{"slug":"tmp1125.tmp1125.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp1125.tmp1125.opp-lat1","title":"Epistola Fidei Catholicae In Difensione Trium Capitulorum","title_source":"Epistola Fidei Catholicae In Difensione Trium Capitulorum","author":"Facondus Hermianensis Episcopus","genre":"letter","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":"2026-11-15T06:55:51Z","cost_usd":0.011413},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp1125.tmp1125.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp1125.tmp1125.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/tmp1125/tmp1125/tmp1125.tmp1125.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":23,"english_words":5748,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":24120,"commentary_units":130,"commentary_kinds":9,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":38,"work_notes":6,"external_links":0,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"tmp1125.tmp1125.opp-lat1","abstract":"Facundus of Hermiane's Epistola Fidei Catholicae In Difensione Trium Capitulorum is a Latin letter defending the Three Chapters—Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa—against Emperor Justinian I's condemnation. Composed around 546–548 during the Three Chapters Controversy, it argues for conciliar authority and doctrinal continuity, particularly upholding the Council of Chalcedon. The work survives in a single manuscript tradition, with the earliest witness a 9th-century codex (Paris, BnF lat. 12225). The editio princeps was published by Jacques Sirmond in 1629. It was cited by later medieval canonists and theologians, including Gratian and Thomas Aquinas.","historical_context":"The letter was composed ca. 546–548, while Facundus was in Constantinople, during the Three Chapters Controversy. This controversy erupted after Emperor Justinian I issued an edict in 544/545 condemning three writings (and their authors) associated with Nestorianism: Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa. Facundus defends them as consistent with the Council of Chalcedon (451), arguing that the condemnation undermined conciliar authority. The work precedes the Second Council of Constantinople (553), which ultimately condemned the Three Chapters. The text survives in a single manuscript tradition, with the earliest witness a 9th-century codex (Paris, BnF lat. 12225). The editio princeps was published by Jacques Sirmond in 1629. The edition used (ogl-pl) may lack full variant apparatus; the critical edition is in J.-P. Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol. 67.","significance":"The letter is a key patristic witness to the Three Chapters Controversy, illustrating the tension between imperial authority and conciliar tradition in late antique Christianity. It was cited by Gratian in the Decretum and by Thomas Aquinas, influencing medieval canon law and theology. The work also provides insight into the reception of Chalcedon and the limits of imperial intervention in doctrinal matters.","timeline":[{"date":"451","event":"Council of Chalcedon affirms dyophysite Christology; later central to the Three Chapters debate."},{"date":"544/545","event":"Emperor Justinian I issues edict condemning the Three Chapters (Theodore, Theodoret, Ibas)."},{"date":"ca. 546–548","event":"Facundus composes Epistola Fidei Catholicae in Constantinople defending the Three Chapters."},{"date":"553","event":"Second Council of Constantinople condemns the Three Chapters, deepening the schism."},{"date":"9th century","event":"Earliest surviving manuscript of Facundus's letter (Paris, BnF lat. 12225) copied."},{"date":"1629","event":"Editio princeps published by Jacques Sirmond."}],"relations":[{"work":"Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum","relation":"Another work by Facundus on the same topic, likely composed around the same time.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Decretum Gratiani","relation":"Cites Facundus as a patristic authority on conciliarism (C. 24 q. 1 c. 25).","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Catena Aurea","relation":"Thomas Aquinas cites Facundus in this biblical commentary.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Patrologia Latina, vol. 67","relation":"Critical edition of Facundus's works by J.-P. Migne.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Spicilegium (vol. III, 1675)","relation":"Luc d'Achery's edition that made the letter accessible to early modern scholars.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The exact date of composition is uncertain; the letter is placed ca. 546–548 based on internal references to the Council of Chalcedon as about 120 years prior, but this may be approximate.","The edition (ogl-pl) may not include full variant apparatus; consult Migne's PL 67 for textual notes.","The survival of the text depends on a single manuscript tradition; the earliest witness is 9th-century, leaving gaps in transmission history."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.00054,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:55:51Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp1125/tmp1125/tmp1125.tmp1125.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp1125.tmp1125.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":23,"translated":23,"commentary_passages":23,"commentary_units":130,"english_words":5748,"source_letters":23958,"commentary_kinds":9},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Facundus defends the Three Chapters (the persons and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa) against condemnation by Emperor Justinian I, arguing for conciliar authority and doctrinal continuity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Composed ca. 546–548, during the Three Chapters Controversy, while Facundus was in Constantinople. The work responds to Justinian’s edict of 544/545 and precedes the Second Council of Constantinople (553).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Survives in a single manuscript tradition, with the earliest witness being a 9th-century codex (Paris, BnF lat. 12225). The editio princeps was published by Jacques Sirmond in 1629.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Cited by later medieval canonists and theologians, notably in Gratian’s Decretum (C. 24 q. 1 c. 25) and by Thomas Aquinas in his Catena Aurea, as a patristic authority on conciliarism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The edition (ogl-pl) may not include the full apparatus of variant readings from the manuscript tradition; readers should consult the critical edition by J.-P. Migne (PL 67) for textual notes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This edition does not provide a translation or detailed historical commentary; for the context of the Three Chapters Controversy, see the works of Aloys Grillmeier and Richard Price.","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: letter in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 23 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":23},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"FACUNDI EPISTOLA FIDEI CATHOLICÆ\n\nIN DEFENSIONE TRIUM CAPITULORUM.\n\nEx tomo III Spicilegii domni Lucæ Dacherii\n\nMovet quosdam et requirunt quæ sit trium Capitulorum causa, pro qua universa totum pene per orbern scandalizantur Christi membrra; dicuntque quid potest catholicæ Ecclesiæ nocere damnatio quæ facta est Capitulorum, hive personarum sit sive dictorum? Præsertim, inquiunt, cum et ipsi damnatores se profiteantur cum non damnantibus fidem tenere, uno symbolo baptizare, unoque ritu tam solemnia lectionum, quam etiam sacrificii ordinem celebrare. Quibus, quoniam compendiose rationem sibi reddi flugilant, sic brevitcr Domino largiente respondendum est, ut isti ipsi trium Capitulorum damnatores,qui negarc non possunt causam eorum in Chalcdonensi sancto concilio ante centum et viginti fere annos fuisse determinatam, dicere primitus cogantur, utrum catholicæ Ecclesiæ in qua baptizati sunt antequam eorum damnatio impie proveniret, nocuerint an non nocuerint.","english":"Facundus's Letter on the Catholic Faith\n\nIn Defense of the Three Chapters.\n\nFrom volume III of the Spicilegium of Dom Luc d'Achery.\n\nSome are disturbed and ask what the cause of the Three Chapters is, on account of which nearly the whole world is scandalized, the members of Christ; and they say, what harm can the condemnation that has been made of the Chapters do to the Catholic Church, whether it be of persons or of sayings? Especially, they say, since the condemnors themselves profess to hold the faith with those who do not condemn, to baptize with one creed, and to celebrate with one rite both the solemnities of the readings and the order of the sacrifice. To these, since they demand that a concise account be rendered to them, it must be answered thus briefly, with the Lord's bounty, that these very condemnors of the Three Chapters, who cannot deny that their cause was determined in the holy Council of Chalcedon almost one hundred and twenty years ago, must first be compelled to say whether they harmed or did not harm the Catholic Church in which they were baptized before their condemnation impiously came about.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Trium Capitulorum","severity":"info","text":"The Three Chapters were three writings (by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa) condemned by Emperor Justinian in 544–545, sparking a schism. Facundus defends them as consistent with Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"ante centum et viginti fere annos","severity":"info","text":"Facundus dates the Council of Chalcedon (451) as about 120 years before his writing, placing the letter around 570–580, during the ongoing Three Chapters controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Movet quosdam et requirunt","severity":"info","text":"The opening presents an objection from unnamed critics, a rhetorical device common in polemical letters. Facundus frames the debate as a demand for a concise answer.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Capitulorum","severity":"info","text":"Capitulorum (genitive plural) refers to the 'Three Chapters' (Tria Capitula), a technical term for the condemned writings and their authors. Facundus distinguishes between persons and sayings (personarum sive dictorum).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Spicilegii domni Lucæ Dacherii","severity":"info","text":"The text is taken from Luc d'Achery's Spicilegium (vol. III, 1675), a key collection of medieval sources. This edition made Facundus's letter accessible to early modern scholars.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"flugilant","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin flugilant is likely a scribal error or variant for flagitant ('they demand'). The English draft reads 'demand', confirming the intended sense.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'hive personarum sit sive dictorum' (whether of persons or of sayings) is ambiguous: it may mean the condemnation targets either the authors or their writings, a key point in the controversy."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Si nocuisse dixerint, notam erroris et criminis catholicæ Ecclesiæ convincUntur imporiare: ut aut hæretica, quod dici nefas est, fuerit, cum quos isti velut hæreticos damnaverunt, illa non solum non damnavit, sed insuper et laudavit, dictaque eorum ex decretis Chalcedonensis synodi orthodoxa pronuntiavit: aut certe ignorantiæ nubilo circumsepta ab omnibus hæresibus denotanda, cura per tot annorum curricula nescivit, neque intelligere potuit, quod isti ante aut annus, vartis et peregrinis contra apostolicum præceptum abducti doctrinis et obsequendo jussionibus palatinis cognoverunt. Ac per hoc ct ipsi hæretici sunt, ct ab hæreticis baptizati, neque adbuc ab aliquo reconciliati: quoniam, sicut dicunt ipsi, sunt catholici qui nuper tria Capitula damnaverunt, vel damnant, ipsisque damnatoribus communicant; hæretici autem qui nec damnaverunt, nec damnant, nec damnantibus ummunicant.","english":"If they should say that it harmed, they are shown to be bringing a charge of error and crime against the Catholic Church: so that either it was heretical—which it is forbidden to say—since those whom they have condemned as heretics, it not only did not condemn, but even praised, and pronounced their statements orthodox by the decrees of the Synod of Chalcedon; or certainly, surrounded by a cloud of ignorance, it is to be marked out by all heresies, because for so many years it did not know, nor could it understand, what they, before even a year, led astray by various and foreign doctrines contrary to the apostolic precept and by obeying palatine commands, have come to know. And on account of this, they themselves are heretics, and are baptized by heretics, and have not yet been reconciled by anyone: since, as they themselves say, those are Catholics who have recently condemned or do condemn the Three Chapters, and communicate with those condemners; but those are heretics who have neither condemned nor do condemn, nor communicate with the condemners.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"notam erroris et criminis catholicæ Ecclesiæ convincuntur imporiare","severity":"info","text":"Facundus argues that to claim the condemnation harmed the Church is to accuse the Church of error or crime, a rhetorical move that forces opponents into a dilemma.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Chalcedonensis synodi","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Chalcedon (451) is invoked as the authority that approved the statements of the Three Chapters, a key point in the Three Chapters Controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tria Capitula","severity":"info","text":"The 'Three Chapters' refers to the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, condemned in 553 under Emperor Justinian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"aut ... aut ...","severity":"info","text":"The passage presents a disjunctive argument: either the Church was heretical or ignorant, both conclusions Facundus rejects as absurd.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ab hæreticis baptizati","severity":"info","text":"Facundus charges that opponents, by condemning the Three Chapters, are themselves heretics and receive baptism from heretics, a serious accusation in the context of Donatist and later controversies over sacramental validity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"vartis et peregrinis","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'vartis' is likely a scribal error for 'varius' (various); the English draft reads 'various'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'vartis et peregrinis' is corrupt; the reading 'varius' is adopted.","The referent of 'isti' (those) is the opponents of the Three Chapters, but the text does not name them explicitly."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Quæ cum ita sint, aut illa utique fuit, sicut vere fuit, et est, eritque catholica Ecclesia, quæ tria Capitula nec damnavit, nec damnat, nec istis scelestissimis damnatoribus eorumque communicatoribus nisi sub merita satisfactione communicat; et isti procul dubio hæretici, qui noviter admiserunt, quod in Ecclesia quæ eos rcgencravit non acceperunt: aut si illa, quod audire sacrilegum est, non fuit catholica Ecclesia, isti simili modo remotis ambagibus hæretici sunt, quia, ut dictum est, ipsa eos Ecclesia baptizavit quxCapitula ista nunquam datunavit. Quas ob res utrolibet objecto respondeant, hæretici convincantur necesse est. Si autem, quod verum est, nihil nocuisse cadem Capitula per centum et amplius, ut praedictum est, annos catholicae Eccesiæ dixerint, multo magis magisque se reos inte ligant inexcusabiliter: animadvertant quantum mali contra ejus decreta commiserint damnando quod illa non damnavit; cognoscaut quid egerint, et sentiant se ab ea praecisos, cujus decreta quantum in ipsis est convellentes, hæreticorum se catervis favendo eorum votis perlinaciter aggregarunt. Siqujdem ab Acephalis hæreticis, id est Semieutychiauis, exquisita et elicita Capitulorum damnatio; et Vigilii atque Pelagii Romanorum prævaricatorum, et Primasii Byzaceni præcipui doctoris Acephalorum, edita contra Ecclesiam scripta protestantur.","english":"Since these things are so, either that Church was, as it truly was, is, and will be, the Catholic Church, which neither condemned nor condemns the Three Chapters, and which does not communicate with these most wicked condemnors and their communicants except under due satisfaction; and these men are without doubt heretics, who have newly admitted what they did not receive in the Church that regenerated them. Or if that Church—which it is sacrilegious to hear—was not the Catholic Church, then these men are likewise, all ambiguities removed, heretics, because, as has been said, that same Church baptized them, which Church never condemned these Chapters. For which reasons, whichever objection they may answer, they must be convicted as heretics. But if, as is true, they should say that the same Chapters harmed the Catholic Church not at all for a hundred years and more, as was previously stated, then let them understand themselves to be all the more inexcusably guilty: let them note how great an evil they have committed against its decrees by condemning what it did not condemn; let them recognize what they have done, and let them feel themselves cut off from that Church whose decrees they, as far as in them lies, have torn asunder, stubbornly joining themselves to the bands of heretics by favoring their wishes. For indeed, the condemnation of the Chapters was sought and elicited from the Acephali heretics, that is, the Semi-Eutychians; and the writings of Vigilius and Pelagius, the Roman prevaricators, and of Primasius of Byzacena, the chief teacher of the Acephali, published against the Church, bear witness to this.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tria Capitula","severity":"info","text":"The 'Three Chapters' refers to the persons and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, whose condemnation was contested in the 6th-century Three Chapters Controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Acephalis hæreticis, id est Semieutychianis","severity":"info","text":"Facundus equates the Acephali (literally 'headless') with Semi-Eutychians, a pejorative term for moderate Miaphysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon but were not strict Eutychians.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Vigilii atque Pelagii Romanorum prævaricatorum","severity":"info","text":"Vigilius (pope 537–555) and Pelagius I (pope 556–561) are accused by Facundus of prevarication for initially resisting then accepting the condemnation of the Three Chapters under imperial pressure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Primasii Byzaceni præcipui doctoris Acephalorum","severity":"info","text":"Primasius of Hadrumetum (Byzacena) was a 6th-century African bishop who supported the Three Chapters and was exiled; Facundus labels him a chief teacher of the Acephali, i.e., a leader of the opposition to Chalcedonian orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quæ cum ita sint","severity":"info","text":"This passage presents a disjunctive argument: either the Church that never condemned the Three Chapters is the true Catholic Church, or it is not; in either case, the opponents are heretics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"per centum et amplius ... annos","severity":"info","text":"Facundus argues that the Three Chapters were accepted for over a century before the controversy, a claim central to the defense of their orthodoxy in the 6th-century debate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'istis scelestissimis damnatoribus' is ambiguous: it could refer to the specific condemnors of the Three Chapters or more broadly to those who communicated with them.","The identity of 'Acephali' is polemically conflated with 'Semi-Eutychians' by Facundus; the historical accuracy of this equation is contested."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Quæ cum ita sint, quomodo jam et illod eis poterit constare, quod di unt unam se cum non damnantibus fidem tenere? Cum nos in uno Domino nostro Jesu Christo Dci et hominis Filio, duarum naturarum proprietatem in unitate personæ confiteamur, quod catholica semper custodit et docet Ecclesia. Isti autem parendo Acephalis, et in scripto dicentes: « Anathomatizamus impiam epistolam Ibæ quam ad Marim Persam scripsit, cum his qui vindicant eam, et rectam esse dicunt, vel partem ejns: » omnem procul dubio anathematizasse probantur Ecclesiam, quæ eam vindicavit et vindicat, rectamque esse dixit, et dicit: ut pote quæ hoc de Incarnatione Christi, in qua salutis nostræ sacramentum consistit, confitetur quod eadem per omnia continet epistola. Verba quippe ejus fem epistolæ, ubi sanitas catholicæ confessionis, post alia sic se habenL: i Ecclcsia autem sic dicit: I Du.e naturæ, una virtus, una persona, quod est unus Filius Dominus noster Jesus Christus. » Quapropter si hæc duarum naturarum Domini nostri Jesu Christi in unitate personæ confressio, ut isti dixerunt, impia est et sine Dco, dicant ipsi noviter quid sit pium rectæque Christianoruni fidei conveniens.","english":"Since these things are so, how can it now be established for them, as they say, that they hold one faith with those who do not condemn? For we confess in our one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God and man, the property of two natures in the unity of the person, which the Catholic Church always guards and teaches. But these men, obeying the Acephali, and saying in writing: \"We anathematize the impious letter of Ibas which he wrote to Maris the Persian, together with those who vindicate it and say it is correct, or any part of it,\" are proved without doubt to have anathematized the whole Church, which vindicated and vindicates it, and said and says it is correct, inasmuch as it confesses concerning the Incarnation of Christ, in which the mystery of our salvation consists, what that same letter contains throughout. For the words of that letter, where the soundness of the Catholic confession stands, after other things, are as follows: \"The Church, however, says: Two natures, one power, one person, which is one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.\" Therefore, if this confession of the two natures of our Lord Jesus Christ in the unity of the person, as they have said, is impious and without God, let them themselves say anew what is pious and fitting for the correct faith of Christians.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Acephalis","severity":"info","text":"Acephali (Greek 'headless') refers to radical Miaphysite groups that rejected the Henoticon of Zeno and broke communion with the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. Facundus uses the term polemically to associate his opponents with schismatic extremists.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"duarum naturarum ... in unitate personæ","severity":"info","text":"The phrase echoes the Chalcedonian Definition (451), which affirms 'two natures' in 'one person' (ὑπόστασις). Facundus cites the formula to ground his defense of the Three Chapters in conciliar orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"epistolam Ibæ","severity":"info","text":"The Letter of Ibas to Maris the Persian was one of the Three Chapters condemned by Emperor Justinian in 544/545. Facundus defends it as doctrinally sound, citing its Chalcedonian language to argue that condemnation of Ibas implies condemnation of Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quapropter si ... dicant ipsi noviter","severity":"info","text":"Facundus concludes with a rhetorical challenge: if the opponents reject the two-natures formula, they must propose an alternative. This caps the argument that their anathema logically extends to the whole Catholic Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ecclesia ... dicit: Duæ naturæ, una virtus, una persona","severity":"info","text":"The quotation from Ibas's letter was cited at the Council of Chalcedon (451) as evidence of orthodoxy. Facundus's use of it here reflects the ongoing sixth-century controversy over whether the letter was Nestorian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'Acephalis' may refer to a specific group or be a general slur; Facundus likely means the Severan Miaphysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon.","The phrase 'partem ejus' (any part of it) in the anathema formula is ambiguous: it could mean any portion of the letter or any adherent of its teaching."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Prorecto ergo, sicut veritas eos ex operibus et scriptis corum redarguens fateri cogit, aut unem in Christo, naturam, sicut Eutychiani vel Acephali, quotum votis cesserunt, et ab Ecclesia recoesserunt, dicunt, aut nullam: quod quam sit impium et blasphemum, atque a catholica veritate alienum, quisquis sana est præditus mente absque dubitatione cognscet. Nunc deinde illud pertractemus, quod dicunt verbis, uno se symbolo baptizare, utrum rebus et effectibus verum eis esse constet. Quod ut liquido clarcat, ipsius symboli primitus consideranda est atque pensanda vis magnitudoque veritatis; quon am nisi præcesserit per quoud creditur, virtus munusque credulitatis, quod subsequitur, nequaquam conceditur, sieut scriptum est: Nisi credideritis, non inte ligetis (Isa. VII, U, juxta LXX). Symbolum itaque, collatio sive pactum quod fit homini cum Dco, patres nostri atholici doctores interprotari docuerunt Quoniam ergo pactum cum Deo fecimus, et sic in uno sanctae Trinitatis nomine baptizati sumus, si quis unum iuta vel unum apicem ex pacto quod cum Dco iniit dissolverit, sine dubio fidem qua Deo credidit, et ipsum Deum cui credidit, perdidisse convincitur. Qui autem sint qui hoc violaverint pactum mox videbimus, cum isins symboli verba, non quidem in ordinem prolixitatis vitandæ gratia, sed admodum delibaudo posuerimus.","english":"Therefore, just as the truth, refuting them by their works and writings, compels them to confess, they either say that there is one nature in Christ, as the Eutychians or Acephali, to whose wishes they have yielded and from whom they have withdrawn from the Church, or that there is none: which is how impious and blasphemous, and alien from catholic truth, anyone endowed with a sound mind will know without doubt. Now next let us examine that which they say in words, that they baptize with one creed, whether it is true for them in deeds and effects. So that this may be clearly evident, the force and magnitude of the truth of the creed itself must first be considered and weighed; because unless the means by which one believes has preceded, the virtue and gift of belief, which follows, is by no means granted, as it is written: Unless you believe, you will not understand (Isa. 7:11, according to the LXX). Therefore, the creed, a collection or pact which is made between man and God, our catholic fathers and teachers have taught to be interpreted. Since therefore we have made a pact with God, and have been baptized in this way in the one name of the Holy Trinity, if anyone dissolves one iota or one apex from the pact which he entered into with God, he is undoubtedly proven to have lost the faith by which he believed in God, and God himself in whom he believed. Who these are who have violated this pact we will soon see, when we have set forth the words of this creed, not indeed in order for the sake of avoiding prolixity, but having tasted them lightly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Prorecto ergo","severity":"info","text":"Facundus argues that the opponents are forced by truth to confess either one nature in Christ (Eutychian/Acephali) or none, both impious.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Nisi credideritis, non intellegitis","severity":"info","text":"The quotation 'Unless you believe, you will not understand' is attributed to Isa. 7:11 according to the Septuagint, a common patristic prooftext for faith preceding understanding.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"symbolum","severity":"info","text":"Facundus glosses 'symbolum' as a 'collatio sive pactum' (collection or pact) between man and God, reflecting a traditional Latin etymology linking creed to a contractual bond.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Eutychiani vel Acephali","severity":"info","text":"Eutychians and Acephali are monophysite groups; Facundus accuses his opponents of yielding to them, though the opponents claim to hold the Catholic faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Nunc deinde illud pertractemus","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a transition from refuting the opponents' Christology to examining their claim of a common creed, structuring the argument into two main sections.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"unem in Christo, naturam","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'unem' is likely a scribal error for 'unam' (one); the sense is clear: the opponents are forced to confess either one nature or none in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'unem in Christo, naturam' is grammatically corrupt; 'unem' is emended to 'unam' for sense.","The reference to Isa. 7:11 follows the Septuagint numbering, which differs from the Vulgate; the exact verse in modern Bibles may vary."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Prinripinm itaque symboli hoc est: Credimus in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem; et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum Filium ejus, natum ex Spiritu sancto et Maria Virgine, qui sub Pontio Pilafo crucifixus est et sepultus; tertia die surrexit a mortuis; ascendit in cælum, sedet ad dexteram Patris, unde renturus est judi. care vivos et mortuos, et reliqua. En certe in hoc nunc omnis consis it quæstio de vivorum mortuorumque judicio: quod contra nullam aliquando hxresim, ut illud de æqualitate Patris et Filii in Nicæno cancilio contra Arium, vel de omnipotentia Spiritus sancti in Constantinopolitano contra Macedonium, in symbolo est addtum, a nulla unquam hæresi,.nisi ab hac novissimis temporibus velut ex compacta omnium hæreticorum fæce exorta, violatum cst; per damnationem scilicct vivorum mortuoumque quam sic in scripto protulerunt, dicentes inter at'a: « Si quis dcfendit impium Theodorum et impia ejus conscripta, sed non auathematizat eurn et impia ejus conscripta, et omnes qui suscipiunt vel defendunt cum, et dlcunt orthodoxa eum exposuisse; et qui scripserunt pro eo, et eadem ini sapuerunt, vel scribunt pro eo vel impiis ejuis coascriptis, et cos qui sim lia illi sapiunt vel aliquando sapuerunt, talis anathema sit. S quis defendit impia Theodoreti scripta, sed non anathematizat ea, et eos qui similia ejus sapuerunt vel sapiunt, talis anathema sit.","english":"Therefore, the beginning of the Creed is this: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified and buried under Pontius Pilate; on the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come to judge the living and the dead, and the rest. Indeed, in this now the whole question concerning the judgment of the living and the dead consists: which, against no heresy ever, as that concerning the equality of the Father and the Son in the Council of Nicaea against Arius, or that concerning the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit in the Council of Constantinople against Macedonius, was added to the Creed, has ever been violated by any heresy, except by this one, which has arisen in the most recent times as if from the compacted dregs of all heretics; namely, through the condemnation of the living and the dead, which they thus set forth in writing, saying among other things: \"If anyone defends the impious Theodore and his impious writings, but does not anathematize him and his impious writings, and all who receive or defend him, and say that he set forth orthodox teachings; and those who have written for him, and have thought the same things, or write for him or for his impious writings, and those who think or have ever thought similarly to him, let such a one be anathema. If anyone defends the impious writings of Theodoret, but does not anathematize them, and those who have thought or think similarly to him, let such a one be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Prinripinm itaque symboli hoc est","severity":"info","text":"Facundus introduces the Creed (symbolum) as the foundation for his argument, contrasting its unchanging text with the novel anathemas of the Three Chapters controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"de æqualitate Patris et Filii in Nicæno concilio contra Arium","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Nicaea (325) added the clause on the equality of Father and Son to counter Arianism; Facundus uses this as a precedent for creedal additions against heresy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"de omnipotentia Spiritus sancti in Constantinopolitano contra Macedonium","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Constantinople (381) added the clause on the Holy Spirit's omnipotence against the Pneumatomachians (Macedonians); Facundus cites this as another legitimate creedal expansion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"per damnationem scilicet vivorum mortuorumque","severity":"info","text":"Facundus argues that the condemnation of the living and dead (i.e., the anathemas against Theodore and Theodoret) violates the Creed, which he presents as unaltered by previous heresies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"anathema sit","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'anathema sit' (let him be anathema) is a formal ecclesiastical curse; Facundus quotes the anathemas of the Three Chapters to show their novelty and severity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Prinripinm","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text begins with 'Prinripinm', likely a scribal error for 'Principium' (beginning); the English draft corrects this without note.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has 'Prinripinm' for 'Principium', a probable scribal error; the English draft silently emends it.","The phrase 'natum ex Spiritu sancto et Maria Virgine' is unusual; the Creed typically says 'natum ex Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine' or similar; Facundus may be paraphrasing or quoting a local variant."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Si quis defeadit impiam epistolam quam dicitur Ibas ad Marim Persam hæreticum scripsissc, sed non anathematizat eam ct defensores cjus, et eos qui dicunt eam rectam esse, vel partem ejus, et eos qui scripserunt, vel qui scribunt pro ea, vel pro impietate quæ in ea continetur, et presumunt eam defendere, talis an athema sit. » Qua blasphema sententia et illos mortuos quos in corpore constituos nemo damnavit, nec hæreticam e rum doctrinam quisquam jud cavit, imo vero, sicut evidentissimi. documentis probari potest, orthodoxam synodica Pati um pronuntiavit auctoritas, et devota hactenus conservavit conservatque posteritas, et ipsos Patres qui cos dictaque eorum laudaverunt, et nos viventes pari cum eis anathemate quantum in ipsis est, involverunt. Ubi est ergo quod Christiani videri volunt, aut dici, symbolique se custodire fidem inani multiloquio jactitant, qui judicium sibi quod soli Filio Pater dedit, superba salis nimiuque dolenda temeritatis audacia usurpaverun', cum per hujusmodi præsumptionem etiam diabli supergredi probentur insanam? Siquidem ille superbissimo cordis appetitu dixit: Ero similis A tissimo (Isa, xiv, 14).","english":"If anyone defends the impious letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to the heretic Maris the Persian, but does not anathematize it and its defenders, and those who say that it, or a part of it, is correct, and those who have written or who write in its favor, or in favor of the impiety contained in it, and presume to defend it, let such a one be anathema. By this blasphemous sentence, they have involved in an equal anathema, as far as in them lies, both those dead whom no one condemned while they were alive, nor did anyone judge their doctrine heretical—indeed, on the contrary, as can be proved by the most evident documents, the authority of the Fathers in synodical letters pronounced it orthodox, and a devoted posterity has preserved and still preserves it—and also the Fathers themselves who praised them and their statements, and us who are living. Where, then, is what they wish to appear or be called Christians, and boast with empty verbosity that they keep the faith of the Creed, who have usurped for themselves the judgment which the Father gave to the Son alone, with the arrogance of a too great and deeply lamentable rashness, since by such presumption they are proven to surpass even the madness of the devil? For he, with the most proud appetite of his heart, said: I will be like the Most High (Isa. 14:14).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Ibas ad Marim Persam","severity":"info","text":"The letter of Ibas to Maris the Persian was a key text in the Three Chapters controversy, condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) but defended by Facundus as orthodox.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ero similis Altissimo (Isa, xiv, 14)","severity":"info","text":"The quotation is from Isaiah 14:14 (Vulgate), where the king of Babylon says 'I will be like the Most High,' used here to compare the opponents' presumption to Luciferian pride.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"anathema","severity":"info","text":"Anathema denotes formal excommunication or curse in ecclesiastical usage; Facundus argues that his opponents' sentence wrongly condemns the orthodox dead and living.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Qua blasphema sententia","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a shift from quoting the anathema to Facundus's own refutation, which expands the consequences of the condemnation to include the Fathers and posterity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"synodica Patrum auctoritas","severity":"info","text":"Facundus appeals to synodical letters of the Fathers as authoritative; this reflects the post-Chalcedonian appeal to patristic consensus in the Three Chapters debate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"impiam epistolam","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has 'impiam epistolam' (impious letter); the English draft renders 'impious letter' but the term is a loaded characterization, not a neutral description.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'defeadit' is likely a scribal error for 'defendit' (defends); the English draft follows the corrected reading.","The phrase 'inani multiloquio' (empty verbosity) is rendered as 'empty verbosity' in the draft, but could also imply 'vain talkativeness'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"IIi autem præveniendo judicium Dei, et opere mortifero damna ionem mortuorum vivorumque non sibi consentientium perpetrando, non jam æquales aut similes, sicut ille adhuc de futuro dixit, Ero, sed superiores esse suo Domino quantum ad eorum attinet intentionem, constituerat. Et non erubescunt miseri ore sacrilego alquc impudenti procacitate dicere se unam cum damnantibus tidem tenero! Quasi vero non et dæmones credant et contremiscant, sed operationem non nisiserroris, quam et 'sUe novitru pestes exercent, habere noscuntur ipsi errantes et alios in errorem mittentes. Neque tantummodo verbis mendacibus in errorem traducentes, sed violentis insuper persecutionibus ad consentiendum sibi vel communicundum quos potuerint pertrahendo cogentes. Et non intendunt infelices neque animadvertunt, quod non cos juvet, imo et satis gravet, dictis polliceri nossc Deum, factis autem negare? Quoniam revera si veracitcr confessi, sive alii pro eis cum baptizarentur professi sunt credere se in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, ct in Jesum Chrislum Filium ejus, et in Spiritum sanctum, quod symboli tenet auctoritas, veraciter quoque credere debuerunt et patienter exspectare eumdem FiliumDei et homiois Jesum C ristum Dominum nostrum tempore præfinito venturum de cœlis ad judicandum vivos et mortuos; et non ipsi nunc impia vehementer atroci.","english":"But they, by anticipating the judgment of God and by perpetrating a deadly work of condemnation against the dead and the living who do not consent to them, have established themselves not as equals or similar, as he [Christ] still said of the future, \"I will be,\" but as superior to their Lord, as far as their intention is concerned. And these wretches are not ashamed, with sacrilegious mouth and shameless impudence, to say that they hold one faith with those who condemn! As if indeed demons do not also believe and tremble, but are known to have no operation except that of error, which these same plagues also exercise, themselves erring and casting others into error. And not only do they lead into error by lying words, but they also compel by violent persecutions, dragging and forcing those whom they can to consent to them or to communicate. And these unhappy ones do not intend nor notice that it does not help them, but rather greatly burdens them, to promise in words that they know God, but to deny Him by deeds? Since truly, if they have truthfully confessed, or others on their behalf when they were baptized have professed to believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Son, and in the Holy Spirit, as the authority of the creed holds, they ought also to have believed truthfully and patiently awaited the same Son of God and man, Jesus Christ our Lord, coming at the appointed time from the heavens to judge the living and the dead; and not now, with impious and vehement atrocity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"præveniendo judicium Dei","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'anticipating the judgment of God' accuses opponents of usurping divine prerogative by condemning others before God's final judgment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"symboli","severity":"info","text":"'Symboli' refers to the creed (symbolum fidei), likely the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which Facundus invokes as authoritative for orthodox belief.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"venturum de cœlis ad judicandum vivos et mortuos","severity":"info","text":"This echoes the Nicene Creed's phrase about Christ's second coming to judge the living and the dead, derived from Acts 10:42 and 2 Timothy 4:1.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"damnationem mortuorum vivorumque","severity":"info","text":"Facundus defends the Three Chapters (condemned writings of Theodore, Ibas, and Theodoret) against posthumous condemnation, a key issue in the Three-Chapter Controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Et non erubescunt ... dicere se unam cum damnantibus fidem tenere","severity":"info","text":"This passage contrasts the opponents' claim to orthodox faith with their violent actions, forming a rhetorical antithesis between words and deeds.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"dæmones credant et contremiscant","severity":"info","text":"The idea that demons believe and tremble (cf. James 2:19) was used by patristic authors to distinguish mere belief from true faith, a trope Facundus employs here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'alquc' is likely a scribal error for 'aliqua' (some) or 'aliquo' (some); the translation follows the sense of 'some shameless impudence'.","The phrase 'sUe novitru pestes' is corrupt; the edition reads 'suae novitiae pestes' (their novel plagues), but the translation interprets as 'these same plagues'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"tate, et viventes nos, et mortuos olim catholicos pontifices non solum judicare, verum etiam quasi perpetuæ sententiæ anathemate condemnare. Sed forsitan pro sua sanctitate et mirabilium opcrum efficacia, ut pote judices vivorum ct mortuorum, a semetipsis, quin imo a patre suo diabolo constiti, hos ipsos mortuos quos damnaverunt resusctiasse se dicunt, et sic audita eorum causa, sicut Dominus in Evangelio dicit: Ego sicut audio judico (Joan. v, 50), judicii sententiam adversus eos protulerunt. Quaeri- I mus ergo ab eis quando redivivos eorum cineres collegerim, eosque resuscitaverit, aut ubi ad jndicandum sedcrint. Nempe in valle Josaphat judicaturus est Dominus omnes gentes, quamvis et aliumhabeat intellectum. Nunquid tamen vallis Josaphat Constantinopolis, ubi hoc inchoatum sacrilegium? Nunquid vallis Josaphat cæteræ urles ct civitates, quæ nera' dum in damnatione vivorum et mortuorum prolatum subscripsere suscepcreque decretum? Dicant etiam et ostendant ubi damnatos suos constituerunt, ut a nullo non damnante, nisi tantum a damnatoribus, sciatur an ipsis solis aditus reseratus est inferorum locus? Dicant deinde nobis viventibus, quos cum pridem mortuis damnaverunt, quando hos mori fecerint, prutinusque resuscitaverint, sicut in illo, vel ante illud Domini judicium erga hos quos in carne viventes ejus adventus invenerit futurum catholica confitetur Ecclesia.","english":"state, and we the living, and the once Catholic pontiffs long dead, not only to judge but also to condemn with the anathema of a perpetual sentence. But perhaps, on account of their sanctity and the efficacy of their miraculous works, as though they were judges of the living and the dead, appointed by themselves—or rather by their father the devil—they claim to have resurrected these very dead whom they have condemned, and thus, having heard their case, just as the Lord says in the Gospel: \"I judge as I hear\" (John 5:30), they have pronounced a sentence of judgment against them. We therefore ask them when they gathered the revived ashes of these dead and resurrected them, or where they sat to judge. Surely the Lord will judge all nations in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, although this also has another meaning. Yet is Constantinople, where this sacrilege was begun, the Valley of Jehoshaphat? Are the other cities and towns, which, along with the condemnation of the living and the dead, subscribed to and received the decree that was issued, the Valley of Jehoshaphat? Let them also say and show where they have placed their condemned, so that it may be known by no one who does not condemn, except by the condemners alone, whether the entrance to the underworld has been opened only to them? Let them then tell us, the living, whom they have condemned together with the long dead, when they caused us to die and immediately resurrected us, as in that, or before that, judgment of the Lord which the Catholic Church confesses will happen in the future toward those whom His advent finds living in the flesh.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego sicut audio judico","severity":"info","text":"Facundus quotes John 5:30, where Christ says he judges as he hears, to contrast divine judgment with the bishops' presumptuous condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"vallis Josaphat","severity":"info","text":"The Valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3:2, 12) is traditionally the site of the Last Judgment. Facundus mocks the bishops for acting as if Constantinople were that valley.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"perpetuae sententiae anathemate","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'anathema of a perpetual sentence' underscores the bishops' claim to impose an irreversible condemnation, which Facundus deems sacrilegious.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quaerimus ergo ab eis... Dicant etiam... Dicant deinde","severity":"info","text":"Facundus uses a series of rhetorical questions to challenge the bishops' authority, escalating from queries about resurrection to the location of judgment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"a patre suo diabolo constiti","severity":"info","text":"Facundus accuses the bishops of being appointed by the devil, a polemical trope in Trinitarian and Christological controversies to delegitimize opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"resusctiasse se dicunt","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'resusctiasse' (for 'resuscitasse') is a scribal variant; the sense is clear: the bishops claim to have resurrected the dead they condemned.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in illo, vel ante illud Domini judicium' is ambiguous: it may refer to the Last Judgment or to a prior judgment of Christ; the translation takes it as the future judgment."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Quod si hæc et alia, quæ tempore soli Dco cognilo ventura credimus, facere nequiverunt, quæ dementia corda eorum invasit, oculosque eorum fumosa sua vanitas, velut densarum palpabiliumque tenebrarum opaca nox, obcaecavit, ut non viderent nec perseveranter tenerent quod in symbolo quando baptizati sunt acceperunt? Sed pro suo libitu, modo muneribus corrupti, modo honoribus et ambitionibus illecti, modo etiam peregrinæ sive potius serpentinæ versutia: doctrina circumducti, ventoque superbix afflati et inflati, contra Deum superbiæ cristas erexerunt, praripiendo judicium ejus, novumqne errorem pcr damnationem vivorum ac mortuorum condendo, et veterem restaurando, cum et Acephalorum fautores consortesque effecti sunt, et cæteris hxreticis dextras dederunt, ut liceat eis quoties libuerit et quomodo libuerit orthodoxorum pontificum decreta rescindere vel damnare. Neque enim, ut ignorantes quidam dicunt. trium Capitulorum geritur causa, sed omnium pontificum, qui, ab apostolis apostolorumque successoribus usque ad synodum Chalcedonensem, in qua eadem Capitula orthodoxa sunt judicata, ac deinceps ad nostra usque tempora in una eademque defensione atque communionc perdurantes, catholici ex hac vita emigrarunt, perpetrata doletur damnatio. Qnod evidentissimis documentis et veridicis rationibus paternarum traditionum hic latius ostendere pessemus, si castigata sineret brevitas.","english":"But if these and other things, which we believe will come to pass in a time known only to God, they were unable to accomplish, what madness invaded their hearts, and their smoky vanity, like the dark night of dense and palpable shadows, blinded their eyes, so that they did not see nor steadfastly hold what they received in the creed when they were baptized? But according to their own will, sometimes corrupted by bribes, sometimes enticed by honors and ambitions, sometimes also led astray by a foreign or rather serpentine cunning doctrine, and blown up and inflated by the wind of pride, they raised the crests of pride against God, usurping His judgment, and establishing a new error by the condemnation of the living and the dead, and restoring the old, since they became both supporters and accomplices of the Acephali, and gave their right hands to other heretics, so that it is permitted to them, as often and as they please, to rescind or condemn the decrees of orthodox pontiffs. For it is not, as some ignorant persons say, a matter of the Three Chapters, but of all the pontiffs who, from the apostles and the successors of the apostles up to the Council of Chalcedon, in which the same Chapters were judged orthodox, and thereafter up to our own times, persevering in one and the same defense and communion, departed from this life as Catholics; their condemnation, once perpetrated, is lamented. We could demonstrate this more fully here with the clearest documents and truthful reasons of paternal traditions, if chastened brevity allowed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"symbolo","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'symbolo' refers to the baptismal creed (symbolum fidei), a fixed formula of faith recited at baptism. Facundus argues that the opponents have abandoned this foundational confession.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Acephalorum","severity":"info","text":"The Acephali were a group of non-Chalcedonian Christians who rejected the Council of Chalcedon (451) and its Christological definition. Facundus equates his opponents with them to underscore their heterodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"trium Capitulorum","severity":"info","text":"This passage marks a key structural turn: Facundus insists the controversy is not merely about the Three Chapters but about the entire tradition of orthodox pontiffs from the apostles to Chalcedon and beyond, broadening the stakes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"trium Capitulorum","severity":"info","text":"Facundus’s defense of the Three Chapters was later condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553). His argument here that the issue concerns all orthodox bishops reflects a key strategy in the Three Chapters controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"castigata sineret brevitas","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'castigata sineret brevitas' is ambiguous: it may mean 'if chastened brevity allowed' (i.e., if the need for conciseness permitted) or 'if disciplined brevity allowed.' The sense is that Facundus is constrained by the letter’s length.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'castigata sineret brevitas' could be read as 'if chastened brevity allowed' or 'if disciplined brevity allowed'; the intended meaning is that the author is constrained by the need for conciseness."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Quibus dil genter con ideralis atque libratis, judicet quisquis judicium Dei metuit, quisquis Dei Filium tempore opportuno in forma servi quam pro nobis suscepit venturum credit et confitetur judicem manifestum, quem credendo didicit in plenitudine temporis venisse occultum, si hi tales qui superbiores et excellentiores audacia diibolo, Antichristo quoque existunt detcriores, Christiano saltem nomine censendi, et non potius Anlichristi ministri appellandi, modisque omnibus sint fugiendi. Quæ cum ita sint, quomodo jam eis poterit constare quod credere se dicunt in Deum Patrem et in Filium ejus, quod præcedit in symbolo, cum non eis constet quod illic subsequitur de uno eodemque Christo specialiter dictu, qui venturus Eat judicare vivos et mortuos. Quoniam isti, sicut superius dictum ostensumque est, et in mortuis olim et in viventibus nobis damnationis suæ jacula vibraverunt. Sed his præmissis aliud adhuc videamus. Si enim mortuos quos damnaverunt prave docuisse et hæretico sensu libros conscripsisse dicunt, quærimus ab eis utrum cum vivcrent admoniti sint juxta morem catholicæ observantiæ ac disciplinæ, ut sanum rectumque saperent, pertinaciter restiterint, convictiquede errore suo, vcl in aliquo concilio accersiti, ut Arius in N cæno, Maccdonius in Constantinopolitano, Nestorius in Ephesino primo, Eutyches atque Dioscorus in Chalccdonensi, condemnati fuerint necne.","english":"Those who fear the judgment of God, and who believe and confess that the Son of God will come as a manifest judge in due time in the form of a servant which He assumed for us, having learned by faith that He came hidden in the fullness of time, should carefully consider and weigh these things, and then judge whether such men—who are prouder and more arrogant in their audacity than the devil, and even worse than Antichrist—are to be counted as Christians at all, and not rather to be called ministers of Antichrist, and to be fled by all means. Since this is so, how can they still be certain of what they claim to believe—that is, in God the Father and in His Son, which precedes in the Creed—when they are not certain of what follows there, specifically concerning one and the same Christ, who is to come to judge the living and the dead? For these men, as has been said and shown above, have already hurled the darts of their condemnation both at the dead of old and at us who are living. But having set forth these things, let us now consider another point. For if they say that the dead whom they condemned taught wrongly and wrote books with heretical intent, we ask them whether, while they were alive, they were admonished according to the custom of Catholic observance and discipline, so that they might hold sound and right opinions, and whether they obstinately resisted, and were convicted of their error, or were summoned to some council—as Arius at Nicaea, Macedonius at Constantinople, Nestorius at the First Council of Ephesus, and Eutyches and Dioscorus at Chalcedon—and were condemned, or not.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Antichristo","severity":"info","text":"Facundus uses 'Antichristo' to denote a figure worse than the devil, intensifying the polemic against opponents of the Three Chapters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"venturus sit judicare vivos et mortuos","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, specifically the clause about Christ's second coming to judge the living and the dead.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Arius in Nicaeno, Macedonius in Constantinopolitano, Nestorius in Ephesino primo, Eutyches atque Dioscorus in Chalcedonensi","severity":"info","text":"Facundus lists ecumenical councils (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431, Chalcedon 451) as precedents for condemning heretics, contrasting with the lack of such process for the Three Chapters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed his praemissis aliud adhuc videamus","severity":"info","text":"This transitional phrase marks a shift from rhetorical questioning to a new argument about procedural fairness in condemning the dead.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ministri Antichristi","severity":"info","text":"The label 'ministers of Antichrist' was a common polemical trope in the Three Chapters controversy, used by both sides to delegitimize opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'dil genter' is a scribal error for 'diligenter' (carefully), corrected in the English draft."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Si factura dixerint, mox ferri synodalia gesta flagitaverimus, sicut horum proferuntur, ubi condemnatus eorum error, ubi prolata adversus eos sententia doccatur. Si ostenderint, rursus quærimus quomodo per centum et amplius annorum sericm universam catholicam latuerint Ecclesiam, curn et humanæ leges triginta annis humanas adimant quæstiones, et Dominus noster Jesus Christus apostolis suis polestatem ligandi atque sovendi tantummodo quae super terram sunt divinam dederit legem. Aut ubi putamus eadem delituerint gesta, ut nuper ad damnantium solummodo, non etiam ad non damnantium notitiam pervenire potuissent? Si autem, quod magis verum certumque est, proferre aliquid tale antiquitus gestum nequeunt, quia in veritate quod proferant non habent, nos econtra proferimus synodicas epistolas Antiocheni concilii in defonsionem Theodori dictorumque ejus, qui ab istis novo jam hæresis nomine crimineque cauteriatis, id est Necrodiocts sive Porcianistis a, damnatus est. Congregatæ deinde sanctæ Chalcedonensis synodi, cujus auctoritati nullus nisi hæreticus contradicit, gesta demonstramus; ubi non solum beati Theodori laudes susceptae et recitatae, et cum admirabili gloria prædicatæ sunt, verum ctiam epistola venerabilis Ibæ, quæ ab istis ut impia condemnata est, orthodoxa illic pronuntiata docetur atque laudata.","english":"If they say it was a creation, we will immediately demand that the synodal acts be brought forward, just as these are produced, where their error was condemned, where the sentence pronounced against them is shown. If they show them, we ask again how it is that for a series of more than a hundred years they lay hidden from the whole Catholic Church, since even human laws remove human questions after thirty years, and our Lord Jesus Christ gave His apostles a divine law of binding and loosing only those things which are upon the earth. Or where do we think those same acts lay hidden, so that they could recently have come to the knowledge only of those condemning, and not also of those not condemning? But if, which is more true and certain, they are unable to produce anything of the sort done in antiquity, because in truth they have nothing to produce, we on the contrary produce the synodical letters of the Council of Antioch in defense of Theodorus and his statements, who has been condemned by these men now branded with a new name of heresy and crime, that is, as Necrodiocts or Porcianists. Then we show the acts of the holy Council of Chalcedon, whose authority no one but a heretic contradicts; where not only were the praises of the blessed Theodorus received and recited, and proclaimed with admirable glory, but also the letter of the venerable Ibas, which has been condemned by these men as impious, is there declared orthodox and praised.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"Necrodiocts sive Porcianistis","severity":"info","text":"These are pejorative neologisms used by Facundus's opponents. 'Necrodiocts' may combine Greek 'nekros' (dead) and 'dio' (pursue), implying corpse-worshippers; 'Porcianists' likely derives from 'porcus' (pig), suggesting impurity. Both are invented heresy labels.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"synodicas epistolas Antiocheni concilii","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Antioch (probably 363 or 378) produced synodical letters defending Theodore of Mopsuestia. Facundus cites these to show earlier conciliar support for Theodore, countering the condemnation by the Three Chapters' opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"sanctae Chalcedonensis synodi","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Chalcedon (451) is invoked as authoritative. Facundus claims its acts include praise of Theodore and approval of Ibas's letter, which the Three Chapters' opponents condemned. This is a key argument in the Three Chapters controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Si factura dixerint... Si ostenderint... Si autem","severity":"info","text":"Facundus uses a three-part conditional structure: if opponents claim a creation, if they show acts, and if they cannot. This rhetorical progression builds to his own positive evidence from Antioch and Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"per centum et amplius annorum seriem","severity":"info","text":"Facundus argues that if the condemnation were genuine, it would have been known for over a century. This reflects the Three Chapters controversy (mid-6th century), where the condemnation of Theodore and Ibas was contested as novel.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"divinam dederit legem","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'divinam legem' may refer to Matthew 18:18 or a canonical rule. Facundus's argument that Christ gave apostles power only over earthly matters is a theological claim, not a direct quotation; the exact source is ambiguous.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'synodalia gesta' demanded by Facundus is unspecified; it may refer to acts of a local council or a general synod. The phrase 'divinam dederit legem' is ambiguous as to whether it quotes a specific scriptural or canonical text."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Theodoreti quoque doctrinam dudum et a principio orthodoxæ fidei concinere in eadem synodo acclamatum, et digni utrique, hoc est Theodoretus ct Iba, episcopatu judicati sunt, et guberuare sicut pridem Ecclesias sibi creditas ordinati. Quibus præostensis proponimus istis Capitulorum nostrisque damnatoribus, eorumque communicatoribus, quid de codem magno Cb lcedonensi concilio sentiant, utrum catholicum illud dicant, an non? Si dixerim: Catholicum est, respondemus: Vos ergo procul dubio haeretici estis. Quoniam vel quod, vel quos illi Patres ibidem praesidentes laudaverunt, et catholicæ fidei convenire pronuntiaverunt, vos ut hæreticos et impios condemnastis: unde conficitur, velitis nolitis, sicut consequentia exigit rationis, ut illos quos damnaverunt hxreticos, id est Nestorium, Eutychem atque Dioscorum, vos eos orthodoios, etsi non verbis pro hominum forsitan timore, operibus certe, et effrenatis persecutionibus, et catholicorum pontificum depulsionibus, et hæreticorum subrogationibus, scriptoquc in catholicos prolatis damnationibus pronuntiatis atque praedicatis. Denique in una eademque Chalcedonensi synodo inter alia hæc quoque definita consistit causa, approbatio scilicet et damnatio trium.","english":"The teaching of Theodoret also, from long ago and from the beginning, was acclaimed in the same synod as being in harmony with the orthodox faith, and both, that is Theodoret and Ibas, were judged worthy of the episcopate, and were appointed to govern the churches entrusted to them as before. Having set these things forth, we propose to those who condemn these Chapters and to us, and to their communicants, what they think about the same great Council of Chalcedon, whether they say it is catholic or not? If they say: It is catholic, we reply: Therefore you are without doubt heretics. Because whatever or whomever those Fathers presiding there praised and pronounced to agree with the catholic faith, you have condemned as heretics and impious: whence it follows, whether you wish it or not, as the consequence of reason demands, that those whom they condemned as heretics, that is Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, you, even if not in words perhaps from fear of men, yet certainly by deeds, and by unbridled persecutions, and by the expulsion of catholic pontiffs, and by the substitution of heretics, and by condemnations pronounced in writing against catholics, proclaim and preach as orthodox. Finally, in one and the same Chalcedonian synod, among other things, this cause also is established, namely the approval and condemnation of the three.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Theodoreti ... doctrinam ... concinere","severity":"info","text":"Theodoret of Cyrus was a prominent Antiochene theologian condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) for his association with Nestorius. Facundus defends his orthodoxy by citing acclamations at Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"trium Capitulorum","severity":"info","text":"The 'Three Chapters' (tria capitula) refer to the persons and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, whose condemnation was the subject of the 6th-century controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Denique in una eademque Chalcedonensi synodo ... approbatio scilicet et damnatio trium","severity":"info","text":"This sentence concludes the argument by asserting that the Council of Chalcedon itself established both the approval of Theodoret and Ibas and the condemnation of Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, forming a logical trap for opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"damnatio trium","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'damnatio trium' alludes to the Three Chapters controversy, which divided the Western and Eastern churches in the 6th century. Facundus wrote this letter in defense of the Three Chapters against imperial condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"guberuare","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'guberuare' is a scribal error or variant for 'gubernare' (to govern). The English draft correctly translates it as 'govern'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'approbatio scilicet et damnatio trium' is ambiguous: it may refer to the approval of Theodoret and Ibas and the condemnation of Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, or to a broader set of approvals and condemnations within the Chalcedonian acts."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Ecce enim astant quodammodo ex una parte ejusdem concilii Theodorus, quamvis jam defunctus, sed in synodicis epistolis ejus laudes continentibus, ibidemque relictis et approbatis, vivens, Theodoretus quoque et Iba laudati et orthodoxi pronuntiati; et ex alia nihilominus parte Nestorius in Epheso quidem primo damnatus, sed iterato damnationis vinculo Chalcedone illigatus: Eutychea etiam atque Dioscorus illic similiter ut haeretici condemnati.Quid dicitis? Nunquid non ita est? Nunquid, quantolibet callo duritiae frons vestra solitis mendaciis obducta sit, negare poteritis ita esse? Quod si et negare præ confusione vestra duplici volueritis, ecce adsum gesta Chalcedonensis concilii, ecce assistunt sexcenti et triginta pontifices illic congregati: vociferant nimirum per eam, et dicunt: Nos laudes Theodori in paee et communione catholicæEcclesiæ defuncti relectas coetui nostro suscepimus et approbavimus. Nos vero venerabiles Theodoretum et Ibam orthodoxos pronuntiavimus, atque in definitionem catholicæ fidei nobiscum subscripsisse veraciter novimus. Epistolam quam venerabilis Iba Mari Perse scripsit, relectam a nobis orthodoxam esse judicaviDIUS, et judicium nostrum concorditer subscribendo confirmavimus.","english":"For behold, on one side stand, as it were, the same council’s Theodorus—though already deceased, yet living in the synodical letters containing his praises, which were left there and approved—and also Theodoretus and Ibas, praised and pronounced orthodox; and on the other side, nonetheless, Nestorius, condemned indeed first at Ephesus, but bound at Chalcedon with a renewed chain of condemnation; and likewise Eutyches and Dioscorus condemned there as heretics. What say you? Is it not so? Can you, however much your brow is hardened with the usual lies, deny that it is so? But if, from your double confusion, you should wish to deny it, behold, here are the acts of the Council of Chalcedon; behold, here stand the six hundred and thirty bishops gathered there; they cry out, as it were, through that council, and say: We received and approved the praises of Theodorus, who died in the peace and communion of the Catholic Church, when they were read again to our assembly. We pronounced the venerable Theodoretus and Ibas orthodox, and we truly know that they subscribed with us to the definition of the Catholic faith. The letter which the venerable Ibas wrote to Mari the Persian, when read again by us, we judged to be orthodox, and we confirmed our judgment by subscribing in agreement.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Theodorus","severity":"info","text":"Theodorus of Mopsuestia (d. 428) was posthumously condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) in the Three Chapters controversy. Facundus defends his orthodoxy by citing earlier approval at Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"iterato damnationis vinculo","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'iterato damnationis vinculo' (renewed chain of condemnation) refers to Nestorius being condemned first at Ephesus (431) and then again at Chalcedon (451), reinforcing his anathematization.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ecce enim astant... ex una parte... et ex alia","severity":"info","text":"Facundus uses a rhetorical antithesis, contrasting the approved figures (Theodorus, Theodoret, Ibas) with the condemned heretics (Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus) to argue the inconsistency of condemning the Three Chapters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"sexcenti et triginta pontifices","severity":"info","text":"The number 630 bishops at Chalcedon is a standard figure in patristic sources, though actual attendance varied. Facundus invokes it to emphasize the council's authority against his opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nulla","severity":"info","text":"No direct scripture quotation or clear echo is present in this passage. The argument relies on conciliar acts and rhetorical appeal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in paee et communione catholicæ Ecclesiæ defuncti' may be a scribal error for 'in pace et communione' (in peace and communion), as 'paee' is likely a misspelling.","The identity of 'Mari Perse' (Mari the Persian) is uncertain; it may refer to a Persian bishop or a correspondent of Ibas, but the text does not clarify."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Nos Nestorium ante quidem damnatum iterata damnatione cum Eutyche atque Oioscoro, sancto nobis Spiritu præsidente, prostravimus: qui judicium nostrum violare nititur, hæreticus est; qui decreta nostra in aliquo convellere pertentat, alienus a catholica fide, alienus a Christiano nomine est. Qui enim hos quos catholicos pronuntiantes laudavimus damnat, illos et econtrario quos ut hæreticos condemnavimus laudat, et ideo hæreticus est quisquis bene a nobis definitis non acquiescit, quisquis legitimo et catholico ordine determinatis superbus resultat. Hæc audientes quid, regamus, dicturi estis tot præclaris pontificibus vel universae per totum mundum diffusae catholicae Ecclesiae, qui corum statuta devote semper custodivit, bactenusque in suis reliquiis ubique propagatis custodit; ni i forte verum dicere volueritis, et quomodo futura erat hæresis Necrodioctarum sive Porcianistarum? Si autem dixerint: Haereticum est Chalcedonense concilium, non est jam necessarium contra eos noviter decertare, nisi ut habeantur ab universis in veritate catholicis sicut ille qui a Domino in Evangelio interrogatus quod ei nomen esset, respondit: Legio, quia multi sumus (Marc. v, 9).","english":"We have cast down Nestorius, previously condemned, with a repeated condemnation together with Eutyches and Dioscorus, the Holy Spirit presiding over us: whoever attempts to violate our judgment is a heretic; whoever dares to tear away at our decrees in any respect is a stranger to the catholic faith, a stranger to the Christian name. For whoever condemns those whom we, pronouncing them catholic, have praised, and on the contrary praises those whom we have condemned as heretics, is therefore a heretic—whoever does not acquiesce in what we have well defined, whoever proudly rebels against what has been determined by legitimate and catholic order. Hearing these things, what, we ask, are you going to say to so many illustrious pontiffs or to the universal catholic Church spread throughout the whole world, which has always devoutly kept their statutes, and up to now keeps them in its relics propagated everywhere; unless perhaps you wish to speak the truth, and how was the heresy of the Necrodioctae or Porcianistae to arise? But if they should say: The Council of Chalcedon is heretical, it is no longer necessary to contend against them anew, except that they be held by all who are truly catholic, just as the one who, when asked by the Lord in the Gospel what his name was, replied: \"Legion, for we are many\" (Mark 5:9).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Nos Nestorium ante quidem damnatum iterata damnatione cum Eutyche atque Oioscoro, sancto nobis Spiritu præsidente, prostravimus","severity":"info","text":"The speaker claims to have condemned Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus under the presidency of the Holy Spirit, asserting conciliar authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Necrodioctarum sive Porcianistarum","severity":"info","text":"These are obscure heresiological labels: 'Necrodioctae' (persecutors of the dead) and 'Porcianistae' (followers of Porcius?) likely refer to opponents of the Three Chapters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Legio, quia multi sumus (Marc. v, 9)","severity":"info","text":"The Gospel of Mark 5:9 is cited, where the demoniac answers 'Legion, for we are many.' Facundus likens heretics to this multitude.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Chalcedonense concilium","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Chalcedon (451) is central to the Three Chapters controversy; Facundus defends its authority against those who would call it heretical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Hæc audientes quid, regamus, dicturi estis tot præclaris pontificibus vel universae per totum mundum diffusae catholicae Ecclesiae","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question addresses the reader directly, challenging them to answer to the universal Church and its bishops.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"bactenusque in suis reliquiis ubique propagatis custodit","severity":"info","text":"Facundus claims the Church has preserved the statutes of Chalcedon in its relics, a reference to the veneration of conciliar decrees as authoritative.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Necrodioctae' and 'Porcianistae' is uncertain; they may be invented or obscure heresies.","The phrase 'sancto nobis Spiritu præsidente' may imply a claim of divine guidance for the council's actions, but the exact conciliar context is unspecified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"Quoniam revera qui sanctae et magnae Chalcedonensis synodi auctoritati contradicere in aliquo præsumit aut pertentat, et Arianus est, et Macedonianus, et Nestorianus, et Eutychianus et Acephalus, vel quidquid ex variis impietatis hæreticae germinibus derivari, eisque coaptari poterit, contra quas utriusque pestes ipsius synodi vigilavit intentio, ut et praeteritos hæreticos iterata dawnatione percelleret, et præsentes anathematizaret, et futuros præsago Dei Spiritu damnationis vinculis cum corum sequacibus modoque quolibet participibus innecteret. Jam porro de hoc quod dicuot eodem ritu lectionum solemnia, vel sacrificii ordinem celebrare, possemus breviter respondere, quoniam praecisis, sicut docuimus, ab unitate catholica nihil prosit divini uominis verbis fictis facta invocatio, nec usurpata et ab Ecclesia tracta celebratio; cum et diabolus Dominum tentans Scripturarum protulerit testimonia, sed unde destrueretur, non unde miniretur: ipsaeque sanctæ Scripturae non in legendo, sed in intelligendo consistant, et diversi hæretici quod bene et salubriter in catholica acceperant, praecisi jam perniciose et letbaliter retinuerunt. Possemus et illud de sacrificio dicere quod initio mundi Dominus ad Cain dixit: Si recte, offeras, recte autem non dividas, peccasti.","english":"Since truly whoever presumes or attempts to contradict in any respect the authority of the holy and great Synod of Chalcedon is both an Arian, a Macedonian, a Nestorian, an Eutychian, and an Acephale, or whatever can be derived from the various seeds of heretical impiety and be fitted to them, against which twin plagues the intention of that same synod kept watch, so that it might strike down past heretics with a repeated condemnation, anathematize present ones, and bind future ones with the chains of condemnation, by the prescient Spirit of God, together with their followers and any kind of participants. Now further concerning this, that some celebrate the solemnities of the readings or the order of the sacrifice with the same rite, we could briefly respond, since, as we have taught, once cut off from catholic unity, the invocation of the divine name with feigned words and deeds profits nothing, nor does a celebration usurped and drawn from the Church; since even the devil, tempting the Lord, brought forth testimonies from the Scriptures, but from which he was to be destroyed, not from which he was to be strengthened: and the holy Scriptures themselves consist not in reading, but in understanding, and various heretics, what they had received well and wholesomely in the catholic Church, once cut off, they retained perniciously and lethally. We could also say this concerning the sacrifice, that at the beginning of the world the Lord said to Cain: If you offer rightly, but you do not divide rightly, you have sinned.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"Acephalus","severity":"info","text":"Acephalus (Greek 'headless') refers to those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon and its definition, often associated with the Monophysite position, and considered a distinct heretical group in this context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Si recte offeras, recte autem non dividas, peccasti","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of God's words to Cain in Genesis 4:7 (Vulgate: 'si recte offeras, recte non dividas, peccasti'), used here to argue that correct ritual form without proper intention or ecclesial communion is sinful.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Chalcedonensis synodi","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined Christ as one person in two natures, condemning both Nestorianism and Eutychianism. Facundus defends its authority against those who would reject or modify its decrees.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"diabolus Dominum tentans Scripturarum protulerit testimonia","severity":"info","text":"The devil quoting Scripture to tempt Christ recalls Matthew 4:6 (Vulgate: 'si autem Deus es, dic verbum') and patristic commonplaces (e.g., Augustine) that heretics misuse Scripture, as the devil did, for destruction, not edification.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Jam porro de hoc quod dicunt","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a transition from the general condemnation of opponents of Chalcedon to a specific objection: that schismatics may still use orthodox rites. Facundus refutes this by arguing that form without communion is void.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Facundus Hermianensis","severity":"info","text":"Facundus, bishop of Hermiane in Africa, wrote this defense of the Three Chapters (the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Ibas) against imperial pressure, arguing for conciliar authority and continuity with Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'quod dicunt eodem ritu lectionum solemnia, vel sacrificii ordinem celebrare' could refer to specific groups (e.g., Nestorians or Monophysites) continuing orthodox rites; Facundus does not name them explicitly.","The final citation to Cain is a loose paraphrase of Genesis 4:7; the exact Vulgate wording is 'si recte offeras, recte non dividas, peccasti', but the text may be a memory variant."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Sed et illud quod prævaricatoribus, pactumque Dei violantibus, sacerdotibus idem Dominus per prophetam dicit: Cum multiplicaveritis prece. vestias, avertam faciem meam a vobis. Et cum obtuleritis sacrificium mihi, non suscipiam illud de maxiMus vestris, nec placabor vobis, quoniam iniqui sunt cætus vestri (Isa. i, 13, 15); multaque sirnilia quæ commemorare longum eft. Sed opportunum judicavimus etam gloriosissimi martyris et episc pi Cypriani, vel unum aut duo contra eos pro simili causa scripta proferre testimonia; quia diligenter cordis oculis considerata atque perspecta animadvertet quisquis corde intelligens est, si ultra novoruni hæreticorum sacrificia appetere debeat. Hic namque in epistola pro sancto Cornelio similiter martyre et episcopo urbis Romæ, quem Novatianus hæreticus expulerat, et se loco ejus, sicut et none a novellis hæreticis factum est, subrogaverat, ad Magnum scripta post alia dicit: a « Si autem grex unus est, quomodo potest gregi annumerari qui in numero gregis non est? Aut pastor haberi quomodo potest, qui manente vero pastore, et in Ecclesia Domini ordinate succedente a ac præsidente, nemini ipse succedens et a seipso incipiens, alienus fit et profanus, dominicæ pacis ac divinæ unitatis inimicus, non habitans in domo Dei, id est in Ecclesia Dei, in qua non nisi concordes atque unanimes habitant?","english":"But also that which the Lord says through the prophet to the transgressors and violators of the covenant with God, the priests: \"When you have multiplied your prayers, I will turn my face away from you. And when you offer sacrifice to me, I will not accept it from your hands, nor will I be appeased by you, because your assemblies are iniquitous\" (Isa. 1:13, 15); and many similar things which it would be long to recount. But we judged it opportune to bring forth also one or two testimonies from the most glorious martyr and bishop Cyprian, written against them for a similar cause; because whoever is of understanding heart, having diligently considered and examined with the eyes of the heart, will perceive whether he ought to seek after the sacrifices of the new heretics. For here, in the epistle for the holy Cornelius, likewise a martyr and bishop of the city of Rome, whom the heretic Novatian had expelled and had substituted himself in his place, just as has now been done by the new heretics, written to Magnus, after other things he says: \"But if the flock is one, how can he be counted among the flock who is not in the number of the flock? Or how can he be considered a pastor who, while the true pastor remains and succeeds in an orderly manner and presides in the Church of the Lord, himself succeeding no one and beginning from himself, becomes alien and profane, an enemy of the Lord's peace and divine unity, not dwelling in the house of God, that is, in the Church of God, in which only those who are concordant and unanimous dwell?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Isa. i, 13, 15","severity":"info","text":"Facundus cites Isaiah 1:13, 15, but the Vulgate text differs; the quotation appears to be a loose adaptation or a variant reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Novatianus hæreticus","severity":"info","text":"Novatian was a third-century antipope who led a rigorist schism; Facundus draws a parallel between Novatian's usurpation and the actions of contemporary 'new heretics' opposing the Council of Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"epistola pro sancto Cornelio","severity":"info","text":"Facundus refers to Cyprian's letter to Magnus (Ep. 69) defending Pope Cornelius against Novatian; the same letter is used to argue against accepting sacraments from heretical bishops.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed et illud... multaque similia","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the narrative by adding a scriptural warning and then introducing Cyprian's testimony as a second authority, reinforcing the argument against heretical priests.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"gloriosissimi martyris et episcopi Cypriani","severity":"info","text":"Cyprian of Carthage, a third-century martyr and bishop, is cited as an authoritative witness; his writings were widely used in later controversies over schism and heresy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Cum multiplicaveritis prece. vestias","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text of the Isaiah quotation contains a probable scribal error: 'prece. vestias' likely stands for 'preces vestras' (your prayers), but the abbreviation or punctuation is unclear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact wording of the Isaiah quotation is uncertain due to possible textual corruption; the reference to 'prece. vestias' may be a scribal error for 'preces vestras'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Denique quam sit inseparabile unitatis sacramentum, et quam sine spe sint, et perditionem sibi Inanimam de indignatione Dei acquirant qui schisma faciunt, et relicto episcopo alium sibi pseudoepiscopum con stituunt d.... Quod si aliquis illud opponit, ut dicat eamdem Novalianum legem tenere, quam catholica Ecclesia tenet, et eodem symbolo quo et nos baptizare, eumdem nosse Denm Patrem, eumdem Filium Christum, eumdem Spiritum sanctum; sciat qui hoc opponendum putat, hoe adjuvare tales non posse. Nam et Core, et Dathan, et Abiron, cum sacerdote Aaron et Moyse eumdem Deum noverant, pari lege et religione viventes, unum et verum Deum qui colendus atque invocandus fuerat, invocabant; tamen quia loci sui ministerium transgressi contra Aaron sacerdotem, qui sacerdotium legitimum dignatione Dei atque ordinatione perceperat, sacrificandi sibi Iicentiam vindieaverunt, divinitus percussi, pcenas statim pro illicitis conatibus rependerunt, nec potuerunt rata esse et proficere sacrificii irreligiose et illicite contra jus divinae dispositionis oblata. Quare qui Novatiano, sive cæteris hujusmodi patrocinantur, frustra contendunt.","english":"Finally, how inseparable is the sacrament of unity, and how without hope and acquiring for themselves a ruin of the soul from the indignation of God are those who make a schism, and, having abandoned the bishop, set up for themselves another pseudo-bishop. But if someone objects, saying that Novatian holds the same law that the Catholic Church holds, and baptizes with the same creed as we do, and knows the same God the Father, the same Son Christ, the same Holy Spirit, let him know who thinks this should be objected that this cannot help such persons. For Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, together with the priest Aaron and Moses, knew the same God, living by the same law and religion, and invoked the one true God who was to be worshipped and invoked; yet because they transgressed the ministry of their place against Aaron the priest, who had received the legitimate priesthood by the grace of God and by ordination, and claimed for themselves the license to sacrifice, they were struck by divine power, immediately paid the penalty for their unlawful attempts, and the sacrifices irreligiously and illicitly offered against the right of divine ordinance could not be valid or effective. Therefore, those who champion Novatian, or others of this kind, contend in vain.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"unitatis sacramentum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'sacrament of unity' refers to the bond of ecclesiastical communion, a key concept in anti-schismatic polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Core, Dathan, Abiron","severity":"info","text":"The rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram against Moses and Aaron is recounted in Numbers 16. Facundus uses it as a type of schism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Novatian","severity":"info","text":"Novatian was a third-century antipope whose rigorist sect, the Novatians, refused readmission to lapsed Christians. Facundus argues that doctrinal agreement does not excuse schism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quod si aliquis illud opponit","severity":"info","text":"This clause introduces a hypothetical objection, a common rhetorical device in patristic argumentation, which Facundus then refutes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Core, Dathan, Abiron","severity":"info","text":"The typology of Korah's rebellion was frequently invoked by Latin Fathers (e.g., Cyprian, Augustine) to condemn schismatics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has a lacuna after 'constituunt d....' which may have originally contained a fuller description of the pseudo-bishop's actions."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Atque ut magis intelligi posset contra hujusmodi audaciam, quae sit censura divina, invenimus in tali facinore non solum duces et auctores, sed et participes poenis destinari, nisi se a communione malorum separaverint, præcipiente per Moysen Domino, et dicente: Separamini a tabernaculi, hominum istorum durissimorum, el nolite tangere ab omnibus quæ sunt eis, ne simul pereatis in peccato eorum (Num. XVI, 26). Et quod comminatus per Moysen Dominus fuerat implevit: ut quisquis se a Core, et Dathan, et Abiron non separasset, pœnas statim pro impia communione persolveret. Quo exemplo ostenditur et probatur, obnoxios omnes et culpae et pœnæ e qui se schismaticis contra praepositus et sacerdotes Dei irreligiosa tcmeritate miscuerint, sicut etiam per Oseam prophetam Spiritus sanctus contestatur, et dicit: Sacrificia eorum tanqnam panis luctus; omnes qui manducant ea contaminabuntur (Ose. IX, 4): docens seilicet et ostendens omnes omnino cum auctoribus supplicio conjungi, qui fuerint eornm peccato contaminati. » Quid hoc testimonio evidentius? Quid lucidius? Quid dici veracius potest? Ecce enim omnes omnino pari reatu parique pœna constrictos docet, quotquot fuerint malorum communione polluti. Quid ergo est, quod quidam quasi se excusantes dicunt; ipse scit episcopus meus si damnavit quempiam talihus comminetur, dicens: Tu autem odisti disciplinam, ct abjecisti sermones meos rtIro.","english":"And so that the divine judgment against such audacity might be better understood, we find that in such a crime not only the leaders and authors, but also the participants, are destined for punishments, unless they separate themselves from communion with the wicked, as the Lord commands through Moses, saying: \"Separate yourselves from the tabernacle of these very hard men, and do not touch anything that belongs to them, lest you perish together in their sin\" (Num. 16:26). And what the Lord had threatened through Moses, he fulfilled: so that whoever did not separate himself from Korah, Dathan, and Abiram immediately paid the penalty for impious communion. By this example it is shown and proven that all who have mixed with schismatics against the bishops and priests of God in irreligious temerity are liable to both the guilt and the punishment, just as the Holy Spirit also testifies through the prophet Hosea, and says: \"Their sacrifices are like the bread of mourning; all who eat of them will be defiled\" (Hos. 9:4), teaching and showing that all without exception are joined in punishment with the authors, who have been contaminated by their sin. What is more evident than this testimony? What is clearer? What can be said more truly? For behold, it teaches that all without exception are bound by equal guilt and equal punishment, as many as have been polluted by communion with the wicked. What then is it that some say, as if excusing themselves: \"My bishop himself knows if he has condemned someone,\" to such he says: \"But you have hated discipline and have rejected my words.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Num. XVI, 26","severity":"info","text":"Facundus cites Numbers 16:26, a verse not present in the Vulgate as numbered; the reference likely conflates Numbers 16:26 with the surrounding narrative of Korah's rebellion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ose. IX, 4","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Hosea 9:4 is adapted; the Vulgate reads 'panis lugentium' (bread of the mourners) rather than 'panis luctus' (bread of mourning), but the sense of ritual contamination is retained.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Core, Dathan, et Abiron","severity":"info","text":"Korah, Dathan, and Abiram are figures from Numbers 16 who led a rebellion against Moses; their punishment by the earth swallowing them became a standard patristic type for schism and divine retribution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quid hoc testimonio evidentius?","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question marks a climax in Facundus's argument, emphasizing the clarity of scriptural witness on shared guilt in schism, before turning to refute an objection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Facundus Hermianensis","severity":"info","text":"Facundus's use of Numbers 16 and Hosea 9 to argue that participants in schism share guilt reflects a standard anti-Donatist and anti-schismatic trope, here applied to the Three Chapters controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"el nolite tangere","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'el nolite tangere' appears to be a scribal error for 'et nolite tangere'; the text is otherwise sound but the citation of Numbers 16:26 is not verbatim from the Vulgate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact Vulgate verse for the Numbers citation is uncertain; the text may be a conflation of Numbers 16:26 with surrounding material.","The phrase 'el nolite tangere' is likely a scribal error for 'et nolite tangere'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"Si videbas (urem, currebas ei, et cum adulteris portionem tuam ponebas (Psal. XLIX, 17, 18). Et infra manifestat et comprobat Paulus apostolus (Rom. I, 32) morte dignos esse et ad poenam venire, non tantum illos qui male faciunt, sed etiam eos qui talia agentibus consentiunt: qui cum malis et peccatoribus, et pœnitentiam non agentibus illicita communicatione miscentur, nocentinm contactibus polluuntur, et dum junguntur in culpa, sic nec in poena separantur. At isti: Sed non consentimus, inquiunt, damnationi mortuorum. intolerabile malum! inauditum opprobrium non consentire quasi verbis, damnationi dicunt, et consentiunt operibus, quod deterius est, eisecrabili communioni; cum magis cumulatior maneat poena eis qui et non ignorant veritatem, et tamen communicant veritatis inimicis. Si enim hæresim fecerunt, sicut docuimus, hi quibus communicatis, damnando vivos et mortuos; si ad hæreticos exierunt, faciendo quod Acephali voluerunt, hæretici profecto utrique admissis remanserunt. Quomodo ergo qui haeretieis communicant, haeresis crimine teneri negabuntur' aut qua fronte catholicæ communicare sibi videntur? An quia manufactas ecclesias palatino suffulti suffragio depulsis catholicis pervaserunt, ideo vos fidem catholicam pacemque Cbristianam in parietibus esse arbitramini?","english":"If you saw a man committing adultery, you would run to him and place your portion with the adulterers (Ps. 49:17-18). And further on, the Apostle Paul makes clear and proves (Rom. 1:32) that not only those who do evil, but also those who consent to those who do such things, are worthy of death and liable to punishment: those who, by illicit communion, mingle with the wicked and sinners who do not repent, are polluted by the contacts of the guilty, and while they are joined in guilt, they are not separated even in punishment. But these men say: \"We do not consent, however, to the condemnation of the dead.\" An intolerable evil! An unheard-of reproach: they say they do not consent, in words, to the condemnation, and they consent by their works, which is worse, to an execrable communion; since a more severe punishment awaits those who not only are ignorant of the truth, but nevertheless communicate with the enemies of the truth. For if those with whom you communicate have committed heresy, as we have taught, by condemning the living and the dead; if they have gone over to the heretics, by doing what the Acephali wanted, then both parties have certainly remained heretics after their admitted offenses. How, therefore, will those who communicate with heretics be denied to be held by the crime of heresy? Or by what face do they seem to themselves to communicate with Catholics? Or do you think that the Catholic faith and Christian peace reside in walls, because they have seized churches built by hand, supported by palatine influence, after driving out the Catholics?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Psal. XLIX, 17, 18","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Psalm 49:17-18 (Vulgate numbering) is used to illustrate complicity in sin, a theme Paul develops in Romans 1:32.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. I, 32","severity":"info","text":"Romans 1:32 is cited to support the argument that those who consent to evil are equally guilty, a key point in Facundus’s polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Acephali","severity":"info","text":"Acephali refers to a group of Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon and were without a clear leader; Facundus uses them as a foil.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"palatino suffulti suffragio","severity":"info","text":"This phrase alludes to imperial support (palatine influence) for rival bishops, a common charge in the Three Chapters controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"At isti: Sed non consentimus","severity":"info","text":"Facundus introduces a direct objection from opponents, then refutes it, a rhetorical device common in polemical letters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"manufactas ecclesias","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'churches built by hand' may be a rhetorical exaggeration; the Latin is clear but the historical referent is ambiguous.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'isti' (these men) is not specified; they are likely opponents in the Three Chapters debate.","The phrase 'damnatio mortuorum' could refer to condemnation of deceased persons, a key issue in the controversy."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"Si hoc opinamini, audite quod etiam sanctus Hilarius episcopus confessor et doctor egregius quibusdam et iscopis tempore Constantii imperatoris, quo sic Ariani sub nomine pacis et regis pervaserant universas pene totius orbis locales ecclesias, sicut nunc Eutychiani sive Acephali, de hac re scribat, post alia dicens: « Oro vos, episcopi, qui hoc esse vos creditis, quibusnam suffragiis ad prædicandum Evangelium apostoli usi sunt? quibus adjuci potestatibus Christum prædicaverunt, gentesque fere omnes ex idolis ad Dominum transtulerunt? Anne aliquam sibi assumebant e palatio dignitatem? » Et infra: « Unum moneo, inquit, caveto Antichristum; male enim vos parietum amor cepit, male Ecclesiam Ici in lectis ædificiisque veneramini, male suhi Itis pacis nomen ingeritis. Annc ambiguum est in his Antichristum esse sessurum? Montes mihi et silvae et lacus, et carceres, et voragiues sunt tutiores. In his enim prophetae erant manentes, et spiritu Dei prophetabant. I Hæc interim pro brevitate prolata sufficiant testimonia, quoniam si amplius coacervare vel ratiocinari vellemus, legentium forsitan memoriam oneraremus. Nunc jam illud quoque breviter commemorare debemus, quod ex beati Augustini opusculis contra Donatistas scriptis obji iunt, dicentes: Dixit sanctus Augustinus: Bona esl pax, habete pacem; bona est finitas, diligite unitatem, non scindatur unitas.","english":"If you think this, hear what the blessed Hilary, bishop, confessor, and distinguished doctor, writes to certain bishops at the time of the Emperor Constantius, when the Arians, under the name of peace and the emperor, had overrun almost all the local churches of the whole world, just as now the Eutychians or Acephali do, concerning this matter, saying after other things: \"I beseech you, bishops, who believe yourselves to be such, by what supports did the apostles use to preach the Gospel? By what powers did they preach Christ and transfer almost all nations from idols to the Lord? Did they assume some dignity from the palace?\" And further on: \"One thing I advise,\" he says, \"beware of Antichrist; for the love of walls has seized you badly, you venerate the Church badly in beds and buildings, you bring in the name of peace badly. Is it ambiguous that Antichrist will sit in these? Mountains, forests, lakes, prisons, and chasms are safer for me. For in these the prophets remained and prophesied by the Spirit of God.\" For the present, let these testimonies, brought forth for brevity, suffice, since if we wished to heap up more or to reason, we might perhaps burden the memory of the readers. Now we must also briefly recall that which they object from the works of the blessed Augustine written against the Donatists, saying: Saint Augustine said: \"Peace is good, have peace; unity is good, love unity, let unity not be torn.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Facundus compares the Arian persecution under Constantius II with the contemporary Eutychian and Acephali movements, framing his defense of the Three Chapters within a history of heresy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hilarius","severity":"info","text":"Hilary of Poitiers is quoted, but the passage is not a direct biblical citation; it echoes themes of apostolic poverty and prophetic solitude, possibly alluding to 1 Kings 19 or similar prophetic retreats.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Augustinus","severity":"info","text":"Facundus cites Augustine's anti-Donatist works to counter opponents who use Augustine's call for peace to justify communion with heretics, a key move in the Three Chapters controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage concludes a series of patristic testimonies with a brief summary, then transitions to a new argument by introducing an objection from Augustine's writings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"suhitis","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is corrupt: 'suhitis' is likely a scribal error for 'subitis' (you bring in) or 'sugitis' (you suck in); the English draft reads 'you bring in'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'suhitis pacis nomen' is corrupt; the intended verb is uncertain.","The exact source of Hilary's quotation is not identified in the passage."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"Sed hæc et talia egregii doctoris testimonia, quantum eos supp'odant, nos vero stabiliant, nequaquam perspiciunt. Si enim isti qui hæc contra se potius opponunt, nolebant scindere unitatem; si nolebant bellum inferre catholicæ Ecclesiæ, per quod pax violaretur; quod in ea invenerunt, hoc utique servare et viriliter custodire, sicut supra ostensum est, debuerunt. Quod autem illa, aut ab illa non acceperunt, tanquam vere noxium et lethale fugere cavereque debuerunt. Nam habenda est pax, secundum apostolicam doctrinam, cum omnibus, si fieri poiesl, hominibus, non tamen cum omnibus tenenda. Siquidem longe aliud sit habere ali.juid, aliud tenere. Non solum igitur cum schismaticis et hæreticis, sed etiam cum Judæis carnalibus atque paganis habenda est pax. Sed ill. profecto pax, per quam eos exoptamus et cupimus Deo acquirere, et veritati unitatique sociare catholicæ; propter quod etiam ut convertan-.tur, tur, secundum mandatum Dei pro eis oramus: non sic tenenda ut ad illos nos exeamus, et quod illi sunt, hoc nos quoque efficiamur. Denique quod beatus Augustinus dicebat et suadebat Donatistis, habere pacem, dil gere unitatem, egregie satis et salubriter dicebat: ipsos enim cupiebat, quemadmodum et nos istos, damnato errore suo ad catholicam redire, sicut in multis opusculis contra eorum schisma scriptis luculentissime edocet.","english":"But these and similar testimonies of the distinguished doctor—how much they undermine them, but strengthen us—they do not at all perceive. For if these men, who set these things against themselves rather, were unwilling to rend unity; if they were unwilling to wage war on the Catholic Church, through which peace would be violated; what they found in it, they ought certainly to have preserved and manfully guarded, as has been shown above. But what they did not receive from it, or from her, they ought to have fled and shunned as truly harmful and deadly. For peace is to be had, according to apostolic teaching, with all men, if possible, but not to be held with all. Since it is one thing to have something, another to hold it. Therefore, peace is to be had not only with schismatics and heretics, but also with carnal Jews and pagans. But that peace is indeed that by which we desire and long to acquire them for God, and to join them to Catholic truth and unity; on account of which we also pray for them to be converted, according to the command of God: not so to be held that we go out to them, and what they are, we also become. Finally, what blessed Augustine said and urged to the Donatists—to have peace, to love unity—he said it excellently and wholesomely: for he desired them, just as we desire these men, after condemning their error, to return to the Catholic Church, as he most lucidly teaches in many works written against their schism.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"habenda est pax ... non tamen cum omnibus tenenda","severity":"info","text":"Facundus distinguishes between having peace (habere) and holding peace (tenere), a key argument for limited communion with heretics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"secundum apostolicam doctrinam","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'apostolic teaching' likely alludes to Paul's exhortation to peace (e.g., Rom 12:18, 1 Cor 7:15), though no specific verse is cited.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"beatus Augustinus dicebat et suadebat Donatistis","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's anti-Donatist works (e.g., Contra Epistulam Parmeniani, De Baptismo) argued for peace and unity while condemning schism, a model for Facundus.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Augustine 4th-5th c."],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut in multis opusculis contra eorum schisma scriptis luculentissime edocet","severity":"info","text":"Facundus appeals to Augustine's authority to support his own stance against the Eutychians, showing the reception of Augustine in 6th-century Christological debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed hæc et talia egregii doctoris testimonia","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the argument from the previous section, contrasting the opponents' misuse of Hilary's testimony with the correct interpretation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'supp'odant' is a scribal error or abbreviation; likely 'suppodant' (subvert) or 'supplent' (supply). The translation 'undermine' is adopted.","The phrase 'ab illa' could refer to the Church (ecclesia) or to the preceding feminine noun (e.g., unitas); the translation takes it as 'from her' (the Church)."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"Non ut ipse, antquisquam orthodoxorum relicta, qu od absit, calholica, erro-i eorum communione sacrilega misceretur. Hoc et nos istis cum magna pace dicimus: Damnate errorem quem induxistis, auferte damnationis malum quod intulistis, per quod et hæretici facti, et hæreticorum fautores exstitistis; et nobiscum pacem habentes, et sicut pridem tenentes, universos hæreticos confudistis, et catholicæ vos unitati reddidistis. Quisquis itaque hæc legis, eloquium noli quærere, sed res pondusque vcritatis diligenter intucre. Et si praevaricatorum communione pollutus non es, ora Deum ut perseveres. Si vero aut ignoranter aut violenter lapsus es, reparare ad catholicam veritatem recurrendo festina, communionem ejus resumendo: omnibus siquidem poenitentibus promissa est venia. Nemo desperatione frangatur. Nullus serpentinis deceptionibus uherius irretiatur: quoniam, sicut transgressoribus et impœnitenti corde permanentibus sempiternum cum diaholo præparatum est supplicium, sic a Domino Deo pactum ejus conservantibus, et fidei catholicæ fundamenta custodientibus, novitatesque profanas devitantibus, æternum et sine fiue reserva. tum est præmium gloriosum.","english":"Not that he himself, or any of the orthodox, abandoning the Catholic faith (which God forbid), would be mixed in with their sacrilegious communion. This we also say to them with great peace: Condemn the error which you have introduced, remove the evil of condemnation which you have inflicted, through which you have both become heretics and have stood forth as supporters of heretics; and having peace with us, and holding as before, you have confounded all heretics and restored yourselves to Catholic unity. Whoever therefore reads these things, do not seek eloquence, but diligently consider the matter and the weight of truth. And if you are not polluted by the communion of the transgressors, pray to God that you may persevere. But if you have lapsed, either ignorantly or violently, hasten to repair by returning to Catholic truth, resuming her communion: for pardon is promised to all who repent. Let no one be broken by despair. Let no one be further ensnared by serpentine deceptions: since, just as for transgressors and those remaining with an unrepentant heart eternal punishment is prepared with the devil, so for those preserving their pact with the Lord God, and guarding the foundations of the Catholic faith, and avoiding profane novelties, a glorious and eternal reward without end is reserved.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"eloquium noli quærere, sed res pondusque veritatis diligenter intuere","severity":"info","text":"Facundus contrasts rhetorical eloquence with the substantive weight of truth, a common topos in patristic polemic, urging the reader to focus on doctrinal substance rather than style.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"novitatesque profanas","severity":"info","text":"'Profane novelties' (novitates profanae) is a key phrase in the Three Chapters controversy, used by defenders of the Council of Chalcedon to condemn doctrinal innovations introduced by the condemnation of the Three Chapters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nullus serpentinis deceptionibus uherius irretiatur","severity":"info","text":"The serpent imagery echoes Genesis 3 and patristic commonplaces about heretical deception, but no single verse is directly quoted; the phrase is a general biblical allusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"damnationis malum quod intulistis","severity":"info","text":"Facundus refers to the condemnation of the Three Chapters (the 'evil of condemnation') imposed by imperial edict and synodal decree, which he argues made the condemners themselves heretical by breaking communion with the wider Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quisquis itaque hæc legis...","severity":"info","text":"The passage shifts from direct address to the opponents to a general exhortation to the reader, employing a rhetorical appeal to repentance and perseverance, typical of the letter's hortatory conclusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut transgressoribus et impœnitenti corde permanentibus sempiternum cum diabolo præparatum est supplicium","severity":"info","text":"This eschatological warning reflects the standard Latin patristic teaching on eternal punishment for unrepentant heretics, a theme that influenced later medieval treatments of heresy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has 'calholica' for 'catholica', likely a scribal error or variant spelling; the sense is clear.","The phrase 'uherius irretiatur' is uncertain: 'uherius' may be a misreading for 'ulterius' (further) or 'uberius' (more abundantly); the translation adopts 'further' as contextually plausible."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}