Abbot Walafrid Strabo (+840) on Veneration of Icons

 Every now and again one encounters claims that Abbot Walafrid Strabo (+840), the Abbot of Reichenau Abbey on Lake Constance, did not accept the veneration of icons, but, rather simply thought they were nice decorations and nothing else.  Many of us have seen this repeated over and over again, often without any actual primary source references.  Thankfully, a translation exists of Abbot Walafrid's "Libellus de Exordiis", in which he takes the position that sacred Christian images are given "sincere and moderate veneration."  In other words he opposes destruction of images, since any damage done to the icon redounds to an act of dishonour to the one it represents, but he also opposes ignoring icons, as well as giving "immoderate culturs" or "spiritual cultus" to icons; spiritual cultus being his phrase for what in the East was termed "latria".   The admission of icons deserving "honesti et moderati imaginum honores" [i.e. "honest and moderate honors of images"] accepts the teachings of St. Adrian of Rome, and the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  Abbot Walafrid only opposes "excesses" in venerating icons as well as 'spiritual cultus' [latria], not the veneration itself.  

Gennadius of Massalia on the Holy Trinity

 "We believe (there) to be One God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: the Father Him Which has the Son, the Son Him Which has the Father, the Holy Ghost Him Which is from the Father Proceeding, Co-Eternal to the Father and the Son.  The Father therefore is the Origin of Divinity, Who just as at no time was not God thus at no time was not the Father; from Whom the Son is Begotten; from Whom the Holy Ghost, not Begotten (for He is not the Son) neither Unbegotten (for He is not the Father), nor made, but from God the Father Proceeding.  The Father Eternal, Him that has the Eternal Son is that which is the Eternal Father; the Eternal Son, Him that is Co-Eternal to the Father; the Eternal Holy Ghost, Him that is Co-Eternal to the Father and Son: not a confused Trinity in one person, as Sabellius says, neither a Divinity separated or divided in nature, as Arius blasphemed, but the Father in one Person, the Son in another Person, and the Holy Ghost in a Third Person, One Nature in the Holy Trinity, God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost.”

[Gennadius, Presbyter of Marseille (+496), Chapter 1,  Liber Sive DefinitioEcclesiasticorum Dogmatum]

go to page 89 in the linked text

Diaconal Prayer of Preparation

 

A Deacon's Prayer of Preparation before Mass from the late 9th Centtury Echternacht Sacramentary:

Prayer of Deacons

Almighty and Most Merciful God, Thou Who hast granted me the unworthy one to minister at the Sacred Altars, and granted me the power to praise Thine Holy Name, do Thou allow me to have, through these celebrations of the Mysteries, the forgiveness of all my sins; whatever sins of the flesh, or thoughts of the soul, or the ambitions of this world, that I have committed against the Rectitude of Thy Commandments, do Thou forgive me; do Thou grant the Grace of the Holy Ghost to enlighten mine heart, that I may be able to minister worthily at Thy Mysteries; may I be worthy to love Thee, the Eternal Charity; so may this Diaconal Order not turn to my judgment but eternally aid me for forgiveness of sins, and may it provide entry to perpetual beatitude.  

"Filioque" in the Canterbury Professions?

 In 2020 (or 2019?) I received my used copy of Dr. Michael Richter's "Canterbury Professions," published by the Canterbury and York Society.  I believe the work was originally published in 1978. 

So, what exactly is this book?  It is a printed text edition of various Pre- and Post-Schism Professions of Faith that Bishops in England made on the occasions of their Consecrations.  That is, these were formulas that a Bishop-Elect would proffer to the Metropolitan (in this case, the Archbishop of Canterbury) before Consecration to the Episcopate. 

For our purposes, we are mainly concerning with the first section, specifically the 31 Professions, since they are during the Pre-Conquest period.  However, as Dr. Richter notes in the introduction, there is a problem here, that is not so strongly felt in other Anglo-Saxon liturgical and other material.  The problem is that we must rely upon mid-12th century scribe; you see, these Professions are extent only in a work made in the mid-12th century, which work copies earlier Anglo-Saxon texts.  Although large numbers of manuscripts survived, many were destroyed, especially in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest, such as the large amount of documents destroyed in the Canterbury Library fire in 1067. 

Dr. Richter admits that this poses a problem with establishing authenticity.  In order to do this we would have to find another source from the purported period to compare texts with; at least one of the Professions is repeated nearly word for word in the late 9th and early 10th century Ratoldus Sacramentary.  However, there is nothing controversial and extraordinary in that text.  However, two Professions do draw mine attention. 

    Of the 30 Anglo-Saxon Episcopal Professions, two of them contain reference to the Procession of the Holy Ghost as either 'a Patre et Filio' or 'ex Patre et Filio'.  The rest simply assert Faith in the Trinity in more general terms, or do not cover this issue.  This immediately raises suspicions in my mind that hte 12th century copies may have had interpolation in this area; we have certainly seen this tendency before, i.e., to try to 'clean up' earlier material if it does not conform to later controveries, etc.

    However, seeing that much ado about nothing has been made about the supposedly 'extreme Filioquist' position of the Anglo-Saxon Church by some quarter [!], it would seem this is an area to be addressed: 

1.     The Professions are not the original manuscripts, but copies made by scribes, who would indeed have reasons to either insert such terminology, or, perhaps, simply copy the old manuscripts which themselves had interlinear interpolations, and thus obscuring the true textual history; 
2.      Simple assertion of 'ex Patre et Filio' or 'a Patre et Filio' procedentem must be examined in the context of the intent and understanding of the author; simply state, such text d not prove much nor they necessary vindicate the much later developed dogmatized Papist heresy, anymore than finding references in some early Fathers to 'mixture' or 'combination' of natures in Christ can be used to justify Eutychianism; terminology can always be vague, unhelpful, and obscure in some cases prior to it sharpening during a controversy.  This is not, of course, an exoneration of an interpolation in the Symbol of Faith, or vindication of Double-Processionist Hypostatic Subsistent Originationism.  St. Maximus' Letter to Marinus more than clears that up. 
3.     These expressions occur in only two texts copied in the mid 12th century; certainly not an abundance;

The argument will always be in favour of NOT using an interpolated Symbol of Faith, as well as affirming the Father as the Sole Eternal Source for the Persons of the Son and the Holy Ghost, because this is the consistent and universal position of earliest times. 

5th Century North African Bishops on the Holy Ghost

 From the Reply of the Orthodox North African Bishops to the King of the Vandal Barbarian Arians in 484 in Carthage: 

"We are enjoined by a royal command to provide an account of the Catholic Faith which we hold.  So we are setting out to indicate briefly the things which we believe and proclaim, aware of our lack of ability but supported by Divine Assistance.  We recognize, then, that the first thing we must do is give an explanation of the Unity of the Substance of the Father and the Son, which the Greeks call 'Homousion.'  Therefore: we acknowledge the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in the Unity of the Divine Nature in such a way that we can say with a faithful confession that the Father Subsists as a Distinct Person, and the Son Equally Exists in His Own Person, and that the Holy Spirit retains the Distinctiveness of His Own Person, not asserting that the Father is the same as the Son, nor confessing that the Son is the same as the Father or the Holy Spirit, nor understanding the Holy Spirit in such a way that He is the Father or the Son; but we believe the Unbegotten Father, and the Son Begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit Proceeding from the Father, to be of One Substance and Essence, because the Unbegotten Father and the Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit Who Proceeds, have One Divine Nature in Common; nevertheless, there are Three Distinct Persons.

In the Synodal Confession of the North African Fathers we do not read any mention of a Double-Procession; in the long reply given by the Bishops, they speak of the Holy Spirit as Proceeding from the Father.  Further down in the Synodal Confession, they a section explicitly speaks on the Holy Spirit and says:

  And so let us summarize what we have said.  If the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father, if He sets free, if He is the Lord and Sanctifies, if He created together with the Father and the Son, if He Gives Life, if He has foreknowledge together with the Father and the Son, if He is everywhere and fills all things, if He lives in the elect, if it is proclaimed of Him 'thus says the Holy Spirit' [Acts 21:11], if He appoints Prophets, if He sends Apostles, if He places Bishops in authority, if He is the Comforter, if He dispenses all things as He will, if He washes and justifies, if He kills those who put Him to the test, if one who blasphemes Him will have remission neither in this age nor the one to come, something which is thoroughly appropriate to God: all this being the case, why do people doubt that He is God, since He reveals what He is by the greatness of His works?  One Who is not different to the Father and the Son in the Strength of His works is certainly not different to Them in Majesty. 

In vain do they deny the title 'Divine' to One Whose Power they cannot refuse to acknowledge, in vain to they prohibit me from venerating with the Father and the Son Him Whom I am driven to acknowledge Together with the Father and the Son.  If He, Together with the Father and the Son, bestows on me the remission of sins, and bestows sanctification and eternal life, it would be thoroughly ungrateful and wicked of me where I not to ascribe Him Glory with the Father and the Son.  Or: if He should not be worshipped with the Father and the Son, He should therefore not be acknowledge in Baptism.  But if the words of the Lord and the Tradition of the Apostles makes it quite clear that He is to be acknowledged, lest the Faith be only half complete, who will prohibit me from worshipping Him?  For I shall also make due supplication to One in Whom I am ordered to believe.  Therefore, I shall adore the Father, I shall adore the Son, and I shall adore the Holy Ghost, with one and the same veneration."  

     

 

St. Fulgentius on the Epiclesis

 

St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe (+533), in North Africa, in his Epistle to Monimus, speaks concerning the question of the Epiclesis then present in the variant of the Orthodox Western Liturgy in the North African rite at the time:

"Now that question has come around to us concerning the mission of the Holy Spirit: If a Sacrifice is Offered to the Holy Trinity, why is the sending of the Holy Spirit only asked for, for the sanctifying of the gift of our oblation, as if (so to speak) God the Father Himself, from Whom the Holy Spirit Proceeds, could not Sanctify the Sacrifice Offered to Him; or the Son Himself was unable to Sanctify the Sacrifice of His Body which we Offer, since He Sanctified His Body Which He Offered to Redeem us; or that the Holy Spirit was to be sent to Consecrate the Sacrifice of the Church, as if the Father or the Son was missing from the Sacrifices?"

What is important to note here is that in North Africa at the time an invocation of the Holy Ghost upon the oblation during the Anaphora was considered a normative thing. 

Gennadius treated St. Augustine shabbily?

 

Wikipedia often uncritically repeats entries from the old 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia.  For example, the entry on Gennadius of Massilia, repeats simply what the CE says, under "Attitudes and Views"; it states:

"There are many indications that the author was a Semipelagian in "De Viris illustribus".  Semipleagians are warmly praised (Fastidiosus, lvi, p. 80; Cassian, lxi, 81; Faustus, lxxxv, 89); full Pelagians (Pelagius himself, xlii, 77; Julian of Eclanum, xlv, 77) are heretics; Catholics are treated shabbily (Augustine, xxxviii, 75; Prosper of Aquitania, lxxxiv, 89); even popes are called heretics (Julius I, in i, 61)."

Of course, this particular CE entry copied into Wikipedia word for word comes from the infamous Adrian Fortescue, who wrote the original CE article on Gennadius. 

Off the bat, it seems as if Fortescue is trying to read far too much into Gennadius' entries in "De Viris illustribus" than is actually there, if we are to state it charitably.  Let us actually look at what Gennadius says in the entries.   

Now the numbering of the Chapters is going to be slightly different in the available English translations, but bear with me.