{"slug":"tmp1124.tmp1124.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp1124.tmp1124.opp-lat1","title":"Contra Mocianum Scholasticum","title_source":"Contra Mocianum Scholasticum","author":"Facondus Hermianensis Episcopus","genre":"polemic","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:58:37Z","cost_usd":0.012194},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp1124.tmp1124.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp1124.tmp1124.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp1124/tmp1124/tmp1124.tmp1124.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":25,"english_words":6047,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":25101,"commentary_units":144,"commentary_kinds":9,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":42,"work_notes":5,"external_links":0,"timeline":4},"summary":{"work":"tmp1124.tmp1124.opp-lat1","abstract":"Contra Mocianum Scholasticum is a Latin polemical treatise by Facundus, bishop of Hermiane in Africa, written circa 546–548 during the Three Chapters controversy. The work responds to Mocianus, a fellow African bishop who accepted the imperial condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia and other anti-Chalcedonian figures. Facundus defends the Council of Chalcedon and the African conciliar decrees against Mocianus's attacks. The text survives in a single manuscript tradition among Facundus's works, with lacunae and uncertain readings in the final chapters. It was cited at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) but had limited circulation, rarely appearing in medieval canon law or later polemic.","historical_context":"Facundus wrote Contra Mocianum around 546–548, during the Three Chapters controversy, a theological and political conflict that erupted after Emperor Justinian I condemned the 'Three Chapters'—writings by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa—as Nestorian. The controversy divided the Church, especially in Africa, where many bishops, including Facundus, defended the Council of Chalcedon (451) and opposed the imperial condemnation. Mocianus, a scholasticus (rhetor or lawyer) otherwise unknown, had accepted the condemnation and attacked Chalcedon and African conciliar decrees. Facundus, writing from exile after the Second Council of Constantinople (553), defends these decrees and excommunicates those who impugn Chalcedon. The work survives in a single manuscript tradition, transmitted among Facundus's Opera, and was edited critically by J.-M. Clément and R. Vander Plaetse (CCSL 90A, 1974). The Latin text contains several lacunae and uncertain readings, especially in the final chapters, marked with brackets in the edition.","significance":"Contra Mocianum Scholasticum is a key witness to the African episcopal response to the Three Chapters controversy, defending Chalcedonian orthodoxy against imperial pressure. It provides rare insight into the arguments of a little-known opponent, Mocianus, and the conciliar decrees of African bishops. Though less influential than Facundus's Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum, it was cited at the Second Council of Constantinople and remains important for understanding the theological and political dynamics of the 6th-century Church.","timeline":[{"date":"546–548","event":"Facundus writes Contra Mocianum Scholasticum during the Three Chapters controversy."},{"date":"553","event":"Second Council of Constantinople cites Contra Mocianum; Facundus is exiled for defending the Three Chapters."},{"date":"6th c.","event":"The work survives in a single manuscript tradition among Facundus's Opera."},{"date":"1974","event":"Critical edition by J.-M. Clément and R. Vander Plaetse published in CCSL 90A."}],"relations":[{"work":"Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum","relation":"Facundus's major work on the same controversy; Contra Mocianum is a shorter, more focused polemic.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Three Chapters controversy","relation":"The theological and political context that prompted the work.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Second Council of Constantinople (553)","relation":"The council cited Contra Mocianum; Facundus was condemned and exiled.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Council of Chalcedon (451)","relation":"Facundus defends its decrees against Mocianus's attacks.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The date of composition (546–548) is approximate, based on the Three Chapters controversy timeline.","Mocianus is otherwise unknown; his identity as a scholasticus is inferred from the title.","The text survives in a single manuscript tradition with lacunae and uncertain readings, especially in the final chapters.","The edition marks conjectural emendations with brackets; readers should consult the critical apparatus."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000468,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:58:37Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp1124/tmp1124/tmp1124.tmp1124.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp1124.tmp1124.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":25,"translated":25,"commentary_passages":25,"commentary_units":144,"english_words":6047,"source_letters":24932,"commentary_kinds":9},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Facundus wrote Contra Mocianum c. 546–548, during the Three Chapters controversy. The work responds to Mocianus, a fellow African bishop who had accepted the imperial condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia and others.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text survives in a single manuscript tradition, transmitted among the works of Facundus. The source edition (ogl-pl) is based on the critical edition by J.-M. Clément and R. Vander Plaetse (CCSL 90A, 1974).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Contra Mocianum was cited in the Second Council of Constantinople (553) and later by medieval canonists, but it never achieved the wide circulation of Facundus’s Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text contains several lacunae and uncertain readings, especially in the final chapters. The edition marks these with brackets; readers should consult the critical apparatus for conjectural emendations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This edition does not include a translation or detailed historical introduction. For the context of the Three Chapters controversy, see the works of R. Price (2009) and J. Meyendorff (1989).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: polemic in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 25 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":25},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"FACUNDI LIBER CONTRA MOCIANUM SCHOLASTICUM\n\nOportuerat, venerabiles filii, ut qualecunque hoc opus a vobis impositum vestris ex more nominibus dedicarem. Sed metuens ne tanquam latebrarum nostrarum conscii, persecutorum quos fugimus incideretis in calumnias, nominare vos nolui. Nec pro vobis id præloqui necessarium fuit, qui nostrae pressuræ non escis expertes; sed pro aliis ignorantibus, in quorum manus hæc forte ventura sunt. Volo autem vos nosse quia nuntius quem misistis, gravi me infirmitate repcrit laborantem: ita ut in talibus diebus, sicut et ipse poterit vestrae sublimitati referre, nec usque in horam leniant valeam differre jejunium. Indicavit autem mihi ex vestro mandato, quod pro sæculi nostri meritis et Mocianus jam reprehendere audeat conciliorum decreta, palamque jactare quod episcopi Africani aliarumque provinciarum indigne statuerint vitare communionem eorum qui manifesto promulgatoque decreto reveriti non sunt impugnare Chalcedonense concilium. Quando autem nobis cessare, quando requiescere conceditis, qui nos et Mociano respondere compellitis?","english":"FACUNDUS'S BOOK AGAINST MOCIANUS THE SCHOLASTIC\n\nIt would have been fitting, venerable sons, that whatever this work is which has been imposed upon you by me, I should dedicate it to you with your names, as is my custom. But fearing that, as men privy to our hiding places, you might fall into the calumnies of the persecutors whom we flee, I was unwilling to name you. Nor was it necessary to state this beforehand on your behalf, you who are not without experience of our distress; but for the sake of others who are ignorant, into whose hands this work may perhaps come. I wish you, however, to know that the messenger whom you sent found me laboring under a severe infirmity: so much so that on such days, as he himself will be able to report to your Sublimity, I am unable to defer the fast even until the hour [of its end]. He also indicated to me, by your command, that because of the merits of our age, Mocianus now dares to reproach the decrees of councils, and openly boasts that the bishops of Africa and of other provinces have unworthily decreed that communion should be avoided with those who, by a manifest and published decree, were not afraid to attack the Council of Chalcedon. But when do you allow us to cease, when do you permit us to rest, you who compel us to respond even to Mocianus?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Oportuerat ... dedicarem","severity":"info","text":"The opening sentence follows the conventional modesty topos and dedicatory formula of late antique Christian polemic, but subverts it by withholding the addressees' names for security reasons.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"persecutorum quos fugimus","severity":"info","text":"Facundus was exiled after the Second Council of Constantinople (553) for defending the Three Chapters; 'persecutors' likely refers to imperial or ecclesiastical authorities enforcing the condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Mocianus","severity":"info","text":"Mocianus is a scholasticus (rhetor or lawyer) otherwise unknown; Facundus treats him as a contemporary opponent who attacked the Council of Chalcedon and the African conciliar decrees.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"episcopi Africani aliarumque provinciarum","severity":"info","text":"Refers to African and other bishops who, in the wake of the Three Chapters controversy, issued decrees excommunicating those who impugned Chalcedon; Facundus defends these decrees against Mocianus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Contra Mocianum Scholasticum","severity":"info","text":"This work survives only in the manuscript tradition of Facundus's Opera; it is rarely cited in medieval canon law or later polemic, indicating limited circulation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nec usque in horam leniant valeam differre jejunium","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin is ambiguous: 'leniant' may be a scribal error for 'leven' or 'leniam'; the sense is that illness prevents Facundus from postponing the fast even until the usual hour of breaking it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'venerabiles filii' is not specified; they are likely fellow exiles or supporters in hiding.","The exact nature of Mocianus's attack on Chalcedon is not detailed here; Facundus will elaborate later in the work."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Sed hoc quoque comperi, memorato nuntio mihi narrante, quia idem Mocianus volens ad inverdictam transgressorum communionem ignaros quosque deflectere, quædam beati Augustini dicta circumferat; et quæ ille contra Donatistas convenienter locutus est, inconvenienter ipse ad decipulam simplicium causæ nitatur aptarc præsenti. Sic aliquando etiam Faustus Gallus a in quæstione liberi arbitrii, male intellectis et incongrue adhibitis ipsius beati Augustini sententiis, fallebat et in assensionem sui erroris inducebat incautos: qui tamen a sanctae memoriae Fulgentio Ruspensi detectus atque convictus est. Quid amem in hoc miremur? Neque enim melius loqui potuit Augustinus, quam prophetae, qunm apostoli et evangelistæ; quorum verbis similiter male intelleclis, et incongrue adhibitis, tam multi hæretici suos defendere conantur errores. Gaudeo tamen quod eum nuntiastis aperte jam confiteri quia Theodorum Mopsuestenum episcopum in Ecclesiæ pace defunctum, ejusque doctrinam, cujus laudes in concilio Chalcedonensi recitatae sunt nemine refragante, sed et epistolam Ibæ antistiUs Edessenit quæ ihi est orthodoxa judicata, ct Theodoreti episcopi Cyrri scripta, qui assertor illic iuventus eat epistolae dogmaticæ papæLcouis, in ipsius concilii Chalcedonensis præjudicium damnaverint impugnatores Ecclesiae. Nam sanctus fratcr Ahba Felix *, inter alia mala quamplurima quæ no.","english":"But I also learned this, as the aforementioned messenger told me, that this same Mocianus, wishing to deflect the unwary into the unlawful communion of the transgressors, is circulating certain sayings of the blessed Augustine; and what that man fittingly spoke against the Donatists, he himself unfittingly tries to adapt to the present case for the snaring of the simple. Thus also once Faustus the Gaul, in the question of free will, by poorly understood and incongruously applied sayings of the same blessed Augustine, deceived the incautious and led them into assent to his error; yet he was exposed and convicted by Fulgentius of Ruspe, of holy memory. Why should I marvel at this? For Augustine could not speak better than the prophets, the apostles, and the evangelists; by whose words, similarly poorly understood and incongruously applied, so many heretics try to defend their errors. Yet I rejoice that you have reported that he now openly confesses that Theodore of Mopsuestia, a bishop who died in the peace of the Church, and his doctrine—whose praises were recited at the Council of Chalcedon with no one objecting—as well as the letter of Ibas, bishop of Edessa, which was judged orthodox there, and the writings of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, who was found there to be an upholder of the dogmatic letter of Pope Leo, have been condemned by the Church’s attackers to the prejudice of the Council of Chalcedon itself. For the holy brother Abba Felix, among many other evils which...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Faustus Gallus","severity":"info","text":"Faustus of Riez (Faustus Gallus) was a 5th-century bishop whose semi-Pelagian views on free will were opposed by Fulgentius of Ruspe. Facundus draws a parallel between Mocianus's misuse of Augustine and Faustus's earlier error.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Fulgentius Ruspensis","severity":"info","text":"Fulgentius of Ruspe (c. 462–533) was a North African bishop and theologian who defended Augustinian grace against semi-Pelagianism. Facundus cites him as an authority who refuted Faustus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Theodorum Mopsuestenum","severity":"info","text":"Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428) was a prominent Antiochene exegete whose works were later condemned in the Three Chapters controversy. Facundus defends his orthodoxy, noting his praise at Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Ibæ antistitis Edessenit","severity":"info","text":"Ibas of Edessa was a 5th-century bishop whose letter to Mari the Persian was approved at Chalcedon but later condemned in the Three Chapters. Facundus argues that Mocianus's condemnation of Ibas undermines Chalcedon's authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Theodoreti episcopi Cyrri","severity":"info","text":"Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393–466) was a theologian and bishop whose writings were also targeted in the Three Chapters controversy. Facundus presents him as a defender of Pope Leo's Tome at Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed hoc quoque comperi","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the narrative from the previous section, introducing new information from the messenger. Facundus shifts from addressing his readers to reporting Mocianus's tactics and the broader controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text contains a few apparent scribal errors: 'inverdictam' likely for 'inverecundam' (shameless); 'aptarc' for 'aptare' (to adapt); 'qunm' for 'quam' (than); 'intellectis' for 'intellectis' (understood); 'antistitis' for 'antistitis' (bishop, genitive); 'iuvents' for 'inventus' (found). The reading follows the standard emendations."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"bis de illo scripsit, etiam hoc retulit, quod amicus factus fuerit Theodoro Cappadoci, ct eum sæpius praesentaverit imperatori, quia cavitula ei quædam subministravit pro damnandis post mortem in Ecclesiæ pace defunctis. Sed et Carthagine similiter, ut advertimus, astruebat quod prædictus Mopsuestenus.Theodorus juste ac regularitcr post mortem fuerit condemnatus. Nunc ergo, quoniam indicastis eum culpare quæ prius velut recta et inculpabilia defendebat, sed hoc tamen asserere, quod ipsorum impugnatorum Ecclesiae communio sit ferenda, atque ad confirmationem ipsius assertionis beati Augustini verbis contra Donatistas pro'alis abuti: coegit me, ut voluistis, non consideratis viribus valetudinis meæ, et quomodocunqoc ineptis ejus assertionibus respondere. Nam et codices ad necessaria testimonia requirenda, tanquam fugato et in latebris constituto, mihi nunc desunt: quia ipse unus est cui nullus placeat. Si autem videtur quia nos Donatistis similes sumus, cur ipse non erubescit Tychonio similis inveniri, quem fatu tutis beatus arguit Augustinus, quod reprehendens de suo schismate Donatistas, eis communicaret? An aliud iste nunc facit, qui Africam schisma fecisse atque ab Ecclesia segregatam esse confirmat, et ei communicat?","english":"He wrote twice about him, and also reported this, that he had become a friend of Theodore of Cappadocia, and frequently presented him to the emperor, because he supplied him with certain chapters for condemning those who had died in the peace of the Church. But also at Carthage, as we have observed, he maintained that the aforementioned Theodore of Mopsuestia had been justly and regularly condemned after death. Now therefore, since you have indicated that he blames what he formerly defended as right and blameless, yet still asserts that the communion of those very assailants of the Church is to be borne, and for the confirmation of this assertion abuses the words of the blessed Augustine against the Donatists for other purposes: it has compelled me, as you wished, without regard to the strength of my health, and in whatever way, to respond to his inept assertions. For I now lack the codices for seeking necessary testimonies, as if I were put to flight and placed in hiding, because he is the one to whom no one is acceptable. But if it seems that we are like the Donatists, why does he not blush to be found like Tyconius, whom the blessed Augustine convicts of folly, because he, while reproaching the Donatists for their schism, communicated with them? Or is this man now doing something else, who affirms that Africa has made a schism and is separated from the Church, and yet communicates with it?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Theodoro Cappadoci","severity":"info","text":"Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428) was a prominent Antiochene exegete condemned posthumously at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) for Nestorianizing views. Facundus defends his orthodoxy against Mocianus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Tychonio","severity":"info","text":"Tyconius (fl. 370–390) was a Donatist lay theologian whose exegetical rules Augustine used, but whose continued communion with the Donatists Augustine criticized. Facundus compares Mocianus to Tyconius for inconsistency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cavitula","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'cavitula' (diminutive of 'caput') likely means 'chapters' or 'sections' of a document, here referring to condemnatory propositions Theodore supplied to the emperor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Nunc ergo","severity":"info","text":"This passage shifts from reporting Mocianus's past actions to Facundus's present response, signaled by 'Nunc ergo' (Now therefore). It introduces the polemical core of the work.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"beati Augustini verbis contra Donatistas","severity":"info","text":"Facundus accuses Mocianus of misusing Augustine's anti-Donatist arguments to justify communion with schismatics. This reflects a common 6th-century debate over applying patristic authority to new controversies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"fugato et in latebris constituto","severity":"caution","text":"Facundus claims to lack codices 'as if put to flight and in hiding,' possibly a rhetorical exaggeration of his exile or isolation, but the literal truth is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'amicus factus fuerit Theodoro Cappadoci' is ambiguous: it could mean Theodore of Mopsuestia befriended a Cappadocian named Theodore, or that Theodore of Mopsuestia himself is the Cappadocian (though he was from Cilicia). The translation takes the latter as a loose geographical reference.","The phrase 'cavitula ei quædam subministravit' is ambiguous: it may mean Theodore supplied the emperor with condemnatory chapters, or that he supplied them to someone else (the emperor is the indirect object)."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"cumque sibi solus videtur sapiens, factus est unus cx illis de quibus dicit Apostolus: Evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est cor eorum: dicentes enim se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt (Rom. I, 21). Cur autem solis Donatistis, qui a schismate prosiluerunt in hæresim, ut postea etiam de baptismate ct divina Trinitate male sentirent, et non omnibus hxreticis, vel ab ipso beato Augustino, vel ab aliis Ecclesiæ doctoribus exprubratur quod malos in Ecclesia ferre noluerint, nisi quia Donatistæ, nullis interecdentibus decretis quibus oppugnata dicant antiqua de fide decreta, sese ab Ecclesia diviserunt; alii vero, qui decreto. rum intercessione sunt separati. non de impatientia discessionis, sed de solo suo dogmate culpantur, quia justam et necessariam haberent causam discedendi, nisi ipsi in dogmate fallerentur? ScripSit beatus Gelasius Homanus episcopus adversus Acephalo; magnum opus; nec eos vel ipse, vel alius quisquam culpavit de impatientia, dicens quia vel si prava essent Chalcedonensis concilii definita, communionem malorum ferre debuerant, nec se ab Ecclesia segregare; sed de hoc solo culpantur, quod sanam doctri. nam rccipcre nolueruut. Cur, quaeso, nisi quod isti decretis intervenientibus, non sicut Donatistæ ob alias sunt causas ab Ecclesia separati?","english":"And when he alone seems wise to himself, he became one of those of whom the Apostle says: They have become vain in their thoughts, and their heart is darkened: for saying they are wise, they have become fools (Rom. 1:21). But why is it that only the Donatists, who from schism leaped into heresy, so that later they also thought wrongly about baptism and the divine Trinity, and not all heretics, either by the blessed Augustine himself or by other teachers of the Church, are reproached for having been unwilling to tolerate the wicked in the Church, unless because the Donatists, with no intervening decrees by which they might say that ancient decrees on the faith were attacked, separated themselves from the Church; while others, who were separated by the interposition of decrees, are not blamed for impatience in separation, but only for their own dogma, because they would have had a just and necessary cause for separating, unless they themselves were in error in dogma? The blessed Gelasius, bishop of Rome, wrote a great work against the Acephali; and neither he nor anyone else blamed them for impatience, saying that even if the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon were perverse, they ought to have tolerated the communion of the wicked and not separated themselves from the Church; but they are blamed only for this, that they were unwilling to receive sound doctrine. Why, I ask, except that these, with decrees intervening, were separated from the Church for other reasons, not like the Donatists?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est cor eorum: dicentes enim se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt (Rom. I, 21)","severity":"info","text":"Facundus adapts Romans 1:21, which in the Vulgate reads 'et obscuratum est cor illorum' and 'dicentes enim se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt' (cf. Rom. 1:22). The citation supports his critique of intellectual pride.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Donatistis","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists were a rigorist North African sect that separated from the Catholic Church in the 4th century over the issue of traditores. Facundus contrasts their schism with later heretics separated by conciliar decrees.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Gelasius Homanus episcopus adversus Acephalo","severity":"info","text":"Pope Gelasius I (492–496) wrote a work against the Acephali, a group rejecting the Council of Chalcedon. Facundus cites this to argue that Gelasius blamed them for doctrinal error, not impatience in separation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Acephalo","severity":"info","text":"'Acephali' (from Greek ἀκέφαλοι, 'headless') refers to Monophysite groups that rejected the Henotikon of Emperor Zeno and lacked a single leader. Facundus uses the term to denote those separated by decrees.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Cur, quaeso, nisi quod isti decretis intervenientibus","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question concludes a long argument distinguishing Donatist schism from separation by conciliar decrees. It reinforces Facundus's defense of those who left the Church over doctrinal disputes, not impatience.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'decretis intervenientibus' could mean either 'by intervening decrees' or 'with decrees having intervened'; the translation opts for the latter, implying decrees caused the separation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Non ergo ullerius abutatur in suam aliorumque perniciem novus hic doctor assertionibus et exemplis quibus Dona tistæ repulsi sunt; sed attendat potius, qui, secundum prophetæ dictum: Noluit intelligere, ut bene agerd (Psal. XXXV, 4), aliam esse Donatistarum causam, et aliam quæ nunc agitur, in qua tot Patrum nostrorum sectamur exempla. Nam et cum Acacius Constantinopolitanus episcopus aliquid adversus auctoritatem synodi Chalcedonensis auderet, nou equidem, sicut nunc factum est, decreto cum anathemate constituto, sed sola inimicis ipsius synodi communione permissa: prævidens apostolica sedcs quod, sicut exitus docuit, hæc remissio ad destructionem concilii memorati pertenderet (postea quippe Zeno imperator, qui eis commimonem præberi mandaverat, a minoribus ad majora prosiliens, ipsum concilium promulgato sprevitedicto), eumdem Acacium, quamvis praedicto Zenone resistente, damnavit. Qui mortuus quoque per libellos ordinandorum episcoporum nunc usque damnatus est. At postquam contigit ut in libellis suis episcpi ordinandi Theodorum Mopsuestenum cum suis dogmatibus, est epistolam Ibæ, et Theodoreti scripta damnarent, memoratus Acacius et alii concilii Chalcedonensis adversarii, damnationi subtracti sunt.","english":"Therefore, let this new teacher no longer abuse, to his own and others' ruin, the assertions and examples by which the Donatists were repelled; but let him rather attend to the fact that, according to the prophet's saying: \"He was unwilling to understand, that he might do well\" (Ps. 35:4), the cause of the Donatists is one thing, and the present case is another, in which we follow the examples of so many of our Fathers. For when Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, dared something against the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, it was not, as has now been done, by a decree with an anathema established, but merely by permitting communion with the enemies of that same synod: the Apostolic See foreseeing that, as the outcome taught, this leniency would lead to the destruction of the aforementioned council (for later the Emperor Zeno, who had ordered that communion be offered to them, leaping from lesser to greater things, spurned that same council by a promulgated edict), condemned the same Acacius, even with the aforementioned Zeno resisting. He, though dead, has been condemned to this day through the libelli of bishops being ordained. But after it happened that in their libelli the bishops being ordained condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia with his doctrines, and the letter of Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret, the aforementioned Acacius and other adversaries of the Council of Chalcedon were removed from condemnation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Noluit intelligere, ut bene agerd","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text cites Psalm 35:4 (Vulgate numbering) with a slight corruption: 'agerd' for 'ageret'. The verse is used to characterize the opponent's willful ignorance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Acacius Constantinopolitanus episcopus","severity":"info","text":"Acacius, bishop of Constantinople (472–489), was a key figure in the Acacian Schism. His condemnation by the Apostolic See followed his support for the Henoticon of Emperor Zeno, which sought to reconcile Chalcedonians and Miaphysites.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Zeno imperator","severity":"info","text":"Emperor Zeno (474–491) issued the Henoticon in 482, an edict aiming to unify the church by downplaying Chalcedon. Facundus here criticizes Zeno's escalation from tolerating dissent to spurning the council.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"libellos ordinandorum episcoporum","severity":"info","text":"'Libelli' refers to formal statements of faith required of bishops at ordination. Condemning Theodore, Ibas, and Theodoret in these libelli was a practice Facundus opposes, as it retroactively condemned the dead Acacius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Non ergo ullerius abutatur ... sed attendat potius","severity":"info","text":"This passage contrasts the Donatist case with the present controversy, using a 'non ... sed' construction to redirect the opponent from false analogies to the proper patristic examples.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Theodorum Mopsuestenum ... epistolam Ibæ ... Theodoreti scripta","severity":"info","text":"These figures were condemned in the Three Chapters controversy (6th century). Facundus defends them as orthodox, and here notes that their condemnation in ordination libelli paradoxically lifted the condemnation of Acacius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'agerd' in the psalm citation is likely a scribal error for 'ageret' (from 'ago'), but the intended sense is clear: 'to do well'.","The phrase 'a minoribus ad majora prosiliens' is ambiguous: it could mean Zeno moved from lesser to greater acts of defiance, or from lesser to greater authority; the translation takes it as escalation of action."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Quia igitur supradictus Zeno, sedis aposlolicæ decreta contemnens, prædicto Acacio communicabat, et omnes Ecclesias in sui regni finibus constitutas idem facere compellebat, Anastasio deinde in imperium et in præsumptionem similem succedente, omnis Oriens, prxler admodum paucos qui in illa multitudine occulii latebant, a communione sedis apostolicæ remotus per ferme annos usque ad tempora Juslini permansit. Et cum quidam per illud tempus ejusdem partis episcopi communionem sedis apostolice sibi ne suis Ecclesiis postularent, non impetraverunt, donec principis Justini temporibus Acacii damnationi subscriberent. Nec tamen quisquam eorum dixit: Nos zizania non sumus, sed zizania toleramus, ne simul eradicemus et triticum. Cur autem et hoc apostolicæ sedi non dicerent, si et talibus causis similitudo ista congrueret: Imo nos recte facimus, nos in.Mandalis Evangelii permancmus, qui zizania tutoramus, quam vos, qui pro zizaniis simul eradicastis ct triticum, aut discessistis a tritico? Quid igitur hic dicemus, religiosi fllii?","english":"Since the aforementioned Zeno, despising the decrees of the apostolic see, communicated with the aforesaid Acacius and compelled all the churches established within the boundaries of his realm to do the same, and then with Anastasius succeeding to the empire and to a similar presumption, the whole East, except for a very few who lay hidden in that multitude, remained removed from communion with the apostolic see for nearly the years up to the times of Justin. And when during that time certain bishops of that party sought communion with the apostolic see for themselves and their churches, they did not obtain it until, in the times of the emperor Justin, they subscribed to the condemnation of Acacius. Yet none of them said: \"We are not the tares, but we tolerate the tares, lest we uproot the wheat along with them.\" But why would they not say this to the apostolic see, if that similitude were applicable to such cases? Indeed, \"We act rightly, we abide by the mandates of the Gospel, we who tolerate the tares, rather than you, who for the sake of the tares have uprooted the wheat along with them, or have separated yourselves from the wheat.\" What then shall we say here, religious sons?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Zeno ... Anastasio ... Acacii","severity":"info","text":"The Acacian schism (484–519) between Rome and the Eastern churches began under Emperor Zeno and continued under Anastasius, ending under Justin I when Eastern bishops condemned Acacius of Constantinople.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"zizania ... triticum","severity":"info","text":"The tares-and-wheat imagery echoes Matthew 13:24–30, where Jesus likens the kingdom to a field of wheat and tares. Facundus uses it to critique the Donatist argument that tolerating sinners preserves the good.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quid igitur hic dicemus, religiosi filii?","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question closes the narrative section and transitions to a direct address to the audience, framing the preceding historical argument as a challenge to the reader.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"per ferme annos usque ad tempora Justini","severity":"info","text":"The schism lasted about 35 years (484–519). Facundus’s vague 'nearly the years' reflects imprecision common in polemical summaries.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Nos zizania non sumus, sed zizania toleramus","severity":"info","text":"Facundus attributes this Donatist slogan to his opponents. The phrase became a standard topos in later anti-Donatist and anti-schismatic polemic, e.g., in Augustine and Optatus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"præsumptionem similem succedente","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'similar presumption' is ambiguous: it may refer to Anastasius’s continuation of Zeno’s policy or to a personal character flaw. The Latin allows both readings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'per ferme annos' is vague; the exact duration of the schism is not specified.","'præsumptionem similem' could refer to policy or personal arrogance."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Nunquid pcr tot annorum I spatia non est inventus quisquam in Romanis sacerdotibus, a Felice Acacii damnatore a usque ad Hormisdam, qui Orientis reconciliavit Ecclesias, inter quos fuerat enim * beatus Gelasius in sanctitate vitas atque scientia per universum mundum celebrioris famae gloria prædicatus, non est inventus vel in Romano clero, Christiana plebe inibi consistente, vel in cunctis occidentalibus Ecclesiis, qui vel tantum esset pro Ecclesiarum unitate sollicitus quantum magister hic novus novissimis temporibus destinatus; ut nemo cognosceret et doceret quod in eadem quoque causa malorum communio toleranda foret, ne cum zizaniis eradicaretur et triticum? si fas est credere quod scientia et disciplina servandæ unitatis a beato cœpit Augustino, cujus adversus Donatistas convenientia scripta inconvenienter iste causæ præsenti nunc adhil et. Et ideo præclarus Ecclesiarum doctor Hilarius, et cæteri antiquiores cum eo Patres quorum supra meminimus, non observaverunt quæ ad custodiam pertinent unitatis, ut priusquam aliquid contra Nicaenum concilium statueretur, ab eorum qui hæc milievantur sese communione subtraherent.","english":"Was it really the case that throughout so many years, not a single person was found among the Roman priests—from Felix, the condemner of Acacius, up to Hormisdas, who reconciled the Eastern Churches, among whom was indeed the blessed Gelasius, proclaimed throughout the whole world with the glory of a more celebrated reputation for holiness of life and learning—nor was anyone found in the Roman clergy, the Christian people dwelling there, or in all the Western Churches, who was even as concerned for the unity of the Churches as this new teacher, sent in these most recent times, so that no one knew or taught that in that same cause the communion of evil men was to be tolerated, lest the wheat be uprooted along with the tares? If it is right to believe that the knowledge and discipline of preserving unity began with the blessed Augustine, whose writings against the Donatists are fittingly but inappropriately applied by this man to the present case. And therefore the illustrious teacher of the Churches, Hilary, and the other ancient Fathers with him whom we mentioned above, did not observe what pertains to the preservation of unity, so that before anything was decreed against the Council of Nicaea, they would withdraw from communion with those who were promoting these things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Nunquid pcr tot annorum I spatia non est inventus quisquam in Romanis sacerdotibus","severity":"info","text":"The rhetorical question denies that any earlier bishop or cleric shared the lenient view of communion with heretics that Facundus's opponent (the 'new teacher') advocates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"a Felice Acacii damnatore a usque ad Hormisdam","severity":"info","text":"Felix III (483–492) excommunicated Acacius of Constantinople; Hormisdas (514–523) restored communion with the East in 519. This period (the Acacian Schism) saw the Roman see refuse communion with heretics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"magister hic novus novissimis temporibus destinatus","severity":"info","text":"Facundus sarcastically calls his opponent a 'new teacher' sent in 'most recent times', contrasting him with the ancient Fathers and implying novelty is suspect.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ne cum zizaniis eradicaretur et triticum","severity":"info","text":"Allusion to Matthew 13:24–30 (the parable of the wheat and tares), used here to argue that tolerating evil communion would uproot the good along with the bad.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"cujus adversus Donatistas convenientia scripta inconvenienter iste causæ præsenti nunc adhil et","severity":"info","text":"Facundus accuses his opponent of misapplying Augustine's anti-Donatist writings, which argued for tolerating schismatics to preserve unity, to the different case of heretics condemned by Nicaea.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Et ideo præclarus Ecclesiarum doctor Hilarius, et cæteri antiquiores cum eo Patres","severity":"info","text":"This sentence concludes the argument: because earlier Fathers like Hilary did not tolerate communion with heretics, the opponent's position contradicts tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'pcr tot annorum I spatia' is corrupt; the intended reading is likely 'per tot annorum spatia' ('throughout so many years').","The identity of 'magister hic novus' is not specified; Facundus's opponent is unnamed in this passage."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Quamvis, ut diximus, ipsi Donatistas ante damnaverim, tamen nunquiJ et apostolica sedes, cum postea pro viola Ii.: Chalcedonensis concilii decretis resistente Zcnone damnaret Acacium, hæc atque hujusmodi scripta beali Augustini non legerat; tametsi putetur minus per semetipsam intelligere potuisse quæ ad observantiam pertineant unitatis, ut Acacium damnaret, quem sine multo tritico imperator expelli non sineret? Sed nec Romana Ecclesia reconciliare debuit Orientis Ecclesias, et eas in communionem sub debita satisfactione recipere; sed Ecclesia' potius Orientis, quæ zizania toleraverant, Romanam Ecclesia:n reconciliare debuerunt a tritic» separatam. An propterea factum non est quod iste adhuc per Ecclesiam catholicam sicut nunc docere non posset? aut potius quod necdum ad Ecclesiam catholicam devenisset qui hanc perversam atquc confusam ei vult inferre doctrinam, et utinam non Augustini nomine coloratam? Nam vult apostolicam scdem, quæ tunc aliis culpam dimisit, ipsam potius cum cæteris qui ejus in Acacio sententiam servaverunt, veluti pro facto schismate fuisse culpabilem; et more suo nemini purcens, illos quoque Orientales quibus petentibus dimissa est, videri vult ad schismaticos Occidentales fuisse conversos, quos ipsi ad se convertere debuerunt.","english":"Although, as we have said, we ourselves condemned the Donatists earlier, nevertheless the Apostolic See, when it later condemned Acacius for resisting the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon at the behest of Zeno, had not read these and similar writings of the blessed Augustine; even if it is thought to have been less able to understand through itself what pertains to the observance of unity, so that it condemned Acacius, whom the emperor would not allow to be expelled without much wheat? But neither should the Roman Church have reconciled the Eastern Churches and received them into communion under due satisfaction; rather, the Eastern Church, which had tolerated the tares, ought to have reconciled the Roman Church, which was separated from the wheat. Or is it for this reason that what he now teaches through the Catholic Church could not yet be taught? Or rather that he had not yet come to the Catholic Church who wishes to impose upon it this perverse and confused doctrine, and would that it were not colored by the name of Augustine? For he wishes the Apostolic See, which then forgave the fault of others, to be itself guilty, along with the rest who preserved its judgment against Acacius, as if for a schism that had occurred; and in his usual manner sparing no one, he also wishes those Easterners at whose request the fault was forgiven to appear to have been converted to the Western schismatics, whom they themselves ought to have converted to themselves.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Acacium","severity":"info","text":"Acacius of Constantinople (d. 489) was condemned by Pope Felix III (483–492) for supporting the Henoticon of Emperor Zeno, which compromised Chalcedonian orthodoxy. This initiated the Acacian Schism between Rome and the Eastern churches, lasting until 519 under Pope Hormisdas.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"triticum","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'triticum' (wheat) and 'zizania' (tares) form a biblical metaphor (cf. Matt 13:24–30) for orthodox believers versus heretics. Facundus uses it to invert the Donatist claim that the Roman Church had separated itself from the true church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"zizania","severity":"info","text":"The term 'zizania' (tares) echoes Matthew 13:24–30, where Jesus distinguishes wheat from tares. Facundus applies this to the Eastern churches that tolerated heretics, arguing they should have reconciled Rome, not vice versa.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"An propterea factum non est","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question marks a shift from historical critique to a direct challenge of the opponent's logic. Facundus uses it to expose the absurdity of the claim that the Roman See could not have acted correctly without reading Augustine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Augustini nomine coloratam","severity":"info","text":"Facundus accuses his opponent of falsely invoking Augustine's authority ('colored by the name of Augustine'). This reflects a common polemical tactic in the 6th-century Three Chapters controversy, where both sides claimed Augustinian precedent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nunquiJ","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has 'nunquiJ', likely a scribal error for 'numquid' (surely not). The sense is interrogative, challenging the idea that the Apostolic See lacked Augustine's writings. The English draft correctly interprets it as a rhetorical question.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'sine multo tritico' (without much wheat) is ambiguous: it may mean 'without great cost' (wheat as a commodity) or 'without many orthodox believers' (wheat as metaphor). The translation opts for the latter, consistent with the tares/wheat imagery."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Et hæc quidem nobis ad istius convictionem sufficerent, si adversarii, quos et ipse culpat non inferentes anatbema Chalcedonensi con. cilio, neque in nos omnes, sed aliquid adversus ejus auctoritatem gerente, ipsi potius a nobis,subanathemate damnarentur. Nunc autem, illis impie gerentibus, et nos ac Patres nostros anathematizantibus, sescque per hoc anathema segregantibus ab universa Christi Ecclesia, nos qui Deo regente in paterna sententia et communione perstamus, nos, inquam, in Ecclesia cui dederunt anathema, statui. nius secundum Christianae religionis observantiam nou communicare ab Ecclesia segregatis. Non igitur vel hoc isti concesserim id nos fecisse quod cum suis collegis Hilarius rech, qui nullo adhuc in præjudicium Nicæni concilii procedente decreto cum prima contrariorum molimina præsumpsissent 3, properaverunt ab eorum se communione dividere. Non isti concesserim quod Africana Ecclesia se ab impugnatoribus Chalcedonensis concilii segregaverit, seJ potius quod jam segregatis communicare vitaverit. Unde acceptabilius potest quisquam diligentior et in zelo Dei fervenlior, exemplo Hilarii, nos de tarditate culpare, quam de schismate vel de festinatione Mocianus arguere. Quis porro, nisi vecors ac sibi sapiens, et, sicut dicit Apostolos: Frustra inflatus sensu carnis suæ (Coloss.","english":"And these things would indeed suffice for us to convict him, if the adversaries, whom he himself also blames—not for refusing to pronounce an anathema against the Council of Chalcedon, nor for acting against all of us, but for doing something against its authority—were themselves condemned by us under anathema. But as it is, since they act impiously and anathematize both us and our Fathers, and by this anathema separate themselves from the whole Church of Christ, we—who, with God guiding, persist in the paternal sentence and communion—we, I say, are established in the Church to which they have given anathema, according to the observance of the Christian religion, not to communicate with those separated from the Church. Therefore, I will not grant even this to him, that we have done what Hilarius did with his colleagues, who, when no decree had yet proceeded to the prejudice of the Council of Nicaea, and when the first attempts of the opponents had been undertaken, hastened to separate themselves from their communion. I will not grant to him that the African Church separated itself from the attackers of the Council of Chalcedon, but rather that it avoided communicating with those already separated. Hence, someone more diligent and more fervent in the zeal of God could, by the example of Hilarius, more acceptably blame us for slowness than Mocianus could accuse us of schism or of haste. Who, moreover, except a senseless and self-wise person, and, as the Apostle says, \"vainly puffed up by the sense of his own flesh\" (Coloss.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"non inferentes anatbema Chalcedonensi concilio","severity":"info","text":"Facundus clarifies that his opponents are not charged with refusing to anathematize Chalcedon, but with acting against its authority—a key distinction in his defense against Mocianus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"anatbema","severity":"info","text":"The Greek-derived term 'anatbema' (anathema) denotes a formal curse or excommunication; here it marks the separation of the adversaries from the universal Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Frustra inflatus sensu carnis suæ","severity":"info","text":"A quotation from Colossians (likely Col 2:18, though the Vulgate reads 'inflatus' in 2 Cor 12?); Paul warns against being vainly puffed up by one's own fleshly understanding.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Hilarius","severity":"info","text":"Hilarius, likely Hilarius of Arles or a Roman deacon, is cited as a figure who separated from opponents before any decree prejudiced Nicaea; Facundus uses him to contrast Mocianus' charge of haste.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Non igitur vel hoc isti concesserim","severity":"info","text":"Facundus employs a rhetorical denial ('I will not grant even this') to reject Mocianus' comparison, reinforcing his argument that his communion is with the Church, not a schismatic act.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"subanathemate damnarentur","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'subanathemate' is a compound not standard in classical Latin; it may reflect a technical or scribal usage, and the precise sense ('under anathema') is clear but the form is unusual.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Hilarius' is not specified; it may refer to Hilarius of Arles or another figure, but the context suggests a precedent for early separation.","The scriptural reference 'Frustra inflatus sensu carnis suae' is not verbatim from the Vulgate Colossians; it may be a paraphrase or a conflation with 2 Corinthians."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"II, 18), contra totius Ecclesiæ judicium, non respiciens vel exitum reram qui consecutus est, reprehendere audeat Hilarium irude atem ac moderatum gubernatorem Ecclesiae, qui neque ipsis Galliarum episcopis, quod eos in tanta causa tacuisse crederet, nec adversariis restitisse, litteris saltem communicare pertulerit? aut quis iIlum non audens reprehendere. Africanam levitatis vel impatientiæ reprehendat Ecclesiam; quæ non nisi aperto jam promulgaloque decreto anathematizatum videns Chal, edonen e co ncilium, et omnes qui ejus sententiam tenent, damnatoribus P trum suorum ac suis communicare vitavit, nOli quasi Augustini adversus Donatistas doctriraæ contraria, se I Hilarii I conU'a impugnatores universalis synodi observantiam consecuta? Ut autem noveritis quomodo in adjutorio Dei qui nos regit ac dirigit, August num concorditer II lariumque sectemur, ncc eos sibi velut contrarios opponamus, ut altero approbato improbemus alterum, sed pro causarum diversitate utrumque sec emur, accipite quæ in judicio ipsius Vigi ii a inter alia fuerim prosecutus, sicut editae nobis ab officio tertiæ actionis gesta declarant.","english":"II, 18), contrary to the judgment of the whole Church, not considering even the outcome of events that followed, dares to reproach Hilarius, a prudent and moderate governor of the Church, who could not bear even to communicate by letter with the bishops of Gaul themselves, whom he believed to have kept silent in so great a cause, nor with the adversaries who had opposed them? Or who, not daring to reproach him, would reproach the African Church for levity or impatience, which, only after seeing the Council of Chalcedon already openly promulgated and anathematized, and all who hold its opinion, avoided communion with the condemnors of their own fathers and of themselves, not as if following a doctrine contrary to Augustine against the Donatists, but as following the observance of Hilarius against the impugners of the universal synod? But that you may know how, with the help of God who rules and directs us, we follow both Augustine and Hilarius in concord, and do not set them up as opposed to each other, so as to approve one and disapprove the other, but follow each according to the diversity of causes, receive what I pursued among other things in the judgment of Vigilius himself, as the acts of the third session, published by the office, declare.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Hilarium","severity":"info","text":"Facundus defends Hilarius of Arles (d. 449) as a prudent governor of the Church, contrasting him with the impugners of the universal synod. The reference is to Hilarius's cautious stance during the post-Chalcedonian controversies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Augustini adversus Donatistas doctrina","severity":"info","text":"Facundus alludes to Augustine's anti-Donatist writings, which argued for communion with repentant schismatics. He denies that the African Church's avoidance of communion with Chalcedon's condemnors follows Augustine's doctrine, instead aligning it with Hilarius's practice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ut autem noveritis","severity":"info","text":"This clause marks a rhetorical shift from reproach to instruction: Facundus announces that he will show how he follows both Augustine and Hilarius in concord, citing his own words from the trial of Vigilius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"judicio ipsius Vigilii","severity":"info","text":"Facundus refers to his own participation in the judgment of Vigilius of Thapsus, likely a synod or trial. The 'acts of the third session' are cited as documentary evidence, indicating Facundus's appeal to official records.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"II, 18","severity":"caution","text":"The opening 'II, 18' is a marginal or editorial reference, likely to a book and chapter of Facundus's work. Its exact meaning is unclear without the source edition's apparatus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'II, 18' may refer to a book and chapter number in the source edition, but its precise referent is uncertain.","The identity of 'Vigilius' is ambiguous: likely Vigilius of Thapsus, but could be another figure; the context suggests a judicial proceeding."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Peto, inquam, de justitia vestra, utrum suscepta sit a synodo Chalcedonensi epistola Ibæ, quæ velut Nestoriana damnata e t, inquiratis; et dum constiterit non obesse synodo quod pars adversa de Theodori persona proponit, sic ea quæ proferre volunt relegi permittatis: ne forte quae aguntur ad retractationem videantur memoratæ synodi pertinere. Ego enim fatcor simpliciter beatitudini vestræ, non pro Theodori Mopsucsteni damnalione me a contradicentium communione subtraxisse. Hoc enim vel si approbandum non sit, ferendum tamen existimo, nec tantam esse causam judico. pro qua deberemus a communione multitudinis segregari. Sed qnia ex persona Theodori epistolam Ibæ Nestorianamprobare conati sunt, et ex epistola Ibæ synodum a qua suscepta est improbare. » In his itaque verbis meis cognoscitis imprimis pro statu generalis synodi me fuisse solliciturn, ne quod Acephali semper quæsierunt, in retractationem deducta frangeretur ejus auctoritas. Deinde videte quodnon ab isto nunc discimus quia pro Ecclesiæ unitate ferendi sunt mali, sicut docuit Augustinos.","english":"I ask, I say, of your justice, that you investigate whether the letter of Ibas, which was condemned as Nestorian, was received by the Council of Chalcedon; and when it becomes clear that the adverse party’s proposal concerning the person of Theodore does not harm the synod, you permit the things they wish to bring forward to be read, lest what is being done seem to pertain to a retractation of the aforementioned synod. For I confess simply to your Beatitude that I did not separate myself from the communion of those who contradict me on account of the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia. For I consider that even if this is not to be approved, it is nevertheless to be borne, and I judge it not so great a cause for which we ought to be separated from the communion of the multitude. But because from the person of Theodore they have tried to prove the letter of Ibas Nestorian, and from the letter of Ibas to disapprove the synod by which it was received. In these my words, therefore, you recognize first that I was solicitous for the standing of the general synod, lest what the Acephali have always sought, being brought into retractation, should break its authority. Then see that we do not now learn from this man that for the unity of the Church the evil are to be borne, as Augustine taught.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Peto, inquam, de justitia vestra","severity":"info","text":"Facundus appeals to the 'justice' of his addressees, likely the imperial court or a synod, to investigate the reception of Ibas' letter at Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"retractationem","severity":"info","text":"'Retractation' here means a formal revision or reversal of a synod's decision, a key concern for Facundus lest Chalcedon's authority be undermined.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Acephali","severity":"info","text":"The Acephali were extreme anti-Chalcedonian groups who rejected the Council of Chalcedon and sought its retractation; Facundus warns against their aims.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut docuit Augustinus","severity":"info","text":"Facundus invokes Augustine's teaching on tolerating evil for church unity, likely referencing works like 'De Baptismo' or 'Contra Parmenianum'.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Augustine"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"In his itaque verbis meis cognoscitis","severity":"info","text":"This passage marks a transition where Facundus summarizes his own argument, emphasizing his concern for synodal authority over personal condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"epistola Ibæ","severity":"info","text":"The letter of Ibas was a controversial document at Chalcedon; its reception was debated, and Facundus here questions whether it was truly accepted by the council.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'justitia vestra' is ambiguous: it may refer to the imperial consistory or a specific ecclesiastical tribunal.","The phrase 'a communione multitudinis' could mean separation from the majority of the church or from a specific group of dissenters."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Nam eum dixi: Ego enim fatcor simpliciter beatitudini vestræ, non pro Theodori Mopsuesteni damnatione me a communione contradicentium subtraxisse, hoc enim vel si approbandum non sit, ferendum tamen existimo, nec tantam esse causam judico, pro qua deberemus a communione multitudinis segregari, doctrine Augustini memorem me fuisse monstravi. Sed quoniam et Hilario ejusque collegis contrarius esse noo debui, qui cum procul dubio multos et ipsi malos in Ecclesiis sufferrent, schismaticosqne damnarent, non tamen ferendos judicaverunt esse illos Ecclesiarum præpositos, qui suis decretis auctoritatem generalium synodorum, per quas munitur Ecclesia, conarentur infringere: propterea secutus adjeci, dicens ideo me istorum vitasse communionem, quia ex persona Themdori epistolam Ibæ, in qua ejns doctrina laudata csi, Nestor ianam robare conati suBit, et ex epistola Ibx synodum a qua suscepta cst improbare. Nam quæ alia causa fuisse dicenda est, ut post centum et viginti suae defunctionis annos damnaretur cum dogmatibus suis episcopus in Ecclesiæ pace defunctus, vel epistola cujus auctor incertus dicitur! Non enim vel hoc fatentur quod Ibæ sit, sed quod ejus esse dicatur.","english":"For I said: \"I confess simply to your Beatitude that I did not withdraw from communion with those who opposed me because of the condemnation of Theodorus of Mopsuestia; for even if this is not to be approved, I nevertheless consider it tolerable, and I judge it not so great a cause that we ought to be separated from the communion of the multitude.\" By this I showed that I was mindful of the teaching of Augustine. But since I ought not to be opposed to Hilarius and his colleagues, who, although they undoubtedly tolerated many evil men in the Churches and condemned schismatics, nevertheless did not judge that those prelates of the Churches should be tolerated who attempted to undermine the authority of the general synods, through which the Church is fortified, by their own decrees; therefore, following this, I added, saying that I avoided communion with those men because they tried to prove, from the person of Theodorus, that the letter of Ibas, in which his doctrine is praised, is Nestorian, and from the letter of Ibas to disprove the synod by which it was received. For what other cause is to be said to have been the reason that, one hundred and twenty years after his death, a bishop who died in the peace of the Church was condemned along with his doctrines, or a letter whose author is said to be uncertain? For they do not even admit that it is Ibas's, but that it is said to be his.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego enim fateor simpliciter beatitudini vestræ","severity":"info","text":"Facundus quotes his own earlier profession to the emperor, framing his separation from communion as a matter of principle, not personal animus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"doctrinæ Augustini memorem","severity":"info","text":"Facundus invokes Augustine’s teaching on tolerating lesser evils within the Church, a key patristic authority in the Three Chapters controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Hilario ejusque collegis","severity":"info","text":"Hilarius was a deacon of the Roman Church and a leading opponent of the Three Chapters; his colleagues were likely other Roman clergy who resisted imperial pressure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"propterea secutus adjeci","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a logical progression: Facundus first states his position, then adds the reason for avoiding communion, linking it to the Ibas letter and Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"post centum et viginti suæ defunctionis annos","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus of Mopsuestia died ca. 428; the condemnation under Justinian occurred ca. 553, roughly 125 years later, matching Facundus’s figure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"epistola cujus auctor incertus dicitur","severity":"info","text":"Facundus notes that opponents of the Three Chapters questioned the Ibas letter’s authenticity, a common tactic to undermine its authority at Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'noo' in 'contrarius esse noo debui' is likely a scribal error for 'non'.","The phrase 'ex persona Themdori' appears to be a corruption of 'ex persona Theodori'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Aut cur tantorum in hoc episcoporum subscriptio quæreretur, nisi quia non paucorum, sed multitudinis consensus præjudicare posset universo concilio Et quoniam judex hoc se nescire fingebat petivi simul ac dixi: « lloc ergo primum me demonstrare præcipte, ut doceam false negari quod a sancta syuodo Chalcedonensi recepta fuerit, ct omnia contradicentium figmenta redarguam, quibus eam in destructionem synodi Chalcedonensis velut impiam damnaverunt. » Sed quoniam occulta ejus ante judicium pollicitatio tenebatur, in qua se spopondit eadem capitula damnaturum, ot se quasi per ignorantiam posset abluere, probationen, quam offerebam, quamque ipse instanter exigere debuit, me fecere non permisit. Sed gestis de medio sublatis, quibus causa cæperat aperiri, et interrupto suo judicio, a considentibus episcopis flagistavit, ut quid eis de causa videretnr prolata quisque in scriptis responsione signaret. Et quia illi episcopi maxime Constantinopolim occurrerant in ejus adventum, 'norum nulla in hac causa subscriptio tenebatur, et de sua fuerant integritate securi, per occasionem hujus interrogationis ipsi quoque separatim compulsi sunt ab adversariis Ecclesiæ quomodo dictaverunt in præjudicium magni concilii respondere.","english":"But why would the subscription of so many bishops be sought in this matter, unless because the consensus not of a few but of the multitude could prejudice the entire council? And since the judge pretended to be ignorant of this, I asked at the same time and said: \"Therefore first command me to demonstrate, so that I may teach that it is falsely denied that [the letter] was received by the holy Synod of Chalcedon, and I will refute all the fabrications of those contradicting it, by which they condemned it as impious to the destruction of the Synod of Chalcedon.\" But because his secret promise before the judgment was held, in which he pledged to condemn the same chapters, and as if he could absolve himself through ignorance, he did not permit me to make the proof which I offered and which he himself ought to have urgently demanded. But with the acts removed from the middle, by which the case had begun to be opened, and with his own judgment interrupted, he demanded from the bishops sitting with him that each one, by a written response, should indicate what seemed to them about the case. And because those bishops had especially come to Constantinople for his arrival, and no subscription of theirs was held in this matter, and they were secure in their own integrity, through the occasion of this interrogation they too were separately compelled by the adversaries of the Church to respond as they dictated, to the prejudice of the great council.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The 'secret promise' (occulta pollicitatio) refers to a prior commitment by the judge to condemn the chapters of Theodorus, which Facundus claims invalidated the proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"subscriptio","severity":"info","text":"Subscriptio denotes formal subscription to a synodal judgment, a key act of consent in ecclesiastical procedure; its absence here undermines the legitimacy of the bishops' response.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the narrative of Facundus's confrontation with the judge, detailing the judge's obstruction of proof and manipulation of the bishops' responses.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The 'great council' (magni concilii) is the Council of Chalcedon (451), whose authority Facundus defends against those he claims are undermining it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"gestis de medio sublatis","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'gestis de medio sublatis' is ambiguous: it may mean the official acts were removed from the record or physically taken away, affecting the interpretation of procedural fairness.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'judex' (judge) is not specified; likely a high imperial or ecclesiastical official.","The phrase 'gestis de medio sublatis' could imply either removal from the record or physical seizure."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Ac ne postea subtraherent, et quæ scripto responderant judicio non offerrent, jam sub prosecutione ipsorum atque custodia palam ad illum dedurebantur tradere sua profana et detestanda responsa. Oculis nos hæc vidimus. Acephalos coram Ipso judire alacres et exsultantes aspeximus, cum episcopos ad eum adducerent eadem res onsa portantes. Et qnando hæc sic inhaereant cordibus audientium,:tut sic ea detestari ac lugere possitis, sicut nos, in quorum animis ipsorum malorum adhuc imago versatur? Suscipiens vero ille memoratas responsiones, port aliquot dies ad palatium detulit, atque alteri tradidit parti, in præjudicium synodi Chalcedonensis cum aliorum chirographis qui antea subscripscrant reservandas. Verum. ne suis traditor videreIdr, talibus verbis eos fefellit, ut diceret: Qnid apud nos reservamus ista contravia synodo Chalcedonensi responsa, ut inventa quandoque in Ecclesiæ Romanae scrinio a nobis approbata credantur? Sed afferamus illa in palatium, et de illis agant: ipsi jam noverint. Quasi ea scindere vel urere ipse non posset, aut per suam evacuare sentensiam, aut ipsis a quibus fuerant data refundere: quae nec suscipere ab eis, nec extorquere debuerat, si vere præjudicium generalis synodi præcavebat. Atque ista solita fictione, fingens ejus præjudicium se cavere, hoc pro volunme contrariorum fecit, quod ei si dissimulemus præjudicet.","english":"And lest they should later withdraw, and not present to the court the responses they had given in writing, they were openly brought before him under their own prosecution and guard to deliver their profane and detestable responses. We saw these things with our own eyes. We beheld the Acephali, cheerful and exultant, before the judge himself, as they brought bishops to him carrying the same responses. And when these things so cling to the hearts of the hearers, can you detest and lament them as we do, in whose minds the image of those evils still lingers? But he, receiving those responses, after some days brought them to the palace and handed them over to the other party, to be preserved to the prejudice of the Council of Chalcedon, along with the subscriptions of others who had previously signed. However, lest he appear a traitor to his own, he deceived them with such words as to say: \"Why do we keep these responses, contrary to the Council of Chalcedon, in our possession, so that they might someday be found in the archives of the Roman Church and believed to have been approved by us? But let us bring them to the palace, and let them deal with them; they themselves will know.\" As if he himself could not tear them up or burn them, or nullify them by his own sentence, or return them to those by whom they had been given—which he ought neither to have received from them nor extorted, if he truly wished to avoid prejudice to a general council. And by this customary pretense, feigning that he was guarding against prejudice to it, he did for the sake of the opposing party what would prejudice us if we dissemble it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Acephalos","severity":"info","text":"Acephalos (Greek ἀκέφαλοι, 'headless') refers to a group of anti-Chalcedonian Christians who rejected the Henotikon of Emperor Zeno and lacked a recognized patriarch. Facundus uses the term pejoratively to describe his opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The 'judge' is likely the Roman deacon or papal representative who received the responses; the 'other party' refers to the anti-Chalcedonian faction. The Council of Chalcedon (451) was a key point of contention in the Three Chapters controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a narrative within Facundus' polemic, recounting events to illustrate the deceit of his opponents. The rhetorical question ('can you detest...') shifts to direct address, engaging the reader emotionally.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Facundus' account of the judge's deception—pretending to preserve documents for the Roman archives while actually handing them to opponents—was used by later scholars to argue that the Roman see was manipulated in the Three Chapters controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"traditor","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'traditor' (traitor) echoes the Donatist controversy, where traditores were those who handed over scriptures during persecution. Facundus implies the judge is a betrayer of orthodoxy, but the term may also carry legal overtones of handing over documents improperly.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'the judge' is not specified; likely a papal representative but not named. 'The other party' is vague, possibly the imperial court or anti-Chalcedonian bishops."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Qnomodo enim non præjudicet, si demonstrentur circiter episcopi cum Homano anti6 ite Constantinopolim congregati, ut illos omitlam qui ante subscripserant, condemnasse cum approbatoribns suis epistolam a Chalcedonensi concilio approbatam? et illum episcopum, cujus doctrinæ laudes in memorato Chalcedonensi concilio recitatæ sunt nomine resistente, cum suis dogmatibus anathematizasse post mortem, scientibus cæteris, et in corum communione manentibus? Ob boc ergo necessarium 'Hit uon modo ab eorum nos communione subtrahere, verum etiam, quia potiorem videbantur in Ecclesia tenere locum, qui primi huic præjudicio imperatore jubente cesserunt, no ipsorum magis tenenda sententia videretur, commemorare, quod alibi fecimus, quomodo sive Menas Constantinopolitanus, sive Zoilus Alexandrinus, sive Antiochenus Ephemus, et Petrus Hierosolymitanus, antequam vel consentirent vel cederent, testati sunt fieri non debere. Ob hoc etiam de ipsins episcopi Romani chirographis vel prius ambitionis impulsu, cum fieri Arderet episcopus, vel postea venalitate parti aheri factis, necessarium duximus non tacere, ne auctoritate nominis cjus præjudicium fides vera sufferret. Quod si hoc non fuisset, ncque ipse prius universam anathematizasset Ecclesiam, servare nos in illooportuit sententiam suam, sequi quod nobis præbuit priscæ integritatis exemplum.","english":"For how does it not prejudice, if it is shown that the bishops gathered with Homanus at Constantinople, to say nothing of those who had previously subscribed, condemned, along with its approvers, a letter approved by the Council of Chalcedon? And that they anathematized after death that bishop, whose praises of doctrine were recited at the aforementioned Council of Chalcedon with no one opposing, while the rest knew of it and remained in communion with them? For this reason, therefore, it was necessary not only to withdraw ourselves from their communion, but also, because those who first yielded to this prejudice at the emperor's command seemed to hold a higher place in the Church, so that their opinion might not appear more binding, to recall, as we have done elsewhere, how whether Menas of Constantinople, or Zoilus of Alexandria, or Ephemus of Antioch, and Peter of Jerusalem, before they either consented or yielded, testified that it ought not to be done. For this reason also, concerning the very chirographs of the Roman bishop, whether earlier from the impulse of ambition, when he dared to become bishop, or later from venality on behalf of the other party, we deemed it necessary not to remain silent, lest the true faith suffer prejudice from the authority of his name. But if this had not been the case, and he himself had not previously anathematized the whole Church, it would have been fitting for us to abide by his sentence, to follow the example of ancient integrity which he offered us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Homanus","severity":"info","text":"The name 'Homanus' is likely a corruption or variant of 'Hormisdas' (pope 514–523), a key figure in the Acacian schism. The text refers to bishops gathered with him at Constantinople.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Chalcedonensi concilio","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the two natures of Christ and approved the Tome of Pope Leo I. Its authority was contested by Miaphysite factions, leading to the Acacian schism (484–519).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"episcopi Romani chirographis","severity":"info","text":"Facundus refers to written statements (chirographs) of a Roman bishop, likely Pope Vigilius (537–555), who vacillated during the Three Chapters controversy. The 'ambition' and 'venality' charges reflect Facundus's polemic against papal inconsistency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ob hoc ergo necessarium","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a shift from rhetorical questions to a justification of Facundus's own actions: withdrawal from communion and publicizing the earlier protests of eastern patriarchs and the Roman bishop's chirographs.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"Menas Constantinopolitanus","severity":"info","text":"Menas of Constantinople (536–552), Zoilus of Alexandria (540–551), Ephrem of Antioch (527–545), and Peter of Jerusalem (524–552) were patriarchs who initially resisted the condemnation of the Three Chapters under Emperor Justinian I, as Facundus notes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Homanus","severity":"caution","text":"The name 'Homanus' is uncertain; it may be a scribal error for 'Hormisdas' or another figure. The English draft retains it without correction, but the Latin text's reading is not fully secure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Homanus' is unclear; it may be a corruption of 'Hormisdas' or a different person.","The phrase 'cum Homano anti6 ite Constantinopolim congregati' contains a possible scribal error ('anti6 ite' may be garbled)."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"Nam priusquam hoc et ipse committerect, scribens de itinere Constantinopolitano episcopo, qui præjudicio magnæ synodi primus assensit, secd quem litteris suis præveniens ait: « Quapropter credidimus indicandum quod dominus filius noster elementissimus imperator per Leonem illustrem virum nos serenissimis hortatia affatibus, ut pacem quam Christus Dominus Deus et Salvator noster supra omnia holocausta diligit, vobiscum et cum universis fratribus el coepiscopis nostris, et custodiente stabili firmitate servemus. Quam piissimi prihcipis adhortationem libenter amplectimur. Sed si pacis bonum, sicut locum. sacerdotii tui convenit, sapienter attendas, el advertere et prædicare te necesse est quæ pax in Dei Ecclesia sit tenenda, cum Apostolus, qui Dominum nostrum spiritum in se loqui perhibuit ait: Pax Christi, quæ exsuperat omnem sensum, custodiat corda vestra et intelligentias vestras (Philip. IV. 7). Ipse ausem Christus Deus noster volens perfectæ * pacis iudicia demonstrare, dicit: Pacem meam reLinquo vobis, pacem meam do vobis: non quomodo mundus dat, ego do vobis (Joan. XIV, 27). Qualem enim mundus dare possit, ipse nos instruit per prophetam qui ait: Dicentes, pax, pax, eum non esset iax ( Jer. vi, I 4). Et ilud siluili ratione pensemus, quia in apostolorum actionibus de perfecta pace sic est de credentibus in Domino declaratum, quod erat in illis cor unum cl anima una (Act.","english":"For before he himself committed this, writing from the journey to the Constantinopolitan bishop, who first assented to the prejudice of the great synod, and whom he anticipated with his letters, saying: \"Therefore we believed it should be indicated that our most element lord, the emperor, through the illustrious man Leo, has urged us with most serene exhortations that we preserve the peace which Christ the Lord God and our Savior loves above all sacrifices, with you and with all our brothers and fellow bishops, and keep it with stable firmness. We gladly embrace the exhortation of the most pious prince. But if you wisely attend to the good of peace, as befits the dignity of your priesthood, it is necessary for you to consider and proclaim what peace is to be held in the Church of God, since the Apostle, who declared that our Lord spoke in him, says: 'The peace of Christ, which surpasses all understanding, keep your hearts and your minds' (Phil. 4:7). Moreover, Christ our God, wishing to show the signs of perfect peace, says: 'I leave you my peace, I give you my peace: not as the world gives, I give to you' (John 14:27). For what kind of peace the world can give, he himself instructs us through the prophet who says: 'Saying, peace, peace, when there was no peace' (Jer. 6:14). And let us consider with similar reasoning that in the Acts of the Apostles it is declared concerning perfect peace about those believing in the Lord, that there was in them one heart and one soul (Acts","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a long embedded quotation from a letter written by an unnamed bishop to the Constantinopolitan bishop, continuing the narrative of the previous passage. The quotation is introduced by 'scribens ... ait' and extends through the biblical citations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Philip. IV. 7","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Philip. IV. 7' is a Vetus Latina or early Vulgate reference to Philippians 4:7, but the quoted text ('Pax Christi... custodiat corda vestra') does not correspond to any known verse; it may be a conflation or a loose paraphrase.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. XIV, 27","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Joan. XIV, 27' refers to John 14:27, but the quoted words ('Pacem meam relinquo vobis, pacem meam do vobis') are not found in the canonical text; this is a non-biblical saying attributed to Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Jer. vi, 14","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Jer. vi, 14' is a misprint for Jeremiah 6:14; the quoted phrase 'Dicentes, pax, pax, cum non esset pax' is a paraphrase of the Vulgate's 'dicentes: Pax, pax, et non erat pax'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Act.","severity":"info","text":"The reference to 'Acts of the Apostles' with the phrase 'cor unum et anima una' echoes Acts 4:32, though the wording is not a direct quotation; it is a common patristic allusion to the unity of the early Christian community.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text contains several corruptions: 'secd' for 'sed', 'hortatia' for 'hortatione', 'el' for 'et', 'locum' for 'locum' (likely 'locum' is correct but contextually odd), and 'iax' for 'pax'. The English draft smooths these without comment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the bishop writing the letter is not specified in this passage; the context suggests it is a figure involved in the controversy around the Council of Chalcedon.","The phrase 'magnæ synodi' could refer to the Council of Chalcedon or another major synod; the text does not clarify."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"iv, 52). Multa ergo sunt quae de terrena et cœlesti pace disrernenda inveniamus scripta. Quir qna vos non credimus ignorare, sufficiat excerpsisse pauca de plurimis, ut magis tuæ fraternitatis posit æstimare judicium quæ pax potius a sacerdotibus sit tenenda. » Nonne perspicuum est ct evidenter apparet ei his quæ memoravimus, quod vi ipsi contrar i qui a nobis in multis dissentiunt, in hoc tamen consentiant, quod in talibus causis prævaricatorum sit vitanda communio? ct quod illi pax a Dei sacerdotibus in Ecclesia sit tenenda quæ statum ipsius non subvertat Ecclesiæ? subvertitur autem, si ejus de lide generalia constituta decretis aliorum sacerdotum qualibet occasione frangantur. Propter quod et illos qui talibus communicaverant veniens in regiam civitatem a communione suspendit h.","english":"Therefore there are many things which we find written about distinguishing between earthly and heavenly peace. Since we do not believe you are ignorant of these, let it suffice to have excerpted a few from many, so that your fraternity may better be able to assess which peace ought rather to be maintained by priests. Is it not clear and evidently apparent from those things we have recalled, that even those who disagree with us in many things are nevertheless in agreement on this, that in such cases the communion of transgressors must be avoided? And that the peace which is to be maintained by God's priests in the Church is that which does not subvert the state of the Church itself? But it is subverted if the general decrees concerning faith are broken by the decisions of other priests on any occasion. For this reason, when he came to the imperial city, he suspended from communion those who had communicated with such persons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"terrena et cœlesti pace","severity":"info","text":"Facundus contrasts earthly peace (political or social concord) with heavenly peace (ecclesiastical unity grounded in doctrinal truth), a distinction central to his argument that communion with transgressors must be avoided.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"prævaricatorum","severity":"info","text":"The term 'prævaricator' (transgressor) here refers to those who violate or undermine conciliar decrees on faith, a key category in Facundus's polemic against perceived doctrinal compromise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"veniens in regiam civitatem","severity":"info","text":"The 'imperial city' is Constantinople. The reference likely concerns a bishop (possibly the pope or a patriarch) who, upon arrival, suspended from communion those who had associated with transgressors, reflecting ongoing conflicts over the Three Chapters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Nonne perspicuum est...","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question marks a shift from citation to direct argument, reinforcing Facundus's claim that even opponents agree on avoiding communion with transgressors, thus strengthening his case against the condemnation of the Three Chapters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"generalia constituta decretis aliorum sacerdotum","severity":"info","text":"Facundus argues that general councils' decrees on faith cannot be overridden by later bishops' decisions, a principle that influenced later medieval conciliarist thought and debates on papal authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'he' who suspended from communion is not specified; it may refer to a bishop (possibly Pope Vigilius or another figure) acting against those who communicated with transgressors of the Three Chapters."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Qui sic rursus in memoratis suis litteris dicit: « Quando nobis non sit incognitum quia diaconus Stephanus tunc responsalis nostræ, cui per Dei gratiam præsidemus, Ecclesiæ, cum plurimis Christianis quandiu vixita tua se communione suspenderitl; et in Siciliensi insula constituti, fratre et coepiscopo nostro Datio referente, didicimus quod et ipse et alii consacerdoles nostri, et multi filii Ecclesiæ Christiani, a tua se nihilominus communione subtraxerint; et dum causas exorti quæceremus scandali, ante dic liS frater et coepiscopus noster respond hoc fraternitatis tuæ fecisse personam, quod a nullodecessorum tuorum decessorumque nostrorum temporibus qualibet fuisset ratione commissum. » Cernis quod non solus hic judex ejusque diaconus 1, sed et Datius Mediolanensis episcopus, cum aliis sacerdotibus, talium prævaricatorum communionem ferendam esse non duxerit? Quid igitur adhuc nobis de hoc quaestio commovetur, unde nec inter contradicentes invicem una est contradictio v nec inter dissentientes in mulis habetur ulla dissensio? Nam judex asserit quod invitus iilud protulerit judicatum a. Nos contra rc pondemns quod ultra per ambitionem pollicitatione facta peccaverit, nec ulla sustinuerit tormenta, quibus cessisse credatur. Cumque hoc invitum se fecisse asserat, rursus ibidem dicit quod ignorans fecerit.","english":"Who again in his aforementioned letter says: \"Since it is not unknown to us that the deacon Stephen, then our representative of the Church over which we preside by the grace of God, together with very many Christians, suspended himself from your communion as long as you lived; and, while established in the island of Sicily, we learned from the report of our brother and fellow bishop Datius that both he himself and our other fellow priests, and many sons of the Church who are Christians, likewise withdrew from your communion; and when we were seeking the causes of the arising scandal, our aforementioned brother and fellow bishop replied that this was done by the person of your fraternity, which had been committed by no reason in the times of any of your predecessors or our predecessors.\" Do you see that not only this judge and his deacon, but also Datius, bishop of Milan, together with other priests, considered that the communion of such transgressors should not be tolerated? Why, then, is a question still stirred up for us about this, where there is not even one contradiction among those contradicting each other, nor is there any disagreement among those who dissent in many things? For the judge asserts that he pronounced that judgment unwillingly. We respond on the contrary that he sinned further by making a promise out of ambition, and that he endured no torments to which he is believed to have yielded. And while he asserts that he did this unwillingly, he again says in the same place that he did it unknowingly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Qui sic rursus in memoratis suis litteris dicit","severity":"info","text":"Facundus continues his quotation of the judge's letter, which he began in the previous passage. The judge's self-defense is being cited to expose its contradictions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"responsalis","severity":"info","text":"Responsalis here means 'representative' or 'legate' of a church, a technical term in ecclesiastical administration for an envoy or agent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"Datius Mediolanensis episcopus","severity":"info","text":"Datius, bishop of Milan (mid-6th century), is cited as a witness who reported that many clergy and laity withdrew from communion with the judge. His involvement underscores the breadth of the controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Cernis quod non solus hic judex ... sed et Datius","severity":"info","text":"Facundus uses a rhetorical question ('Do you see...?') to drive home his argument that even the judge's own allies considered the transgressors' communion intolerable, thus undermining the judge's position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nec ulla sustinuerit tormenta, quibus cessisse credatur","severity":"caution","text":"Facundus denies that the judge endured any torture that would excuse his actions, but the judge's own claim of acting 'unwillingly' and 'unknowingly' introduces ambiguity about the factual basis of the coercion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"Facundus Hermianensis","severity":"info","text":"Facundus' Contra Mocianum was cited in later medieval canon law collections, notably in Gratian's Decretum, as a source on episcopal authority and the limits of ecclesiastical communion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'judex' (the judge) is not specified in this passage; it may refer to a civil or ecclesiastical judge involved in the controversy. The reading assumes it is the same figure criticized throughout the work.","The phrase 'invitus illud protulerit judicatum' could mean either 'unwillingly pronounced that judgment' or 'unwillingly brought forward that judgment'; the translation adopts the former as more natural."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Nos vero probamus non eum potuisse ignorantem facere, quod invitum se asserit admisisse. Post hæc etiam videri vult nihil in præjudicium Chalcedonensis egisse concilii. Cui nos suas excusationes opponimus: quia nisi hoc egisset quod præjudicaret, nequaquam se vcl de principum violenti a, vel de sua ignorantia purgare atque absolvere niteretur. Cum igitur multa inter nos de his atque aliis inveniatur esse dissensio, inde tamen convenit inler partes, et apud omnes sine ulla controversia constat, quod in talibus causis prævaricatorum sit communio vitanda. Denique nec Sorcius præcipuum decus partis ipsotum, et quem esse nisi cum talibus non deccret, huic sent ntiæ contradicit, imo vero el aliquid amplius ipse dicit. Nam scribens beato seni Boetho b, priusquam navigaret, quæ damnaverat resumpturus, anathema quod Africana concilia noa fecerunt, in eos protulit dicens: Anathematizo Eutychem cum omnibus sectatorihus ejus adjutoribusque ipsius, quicunque conantur tomum sancti concilii Chalcedonensis in aliquo infringere; et quicunque epistolam Ibæ quam illud sanctum concilium Chalcedonense suscepit, anathemat, anathema mihi est.","english":"We, however, prove that he could not have acted in ignorance, when he claims to have admitted something unwillingly. After this, he also wishes to appear to have done nothing to the prejudice of the Council of Chalcedon. To this we oppose his own excuses: because unless he had done something that would prejudice it, he would by no means strive to purge and absolve himself either by the violence of the princes or by his own ignorance. Since, therefore, much disagreement is found between us concerning these and other matters, yet it is agreed among the parties, and stands without any controversy before all, that in such cases the communion of transgressors is to be avoided. Finally, not even Sorcius, the chief ornament of that party, and who ought not to be except with such men, contradicts this opinion; indeed, he says something even more. For writing to the blessed elder Boethus, before he sailed, about to take up again what he had condemned, he pronounced an anathema, which the African councils did not make, against them, saying: I anathematize Eutyches with all his followers and his helpers, whoever attempts to infringe in any way the tome of the holy Council of Chalcedon; and whoever anathematizes the letter of Ibas which that holy Council of Chalcedon received, that anathema is anathema to me.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Nos vero probamus non eum potuisse ignorantem facere","severity":"info","text":"Facundus argues that the opponent's claim of ignorance is self-defeating: if he truly acted unwillingly, he could not have remained ignorant of the act.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Sorcius","severity":"info","text":"Sorcius is likely a variant spelling of 'Sorcius' or a corruption; the reference is to a figure of the opposing party, possibly a bishop or theologian, but the name is obscure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Africana concilia","severity":"info","text":"The African councils, likely those of Carthage in the 5th century, dealt with Donatist and Pelagian controversies; Facundus notes they did not pronounce the anathema Sorcius cites.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"none","severity":"info","text":"No direct scripture quotation is present; the passage focuses on conciliar authority and anathemas.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Post hæc etiam videri vult nihil in præjudicium Chalcedonensis egisse concilii","severity":"info","text":"Facundus transitions from rebutting the opponent's claim of ignorance to challenging his assertion of not prejudicing Chalcedon, using the opponent's own excuses as evidence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Anathematizo Eutychem cum omnibus sectatorihus ejus","severity":"info","text":"The anathema against Eutyches and his followers, citing the Tome of Chalcedon and the letter of Ibas, reflects post-Chalcedonian controversies over the Three Chapters, central to Facundus's polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The name 'Sorcius' is uncertain; it may be a textual corruption or a rare reference. The phrase 'priusquam navigaret' (before he sailed) is ambiguous as to whose voyage is meant."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"i Proinde si Modiano displicet in simili Nicæni concilii causa observantia llilarii et aliorum collegarum ejus, per quos orthodoxa fides in illa tempestate servata est atque ad nos intaminata pervenit; si displicet etiam sollicitudo et cautela sancti atquc doctissimi orthodoxi viri Hieronymi; si displicet in Chalcedonensis quoque concilii causa dudum nobis præbitum in Acacio a tantis præsulibus apostolicae sedis exemplum, universalis Ecclesiae consensione firmatum; si displicet quod in præsenti quoque ipsius concilii oppugnatione statuerunt Africana concilia; si displicet quod aliarum quoque provinciarum episcopi faciendum esse viderunt, sicut Illyrici atque Dalmatiæ:placeat vel quod ipse Yiglius, ve! quod ipse Sorcius sensit. quod in hujusmodi causis communio talium prævaricatorum vitanda sit. Idcirco beatus quoque Stephanus præsul apostolicæ sedis, cum sanctuui Cyprianum atque alios Afros episcopos, de baptizandis omnibus hæreticis decrevisse cognosceret, quamvis, ut dictum est, nullo interposito anathemate, neque adversus ulla concilii generalis antiquiora decreta aut conniventes hæreticis talem senentiam protulissent, continuo tainen ei denuninvit quod si qui hoc auderent, ab Ecclesia pellerentur: et Stephani potius quatn Cypri ni sententiam tenet Eccles a, non solum de nOli rebaptizandis hæreticis, verum etiam de rebaptizantibus non ferendis.","english":"Therefore, if it displeases Modianus that in a similar case concerning the Council of Nicaea the practice of Hilarius and his other colleagues, through whom the orthodox faith was preserved in that storm and reached us unstained, was observed; if it also displeases him that the solicitude and caution of the holy and most learned orthodox man Jerome were shown; if it displeases him that in the case of the Council of Chalcedon as well the example long ago given to us in Acacius by such great bishops of the Apostolic See, confirmed by the consensus of the universal Church, was set; if it displeases him what the African councils decreed in the present attack upon that same council; if it displeases him what the bishops of other provinces, such as Illyricum and Dalmatia, saw must be done: let it at least please him what Vigilius himself thought, or what Sorcius himself thought, that in such cases communion with such transgressors is to be avoided. For this reason the blessed Stephen, bishop of the Apostolic See, when he learned that the blessed Cyprian and other African bishops had decreed that all heretics should be rebaptized, although, as has been said, they had pronounced such a sentence with no anathema interposed, nor against any older decrees of a general council or against those conniving with heretics, nevertheless immediately announced to him that if anyone should dare this, they would be expelled from the Church: and the Church holds to the sentence of Stephen rather than that of Cyprian, not only concerning the non-rebaptizing of heretics, but also concerning the non-tolerating of those who rebaptize.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Hilarius","severity":"info","text":"Hilarius of Arles (c. 401–449) was a Gallic bishop and papal vicar who defended orthodox Christology against Nestorian and Eutychian tendencies; his 'practice' here refers to his policy of refusing communion to those who rejected Nicaea.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Acacius","severity":"info","text":"Acacius of Constantinople (d. 489) was condemned by Pope Felix III for the Henotikon; the 'example' refers to the Roman see's excommunication of Acacius, later upheld by the Council of Constantinople (484) and confirmed by universal consensus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Stephen I","severity":"info","text":"Pope Stephen I (254–257) opposed Cyprian of Carthage on rebaptism of heretics; the controversy is recorded in Cyprian's letters and Eusebius' Church History. Stephen threatened excommunication for those who rebaptized, a position later adopted by the Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"prævaricatorum","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'prævaricator' (here plural) denotes a transgressor or one who colludes with error; in ecclesiastical polemic it often implies betrayal of orthodoxy by feigned compliance, not merely personal sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"si displicet ... placeat","severity":"info","text":"The passage builds a rhetorical climax: five conditional clauses ('si displicet') listing authorities Modianus rejects, then a concessive imperative ('placeat') urging acceptance of Vigilius and Sorcius. The pattern underscores Facundus' argument from cumulative precedent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Vigilius","severity":"info","text":"Vigilius of Thapsus (late 5th c.) was an African bishop and anti-Arian polemicist; his view on avoiding communion with transgressors aligns with Facundus' own position. Sorcius is otherwise unknown; possibly a scribal error for 'Fortunius' or a local African figure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Sorcius' is uncertain; no known bishop or writer of that name is attested. It may be a corruption of 'Fortunius' or a local African figure.","The phrase 'nullo interposito anathemate' is ambiguous: it could mean Cyprian's decree lacked an explicit anathema clause, or that no anathema was pronounced against those who disagreed."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"Sed vir prudentissimus Augustinus, ad orguendos de suo schismate Donatistas, qui auctoritate bcati Cypriani sacrilegium quo baptisma iterant conantur defendere, sufficere credidit ejus exemplum: quia cum aliter quam plures aliarum provinciarum episcopi de baptismo saperet, non tamen sc quemadmodum ipsi Do. natistæ ab Ecclesia segregavit. Segregaret autem, si inter se ac dissentientes anathema definisset 2. Hoc igitur exemplum beati Cyptiani hujus assertionem nihil adj tvat, ut videtis, sed quomodo nos potius adjuvet, videre debetis. Dicimus ergo quoniam sicut quamvis rebapt zantes Donatistas damnemus ab Ecclesia separatos, non tamen damnamus Cyprianum et socios ejus, qui nullius anathematis interpositione ab Ecclesia se diviserunt, cum de baptismate definirent quod nunc videtur occasionem Donatistarum errori dcdisse. Ita quamvis damnemus Nestorianos ab Ecclesia separatos, non tamen damnamus Mopsucstenum Theodorum, qui nullius anathematis interpositione ab Ecclesia ' divisit, vel si aliquid scripsit, quod forte nunc videtur occasionem Nestorianorum errori dedisse.","english":"But the most prudent man, Augustine, thought it sufficient, in order to confound the Donatists concerning their schism—who try to defend the sacrilege of rebaptism by the authority of the blessed Cyprian—to cite his example: because although he held a different opinion on baptism than many other bishops from other provinces, he nevertheless did not separate himself from the Church as the Donatists themselves did. He would have separated, however, if he had defined an anathema between himself and those who disagreed. Therefore, this example of the blessed Cyprian does not help this man’s assertion, as you see, but you ought to see how it rather helps us. We say, therefore, that just as, although we condemn the rebaptizing Donatists as separated from the Church, we do not condemn Cyprian and his associates, who did not divide themselves from the Church by the interposition of any anathema when they defined concerning baptism what now seems to have given occasion to the error of the Donatists, so also, although we condemn the Nestorians as separated from the Church, we do not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, who did not divide himself from the Church by the interposition of any anathema, even if he wrote something that perhaps now seems to have given occasion to the error of the Nestorians.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed vir prudentissimus Augustinus","severity":"info","text":"Facundus invokes Augustine's authority to argue that Cyprian's dissent on rebaptism did not separate him from the Church, unlike the Donatists.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"anathematis interpositione","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'by the interposition of any anathema' is key: Facundus argues that formal anathematization, not mere disagreement, constitutes schism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Donatistas","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists were a rigorist North African sect that rebaptized converts; Augustine wrote extensively against them, notably in 'De Baptismo contra Donatistas'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"Mopsucstenum Theodorum","severity":"info","text":"Facundus parallels Cyprian and Theodore of Mopsuestia: both held views later used by heretics (Donatists, Nestorians) but were not themselves schismatics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Nestorianos","severity":"info","text":"The Nestorians, condemned at Ephesus (431), were associated with Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology; Facundus defends Theodore against posthumous condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"orguendos","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'orguendos' is likely a scribal error for 'arguendos' (to refute), as the sense requires; the English draft reads 'confound'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'orguendos' is corrupt; the intended reading is probably 'arguendos' (to refute).","The clause 'quomodo nos potius adjuvet' could be read as 'how it rather helps us' or 'how it helps us instead'; the English draft takes the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"Et sicut nobis sufficit sententias de baptismo Cypriani ct sociorum ejus respuero, nec sub anathemate condemnare, ita si quid forte minus intelligens Theodorus male scripsit, sufficit nobis respuere, nec sub anathemate condemnare: quoniam hanc reverentiam semper Ecclesia detulit in premio pacis suae atque honore defunctis, ut non solum eos qui forte in talibus quæstion bus per ignorantiam humanae infirmitatis errassent, verum nec ipsa eorum dicta, sicut hæreticorum,sub anathemale condemnaret. Hæreticum enim non humanae infirmitatis ignorantia, sed pervicacia facit. Unde beatus Augustinus in libro deCatechizandis Rudibus: Quanquam, inquit, et illi qui catholici ex hac vita migrarunt, et aliquid litterarum Christianarum posteris reliquerunt, in quibusdam locis opusculorum suorum, vel non intellecti, vel, sicuti est humana infirmitas, minus valentes acie mentis abditiora penetrarc, et verisimilitudine a veritate aberrantes, praesumptoribus et audacibus fuerunt occasioni ad aliquam hæresim moliendam atque gignendam. »Catholicos itaque dicit ex hac vita migrasse cathol cus Augustinus, qui in Ecclesia constituti per humanam infirmitatem minus valuerunt acie mentis abditiora penetrare, et veris militudine a veritate aberraverunt: nec vult eos hxreticos dici, quamvis praesumptoribus et audacibus occasioni fuerunt ad aliquam hæresim moliendam atque gignendam.","english":"And just as it suffices for us to reject the opinions on baptism of Cyprian and his associates, without condemning them under anathema, so too, if perhaps Theodore, understanding less, wrote something badly, it suffices for us to reject it, without condemning him under anathema: because the Church has always shown this reverence, as a reward for its peace and in honor of the departed, that not only those who might have erred in such questions through ignorance of human weakness, but even their statements themselves, it would not condemn under anathema as it does those of heretics. For it is not ignorance of human weakness, but obstinacy, that makes a heretic. Hence the blessed Augustine, in his book *On Catechizing the Unlearned*, says: \"Although,\" he says, \"even those who, as Catholics, have departed from this life and have left some Christian writings to posterity, in certain places of their works, either not understood, or, as is human weakness, being less able to penetrate the more hidden truths with the keenness of the mind, and, straying from the truth through verisimilitude, have been an occasion for presumptuous and audacious men to contrive and beget some heresy.\" Thus Augustine calls those who have departed from this life as Catholics, who, while established in the Church, through human weakness were less able to penetrate the more hidden truths with the keenness of the mind, and strayed from the truth through verisimilitude: and he does not wish them to be called heretics, even though they were an occasion for presumptuous and audacious men to contrive and beget some heresy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Facundus argues that the Church honors the departed by not anathematizing their erroneous statements, distinguishing error from heresy by the presence of obstinacy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"pervicacia","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'pervicacia' (obstinacy) is the key criterion distinguishing a heretic from one who errs through human weakness; this echoes Augustine's own usage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Facundus cites Augustine's lost work 'De Catechizandis Rudibus' (On Catechizing the Unlearned), a text not extant; the quotation is preserved only here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Theodore likely means Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose writings were controversial in the Three Chapters dispute; Facundus defends him as a Catholic who erred in ignorance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Facundus parallels Cyprian's erroneous baptismal views with Theodore's errors, both to be rejected but not anathematized, following Augustine's precedent with the Donatists.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has 'quæstion bus' and 'anathemale' which are scribal errors for 'quaestionibus' and 'anathemate'; the sense is clear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Theodorus' is not specified in the text; the reading as Theodore of Mopsuestia is based on context and Facundus's known defense of him."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"Et ideo beatum Cyprianum ejusqne collegas, qui per humanam infirmitatem in quæstione baptismatis erraverunt, vel Theodorum Mopsuestenum,si a veritate in aliquo forte aberrasse monstretur, et de hac vita in ipso positus errore migrasse, hæreticos non dicimus, quos usque I in fine mansisse in Ecclesia catholica non negamus. Frustra igitur nescio qua iste ad causam non pertinentia soliie sibi colligebat exempla, quibus probare nitebatur sæpe dictum Mopsuestenum Theodorum juste ac regulariter fuisse damnatum. Non enim, si quisquam damnandus 3episcopus, qui moriens hæreticum in suis facultatibus testamento fecit hæredem, acie mentis ut hoc faceret abditiora enetrare non valuit, aut verisimilitudine a veritate aberravit; sed manifestum facinus non infirmitatis ignorantia, sed voluntatis pravitate commisit. Inde est quod Philippo dicenti: Domine, ostende nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis (Joan. XIV, 8), impune cessit tanto tempore Christum non cognovisse. Ananiæ vero et Sapphiræ subtrahentium de pretio sui praedii commissum paulo ante delictum mortis poena est protinus consecuta. Aliter itaque judicatur a Domino simplex pictatis ignorantia, et aliter duplex conscientia pravitatis. Et apostolica quidem sedes per beatum Gelasium nefas judicat post mortem condemnare quempiam in Ecclesiae pace defunctum, cum dicit: Quod super nostrae facultatis est modulum, divino judicio relinquamus.","english":"Therefore, we do not call heretics the blessed Cyprian and his colleagues, who through human weakness erred in the question of baptism, or Theodore of Mopsuestia, if perhaps he is shown to have deviated from the truth in some matter and to have departed this life while still in that error, since we do not deny that they remained in the Catholic Church until the end. In vain, then, does this man collect for himself some examples that have no bearing on the case, by which he tried to prove that the oft-mentioned Theodore of Mopsuestia was justly and regularly condemned. For it is not the same if some bishop to be condemned, when dying, made a heretic the heir of his property in his will, and was unable to penetrate the more hidden aspects of the mind to do this, or deviated from the truth through plausibility; rather, he committed a manifest crime not from the ignorance of weakness, but from the depravity of will. Hence it is that when Philip said, \"Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us\" (John 14:8), it went unpunished that he had not known Christ for so long. But for Ananias and Sapphira, who withheld part of the price of their land, the penalty of death immediately followed the crime committed shortly before. Therefore, the Lord judges simple ignorance of piety in one way, and duplicitous consciousness of depravity in another. And the Apostolic See, through the blessed Gelasius, judges it a sin to condemn anyone after death who died in the peace of the Church, when it says: \"As far as our capacity allows, let us leave it to divine judgment.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"hæreticos non dicimus","severity":"info","text":"Facundus denies the label 'heretic' to Cyprian and Theodore, distinguishing error from heresy. This is central to his argument that posthumous condemnation is unjust.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. XIV, 8","severity":"info","text":"The citation of John 14:8 (Philip's request) illustrates that ignorance of Christ's divinity went unpunished, contrasting with the deliberate sin of Ananias and Sapphira.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"beatam Gelasium","severity":"info","text":"Pope Gelasius I (492–496) is cited for the principle that the dead in communion with the Church should not be condemned posthumously. This reflects late 5th-century papal authority on procedural justice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"Ananiæ vero et Sapphiræ","severity":"info","text":"The story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11) is used as a biblical parallel for swift divine punishment of deliberate fraud, contrasting with Philip's ignorance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Aliter itaque judicatur... aliter","severity":"info","text":"This antithetical structure contrasts two modes of divine judgment: simple ignorance versus duplicitous depravity, reinforcing Facundus's argument for leniency toward Theodore.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"apostolica quidem sedes per beatum Gelasium","severity":"info","text":"Facundus invokes the authority of the Apostolic See to support his position, indicating that the principle against posthumous condemnation was recognized in the 6th-century Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'solie sibi colligebat exempla' is obscure; 'solie' may be a scribal error for 'sollicite' (diligently) or 'solus' (alone). The translation assumes 'sollicite'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"Non autem nobis poterunt imputare prævaricationis offensam, si viventibus remittamus, quod EcclesiæDeo largiente possibile est, qui nos etiam mortuis aut veniam. aut condemnationem dare poscunt, quod nobis possibile non esse manifestum est: quia cum dictum sit: Quæ ligaveritis super terram, erunt ligata et in cælo (Matth. XVIII, 18), quos non esse jam constat super terram, non humano, sed suo judicio reservavit. Nec audet Ecclesia sibimet vindicare quod ipsis beatis apostolis conspicit non fuise concessum. Si enim licet ligari mortuos, licet et solvi; et si licet mortuis damnationem inferre, licet et veniam dare. » Sed si forte cuiquam videtur illam tenere sententiam qua damnandi creduntur aJiqui in Ecclesiae pace defuncti, et non magis hanc apostolicx sedis quæ soli hæc intelligit divino judicio reservatum, et concesserit4quoniam si licct ligari mortuos, licet et solvi, et si licet mortuis damnationem inferre, licet et veniam dare: consequens non est ut ei propterea videatur etiam Mopsuestenus Theodotus esse damnandus. Non enim eos impetit illa sententia qui, sicut beatus Cyprianus cjusque socii, per humanam infirmitatem minus potuerunt ncie mentis abditiora penetrare, et veisimilitudine a veritate aberraverunt, sed eos potius qui probantur scientes volentesque peccasse.","english":"But they will not be able to charge us with the offense of prevarication, if we remit to the living what is possible for the Church, with God granting it, since they demand that we give either pardon or condemnation even to the dead, which is manifestly impossible for us: because, since it has been said: \"What you bind on earth will be bound also in heaven\" (Matt. 18:18), He has reserved for His own judgment, not for human judgment, those who are no longer on earth. Nor does the Church dare to claim for itself what it sees was not granted even to the blessed apostles. For if it is permitted to bind the dead, it is also permitted to loose them; and if it is permitted to inflict condemnation on the dead, it is also permitted to grant pardon. But if perhaps it seems to anyone that the opinion is to be held by which some who died in the peace of the Church are believed to be condemned, and not rather this opinion of the apostolic see, which alone understands that these things are reserved for divine judgment, and if he grants that since it is permitted to bind the dead, it is also permitted to loose them, and if it is permitted to inflict condemnation on the dead, it is also permitted to grant pardon, it does not follow that he should therefore think that Theodore of Mopsuestia is also to be condemned. For that opinion does not attack those who, like the blessed Cyprian and his colleagues, through human weakness were less able to penetrate the more hidden recesses of the mind and, through plausibility, strayed from the truth, but rather those who are proven to have sinned knowingly and willingly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Quæ ligaveritis super terram, erunt ligata et in cælo (Matth. XVIII, 18)","severity":"info","text":"Facundus cites Matthew 18:18 in a form that differs from the Vulgate, which reads 'quae alligaveritis super terram, erunt ligata et in caelo'. The variant 'ligaveritis' may reflect an Old Latin version or a scribal adaptation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"prævaricationis offensam","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'prævaricationis offensam' (offense of prevarication) carries legal and ecclesiastical overtones, implying betrayal of duty or faith. Facundus uses it to reject the charge that leniency toward the dead constitutes a breach of ecclesiastical discipline.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Mopsuestenus Theodotus","severity":"info","text":"Facundus refers to Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428) as 'Mopsuestenus Theodotus', a variant name. Theodore was a key Antiochene exegete posthumously condemned in the Three Chapters controversy (553), which is the immediate context of Facundus's defense.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"apostolicx sedis","severity":"info","text":"Facundus appeals to the 'apostolic see' (Rome) as the authority that reserves judgment of the dead to God. This reflects his strategy in the Three Chapters controversy to align with Roman tradition against imperial and conciliar condemnations of deceased theologians.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Non autem ... Sed si forte","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a negative assertion (the Church cannot be charged with prevarication) to a conditional argument ('Sed si forte cuiquam videtur...'), constructing a logical reductio: if one grants the power to bind and loose the dead, then Theodore cannot be singled out for condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"concesserit4quoniam","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text at 'concesserit4quoniam' shows a probable scribal corruption or editorial insertion (the numeral '4' intrudes). The intended reading is likely 'concesserit quoniam', but the passage may be garbled in transmission.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'concesserit4quoniam' is corrupt; the intended syntax is uncertain.","The reference to 'apostolicx sedis' may be a scribal error for 'apostolicae sedis'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"Insuper et notum est quod de hac Theodori causa tum fuer judicatum, cum Apolinaristæ progenitores Acephalorum, cum quibusdam dictorum ejus capitulis eum quærerent abdiiari, et a Joanne Antiocheno atque orientali concilio, nec non Cyrillo Alexandrino, et Proclo Constantinopolitano repulsi sunt. Sed nunc in præjudicium magnæ synodi Chalcedonensis resuscitatur ejus quæstio ante centum et viginti annos finita et oblivioni jam tradita. Cui praejudiCio quoaudiunt quæ scripta sunt, causam vero pro qua scripta sunt non requirunt","english":"Moreover, it is known that judgment was rendered in this case of Theodorus at the time when the Apollinarists, the progenitors of the Acephali, sought to have him condemned on the basis of certain of his chapters, and were repelled by John of Antioch and the Eastern Council, as well as by Cyril of Alexandria and Proclus of Constantinople. But now, to the prejudice of the great Council of Chalcedon, his case is revived, after having been concluded and consigned to oblivion one hundred and twenty years ago. To this prejudice, they listen to what was written, but do not inquire into the reason for which they were written.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Apolinaristae progenitores Acephalorum","severity":"info","text":"The Apollinarists, followers of Apollinaris of Laodicea, were considered heretical for denying Christ's full humanity. The Acephali were a radical Monophysite group that rejected the Council of Chalcedon; Facundus links them to show the continuity of opposition to Theodore's condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"ante centum et viginti annos","severity":"info","text":"Facundus states that Theodore's case was settled 120 years before his writing, placing the original judgment around the 430s, consistent with the events involving John of Antioch, Cyril, and Proclus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"praejudicium","severity":"info","text":"Praejudicium here means 'prejudice' in the legal sense of a prior judgment that damages a later case. Facundus argues that reviving Theodore's case undermines the authority of Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Cui praejudicio quoaudiunt","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text is slightly corrupt: 'quoaudiunt' likely stands for 'quo audiunt' or 'quod audiunt'. The sense is that opponents listen to the writings but ignore their context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"magnae synodi Chalcedonensis","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Chalcedon (451) was a key authority for defenders of dyophysite Christology. Facundus argues that reviving Theodore's case undermines its prestige, a common tactic in the Three Chapters controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'quoaudiunt' is likely a scribal error for 'quod audiunt' or 'quo audiunt'; the translation follows the latter reading.","The identity of 'they' (qui) is not explicit but refers to Facundus's opponents in the Three Chapters debate."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}