimirum uti patriarchae Occidentis, quia erant Occidentalium partium quaedam portio, ad ipsum altiori jure spectabant ex tota Ecclesia, quia tota Ecclesia eidem uti primati a Christo subjecta fuit: unde canones Sardicenses non de solis Occidentalium, sed et de Orientalium appellationibus ad Romanam sedem statuerunt: quos quidem canones Orientalibus fuisse tunc tempore ignotos, quemadmodum hic Quesnellus repetit, falsum probavimus in observat. ad dissert. 5, part. I, cap. 6, num. 16.

If the appeals of the Illyrian provinces belonged to the Roman pontiff by a special right, namely as patriarch of the West, because they "were a certain portion of the Western parts," appeals from the whole Church pertained to him by a higher right, because the whole Church was made subject to him as primate by Christ: whence the canons of Sardica legislated not only for the appeals of Westerners but also for those of Easterners to the Roman see; and that these canons were at that time unknown to the Easterners, as Quesnel here repeats, we have proved false in the observations on dissertation 5, part I, ch. 6, no. 16.

(printed under page 645)

(e) ‹anchor: in Epistolas Pauli› · call in col 1280

Hilario diacono tribuitur Commentarius iste, cap. 3 in Epist. I ad Timotheum.

This Commentary is attributed to Hilary the deacon; [the place is] ch. 3 on the First Epistle to Timothy.

(printed under page 645)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1281 or 1282 (not visible)

Si de die paschali qui a vigilia sabbati sancti initium sumit, haec intelligantur, vera fortassis sunt de Romana et aliis plerisque etiam Ecclesiis non autem de omnibus. Certe enim in Veronensi Ecclesia sancti Zenonis aevo ministrorum promotiones peragebantur die Paschatis, seu in privilegio Paschae, id est sabbato sancto, ut ex tractatu ejus 50 libri secundi perspicue (ut nobis quidem videtur) colligere licet, uti monuimus annotatione 4 in eumdem sermonem pag. 261, quod testimonium antea non observatum ad an- (continues)

If these things are understood of the paschal day, which takes its beginning from the vigil of Holy Saturday, they are perhaps true of the Roman Church and of most others as well, but not of all. For certainly in the Church of Verona, in the age of St. Zeno, the "promotions of ministers" were carried out on the day of Pasch, or "in the privilege of Pasch," that is, on Holy Saturday, as may be clearly gathered (so at least it seems to us) from his tractate 50 of the second book, as we noted in annotation 4 on that same sermon, p. 261; which testimony, not previously observed, [belongs] to the an- (continues)

(Note: a call (c) stands in col 1282 after "ut potius"; its note is not printed at the foot of this page.) (printed under page 646)

(a, from p. 646) (continued) ‹anchor: on previous page› · call on p. 646

(continued) tiquam originem sacrarum ordinationum in sabbato sancto demonstrandam mirifice confert.

(printed under page 647)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1283 or 1284 (not visible)

Vide dissert. 6. de Jejunio sabbati.

See dissertation 6, On the Saturday Fast.

(printed under page 647)

(b) ‹anchor: translatum sit› · call in col 1284

Cum omnes codices Sacramentarii Gregoriani exhibeant orationes proprias ad missam sabbati ordinationis, et proprias item Dominicae, quae ordinationis sabbatum subsequitur, verum esse nequit, ob traductas ordinationes in diem sabbati pro die Dominico, totum quoque officium missae translatum fuisse in sabbatum, Dominicam vero missae officio fuisse expertem. Quis credat hos Dominicos dies divino cultui aeque ac caeteros semper in Ecclesia addictos sacrificio caruisse? Quod si hae Dominicae vacare in iisdem Sacramentariis traduntur, id aliter quam de sacrificio intelligendum est. In ms. Gregoriano Sacramentario Ottoboniano apud Muratorium, quod omnium antiquissimum est, cum omnibus diebus Dominicis indicentur antiphonae, responsoria, offertorium, et communio, quae a choro canebantur, solum in quatuor Dominicis subsequentibus sabbata quatuor temporum ordinationibus jam deputata haec omnia omittuntur. Id autem indicio esse videtur, in his quatuor Dominicis non missam, nec totum officium missae, sed solum officium laboriosius cantus antiphonarum, responsoriorum, etc., fuisse omissum, ea forte de causa ut ministris labore et prolixiori cantu sacrarum ordinationum laxatis parceretur; et hoc sensu hae Dominicae dicebantur vacare, nimirum officio cantus; ac propterea quae incidebant in Adventum et Quadragesimam, cum stationes debuissent recipere, statione etiam ac processione vacabant. Quod si harum quoque Dominicarum antiphonae, responsoria, etc. notantur in Antiphonario Gregoriano, quod card. Thomasius vulgavit, id posteriori accessioni tribuen- (continues)

Since all the codices of the Gregorian Sacramentary present proper prayers for the Mass of the Saturday of ordination, and proper ones likewise for the Sunday that follows the Saturday of ordination, it cannot be true that, because ordinations were transferred to Saturday in place of Sunday, the whole office of the Mass was also transferred to the Saturday, while the Sunday was without the office of the Mass. Who would believe that these Sundays, devoted to divine worship in the Church always just as the others were, lacked the sacrifice? And if these Sundays are said in the same Sacramentaries to "be vacant," this is to be understood otherwise than of the sacrifice. In the Ottoboni manuscript of the Gregorian Sacramentary in Muratori, which is the most ancient of all, whereas on all Sundays the antiphons, responsories, offertory and communion sung by the choir are indicated, only on the four Sundays following the Ember Saturdays, by then assigned to ordinations, are all these omitted. This seems to be a sign that on these four Sundays not the Mass, nor the whole office of the Mass, but only the more laborious office of the chant of antiphons, responsories, etc., was omitted, perhaps in order to spare the ministers, worn out by the labour and the lengthier chant of the sacred ordinations; and in this sense these Sundays were said to "be vacant," namely of the office of chant; and for that reason those which fell in Advent and Lent, though they ought to have had stations, were vacant of station and procession as well. And if the antiphons, responsories, etc. of these Sundays also are noted in the Gregorian Antiphonary which Cardinal Tommasi published, this is to be attribut- (continues)

(printed under page 647)

(a) ‹anchor: Dominicam diem (quae› · call in col 1285

Nonnulla in sequentibus nobis incerta aut difficilia sunt. Quod hic affirmat Quesnellus, solam diem Dominicam mysteriis celebrandis Romae deputatam, concedi potest, si eo sensu affirmat, quod aliis ferialibus diebus nullo peculiari festo celebratis, nulla certa et solemnis missa esset praescripta. At si id eo sensu affirmat, ac si aliis diebus missae sacrificium non offerretur, quo id fundamento fulciatur ignoramus. Si enim hoc collegit ex Sacramentariis Gelasiano et Gregoriano, ubi solis Dominicis, non autem ferialibus diebus, praeter Quadragesinae tempus, missae assignantur, nonne in antiquiori Sacramentario, quod Leoni attributum hoc tomo edidimus, nullae missae propriae leguntur ipsarum Dominicarum post Pascha ac Pentecosten, in quibus tamen sacrificium celebratum fuisse nemo ambiget? Sicut autem hoc tempore, diebus Dominicis propria missa carentibus, celebrantis arbitrio missae e communibus sumebantur, ut in praefatione ad idem Sacramentarium animadvertimus, ita post assignatas missas cuique diei Dominico, qui ferialibus diebus celebrabant sacrificium, missas vel ex Dominica praecedenti, vel ex communibus repetebant; nec in Romana Ecclesia et clero extinctus plane credendus est antiquus fervor qui Hieronymi ac Augustini aevo in ea vigebat, ut scilicet plures quotidie communicarent, ac idcirco Deo quotidie sacrificium offerebatur.

Some things in what follows are to us uncertain or difficult. What Quesnel here affirms, that "Sunday alone" was assigned at Rome to the celebration of the mysteries, can be granted if he affirms it in this sense, that on the other, ferial days, not kept with any particular feast, no fixed and solemn Mass was prescribed. But if he affirms it in the sense that on other days the sacrifice of the Mass was not offered, we do not know on what foundation it rests. For if he gathered this from the Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries, where Masses are assigned only to Sundays and not to ferial days, outside the season of Lent, are not, in the older Sacramentary which we have edited in this volume as attributed to Leo, no proper Masses read for the very Sundays after Easter and Pentecost, on which nevertheless no one will doubt that the sacrifice was celebrated? And just as at that time, on Sundays lacking a proper Mass, the Masses were taken from the common ones at the celebrant's choice, as we remarked in the preface to that same Sacramentary, so, after Masses had been assigned to each Sunday, those who celebrated the sacrifice on ferial days repeated Masses either from the preceding Sunday or from the common ones; nor is it to be believed that in the Roman Church and clergy the ancient fervour was wholly extinguished which flourished in it in the age of Jerome and Augustine, namely that many communicated daily, and for that reason the sacrifice was offered to God daily.

(printed under page 648)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1286 (not visible)

Consuetudo celebrandi ter in Nativitate Domini ex eo potius orta videtur, quod in tribus distinctis Romanis basilicis distinctis horis hac die tres stationes ac missae celebrarentur, primum in S. Maria Majori, dein in S. Anastasia, tandem in S. Petro, ut ex Sacramentario et Antiphonario Gregoriano colligere licet. Idem forte aliis solemnitatibus accidit, quae diversas missas eodem die horis diversis celebratas recipiebant, ut olim die Natali SS. apostolorum Petri et Pauli duae missae canebantur in duabus eorumdem ecclesiis, altera in S. Petri, in S. Pauli altera.

The custom of celebrating three times on the Nativity of the Lord seems rather to have arisen from this, that in three distinct Roman basilicas, at distinct hours on this day, three stations and Masses were celebrated, first at St. Mary Major, then at St. Anastasia, and lastly at St. Peter's, as may be gathered from the Gregorian Sacramentary and Antiphonary. The same perhaps happened on other solemnities which admitted different Masses celebrated on the same day at different hours, as formerly on the feast day of the holy apostles Peter and Paul two Masses were sung in their two churches, one at St. Peter's, the other at St. Paul's.

(printed under page 648)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1287 or 1288 (not visible)

Ex verbis, ea fidelium multitudo convenerit, quam recipere basilica simul una non possit, sequitur quidem hic sermonem esse de una basilica, in qua magna aliqua festivitas maximo populi concursu celebraretur; non vero sequitur unicam Alexandriae fuisse basilicam, in qua offerretur. Sic licet Romae in unica ecclesia festum magna cum frequentia ageretur, non tamen ibidem tantum eodem die peragebatur sacrificium. Id palam fit ex epist. 25 Innocentii I ad Decentium c. 5, ubi fermentum ad presbyteros titulorum Urbis a se missum tradit quavis die Dominica, quia die ipsa propter plebem sibi creditam nobiscum convenire non possunt. Hi ergo presbyteri seu parochi cum sua cujusque plebe diebus Dominicis sacrificium peragebant in suis titulis, et ad hos mittebatur portio sacrificii a pontifice oblati in Ecclesia Lateranensi, ut se, inquit, a nostra communione maxime illa die non judicent separatos. Sicut ergo Romae, ita etiam Alexandriae in singulis titulis unicum sacrificium agebatur, et solum si ad aliquod festum alicubi celebrandum ea multitudo concurreret, quam basilica recipere simul non posset, ibidem sacrificium iterare licebat.

From the words, "such a multitude of the faithful has come together as a single basilica cannot hold at once," it does indeed follow that the discourse here is of one "basilica," in which some great festival was being celebrated with a very great concourse of the people; but it does not follow that there was "only one" basilica at Alexandria "in which the offering was made." Thus, although at Rome a feast was kept in a single church with great attendance, the sacrifice was nevertheless not performed there alone on the same day. This is made plain by letter 25 of Innocent I to Decentius, ch. 5, where he relates that the fermentum was sent by him to the presbyters of the titular churches of the City every Sunday, "because on that day, on account of the people entrusted to them, they cannot assemble with us." These presbyters or parish priests, therefore, each with his own people, performed the sacrifice on Sundays in their own titles, and to them was sent a portion of the sacrifice offered by the pontiff in the Lateran Church, "that they may not," he says, "judge themselves separated from our communion, especially on that day." As at Rome, therefore, so also at Alexandria a single sacrifice was performed in each title, and only if, for the celebration of some feast somewhere, such a multitude came together as the basilica could not hold at once, was it permitted to repeat the sacrifice there.

(printed under page 649)

(b) ‹anchor: Sunt aliae› · call in col 1288

Decretales hic Quesnellus appellat Romani pontificis epistolas datas Ecclesiis vel provinciis quas metropolitica vel exarchica auctoritate regebat. Quae autem ad aliarum dioeceseon (id est Orientalium) mittebuntur, non decretales, sed familiares epistolas vocat. Quid isthaec distinctio, vocumque interpretatio est? Esto familiaris epistola dici queat haec ad Dioscorum scripta, quatenus non solemniter exarata in synodo, nec ad synodum missa, cum tamen contineat disciplinae regulas, et praecepta, quae indicantur verbo Volumus, cap. 1 et 2, jure decretalis habenda est; quae si in Oriente decreti vim non obtinebat ex auctoritate metropolitica vel exarchica seu patriarchali, ex primatu tamen in totam Ecclesiam vim habuisse negari nequit nisi ab eo qui primatum divini juris apostolicae Petri sedi cum heterodoxis neget. Formulae familiariter admonemus, paterna et fraterna collatio moderationem et suavitatem Leonis commendant; auctoritati autem quae repetito verbo Volumus satis indicatur, nihilum detrahunt.

Quesnel here calls "decretals" the letters of the Roman pontiff given "to the Churches or provinces which he ruled by metropolitan or exarchal authority." But those which were sent [printed "mittebuntur"] "to those of other dioceses" (that is, of the Easterners) he calls not "decretals" but "familiar" letters. What sort of distinction and interpretation of words is this? Granted that this letter written to Dioscorus may be called a "familiar letter," inasmuch as it was not solemnly drawn up in synod nor sent to a synod; yet, since it contains rules of discipline, and precepts, which are indicated by the word "We will," chs. 1 and 2, it is rightly to be held a "decretal"; and if in the East it did not have the force of a decree from metropolitan or exarchal or patriarchal authority, yet that it had force from the primacy over the whole Church cannot be denied except by one who, with the heterodox, denies to the apostolic see of Peter a primacy of divine right. The formulas "we admonish in familiar fashion," "a fatherly and brotherly conference," commend Leo's moderation and gentleness; but they detract nothing from the authority which is sufficiently indicated by the repeated word "We will."

(printed under page 649)

(a) ‹anchor: call stands before the heading AD EPISTOLAM X.› · call in col 1289

Cum epistolam apud Quesnellum 9 ad episcopos Gallicanos Viennensis provinciae rejecerimus in appendicem Epistolarum tom. I, col. 1469, notam fusiorem Quesnelli in admonitione ei praefixa inseruimus col. 1465.

Since we have relegated the letter that is no. 9 in Quesnel, to the Gallican bishops of the province of Vienne, to the appendix of the Letters, vol. I, col. 1469, we have inserted Quesnel's longer note in the notice prefixed to it, col. 1465.

(printed under page 650)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1289 or 1290 (not visible)

Vide annot. 2 (Col. 628, n. n) in hanc epistolam, ac praesertim observationes in dissert. 5 Quesnelli part. I, c. 2, n. 4, ubi istam inscriptionem vindicavimus.

See annotation 2 (col. 628, note n) on this letter, and especially the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 5, part I, ch. 2, no. 4, where we have vindicated that superscription.

(printed under page 650)

(c) ‹anchor: has voces,› · call in col 1290

Quo sensu S. Leo cap. 1 usus sit adverbio principaliter ex contextu ita perspicuum fit, ut explicatio Quesnelli potius involvat quod clarum est, quam obscurum declaret. Loquitur S. pontifex de praedicatione Evangelii in universo mundo, quam Christus apostolis commisit, sicut scriptum est: In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis terrae verba eorum. Hoc autem officium ita a Christo omnibus apostolis commissum affirmat, ut in Petro apostolorum omnium summo principaliter collocarit, et ab ipso quasi quodam capite, dona sua velit in corpus omne manare: ut exsortem se mysterii intelligeret esse divini, qui ausus fuisset a Petri soliditate recedere. Verba quibus Petrus apostolorum omnium summus dicitur, primatum ejus inter apostolos declarant: hujus autem primatus vim atque rationem sequentia explicant. Ipsum scilicet praedicationis munus, etsi omnibus apostolis commissum, ratione tamen primatus principaliter collocatum affirmat in Petro tamquam in capite, a quo sua dona in omnes dimanent, idque ita ut exortem se mysterii intelligeret esse divini, qui ausus fuisset a Petri soliditate recedere. Porro soliditas Petri de Petri praedicatione, seu de fide quam Petrus praedicavit, ex Leonis mente accipienda est, ut patebit ex observationibus ad serm. 3, num. 2, ibidemque num. 3 ostendimus eamdem soliditatem fidei, quam S. pontifex affirmavit in Petro, eodem docente fuisse transmissam in omnes successores S. Petri, et aeque solidam in Romana Ecclesia permanere. Recedet ergo a soliditate Petri, qui a doctrina fidei Petri et Romanorum pontificum, quae in Petro solidata fuit a Christo, eademque soliditate ad Romanos pontifices transivit, recedere voluerit. Cum porro Leo affirmat eum qui a soliditate Petri recedit exsortem esse mysterii divini, necessitatem indicat conveniendi cum fide et doctrina Petri ac successorum ejus. Hoc sensu praedicatio fidei omnibus licet apostolis commissa, Petro principaliter credita est, quia soli Petro ita est credita, ut eadem soliditas fidei ad successores ejus transiens, omnibus catholicis conveniendi necessitatem imponat: quod nulli aliarum etiam apostolicarum sedium episcopo contigit. Quare de nulla alia sede vel Ecclesia, sed de sola Romana scripsit S. Irenaeus ab ipso Quesnello paulo ante laudatus: Ad Romanam Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam. Id intelligere non potuit de ritibus et disciplina, quae in Ecclesiis diversis (eo potissimum tempore) diversa esse poterat. De sola doctrina fidei accipiendum, quae cum in omnibus Ecclesiis una esse debet, tum cum doctrina fidei Romanorum pontificum successorum Petri, in quos eadem Petri ac fidei ejus soliditas transivit, convenire omnes catholici debent, ne si qui recedant ab hac soliditate Petri, mysterii divini exsortes sint. Id propter potentiorem principalitatem, id est primatus causa, Romanae Ecclesiae tribuit S. Irenaeus, eo quod inter multas primatus praerogativas haec praecipua et principalis sit, cum primatus a Christo eo consilio fuerit institutus, ut in Petro ac successoribus ejus non solum ostenderet, verum etiam formaret et custodiret totius Ecclesiae unitatem, ac potissimum unitatem praedicationis et fidei, de qua in observatione sequenti redibit sermo. Haec obvia Leonini textus explicatio est, quae non tam cum aliis ejusdem pontificis testimoniis, quam cum aliis aliorum Patrum cohaeret, (continues)

In what sense St. Leo in ch. 1 used the adverb "principally" becomes so clear from the context that Quesnel's explanation rather wraps up what is clear than makes plain what is obscure. The holy pontiff is speaking of the preaching of the Gospel in the whole world, which Christ committed to the apostles, as it is written: "Their sound has gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." Now he affirms that this office was committed by Christ to all the apostles in such a way that "He placed it principally in Peter, the chief of all the apostles, and wills that from him, as from a kind of head, His gifts should flow into the whole body: so that whoever dared to withdraw from the solidity of Peter should understand that he has no share in the divine mystery." The words in which Peter is called "the chief of all the apostles" declare his primacy among the apostles; and what follows explains the force and nature of this primacy. He affirms, namely, that the very office of preaching, though committed to all the apostles, was nevertheless, by reason of the primacy, placed "principally" in Peter as in the head, from whom His gifts flow down to all, and this in such a way "that whoever dared to withdraw from the solidity of Peter should understand that he has no share in the divine mystery." Further, "the solidity of Peter" is, according to Leo's mind, to be taken of Peter's preaching, or of the faith which Peter preached, as will appear from the observations on sermon 3, no. 2; and in the same place, no. 3, we have shown that the same solidity of faith which the holy pontiff affirmed in Peter was, as he himself teaches, transmitted to all the successors of St. Peter, and remains equally solid in the Roman Church. He, therefore, will withdraw from the solidity of Peter who chooses to withdraw from the doctrine of the faith of Peter and of the Roman pontiffs, which was made solid in Peter by Christ and has passed with the same solidity to the Roman pontiffs. When, moreover, Leo affirms that he who withdraws from the solidity of Peter has no share in the divine mystery, he indicates the necessity of agreeing with the faith and doctrine of Peter and his successors. In this sense the preaching of the faith, though committed to all the apostles, was entrusted "principally" to Peter, because to Peter alone was it so entrusted that the same solidity of faith, passing to his successors, lays on all Catholics the necessity of agreeing with it: which befell the bishop of no other see, even of the apostolic ones. Therefore of no other see or Church, but of the Roman alone, did St. Irenaeus write, cited by Quesnel himself a little above: "With the Roman Church, on account of its more powerful principality, it is necessary that every Church agree." He cannot have meant this of rites and discipline, which could be different in different Churches (at that time especially). It must be taken of the doctrine of the faith alone: as this must be one in all the Churches, so all Catholics must agree with the doctrine of faith of the Roman pontiffs, the successors of Peter, to whom the same solidity of Peter and of his faith has passed, lest, if any withdraw from this solidity of Peter, they "have no share in the divine mystery." This St. Irenaeus attributes to the Roman Church "on account of its more powerful principality," that is, by reason of the primacy, because among the many prerogatives of the primacy this is the chief and principal one, since the primacy was instituted by Christ with this design, that in Peter and his successors He might not only show forth, but also form and guard, the unity of the whole Church, and above all the unity of preaching and of faith, of which we shall speak again in the following observation. This is the obvious explanation of Leo's text, which coheres not so much with other testimonies of the same pontiff as with others of other Fathers, (continues)

(printed under page 650)

(a) ‹anchor: individuae unitatis assumptum.› · call in col 1292

Quid multa hic congeruntur ad explicandum testimonium, quod planissimum est? S. pontifex, ut rationem afferret ejus sententiae, qua affirmavit eum exsortem mysterii divini, qui ausus fuisset a Petri soliditate recedere, subdidit: Hunc enim in consortium individuae unitatis assumptum, id quod ipse erat, voluit nominari, dicendo: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; ut aeterni templi aedificatio, mirabili munere gratiae Dei, in Petri soliditate consisteret; hac Ecclesiam suam firmitate corroborans, ut illam nec humana temeritas posset appetere, nec portae contra illam inferi praevalerent. Nonne hic manifestum est individuae unitatis consortium eo referri, quod sicut Christus ob unitatem Ecclesiae petra est et fundamentum, cui tota debet adhaerere Ecclesia, ita ejusdem unitatis bono in hujus praerogativae consortium Petrus assumptus fuit a Christo, cum ipsum sui loco constituit petram Ecclesiae, et petram ita solidam, cui portae inferi non praevalerent? Hinc similiter dixit serm. 4, c. 2: Cum ego sim inviolabilis petra, ego lapis angularis, qui facio utraque unum, ego fundamentum praeter quod nemo potest aliud ponere: tamen tu quoque petra es, quia mea virtute solidaris, ut quae mihi potestate sunt propria, sint tibi mecum participatione communia. Et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam. Super hanc, inquit, fortitudinem aeternum exstruam templum; et Ecclesiae meae coelo inferenda sublimitas, in hujus fidei firmitate consurget. Quae cum recitatis praesentis epistolae verbis mirifice concinunt, palamque faciunt, S. Petrum, petram Ecclesiae constitutum, ea soliditate ac firmitate fidei donatum fuisse a Christo, ut in ea Ecclesia corroborata consisteret, quod non nisi per unitatem fidei cum Petro fieri potest; unde laudato sermone 4, c. 3, postquam scripsit: Specialis a Domino Petri cura suscipitur, et pro fide Petri proprie supplicatur, tamquam aliorum status certior sit futurus, si mens principis victa non fuerit; sic concludit: In Petro ergo omnium fortitudo munitur, et divinae gratiae ita ordinatur auxilium, ut firmitas quae per Christum Petro tribuitur, per Petrum apostolis conferatur. Cum igitur S. Petrus eatenus in individuae unitatis consortium assumptus fuerit a Christo, quatenus ad formandam et custodiendam Ecclesiae unitatem in consortium assumptus non minus nominis quam soliditatis ejus petrae, quae Christus est, constitutus fuit petra et fundamentum Ecclesiae, nihil mirum si eum S. pontifex expertem dixit mysterii coelestis, seu extra unitatem Ecclesiae, quicumque ausus fuerit non tam a Christi quam a Petri soliditate recedere. Quod autem de Petro hic docet, aeque de successoribus ejus intelligendum est, cum ob idem consilium eadem fidei soliditas ad ipsos transierit, ut observatione antecedenti ostendimus.

Why are so many things heaped up here to explain a testimony that is perfectly plain? The holy pontiff, to give the reason for that statement in which he affirmed that he "has no share in the divine mystery who has dared to withdraw from the solidity of Peter," added: "For this man, taken up into the fellowship of undivided unity, He willed to be named what He Himself was, saying: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'; that the building of the eternal temple, by the wonderful gift of God's grace, might stand upon the solidity of Peter; strengthening His Church with this firmness, so that neither human rashness could assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it." Is it not manifest here that "the fellowship of undivided unity" refers to this: that, as Christ, for the sake of the Church's unity, is the rock and foundation to which the whole Church must cleave, so, for the good of the same unity, Peter was taken up by Christ into fellowship in this prerogative, when He set him in His own place as the rock of the Church, and a rock so solid that the gates of hell should not prevail against it? Hence he said similarly in sermon 4, ch. 2: "Although I am the inviolable rock, I the cornerstone who make both one, I the foundation besides which no one can lay another: yet you also are a rock, because you are made solid by my strength, so that the things which are proper to me by power may be common to you with me by participation. 'And upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Upon this strength, He says, I will raise an eternal temple; and the loftiness of my Church, which is to be carried up to heaven, shall rise upon the firmness of this faith." These words accord wonderfully with the words of the present letter just quoted, and make plain that St. Peter, constituted the rock of the Church, was endowed by Christ with such solidity and firmness of faith that the Church, strengthened in it, might stand; which cannot come about except through unity of faith with Peter. Whence in the aforesaid sermon 4, ch. 3, after writing: "A special care for Peter is undertaken by the Lord, and supplication is made properly for Peter's faith, as though the state of the others would be more secure if the mind of the chief were not overcome," he concludes thus: "In Peter, therefore, the strength of all is fortified, and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the firmness which is given to Peter through Christ is conferred on the apostles through Peter." Since, therefore, St. Peter was "taken up into the fellowship of undivided unity" by Christ in this respect, that, for forming and guarding the Church's unity, taken into fellowship no less in the name than in the solidity of that rock which is Christ, he was constituted the rock and foundation of the Church, it is no wonder that the holy pontiff declared him to be without part in the heavenly mystery, that is, outside the unity of the Church, whoever should dare to withdraw not so much from Christ's solidity as from Peter's. And what he here teaches of Peter is to be understood equally of his successors, since, for the same purpose, the same solidity of faith has passed to them, as we showed in the preceding observation.

(printed under page 651)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1293 or 1294 (not visible)

Licet verba salubriter custoditum de appellationibus ad sedem apostolicam adhibita per se consuetudinem indicent, cum tamen haec consuetudo et sacris canonibus et divino jure fulciatur, uti late probavimus in Observationibus ad dissert. 5 Quesnelli, part. I, c. 6 et 7, ecclesiasticum quoque et divinum quoddam jus Leonem in mente habere potuisse negari nequit. Sardicenses quidem canones Nicaenorum nomine pro appellationum jure alibi S. pontifex allegavit, et divinum quoddam jus etiam cogitasse videtur, cum S. Hilarium obsistentem appellationi Celidonii nullis institutionis Dominicae regulis contineri; et potestatem ligandi ac solvendi Petro prae caeteris attributam a Christo aliqua ratione impetere conquestus est. Vide cap. 1 et 2 epistolae 10.

Although the words "wholesomely observed," used of appeals to the apostolic see, of themselves indicate a custom, yet since this custom is supported both by the sacred canons and by divine right, as we have proved at length in the Observations on Quesnel's dissertation 5, part I, chs. 6 and 7, it cannot be denied that Leo may have had in mind an ecclesiastical and also a certain divine right. The holy pontiff indeed elsewhere cited the canons of Sardica, under the name of Nicene, for the right of appeals, and he seems also to have had a certain divine right in view when he complained that St. Hilary, in resisting the appeal of Celidonius, "was restrained by no rules of the Lord's institution," and in some manner assailed the power of binding and loosing given by Christ to Peter "before the rest." See chs. 1 and 2 of letter 10.

(printed under page 652)

(b) ‹anchor: Ecclesiarum vindicans.› · call in col 1294

Cum S. Leo in S. Hilario reprehendit quod ordinationes sibi omnium per Gallias Ecclesiarum vindicaret, voces omnium Ecclesiarum late accepit, eo quod ille in alienas provincia sese extenderat. Ordinationem enim episcopi in locum Projecti in provincia aliena fuisse peractam, et depositionem Celidonii extra ipsam Narbonensem solidam ad Maximam Sequanorum pertinuisse, fuse constituimus in observationibus ad diss. 5 Quesnelli part. I et II.

When St. Leo censures in St. Hilary that "he claimed for himself the ordinations of all the Churches throughout the Gauls," he took the words "of all the Churches" broadly, because Hilary had extended himself into provinces not his own. For that the ordination of a bishop in place of Projectus was carried out in another's province, and that the deposition of Celidonius belonged, outside the whole of Narbonensis itself, to Maxima Sequanorum, we have established at length in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 5, parts I and II.

(printed under page 652)

(c) ‹anchor: Hoc tamen loco› · call in col 1294

Omnia non tam Quesnelli quam nostra et Sirmondi mss. exemplaria habent prae caeteris. Nullis autem codicibus suffragantibus quis de emendatione pro caeteris cogitet? Quid quod emendatione opus non est? Si enim animadvertas quo utrumque membrum referatur, cognita vi comparativi specialius secundo membro inserti, absque ulla correctione optimum sensum elicies. Sic autem hic locus intelligendus. Licet S. Petro prae caeteris specialiter tradita fuerit a Christo ligandi atque solvendi facultas, cum ipsi ante passionem suam semel dixit: Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum: quodcumque ligaveris, etc.; specialius tamen pascendarum ovium cura eidem commissa fuit, cum post passionem non semel (ut in tradenda facultate clavium) sed ter, triplici interrogatione ac responsione interjecta, eidem mandavit: Pasce oves meas, pasce agnos meos, pasce oves meas. Quod si aliquo codice aliquando invento pro caeteris corrigendum credatur, certe tamen potestas ligandi et solvendi S. Petro non solum pro caeteris, sed prae caeteris etiam tradita fuit; quatenus eidem ratione primatus potestas data est in ipsos apostolos, et in omnes episcopos apostolorum successores quibus eum primatus jure praefuisse nemo catholicus inficiari potest. Transivit quidem in alios apostolos ac in episcopos vis potestatis ligandi atque solvendi; sed cum primatus in neminem alium nisi in Roma- (continues)

All the manuscript copies, not only Quesnel's but ours and Sirmond's as well, read "before the rest" (prae caeteris). With no codices in its favour, who would think of the emendation "on behalf of the rest" (pro caeteris)? And what of the fact that no emendation is needed? For if you observe to what each member refers, once the force of the comparative "more specially," inserted in the second member, is recognised, you will draw out an excellent sense without any correction. This passage is to be understood thus. Although the faculty of binding and loosing was delivered by Christ to St. Peter specially "before the rest," when He said to him once, before His passion: "To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatsoever you shall bind," etc.; yet the care of feeding the sheep was committed to him "more specially," when after the passion, not once (as in delivering the power of the keys) but three times, with a threefold question and answer interposed, He charged him: "Feed my sheep, feed my lambs, feed my sheep." And if, some codex being found at some time, it should be thought right to correct to "on behalf of the rest," still the power of binding and loosing was certainly delivered to St. Peter not only "on behalf of the rest" but also "before the rest"; inasmuch as, by reason of the primacy, power was given to him over the apostles themselves, and over all the bishops, successors of the apostles, over whom no Catholic can deny that he presided by right of primacy. The force of the power of binding and loosing did indeed pass to the other apostles and to the bishops; but since the primacy [passed] to no other than the Roma- (continues)

(printed under page 652)

(a) ‹anchor: nos quidem servantes› · call in col 1295

Legalium constitutorum nomine Leo intelligit, non canones, sed, ut ait epist. 5, ad episcopos Illyrici, legis praecepta, nimirum legem Levitici XXI, 14, quam Ezechiel repetit XLIV, 22. Haec eadem legalia praecepta Siricius antea inseruerat epistolae 1 ad Hymerium, c. 7. Leviticum ipse Leo allegat epist. 4 c. 2.

By the name of "legal constitutions" Leo understands not canons but, as he says in letter 5, to the bishops of Illyricum, "the precepts of the law," namely the law of Leviticus 21:14, which Ezekiel repeats at 44:22. These same legal precepts Siricius had earlier inserted in letter 1 to Himerius, ch. 7. Leo himself cites Leviticus in letter 4, ch. 2.

(printed under page 653)

(b) ‹anchor: praeficiendi sunt› · call in col 1296

Inseruimus civitatibus, ut erat in antea vulgatis. Ita etiam Sirmondus ex suis mss.

We have inserted "civitatibus" ("to the cities"), as it stood in the editions previously published. So also Sirmond, from his manuscripts.

(printed under page 653)

(c) ‹anchor: Leontium.› · call in col 1296

Leontius Forojuliensis jam obierat circa an. 432. Faustus enim Reiensis de laudibus S. Maximi episcopi sui praedecessoris narrat, hunc, antequam ad Reiensem episcopatum promoveretur, expetitum fuisse episcopum maxime a proxima eremi (Lirinensi) civitate, quae territorii ac finium suorum incolam velut proprium amplectebatur indigenam. Urbs autem Li- (continues)

Leontius of Fréjus had already died about the year 432. For Faustus of Riez, in his praises of St. Maximus, the bishop his predecessor, relates that Maximus, before he was promoted to the bishopric of Riez, was sought as bishop "especially by the city nearest to the hermitage" (of Lérins), "which embraced the inhabitant of its territory and borders as its own native." Now the city [nearest to] Lé- (continues)

(printed under page 653)