{"slug":"tmp398.tmp398.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp398.tmp398.opp-lat1","title":"Libellus De Fide Seu Duodecim Anathematismi [Incertus]","title_source":"Libellus De Fide Seu Duodecim Anathematismi [Incertus]","author":"Rufinus Aquileiensis","genre":"treatise","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":"2026-11-15T06:01:41Z","cost_usd":0.002093},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp398.tmp398.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp398.tmp398.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/tmp398/tmp398/tmp398.tmp398.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":3,"english_words":640,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":2369,"commentary_units":18,"commentary_kinds":6,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":8,"work_notes":4,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"tmp398.tmp398.opp-lat1","abstract":"The 'Libellus De Fide Seu Duodecim Anathematismi' is a short Latin treatise attributed to Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 345–411), though its authorship is uncertain and contested. The work survives in a single manuscript tradition, often appended to Rufinus' translations of Origen. Despite its title promising twelve anathemas, the text contains only two, suggesting it may be incomplete or the title is conventional. The anathemas employ standard conciliar condemnation formulas to denounce heretical positions, reflecting a pseudo-synodal character. The work was later cited in medieval florilegia and canon law collections as a concise statement of anti-heretical orthodoxy, though never formally adopted by a council. Its dating is speculative, usually placed in the late 4th or early 5th century based on theological content and association with Rufinus.","historical_context":"The work is rooted in the late 4th to early 5th century Latin Christian tradition, likely produced in the Western Roman Empire, possibly in Aquileia or Rome. It reflects the theological controversies of the period, particularly the Origenist disputes and the rise of Pelagianism. The text's association with Rufinus, a translator and theologian who defended Origen, places it within the broader anti-Origenist polemics. The work's pseudo-synodal form, using 'anathema sint' formulas, mimics conciliar decrees, indicating its intended use as a tool for doctrinal enforcement. Its survival in a single manuscript tradition, often appended to Origen's translations, suggests limited circulation. The text's later citation in medieval florilegia and canon law collections shows its enduring utility as a concise statement of orthodoxy, though its authenticity was doubted even in antiquity. The work's incomplete state (only two anathemas) raises questions about its original form and purpose.","significance":"The 'Libellus De Fide' matters as a witness to late antique Latin theological polemic, particularly the Origenist controversies. Its pseudo-synodal structure and use of anathemas prefigure later medieval conciliar decrees. The work's uncertain attribution to Rufinus highlights the complexities of authorship in early Christian literature. Its citation in medieval florilegia and canon law collections demonstrates its lasting influence as a concise statement of anti-heretical orthodoxy, despite never being formally adopted by a council.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 345–411","event":"Life of Rufinus of Aquileia, to whom the work is attributed."},{"date":"Late 4th–early 5th c.","event":"Probable composition of the Libellus De Fide, based on theological content and association with Rufinus."},{"date":"5th–6th c.","event":"Transmission of the work in a single manuscript tradition, often appended to Rufinus' translations of Origen."},{"date":"Medieval period","event":"Citation of the twelve anathemas in florilegia and canon law collections as a statement of orthodoxy."},{"date":"Modern era","event":"Critical scholarship questions the attribution to Rufinus and notes the text's incomplete state."}],"relations":[{"work":"Origen's works (Latin translations by Rufinus)","relation":"The Libellus is often appended to these translations, suggesting a textual association.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Pelagian controversies","relation":"The work may reflect later anti-Pelagian or semi-Pelagian debates, influencing its attribution.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Medieval florilegia and canon law collections","relation":"The anathemas were cited as a concise statement of anti-heretical orthodoxy.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Origenist controversies","relation":"The work's content and association with Rufinus place it within the anti-Origenist polemics of the late 4th–5th centuries.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The attribution to Rufinus is uncertain and contested; the work may be a later compilation falsely ascribed to him.","Dating is speculative; the text is usually placed in the late 4th or early 5th century, but this is not firmly established.","The work survives in a single manuscript tradition, and the Latin text has not been critically collated against all known manuscripts.","The title promises twelve anathemas, but only two are present, suggesting the work is incomplete or the title is conventional.","A corrupt reading in the manuscript ('per err(??)r(??)m') affects interpretation of the author's admission of past heresy."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.00052,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:01:40Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp398/tmp398/tmp398.tmp398.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp398.tmp398.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":3,"translated":3,"commentary_passages":3,"commentary_units":18,"english_words":640,"source_letters":2369,"commentary_kinds":6},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work survives in a single manuscript tradition, often appended to Rufinus' Latin translations of Origen. Its attribution to Rufinus is uncertain and contested.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Dating is speculative; the text is usually placed in the late 4th or early 5th century, based on its theological content and association with Rufinus (c. 345–411).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The twelve anathemas were later cited in medieval florilegia and canon law collections as a concise statement of anti-heretical orthodoxy, though never formally adopted by a council.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text in the source edition (ogl-pl) has not been critically collated against all known manuscripts; variant readings may affect interpretation of key anathemas.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-pl"]}],"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: treatise in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 3 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":3},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"LIBELLUS DE FIDE a SEU DUODECIM ANATHEMATISMI SUB RUFINI NOMINE.\n\nINCIPIT PROPTER FIDEM.\n\nPropter venerationem Sanctorum locorum, Jerosolymam et Bethlehem venimus; et intelleximus, plurimos fratres io nobis scandalizari, eo quod audierunt, nos multa haeretica, et quae contra fidem Ecclesiae veniunt, profiteri, itaque. Deo praesente, testamur, quae infra scripta sunt, nos ex parte sensisse per err(??)r(??)m, et praesenti tempore condemnare: alia autem, in quibus falso infamamur, nec dixisse, nec dicere, et contraria, quae in aliis suspicamur, posuisse atque damnasse.\n\nI. Qui dicunt, Diabolo, et Daemonibus, et impiis, hoc est, Gentibus, Judaeis, Samaritanis, omnibusque haereticis (exceptis Christianis, qui rectam fidem sequuntur, et sunt peccatores) poenas eorum uon esse perpetuas, anathema sint.\n\nII. Qui dicunt, quemvis sanctum virum, et prophetalem, et apostolicum sine Dei auxilio posse esse perfectum, anathema sint.","english":"Little Book on the Faith, or the Twelve Anathemas under the Name of Rufinus.\n\nHere Begins: On Account of the Faith.\n\nOn account of the veneration of the holy places, we came to Jerusalem and Bethlehem; and we understood that very many brothers are scandalized against us, because they have heard that we profess many heretical things, and things which come against the faith of the Church. Therefore, with God present, we testify that the things written below we have in part held through error, and at the present time condemn; other things, however, in which we are falsely defamed, we have neither said nor do say, and we have set down and condemned the contrary things which we suspect in others.\n\nI. Those who say that the punishments of the Devil, and of the Demons, and of the impious, that is, of the Gentiles, Jews, Samaritans, and all heretics (excepting Christians who follow the right faith and are sinners) are not perpetual, let them be anathema.\n\nII. Those who say that any holy man, whether prophetic or apostolic, can be perfect without the help of God, let them be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"LIBELLUS DE FIDE SEU DUODECIM ANATHEMATISMI SUB RUFINI NOMINE","severity":"info","text":"The title presents the work as a 'little book on the faith' or 'twelve anathemas' under Rufinus' name, but the text contains only two anathemas, suggesting the work is incomplete or the title is conventional.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Propter venerationem Sanctorum locorum, Jerosolymam et Bethlehem venimus","severity":"info","text":"The author claims to have visited Jerusalem and Bethlehem out of reverence for holy places, a common trope in late antique Christian travel narratives, but the work's attribution to Rufinus is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"anathema sint","severity":"info","text":"The formula 'anathema sint' (let them be anathema) is a standard conciliar condemnation, used here to denounce specific heretical positions, reflecting the work's pseudo-synodal character.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"per err(??)r(??)m","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'per err(??)r(??)m' is corrupt; the intended word is likely 'errorem' (error), but the manuscript reading is uncertain, affecting the interpretation of the author's admission of past heresy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Diabolo, et Daemonibus, et impiis, hoc est, Gentibus, Judaeis, Samaritanis, omnibusque haereticis","severity":"info","text":"The first anathema lists groups whose punishments are declared perpetual, reflecting late antique Christian polemic that denied salvation to non-Christians and heretics, a common theme in anti-Origenist controversies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Sub Rufini nomine","severity":"info","text":"The work is attributed to Rufinus of Aquileia, but its authenticity is doubted; it may be a later compilation falsely ascribed to him, possibly from the Pelagian or semi-Pelagian controversies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The text is incomplete, containing only two of the promised twelve anathemas.","The attribution to Rufinus is uncertain; the work may be pseudepigraphical.","The phrase 'per err(??)r(??)m' is corrupt and its exact reading is unclear."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"III. Qui dicunt, Christum Filium Dei, Deum Verbum, ia hominem esse mutatum, ita Deus Verbum esse desierit; aut hominem purum natum ex Maria secundum Paulum Samosatenum, et Photinum; et merito atque virtutibus in Dei vocabulum profecisse, anathema sint.\n\nIV. Qui dicunt, illud quod scriptum est. De die, anno et hora nesciunt neque Angeli, neque Filius (Marc. 13-32.), juxta blasphemias Arianorum, et non propter dispensationem carnis assumtae, anathema sint.\n\nV. Qui dicunt, Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, hoc est, Sanctam Trinitatem, diversis inter se esse substantiae, et non unius potestatis atque naturae, anathema sint.\n\nVI. Qui dicunt, quolibet modo, et quolibet sensu Filium Patrem non videre, anathema sint.\n\nVII. Qui dicunt, animas nostras ex Ange(??)orum fastigio in haec corpora corruisse, propter quaedam antiqua peccata, et in isto mundo agere poenitentiam, assumentes illa testimonia, Priusquam humiliarer ego peccavi (Psal. 118. (??)7.). Et, Educ de carcere animam meam (Psal. 141.8.), et cetera his similia, anathema sint.","english":"III. Those who say that Christ, the Son of God, God the Word, was changed into a man, so that God the Word ceased to be; or that he was a mere man born of Mary, according to Paul of Samosata and Photinus, and that he advanced into the name of God by merit and virtues, let them be anathema.\n\nIV. Those who say that which is written, \"Of the day, the year, and the hour, neither the Angels nor the Son know\" (Mark 13:32), according to the blasphemies of the Arians, and not on account of the economy of the assumed flesh, let them be anathema.\n\nV. Those who say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that is, the Holy Trinity, are of different substances among themselves, and not of one power and nature, let them be anathema.\n\nVI. Those who say, in any manner and in any sense, that the Son does not see the Father, let them be anathema.\n\nVII. Those who say that our souls have fallen from the height of the Angels into these bodies on account of certain ancient sins, and that in this world they perform penance, adducing those testimonies, \"Before I was humbled, I sinned\" (Psalm 118:7?), and \"Bring my soul out of prison\" (Psalm 141:8), and other such things, let them be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"III. Qui dicunt...","severity":"info","text":"Anathemas III–VII form a continuous series targeting Christological, Trinitarian, and anthropological heresies, each introduced by 'Qui dicunt' and ending with 'anathema sint'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"De die, anno et hora nesciunt neque Angeli, neque Filius (Marc. 13-32.)","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Mark 13:32' is a non-canonical verse; the canonical Gospel of Mark ends at chapter 16. This suggests a spurious or apocryphal source, possibly from a lost Arian text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Paulum Samosatenum, et Photinum","severity":"info","text":"Paul of Samosata (3rd c.) and Photinus (4th c.) were condemned for adoptionist Christology, teaching Jesus was a mere man who became divine by merit. The anathema aligns with Nicene orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"blasphemias Arianorum","severity":"info","text":"The Arian claim that the Son does not know the Father's plans (based on a misreading of Mark 13:32) was a standard polemical target in 4th–5th century anti-Arian literature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Priusquam humiliarer ego peccavi (Psal. 118. (??)7.)","severity":"caution","text":"The psalm reference is corrupt: 'Psal. 118. (??)7.' likely indicates Psalm 118 (LXX) verse 7, but the text 'Priusquam humiliarer ego peccavi' does not match any known psalm verse. The citation may be garbled.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Educ de carcere animam meam (Psal. 141.8.)","severity":"caution","text":"Psalm 141 (LXX) corresponds to Psalm 142 in the Hebrew numbering; verse 8 reads 'Educ de carcere animam meam' (cf. Ps 142:8 Vulgate). The numbering is consistent with the Septuagint tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The psalm references in Anathema VII are corrupt: 'Psal. 118. (??)7.' is unidentifiable; 'Psal. 141.8' is plausible but the verse text may be misremembered. The Coptic Vorlage may have had clearer citations.","The phrase 'ex Ange(??)orum fastigio' in Anathema VII contains a lacuna or scribal error; the intended reading is likely 'ex Angelorum fastigio' (from the height of the Angels)."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"VIII. Qui dicunt, Dominum et Salvatorem nostrum non in nostra venisse, sed divers sublimiorisque fu(??)sse substantae, sive caelestis, et non in totum sumsisse quod de Maria est, vel animam hominis non habuisse, vel mentem absque peccato, anathema sint.\n\nIX. Qui dicunt, post multa secula et tempora, quae non possumus humana cogitatione comprehendere, restitutionem fieri omnium in antiquam statum, et universa ad sua redire principia, anathema sint.\n\nX. Qui dicunt, post resurrectionem non eadem habere nos corpora, sed aerea quaedam et spiritalia, et non ejusdem naturae cujus in sepulchro conditi sumus, licet incorruptae atque immortalis, anathema sint.\n\nXI. Qui dicunt, post resurrectionis finem, et post multa tempora aboliri corpora, et reverti in usum, ut sine corporibus tantum animae simus, quod prius fu(??)mus, anathema sint.\n\nXII. Qui dicunt, animas prius fuisse quam natae sunt, et non cum corpore secundum exemplum primi hominis a Deo quotidie fieri, anathema sint. FINIT DE FIDE, DE NOMINE RUFINI.","english":"VIII. Those who say that our Lord and Savior did not come in our nature, but was of a different and higher substance, whether celestial, and did not fully assume that which is from Mary, or did not have a human soul, or a mind without sin, let them be anathema.\n\nIX. Those who say that after many ages and times, which we cannot comprehend with human thought, there will be a restoration of all things to their ancient state, and that all things will return to their beginnings, let them be anathema.\n\nX. Those who say that after the resurrection we will not have the same bodies, but certain aerial and spiritual ones, and not of the same nature as those in which we are buried, even if incorrupt and immortal, let them be anathema.\n\nXI. Those who say that after the end of the resurrection, and after many times, the bodies will be abolished and return to use, so that we are only souls without bodies, as we were before, let them be anathema.\n\nXII. Those who say that souls existed before they were born, and that they are not made daily by God together with the body according to the example of the first man, let them be anathema. Here ends the work On the Faith, under the name of Rufinus.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Anathemas VIII–XII conclude the series. The final line 'FINIT DE FIDE, DE NOMINE RUFINI' marks the end of the work and notes its attribution to Rufinus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Anathemas VIII–XII target Christological and eschatological errors: VIII counters docetism and Apollinarianism; IX opposes Origenist apokatastasis; X–XI reject spiritualized resurrection bodies; XII denies pre-existence of souls.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"divers sublimiorisque fu(??)sse substantae","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is corrupt at 'fu(??)sse'; likely 'fuisse substantiae'. The phrase asserts Christ was of a different and higher substance, a target of anti-docetic polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"restitutionem fieri omnium in antiquam statum","severity":"info","text":"Anathemas IX echoes Origen's doctrine of apokatastasis (cf. De Principiis), condemned as incompatible with orthodox eschatology. No single biblical verse is cited, but the concept opposes 1 Cor 15:35–38.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"These anathemas are traditionally associated with anti-Origenist councils (e.g., Constantinople 543, 553). The attribution to Rufinus is uncertain; the work may be a later compilation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text of VIII has a lacuna ('fu(??)sse') and the phrase 'divers sublimiorisque' is grammatically irregular. The English draft interprets 'divers' as 'different' but the sense is clear from context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text of VIII is corrupt at 'fu(??)sse'; the reading 'fuisse substantiae' is conjectural.","The phrase 'divers sublimiorisque' may be a scribal error for 'diversae sublimiorisque'.","The attribution to Rufinus is uncertain; the work may be pseudepigraphical."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}