OF THE SAME: ON THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND ON THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC CHURCH
To the divine men who are in the island of Crete, to the hieromonks and priests, Georgius Trapezuntius wishes you to fare well in the Lord.
A 1. Simon, a hieromonk of the order of preachers, burning with intense zeal for the divine dogmas, went to Rome, so that he might, as far as he was able in the Lord, benefit the Cretans, from whence he himself also comes. And first, the investigation and judgment regarding the heretics who dwell in Greece were entrusted to him by the Supreme Pontiff. Then, letters were given to him by the same Pontiff, by which it was enjoined that all the Greeks, both bishops and priests, should make commemoration of the Pope during the holy celebrations of the Liturgy, and that they should recite the holy Creed in accordance with the Church of the Romans, as follows: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son." I, therefore, being a Cretan myself, love you and desire your salvation more than that of others, as if it were the salvation of my own kin. For this reason, I deemed it necessary to write to you, not in the wisdom of human words, but in the simplicity of truth and the certainty of dogmas, as much as has been granted to me. Before other things, therefore, a few words must be put forward concerning the divine procession of the Holy Spirit; then I shall add a discussion concerning the commemoration of the Supreme Pontiff.
B 2. The question concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit is clear to all, as it has been defined by the holy and universal Synod of Florence, and it is permitted to no one to doubt that it is one and the same thing to say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, and that He is from the Father and the Son. The doctors of the Church of the West have used the expression: "From the Father and the Son"; those of the East, however, rarely used "From the Son," but very frequently "Through the Son," as the nature of the Greek language required it. For all assert that the Spirit is of the Son, just as He is of the Father, and they confess that He is from the Son, just as He is also from the Father; and therefore they determine that He is from both, that is, from the Father through the Son. C Hence it is manifest that it is one and the same thing to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, and that He proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Orientals have used "Through the Son" for the most part, as has been said, rightly desiring to speak in a manner suited to the Greek language.
A For when something third in order, though not in nature, takes its existence from two others, from a first and a second as if from one, if we make mention only of the second, we say the third exists from that. For we say the apple is from the branch, not through the branch, when we make no mention of the root. But if someone should also add what is from the root, he will say that the apple exists from the root through the branch. This proposition clearly indicates that the apple is indeed from the branch according to nature, and the branch is the beginning and cause of the apple, but the branch does not have this from itself; rather it receives it from the root, from whence it itself also springs. Therefore, no one would say there are two principles of the apple, the root and the branch, but one. For the very quality of the root, being shared with the branch, goes out from there to the apple, having been formed. There is nothing more suited to divine matters than this example, if it is rightly understood. For in divine matters, one must not conceive of either temporal division or intervening intervals, but Father and Son and Holy Spirit are one at the same time, and the whole Father is in the Son and in the Spirit, and the Son is in the Father and in the Spirit, and the Spirit is in the Father and the Son. B To demonstrate this at greater length is not the work for this moment, lest I, being unworthy, cast myself into the most sublime theology.
3. Yet, that the Holy Spirit is from both, the teachers of the Church do not preach from their own resources, but having received this from the sacred Scriptures, they have unfolded and extended the implicitly stated truth. For the Spirit, says Cyril, is called the Spirit of truth. And Christ is the truth, and He is poured forth from Him, just as indeed from God and the Father. C And truly, no one will ever find in the Gospels the Holy Spirit of the Father spoken of in such a way that the name of the Son is not also interjected: "The Spirit of truth," He says, "who proceeds from the Father." And: "When He comes, whom the Father will send to you in my name." And again: "But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father." From this it is clear that the Holy Spirit is from both—I mean from the Father and the Son. For it is not permissible to conceive of the Paraclete as anything other than one person of the Trinity. And He is sent by the Father and the Son; but He proceeds from where He is also sent; therefore, He proceeds from the Father and the Son. For those who imagine temporal progressions in God and the divine persons are raving. D For the Divine cannot be altered or moved at all, nor is it circumscribed by place, nor is it more here than there, nor more in a high place than in a low place. But "ascending" and "descending" are spoken in a human way to show and reveal the operations, and similarly "being sent." But eternal things are signified through temporal ones. For the one who sends possesses a certain dignity in relation to that which is sent. But in the holy and adorable Trinity, it is not permissible for us to understand any dignity of one person over another, except only that which arises from existing from another; and for this reason, the divine oracles do not teach that the Father is sent by the Son, nor the Son by the Spirit, except according to the humanity. Ex
A From the Father, therefore, and from the Son, the Holy Spirit has his being, according to the divine Gospel. And Paul, too, says: God sent the Spirit of his Son. Therefore, if it is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, which is read very often, it is manifest that he is spirated, that is to say proceeds, from both.
4. But they who assert that the Spirit is called the Son's according to substance are delirious. For why do we not also call the Father the Father of the Spirit, since he is of the same nature? Is it not therefore manifest that he who speaks of the Father of the Spirit calls the Spirit the Son, and utters impiety; and that he who calls the Son the Father of the Spirit is raving, as one who transforms the Spirit into the Father? Just as, therefore, "Father" and "Son" are hypostatic names, signifying the mode of being of these hypostases, so too the name of the "Spirit" is hypostatic, denoting the mode of being of his own hypostasis. B Therefore, he is spirated from the Father and the Son, since he is the Spirit of both. From both, therefore, he has his being, that is to say, he proceeds. In addition to these points, it must be said that, since the Son is the true Son of the Father, it is necessary that he, remaining the Son, possess all that is the Father's. The Father brings forth the Spirit; therefore the Son also brings him forth, as he himself asserts: "All things that the Father has are mine. Therefore I said to you, that he will take of mine." He said "he will take" in the future tense, not that he was about to begin taking—for there is nothing new, or superadded, or temporal in God—but he denotes the operation which had not yet been accomplished upon the apostles, but was to be accomplished. For the manifestations of the operations, C since they are temporal with respect to us, also occur and appear in time. Since, therefore, such an operation of the Spirit was about to be made manifest to the apostles, for this reason he says the Paraclete will receive it from him. Furthermore, it is not possible, since we are human, to understand, or to speak, or to conceive of things otherwise than in time and through time; and for this reason these things that are spoken of temporally are understood eternally in regard to divine matters. And whatever it is that the Paraclete is said to "take" now from the Son, he receives from him eternally. But those things that are eternal, inherent in God, and all things that he has eternally, are appropriate either to the nature or to the hypostases. Now, to receive hypostasis from a hypostasis is not appropriate to the nature, but to the hypostasis. D And this is nothing other than that the receiving person has his being from that from which he receives. And the one receiving his being from another has from that other also everything that he has.
5. But perhaps someone will take issue with me and bring forward many witnesses that the Holy Spirit is nowhere found said to be from the hypostasis of the Son, but is very often spoken of as being from the nature and from the essence of the Son by the teachers of the Church, and especially by the Easterners, whom we honor more than others. Excellent, my friend; how skillfully you contend for the truth! For he who asserts that the Paraclete proceeds from the nature and from the essence of the Son asserts it from the very hypostasis of the Son. For it is not permitted for the persons, or hypostases, to be [thought of] naked without nature.
A nor is it possible to conceive of a nature without a hypostasis in all things absolutely, and in God himself. Yet these differ by much, or rather, it must be said, infinitely. For among created things, nature does not subsist in itself, but in the individual; and for this reason God is one. And the divine persons do not subsist in the essence either more or less. For "more" and "less" have no place there, but they so subsist that they cleave to one another; and for this reason the Triad is truly one God, and we cannot conceive there either a universal or an individual. For these bring in composition. But in God it is impossible for there to be composition. But let these matters for the present be set aside, which demand a more profound investigation and theological treatment. From the Son, therefore, also according to the statement of him who objects, the Holy Spirit proceeds. But if anyone says that the Paraclete does, indeed, receive from the Son whatsoever things He was to reveal to the saints, yet not His very being, he utters something clearly impious. For the Paraclete will have something acquired, and thus will not be true God. For whatsoever things God possesses, He possesses from eternity. From the Son, therefore, the Paraclete has His being. And since again whatsoever things the Son has, He has from the Father, and even His very being, therefore He has this too from the Father, drawing it, not having been begotten first and then afterwards drawing it as something extraneous, as Peter and Paul [receive] the grace of the Spirit, but in the very act of generation through the Father, all things of the Father are naturally given to Him. From the Father, therefore, and the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds. And for this reason I added that, the Son remaining, the Son possesses all things that are the Father's, B lest anyone should infer: "He will have, therefore, the power to beget also." For He cannot possess this as something which is opposed to the filial definition. For He would be not only Son, but also Father, which is impossible in the Triad. For the hypostatic names are [names of] the persons only, and neither the Son is the Spirit, unless one should take the name in a wider sense, and the Son is Son only, and neither Father nor Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit, and not the Son. Since, therefore, the Son is true, He will by all means have the power to produce the Spirit, just as the Father does. If He does not have this, He will not be the true Son. And if this is so, neither is He true God; and thus we shall fall into the opinions of the Hebrews, who, calling God Father, did not call Him true Father, but adorned Him, as it were, with the name of dignity. C Destroying which, the Savior said to the Father: "I have manifested thy name to men" [John xvii, 6]. For from Christ we have learned that God is true Father, and that He has a true Son. But the true Son possesses whatsoever things are the Father's. But from the Father, as the divine Oracles relate, the Holy Spirit proceeds; and therefore from the Son, not by another and different production, but by the same. For the Son is entirely in God Himself and the Father, not divided from the Father by time, nor by place, nor by any interval. For by what reason would the Maker of these be divided from these? But the manner is to be understood not in any way whatsoever, but more sublimely. D For we use human words regarding divine things, not being able otherwise to speak of them.
A Let us hear Cyril also treating of these same things, for he says: "Since God is, and the Son is by nature from God, having been generated from God and the Father, He is His own, and is in Him; and the Spirit is from Him." He says the Son is from God by nature, that is, He is by nature from Him, not by will—not that the Father does not love the Son (for how could that be? since He himself says of Him, *This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased* [Matt. iii, 17]), but because "by nature" and "by will" are in a certain way opposed in divine things. For we say those things are "by nature" where the nature itself is the cause; but those are "by will" where the will is the cause. And to those which are by nature, the will also follows, but not as a cause; whereas to those which are by will, nature does not follow. For behold, one breathes by nature, and grows teeth, and wills these to be his; but it is not because he wills it that he possesses these, but possessing them by nature, he wills to possess them. But one shaves one's beard by will, and nature contributes nothing to the shaving, unless someone should say the ability to do it is provided by nature. In like manner also we must philosophize regarding divine things. For the Son is from the Father by nature, and the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son by nature; the terms "by nature" and "in accordance with nature" indicate that it is not the will that is the cause, but the natural faculty that is inherent, in one way only in the Father, who is in the generation, and in another way in the Father and the Son at the same time, who are in the procession. B And concerning this, enough has already been said—indeed, more than is needed, so much has the desire that inflames me urged me to these things as well. For many treatises are circulated about this, both by many others and by myself, transmitted to certain ones who dwell in the island of Crete.
6. But concerning the second point, that mention ought to be made of the Pope in the divine liturgies, the truth must be made plain to you, Fathers: it is impossible for one to be saved who does not believe in the one Catholic Church. And the only Catholic one is the Roman one; therefore, it is impossible for one to have salvation who does not believe in the Church of Rome, or who does not believe as the Church of Rome believes. C But he who rejects the commemoration of the Pope proves that he does not accept the faith of the Roman Church; therefore, it is impossible for one who does not wish for the commemoration of the Pope to be made in the divine liturgies to attain salvation. And all who recite the Creed in the churches proclaim this publicly, though they do not understand it. For in the divine Creed, the holy Fathers first cry out that they believe in one God the Father almighty, and they add: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. D Then finally, when the faith in the holy Trinity has been recited, they confess that they believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. They call the Church "Catholic" as the one that struggles for Christ throughout the whole inhabited world, and "Apostolic" because it has been founded through the apostles. And how this can be one must now be inquired into. For, as I think, the system of the Christians and the whole multitude believing...
the general A truth in this way. For if they believed in this general multitude of Christians, and thought that they ought so to believe, and condemned with anathema those who do not act in the same way, they would be believing in a certain chimera, as the poets say, full and stuffed with all manner of heresies, which would be far removed from their spiritual grace and wisdom. What, therefore, do they intend, since they confess that they themselves keep the same faith which the one catholic Church preaches, and prescribe the same to others, and subject to anathema those who do not so believe? For we see that they are various and diverse, but those men, contending that they are one, instruct that those who are to be saved must believe in one, and they set down one alone. For they strike with anathema all who do not believe everything comprehended in the Creed; and immediately, after the proclamation of the Trinity, there follows the confession and faith in one Church. What is this? Do they assert one, because it was the confession of the whole world from of old? By no means. For the sake of this, the Creed was composed by them, so that those who did not follow it from heart and soul, and did not proclaim it as it were by a trumpet, could be cast out from the community of the faithful. Moreover, who does not know that the whole world was once disturbed by Arians, Eunomians, Nestorians, and many others, and is disturbed even unto these times? And if you wish to learn more, by enumerating the Churches which are in Cyprus, you will understand. For all with one mind confess that they believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church; and outside that one, all others lie. What, then, do the holy Fathers intend when they prescribe that one must believe in one Church? It is B manifest that, avoiding many which they know well are not without danger, they force all into one. But whoever avoids many as causes of destruction, and takes refuge in one as that which alone is able to grant salvation, takes refuge in something determined. For many things can be undefined, but the one into which someone takes refuge, and which he honors and reveres as the cause of his salvation, is entirely determined. Therefore, the one catholic Church is determined, that is, it is known in a determined way by those who know, and can be known by those who strive to recognize it. And we, all who have been regenerated by baptism, ought by all means to seek it, signed with the cross of Christ, and through the holy C
7. What, then, is that one? It is manifest that it is the Roman [Church]. And whence, a man might say, will this become manifest to those who seek it? First, indeed, because Christ himself bestowed the keys of the kingdom of heaven upon Peter above the rest of the others, saying, *Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.* That these things were pronounced by the Savior concerning the Roman Church is plain. For this one alone... D
A of all the heretical tongues which have spoken injustice against the majesty of God shall not prevail, nor shall the gates of hell. Furthermore, after that mystic supper, as though arranging for his own affairs, the Savior, having turned to Peter, said: "Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." And it must be noted that this grace is given to Peter alone, and through him to the Roman Church. Whence is this evident? First, that while Satan desired to sift all, it is said that prayer was made for Peter alone. Then, Peter is more emphatically commanded to be converted and to strengthen his own brethren, which we know had in no way happened to Peter, but to his successors. Therefore, this is commanded to the successors through Peter. We have read that this has happened many times before, and in our own time, all of you know what great effort the great Eugenius B put forth to gather the dispersed Churches into one, and to restore our nation to freedom. Thus, the Roman Church, having been frequently converted, has strengthened others; but others have never strengthened her. Why? Because the Savior bestowed this grace upon the Roman Church alone, having prayed as a man that her faith might not fail. Furthermore, Christ, being about to ascend into heaven, by that triple interrogation, "Peter, lovest thou me?" cured the triple denial. Then, in the presence of others, he committed to him his own sheep and lambs—the faithful and the catechumens, or those newly converted to the Christian religion, as I believe—and commanded him to feed them with the right dogmas of the faith. From all of which it is clear and evident, so that there might be no confusion C in the Churches, that she was established by Christ Himself as the first. First, therefore, as has been demonstrated, the sacred Scriptures teach that the Roman Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church; next, that no one who is in possession of his reason could reasonably name any other besides her. Add also that every multitude, in that it is a multitude, can achieve nothing, but only in that it is brought into one, through which it acts when it has been made one; for a multitude, though it may attempt to do something, will exert its effort in vain, and will be broken by confusion and collapse. For behold, if an army has lost its leader, it will never D achieve anything as an army, but like an unorganized and jumbled mass, with one going one way and another another, it will be scattered and destroyed. Therefore, a multitude must be one, if it desires to stand, to be preserved, and to act. Now, every multitude becomes one in no other way than by being led into one of the same kind, just as an army is led into the one who leads the army, looking toward whom they become united; just as sailors, directing their eyes toward the helmsman, becoming one through him, secure the safety of the ship. And a city is said to be one because there is one ruler. For even if we suppose that a city is ruled by the people, there will still be one chosen by lot from the people to rule. And this is true not only among men, but also among the irrational.
A For many cranes, following one crane, fly in an orderly fashion; and the multitude of sheep is brought into one flock by one ram, and one bull makes one herd of cattle. For every multitude not united to one of the same kind is nothing else but confusion and destruction—men with men, oxen with oxen, sheep with sheep, cranes with cranes, and similarly with fish, always taken at the level of the lowest species. This is observed in all things, because it is necessary that it be so. For what happens by nature happens by necessity; and it is the nature of a multitude to be cut into many parts, to be divided, and to be confused, and finally to perish, unless it be united to something of the same kind. Therefore, no multitude will act as a multitude, but rather, insofar as it is one, it is preserved and acts. And a multitude cannot be said to be one, nor can it exist, unless it comes together and coalesces into one unit through one of the same kind. Since these things are so, it is necessary that the Catholic Church, being one—for we learn from the Creed that we must believe in one—be one by some entity of the same kind.
B 8. What, then, is the one Catholic Church? This will be clear if we begin from above. The Church, then, is a multitude of Orthodox Christians brought into one Orthodox Christian, whom it is necessary that the others should follow, provided they are Christians. For this is how it is with all who are not governed by a democracy. For the bull that leads the herd excels the others in size, or sometimes even in beauty. And a general ought to excel the others by far in courage and experience of war. Those, however, who are governed by a democracy despise this, acting against nature, which wills that the better should rule over the worse. For they do not care for what is good, but for what is most pleasant. C Yet this does not seem to hold true regarding cranes. For it is not the stronger one that leads, but the second in rank. Or does this, too, not fall outside of the good and of nature? For the one who is second in rank has been trained to fly in a place where he is more visible to those who follow him. This, therefore, must also be observed in the Church. And for this reason, we adorn with the degree of priesthood the Christian in whom the multitude is gathered into one Church, and we honor and revere him as better, as one supposedly holy in virtue and in the knowledge of divine things, or, if nothing else, by the chrism of the priesthood. D Thus the smallest Church is constituted, which among the Latins of the present day is called a parish, but among us, an *enoria*, as being enclosed in one smallest boundary. But since there are many *enoriai*, and many such churches—and we demonstrated that the multitude must always be gathered into one by one of the same kind, moved by natural necessities—we make the many *enoriai* into one episcopal Church, uniting all of them to the bishop. In the same way, we have gathered the many bishoprics into one, having made them into one metropolis, bringing all of them into one through the one metropolitan. Again, having arranged the metropolises into one patriarchal Church, uniting them into one great Church through one patriarch...
Thus, the Church, being conspicuous by its high-priestly dignity, is a multitude of churches joined to one Church through an arch-prelate. Since, however, there are five great Churches—Roman, Constantinopolitan, Alexandrian, Antiochene, and Jerusalemite—it is altogether necessary that these also be gathered into one; A or rather, a physical necessity compels us to this, pushing us toward it, so that the universal Church, being one, may be able to divide aright the word of truth. For it has been demonstrated that a multitude can accomplish nothing.
9. By whom, then, are the five gathered into one? Manifestly, by the first. For it has already been shown that that which gathers these things into one and unifies them always takes precedence over the many. And this is that of Rome. And this B is granted universally by all Christians. Since, therefore, through this [Church] the universal Church possesses the quality of being one, when we say "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church," we must understand that it is entirely one in that it follows the profession of the Roman Church, and we understand this without judging outside the matter. Whoever, therefore, does not follow the Church of Rome is outside the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church; subject to anathema, he wanders in mountains and C desert places, and inhabits territories which the Lord does not visit. For you see that these things are not mine, but are gathered from the holy Symbol, from the holy Fathers who ordained the Church, and from philosophy itself—that is, from the nature of things, which cries out with a loud voice that a multitude of the same kind can be gathered into one in no other way than through a single head. And it is evident even to a blind man that there are many churches, yet five that are great, so that it is necessary for one to gather these into one. To which, then, of the five shall we reduce all of these into one? To which? Oh, the calamity! We cannot at this time bring forward another, for there is none other; D but all have been swallowed up by Mahomet, leaving only the Roman one remaining. For even if some trace of the four great sees appears to have remained, it is dangerous and altogether terrible to trust in illiterate and barbarized men, and to hang our salvation upon those from whom we know we cannot distinguish such matters. For how will they understand the divine Scriptures, who do not even know their letters, nor have learned to read what is written? How will they rightly absolve or bind sinners, who are completely ignorant of what a sin is? For if very often those who are practiced in such things are in doubt on some points, what must one think of those who are far removed from the knowledge of the sacred canons, and who, as I myself suppose, have not even read a single canon? Is it not clearer than light that many vices will be reputed by them as virtues, and most of their serious deeds and laudable actions will be reputed as vices? And thus will good be overturned into evil, and evil into good. For just as a good thing is not good if it is not done well, so also an evil thing is not entirely evil when it happens not to be done evilly. Whence, then, would they be able to distinguish these things, having neither
in foreign, nor in our own, nor in divine wisdom been exercised? But the apostles, they say, when they did not know letters, were illuminated by the Spirit. And that Egyptian, A Antony, is said to have understood the divine Scriptures in an excellent way, though he had not learned to recognize even the letters. By putting forward the apostles and Antony, you have contended against yourself and for the truth.
10. Since, therefore, there is one Catholic Church, and it is one through the Roman, as both logic has demonstrated and the facts themselves compel even the unwilling to give credence, it is absolutely necessary that all of you, and you most of all as being more prudent than others, believing in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, should confess that the universal one is that of Rome, and that you should believe and preach what has been decreed B synodically, as the supreme pontiff prescribes. Add also: it is necessary for him who believes in something to know definitely, as far as his powers allow, how he believes, and what, and why. That there is an obligation to believe in one Church, there is no one among Christians who is ignorant, nor has anyone—even among the heretics themselves—ever offered evidence to the contrary. But how it is one, few know. Yet they say it is one and the same as that which they themselves distinctly follow, just as you formerly followed the Constantinopolitan, and others others. But logic has demonstrated, and the state of things through the calamities C inflicted, proclaims that there is one only Catholic Church, no other of the churches save that of Rome alone. Therefore, he is subject to anathema who does not follow it, nor believe as it does. For all the holy and universal synods, beginning immediately from the second one, have handed over to anathema all who do not believe in one Catholic and holy Church; and when they said "one," they understood one in a definite sense. For if not in a definite sense, then in an indefinite one; which is full of all impiety and blasphemy. For how will you believe in one, when you do not know which one it is? Or will you perhaps say that you believe in the universal Church of the whole world? D There will then be for you both the Armenian as orthodox, and the Ethiopian, and the Indians who follow Sergius, and the Monothelites, and those who crucify the Divinity itself. Wherefore, when we say "one Catholic Church," we assert that it must be known through which of the other churches it is one. For every multitude of the same kind is one. Therefore, it is one Catholic through the Roman, as has been demonstrated. One must therefore follow its footsteps if he affirms that he thinks truly and rightly, according to the profession of faith. Since, however, the Roman Church itself is one, it will also be one through its own pontiff. For by him, the multitude of priests, bishops, and prelates that is in it is gathered into one, and on this account he is called the Roman archbishop and pontiff. And for the same reason that the universal Church of the whole world is directed into one through the Roman, he is called not Roman, but supreme pontiff. On account of this, he who does not at the same time think with the supreme pontiff is to be cast out as a rotting member, as if he were denying the one Catholic Church. It is not, however, that he does not hold the same faith who does not mention him. It is necessary, therefore, to mention the supreme pontiff in the divine liturgies. For the commemoration is not made so that he himself may be honored, but that those who commemorate him may be united to the one Catholic Church…
For just as in an army the ten soldiers are united into one under the decurion, and the ten decurions under the centurion, and the ten centurions under the commander of a thousand, and the commanders of a thousand under the general, while many armies and their generals are united under the one king and emperor; so too is it in the Church of God. For in place of decurions we have the priests of the parishes, and one might not inappropriately call the bishops centurions, and the archbishops the commanders of thousands of soldiers, while I consider the great and divine patriarchs to be the generals of great armies. The Pope, however, is as the emperor and king of the Church. I say "as a king," for he is not a tyrant, who rules over unwilling subjects, but one who rules with their consent. B Therefore, when a question arises concerning some theological matter, or things necessary for salvation, he does not judge it by himself, but by following the opinion of the majority of the bishops, he casts his vote, just as in our time the great Eugenius did in the synod that had raised the question concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. So that this question is now settled, and those who do not obey the synod held at Florence are subject to anathema. For this is ordained against those who do not obey the general synods. From all these things, then, it is evident that the Pope is the one by whom the whole Catholic Church is gathered into one. For all the churches are united to Rome, and Rome to the Pope. Therefore, all are united to the Pope. And for this reason, those who do not wish to make mention of him, when and as it behooves, by their own will cast themselves out of the one Catholic Church.
11. Furthermore, there must necessarily be order in the one Catholic Church. For that which is without order cannot be one; and we are commanded by the Creed itself to believe in one Church. But there will be no order in the churches if there is not a first and a second among them. And the first is that of Rome. Therefore, one must yield to it as first in dignity, not in enumeration. For that which is first in enumeration is not first in reality, but by the will of the one counting, and it therefore falls away if the counter changes the second or third or some other thing in place of the first. But the Church of Rome was, and is, and will be the first of all the churches. Therefore, its pastor is the first of all the pastors of the Church, not by enumeration, but by dignity. For as Church relates to C Church, so also pastor relates to pastor. He is, therefore, the successor of Peter, the chief of the apostles. For all the more prominent bishops are called and are successors of the apostles; and so the first bishop is the successor of the chief of the apostles. The keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to Peter alone immediately, and therefore to the Pope according to succession. Whosoever, therefore, of the bishops are divided from the Church of Rome, not making mention, as it behooves, of the supreme pontiff, have not the keys. Therefore both they and their followers
will cry out, “Lord, Lord, open to us,” but they shall hear, “Alas for the loss! I know you not.” [12.] But perhaps someone might say, “You exalt the pope too much, and place him in the number of the gods.” We, however, know that he too is human, capable of being overcome by sin and impiety; and for this reason we do not accept following him in matters of faith. But this is nothing. For it is necessary that we follow some shepherd. And every shepherd is a human being capable of erring. Indeed, he himself commits B sins daily as a human being. For even if our entire life were to last but one hour, we could in no way be free from defilement. But regarding these things, no one shall render an account for the pope, but he shall answer for himself. “It is so,” you say, “but it is possible that the pope, as a human being, might also fall into heresy.” And to follow a heretic in matters of faith is unlawful. But if he does not bring forth what is in his heart, it is nothing to the flock; for God alone is the judge of things hidden in the heart. But if he is caught, he shall be expelled from his pastoral dignity by the Church. For we have already said before that he presides as a king over the Church. But a king acts not like a tyrant, but does everything according to laws established by common consent. The laws of the Church are the divine Scripture and the divine teachers, the interpreters thereof; if he be caught not following their footsteps, he shall be cast out like a wild boar. But someone will say—and may God be propitious—that even the Roman Church itself [might err]. But it is impossible to believe that the Church of Rome, which is the first, and through which the Catholic Church has its unity, could fall into heresy. For if she too were to contract the diseases of the heretics, in what one and holy [Church] shall we Christians believe? It was absolutely necessary that a Church be given to us from God, secure, firm, and unable to be led astray in the dogmas of piety, so that if we are persecuted by heretics, or if we ourselves are in doubt, we might have somewhere to flee. This [Church] is that of Rome. Let us hear the Savior Christ: “You are Peter,” He says, “and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” By the gates of hell D He here means heresies, as all the teachers have interpreted with one mind communicated to them by the Spirit. Furthermore, it must be considered which of the great and patriarchical sees has not at some time been disgraced by heresy. None, certainly, except the Roman. That it has never suffered this is not a human thing, but divine. For the power of Him who said, “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” has preserved and will preserve it free from spot and blemish, undefiled by heresy, and a right interpreter of the word of truth. For all these reasons, he who is separated from it lives outside the Catholic Church. [13.] I wish, however, to expound also that which at present
A is written by many holy Fathers—and especially by those of the East—that the universal Church is composed of five great sees, just as an animal is of five senses: touch, taste, sight, hearing, and smell. Just as a well-constituted and perfect animal is brought to perfection by these, so they say that the Church—I mean the universal and one Church—is brought to perfection by the five sees. Since, therefore, these things are so, as we learn from the teachers of the Church, we must inquire to which of the said senses each of the Churches is assimilated. For it is impossible for all to be assimilated to all, or for many to be assimilated to one, but it is necessary that one Church be assimilated to one sense.
In order, therefore, that we may distinguish this well, let us hear first from the interpreter of nature—I mean Aristotle—what he determines concerning the senses at the end of the third book of *On the Soul*. No animal, he says, can have sensation B without touch. And, passing along, he says the same thing in other words, for we are accustomed to repeat true and necessary things often: no sensation is possible, he says, without touch. Whence it is evident that animals necessarily die if they are deprived of this sense alone. For it is neither possible for a thing to have touch if it is not an animal, nor is it necessary for the animal to have any other sense besides this one. Then, finally, after he has pronounced that the overabundance of any other sensible object does not destroy the animal, but that the overabundance of a tangible object does destroy it, he subjoins: The overabundance of any sensible object at all destroys the instrument of sensation; for that reason, that which is tangible and in excess destroys touch itself. But to live is defined by touch; for it has been demonstrated that it is impossible for an animal to exist without touch. Wherefore also the overabundance C of tangible things destroys not only the instruments of sensation, but the animal itself; for the animal possesses this [sense] not for the sake of existing, but for the sake of existing well. Sight, indeed, is that he may see; taste, for the sake of pleasure and pain, so that he may feel them in his food and desire and move; hearing, that he may hear; and the tongue, that he may signify something to another.
Since these things are so, it is evident that the Church of Rome is like touch. For to what other of the Churches shall we liken touch? For it is the most authoritative of the senses and the first, and without it none of the others can exist. Indeed, there is not even an animal at all without touch. But the Church of Rome is also the first and most principal, as is confessed by all, nor is there any D who would dare to contradict it. To touch, therefore, alone it is assimilated. Just as, therefore, it is not possible for an animal to exist without touch, so neither is it possible for any other Church to be constituted without the Church of the Romans. And just as it is necessary for an animal to die immediately if it is deprived of touch, so it is necessary for a Christian to die immediately—so that he is no longer orthodox—if he is separated from the Roman Church. And just as an animal, deprived of the other senses, can somehow live by touch alone, so also a Christian can rightly think, being separated from the remaining Churches, provided that he cleaves only to the Church of Rome. And in this way the Church of Rome has been likened to touch; but the others
A must be so disposed. The second is the Constantinopolitan, which will be compared to the second of the senses, namely, taste; for it lays claim to the first place after touch, because it is in a way touch itself, and after touch, it better preserves the animal than the other senses. And the Constantinopolitan, after the Roman, is exalted in ecclesiastical matters by the decree of the divine canons, so that it is more able to preserve the Church than the remaining three Churches, just as taste preserves the animal more than the other senses, if you except touch; a fact which has also become clear in the nature of things. For this one alone, after the schism, made up the whole Eastern Church, not indeed correctly separated from that of Rome, yet making it up because it was also in some way a copy of Rome, just as taste is in a way touch. The third, the Alexandrian, will be compared to the third in order: sight. The fourth, the Antiochene, to hearing, which occupies the fourth place among the senses; and finally, the remainder, that of Jerusalem, will be compared accordingly to smell. B It is evident from this that if, before the schism of the Greeks, the three Eastern Churches had been separated, nevertheless those Christians who had lost them would still have been orthodox, living indeed in orthodoxy, though in a state of suffering. For animals are many of them blind, many deaf, many deprived of smell. And even if an animal is deprived of these three senses, it is still an animal; wherefore also those Christians deprived of these three Churches—Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria—are nevertheless entirely orthodox. But after the schism of the Greeks, the orthodox faith is preserved safe and whole in the Church of Rome alone. For an animal still survives even when deprived of the other senses, C save for touch. And even if we lose taste, we still live by touch alone. For if anyone, while eating and drinking, does not perceive the flavor of anything—such as sweet, bitter, salty, sour, and the rest which taste judges—he nevertheless persists and lives following reason, and eating and drinking, not moved by pleasure, but only in order to live; and he lives, though not pleasantly, and without distinction. So therefore, the Church of Rome holds the right view concerning matters of faith, yet it suffers, being despoiled of the other Churches. But since touch alone is necessary for an animal to be an animal, while the other senses are not for it to be an animal, but for it to live well and pleasantly and more securely, and since the Church of Rome alone is compared to touch, it follows that she alone will be necessary D for those men who desire right and orthodox doctrine; but the remaining Churches will be necessary only for the good, easier, and more pleasant preservation of true doctrine. For all these things follow from the analogy brought forward, which the holy Fathers and doctors of the Church employ when they compare the five great Churches to the five senses of a living thing. For just as an animal is that which has senses, and is not the sense itself—for it is one thing that possesses, and another that is possessed—in the same way, it is not a Church that possesses the Churches, but the orthodox Christian. The living thing is defined by touch; therefore, the orthodoxy of the Church of Rome is also defined, so that he is orthodox who is in the confession of the Roman Church
For it is impossible that any man should provide for his own salvation who is not orthodox together with the Roman Church. B 14. Furthermore, since I wish to establish the order of the Churches based on the things themselves and on the similarity by which the holy Fathers compare them to the senses, we have demonstrated that this is not by enumeration, but real and true, which is according to dignity; for it is not possible that the Churches should truly possess any other order than that which is based on dignity. I am able to say only a few things concerning this real order; for I do not have the strength at present to say more, both because I am weighed down by many other things, and because I am not as practiced in the Greek language as I would wish; since even the tracing of the very characters of the Greek letters is difficult for me. But if some leisure should be granted to me, I will write more fully in Latin concerning such matters, just as I have written about many other things; so that, if nothing else, while we are burdened with iniquities, at least those things which we rightly perceive may be handed down for the utility of those who come after. For just as it behooves a Christian to confess his own sins, so also is it necessary to proclaim his own right and entire opinion concerning the dogmas of faith, as we have learned from our Savior himself, who promises that he will confess before the Father those who will confess him before men. Therefore, there is in the Church an order not of enumeration, but of reality, not of nature, but of dignity. The property of this real order is that the prior elements excel those C which follow: for example, the first excels all that are after it, and the second, with the exception of the first, excels all that are numbered from then on, and the third similarly those which are after it. For this reason, the Church of Jerusalem, since it is the last in order, will govern only itself and will possess no authority over the others. The Church of Antioch can do nothing against those that precede it, but if the occasion should arise, it will be able to do something in regard to that of Jerusalem. Let an example be proposed: The Patriarch of Jerusalem deprives someone of the communion of the faithful. That man flees to the Patriarch of Antioch, and the latter, while the others do nothing or say nothing, restores him to communion. Is this man to be avoided as one cursed, or not? I proclaim my opinion in a loud voice, if necessity ever compels me to it: I judge that it would be more convenient for me to have been deprived of the communion of the faithful by the Bishop of Jerusalem and restored by the Bishop of Antioch, than to have been deprived by the Bishop of Antioch and restored by the Bishop of Jerusalem. For this is the reason for the order, and it demands what is proper. D For the power of that which is always more excellent in order and dignity has strength over those that follow; but the subsequent never has power over the more excellent. And for this reason, the king can rightly judge and punish the generals according to the laws and custom, and the general can organize the chiliarchs as is fitting, and punish those who do not observe the order, and the chiliarch can [punish] those who...
do not observe the order, and the order is not reversed. For a commander cannot, A unless he puts on tyranny, raise his hand against the king contrary to the customs and the laws, nor the chiliarch against the commander; and it is likewise with the others. Therefore, neither does the bishop of Jerusalem [have power] against the bishop of Antioch, but the latter against the former; nor the bishop of Antioch against the bishop of Alexandria, but the bishop of Alexandria against the two who follow him in order. The bishop of Constantinople, however, has power against all the remaining Eastern [patriarchs]. But all of them, though they are three, unless they act tyrannically, have no power against the bishop of Constantinople and his Church. But the Pope [has power] against all without qualification, as the first. We do not, however, understand the ability or inability of one to act against another in a tyrannical sense, nor do we think it right that they, following their own will, should insult those who serve as bishops with them, but rather that they should speak the law as judges according to customs, canons, and laws. For those who are first in rank in terms of position are the judges of those who follow, not those who follow of those who come first, provided the latter have not been caught thinking incorrectly. If they have been caught, one must bring a complaint before the one who excels in rank, or even before all the rest collectively. For just as those who are first are the judges of those who follow, so also the Catholic Church—and I think even more so—is able to judge and condemn the very first. B
15. What I have said concerning the patriarchs, I also wish to be said C concerning the Churches. For just as the three who are preeminent in the East can do nothing against the bishop of Constantinople, so neither could the bishops and archbishops of those three eparchies, gathered together, justly, in my opinion, do anything against him, if the Church of Constantinople did not agree with them. But if an impetus for this comes from her, they certainly can. And this is reasonable. For every Church—I mean of the five—has power against its own shepherd, if the one who is prior in rank does not oppose it. And cities, too, can justly depose a king who does not administer affairs according to the laws and customs, and appoint another in his place. For all kingship that is strictly termed "kingship" is elective; indeed, that which is acquired by succession is a beginning of tyranny. Hence it is manifest that all the Churches—I speak of the five great ones—have power against their own shepherd. D Whence it is clear that neither do the four patriarchs have power justly against the Pope, nor the other four great and patriarchal Churches against the Church of Rome; but the Church of Rome alone has power against the rest of the Churches and the patriarchs, and against the Pope himself. We speak of the Church of Rome, or of Antioch, or any of the five, or even the universal [Church], in two ways. For when we constitute them as judges, we understand only the bishops who are under them; for to them alone is the vote canonically given. In another way, however, we understand all those who are under her as Christians.
A 16. It must be understood that those things which are not absolutely primary, but primary only in respect to something else, do not possess the same power over those things that follow them as that which is absolutely primary possesses over those things that come after it. For a general of an army may, in certain cases, have the power to punish and discipline the chiliarchs according to the hypothesis, but he cannot dismiss them from the chiliarchy, even if they have committed offenses, unless by custom or the statutes of the laws the election of the chiliarchs pertains to him. For the person who has the power to elect also has the power to depose. By the same reasoning, therefore, the chiliarch also admonishes, disciplines, and punishes the centurion in certain matters, but he cannot dismiss him from his centurionship. For the judgment and examination of such men belong solely to the superior, and to the one to whom the authority of election has been given. And, in all cases, this belongs to the king, or to whomever he may entrust it. For the king is capable of all things that the city itself is capable of, unless he is caught plotting against the city itself. Hence, the dignity and power of the great sees are recognized, as they ought to be, not without reason. For to the Pope, who holds the primacy in the Church, all these things have been entrusted, just as they are to the king; for he is able, in accordance with the canons—that is to say, justly—to excommunicate and depose all men. The others, however, can indeed discipline and punish those beneath them in certain matters, but they cannot depose them without acting as tyrants. For they are not the judges of these men. But the Pope is the judge of all. B For just as the king, when elected, assumes unto himself the whole dignity and power of the city, so too does he who has ascended the throne of Rome in accordance with the canons possess the dignity of Rome and of the universal Church, and the spiritual power, and all the grace granted by the Savior to the Church. C It is one thing that he is the archbishop of Rome, and another that he is the supreme, that is, the high priest of the universal Church, and first not in enumeration, but in dignity. For it is not because he is numbered first that he is therefore first, but because he is first in dignity, therefore he is also first in enumeration. It is clear that the enumeration does not change. And that which does not change necessarily follows the order of things. Consider how great is the dignity of the [archbishop] of Constantinople. For he presides over the whole inhabited world, so to speak, except for the Pope and his eparchy, so that he is the best leader of all the leaders of the Church, ranked in dignity immediately after the king of the universal Church, and far surpassing all others. D And just as all authority ceases when the king appears, so too, when the Pope is present, or is doing something, or speaking in accordance with the canons and justice, or teaching on divine matters in accordance with the Scriptures and that which has been handed down to us by the holy Fathers, it behooves the rest to be quiet and silent, unless he is caught being held by some heresy. For one who is in heresy is not Pope. For how could he be, when he has willingly fallen away from the profession of the universal Church? Just as a king who plots against the city is not a king, but a tyrant. 17. Furthermore, that which follows this in such an order of dignity is in some way the inverse of what has been said.
For that which follows, in the absence of what precedes, can do and perform its tasks so long as the other is away. For if the king is not there, or has died, the general administers the affairs of the city not over all as king, but with greater authority than before; and if the general is absent, or has departed from this temporary life, the first among the chiliarchs necessarily assumes the rule of the whole army, and the first of the centurions likewise, for he performs the duty of the chiliarch when the chiliarch is dead. In this way, therefore, the bishop of Jerusalem will govern the affairs of the Church of the Antiochians, once the patriarch of Antioch has returned to the higher life, until another is ordained according to the canons to the vacant throne. And the bishop of Antioch will do the same for the affairs of Alexandria. And he will likewise take hold of the affairs of Constantinople, since that throne has no shepherd. A And if the Church of the Romans is vacant, its king having submitted to the law of nature, the patriarch of Constantinople, until another is raised to the throne of Rome, will take upon himself the care, the governance, and the administration of the Church of the whole inhabited world. B For the order of rank and justice demands this.
18. But when I reach this point in my argument, I cannot restrain myself, but I am bathed in tears, weeping and lamenting. For who would not mourn our calamities? Who, reflecting on our misfortunes, or—if it is more appropriate, though I know not whether it be grateful to say so—on our own thoughtlessness and punishments, would not burst into tears? It is all over for the empire of the Greeks. All the affairs of the Church have completely perished, because we have persisted for so long in schism. C What poet will narrate these things in tragedy? What orator will relate them? Who will transmit to posterity, in writing, such and so many of our falls and errors? For it happens that at times, on account of the sins of the people, the leaders are also given over to afflictions, even if they are godlike men, both in faith and in life. For behold, the divine patriarch of Constantinople, that watchful mind, who is sleepless for the salvation of his flock, the holy Gregory—who bears his name well, and who with one other alone in our age is a confessor and martyr—having embraced with a joyful heart, for the union of the Churches, the exile and the calamities that befell him in that exile, dwells in Rome, D not as second after the [alt-version omitted] Church, whose governance and regimen is superior, and a certain more excellent dignity, and outside the sphere of the patriarchs. Greek bishops even strictly forbid and condemn the transfer of one to a vacant Church without the consent of the synod and its full assent. Who then will rightly and legitimately intrude himself, not being vacant, into a vacant Church, and that a more excellent and universal one, without the consent of that Church? But if this is the mind of Trapezuntius, that the patriarch of Constantinople, when there is no Roman [pontiff], should be called by right—duly elected by a full synod, to whom that task devolves—into the place of the Roman, and until the Roman arrives, should exercise the administration of the universal Church: this, in truth, confers nothing upon his Constantinopolitan [claim], since anyone so called to that see will justly perform the same things as the Constantinopolitan.
A And what shall I say? It is better to leave what follows wrapped in silence, as it is beyond reason and worthy of our long schism and our ill-minded discord. Therefore, it is not again beyond reason that, with one alone at present, I may truly sing with the melodist and prophet David: *I have chosen to be an outcast in the house of my God, rather than to dwell in the tabernacles of sinners.* (Ps. LXXXIII, 11). I said "with one alone" because the most holy Cardinal of Russia—a man blameless and irreproachable in his life, most learned in discourse, and illustrious in wisdom, not only in that which is external, but also in our own; a man, indeed, who has himself uttered these very things—can truly speak thus. For the sake of the union of the Churches, he held his most wealthy see in contempt, and in striving to help his homeland as much as he could, he risked his own life. I gladly pause on these matters, seeing our dejected nation relieved by the exploits of these two great men. For what is their work? What great-heartedness! What hospitality, which is celebrated by all! It is a source of admiration to all that, although they possess little wealth and few resources—or rather, the most holy patriarch possesses none at all—they nevertheless surpass all in the distribution of alms. But let the discourse return to where it began.
C 19. This person, then, such an athlete of the truth, the pillar of the Church, of the see of Constantinople—not that of the present, but of the ancient one, the most worthy patriarch to whom Crete is immediately subject—writes to you concerning these things, striking with anathema all those who do not keep the decree of the holy, great, and ecumenical synod of Florence. In that synod, of the nearly four hundred Fathers assembled, nearly two hundred were Easterners, and, with the exception of three—or rather, of only one, the Ephesian, for the other two were not deemed worthy even to be mentioned—all were in agreement with one mind, one purpose, and one soul. Concordant and unanimous, and following the teaching of the ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Church—or rather, following the Gospel—they subscribed to the definition composed by them, in which two most important things are contained: the first, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; the second, that the Roman prelate is the first of all. And the commemoration of the former must be made by the latter. Wherefore, D by the decree of this definition, the commemoration of the Pope must be publicly sounded with a loud voice and distinctively in the divine offices. Since, therefore, the most divine patriarch casts [those who do not honor the Pope] far from the Church and places them together with heretics—for such is the custom the Church has acquired, that those who do not observe the definition are subject to anathema, and that most justly; for it is clear that all who do not obey the definitions of the general councils are handed over to anathema—and since the Pope commands it to be proclaimed aloud that the decree of the council is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, will you not obey? Will you fear neither the commands of the Pope nor the precepts of the patriarch? And will you not...