Aeneas of Paris - heavenly witnesses in Latin-Greek controversies

Steven Avery

Administrator
Astute comments from Mike Ferrando, with modest changes, and his noting the false 'Chinese wall' between Greek and Latin church writers. This is a fav topic of mine to note even from the 200s (e.g. Tertullian and Cyprian) through the Arian controversies and Fulgentius and Cassiodorus, to later writers like Aeneas of Paris and Thomas Aquinas, and then the Lateran Council which published the verse in Greek and Latin:

Mike:
Here is one "Latin" that deserves much more credit.
The amazing part about Aeneas of Paris (d. 870) is that he knew Greek & Latin and wrote a refutation against the Greeks of the East.
This scholar quoted I John 5 7 and translated other Greek fathers into Latin in this work.
So, how is it that this father quoted I John 5 7 as a proof text against the Greeks??
Did Aeneas use a Greek or a Latin text for his verse?
And how would that verse be worth anything if it was not already in Greek texts as well as Latin?
This is a good example of how many of the fathers who wrote in Latin are simply grouped together without any real knowledge of their scholarship and multi language ability.
Many of these Latin writers were well educated (Rhetors and/or Lawyers, etc) in Greek and Latin.
Contras like James White class all of them as "Latins" because they wrote in Latin.
We see how much needs to be revealed in these sources.
This is an important writer who has slipped under the radar of the heavenly witnesses debate.

Aeneas Parisiensis (d. 870)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneas_von_Paris

Aeneas of Paris (died 27 December 870) was bishop of Paris from 858 to 870. He is best known as the author of one of the controversial treatises against the Byzantines ("Greeks"), called forth by the encyclical letters of Photius. His comprehensive Liber adversus Græcos[1] deals with the procession of the Holy Spirit, the marriage of the clergy, fasting, the consignatio infantium, the clerical tonsure, the Roman primacy, and the elevation of deacons to the see of Rome. He declares that the accusations brought by the Greeks against the Latins are "superfluous questions having more relation to secular matters than to spiritual."

In his Epistola tractoria ad Wenilonem, written about 856, Prudentius of Troyes makes his approval of the ordination of Aeneas as the new Bishop of Paris depend on the latter's subscription to four articles favouring a double predestination[2]

1. In D'Achery, Spicilegium, Paris, i., 1723, 113-148; Migne, Patrologia Latina, cxxi. 681-762; cf MGH, Epist., vi., 1902, p. 171, no. 22.
2. Wikisource-logo.svg Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Prudentius" . Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
A little historical context to his writings, with a little negative spin from A. Edward Siecienski. Our issue is not who is right or wrong in the East-West debates, simply how the heavenly witnesses verse was a part of the dialog exposition, given without question:

The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate (2017)
Anthony Edward Siecienski
https://books.google.com/books?id=2nfXDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA225
Aeneas of Paris

Among the other responses was the Liber adversus Graecos of Aeneas of Paris (d. 870), a rabidly anti-Byzantine work that was largely concerned with establishing the orthodoxy of the filioque. Aeneas compared the doctrinal records of Rome and Constantinople, claiming that whereas "no heretic has ever sat on the Roman chair"—Honorius apparently having been forgotten—Photius’s see had always been the breeding ground of heresy from which many “great and dangerous errors had arisen.”152 The ancient councils—councils which, Aeneas claimed, had been convoked by the pope—all met to counter the “foolish stupidities” of the Greeks, who were once again opposing the true faith as defined by Rome, where the “great prince of the apostles gave light and consecrated the see by the spilling of his blood."153 The idea, apparently being spread by Greek missionaries in Bulgaria, that the translation of the imperial capital meant a transfer in ecclesiastical primacy, was absurd.154 Nicea had dictated the order of the churches, which is why Aeneas introduced his chief Greek witnesses to the filioque, Cyril and Athanasius, as “Bishops of the See of Alexandria ... second only to the See of Rome.”155 Concerning more recent events, Aeneas stressed that Pope Nicholas was perfectly within his rights to judge the case of Ignatius, as the patriarch himself had invoked the Sardican canons and appealed to Rome for adjudication.156

152. Aeneas of Paris, Liber adversus Graecos (PL 121: 686-87).
153. Aeneas of Paris, Liber adversus Graecos (PL 121, 687).
154. Aeneas of Paris, Liber adversus Graecos (PL 121, 689).
155. Ibid.
156. Aeneas of Paris, Liber adversus Graecos (PL 121, 759). Ignatius denied ever having appealed to Rome (“Ego non appellavi Romam, nec appello") so what Aeneas is probably referencing here is the appeal made by Theognostos on Ignatius’s behalf.
And here is the Latin text, directed to the Greeks:

Aeneas_Parisiensis
Liber adversus Graecos, III
Migne Latina PL 121, 692
https://books.google.com/books?id=5AGNF5w0mOEC&pg=PA691
http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xfromcc....rgebnis&hide_apparatus=1&inframe=1&jumpto=2#2

III. Item idem in eodem libro: Quod Spiritus sanctus nec Pater sit nec Filius, sed de natura unita existens, procedat de Deo Patre, et accipiat de Dei Filio. « Beatus Ioannes evangelista dicit in Epistola sua: Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in coelo, Pater et Verbum et Spiritus, et in Christo Iesu unum sunt (I Ioan. V) . Non tamen unus est, quia non est in his una persona. (0692B) Nam unum quod dixit de utrisque, quid aliud intelligitur quam quod Deus Pater in natura divinitatis idem ipse dicatur et Dominus, idem ipse sit et Spiritus: et Filius Deus, idemque sit in divinitate et Dominus, idemque sit et Spiritus? sed et Spiritus paraclitus Deus, idemque sit et Dominus in natura deitatis, idem sit et Spiritus? Vides quia in deitate et in substantia plenitudinis per omnia unum sunt, et in omnibus personarum tres sunt. Nam quod tres sunt, quid aliud sentitur fuisse, quam Pater verus unus, vel solus qui genuit, idem non sit qui et unigenitus ab ipso est? Et Filius unus qui non genuit sicut ipse a Patre genitus, Pater non sit? et hic Spiritus sanctus alius sit, qui nec Pater nec Filius est, qui nex genuit nec genitus? (0692C) cum alius sit in persona qui genuit, et alter sit in persona qui unigenitus ab ipso est, et alius adaeque in persona, ut dixi, secundum divinam Scripturam, qui nec Pater nec Filius est: hic est Spiritus sanctus, sed plane de unita natura est: ideo in deitate unita, unitum divinitatis nomen est, sicut in claritate evangelicae Scripturae, de Spiritu paraclito Filius testatur, dicens: De Patre procedit (Ioan. XV, 26) ; et sic prosecutus est: Et de meo accipiet (Ioan. XVI, 14) . Et ideo ubi personae requiruntur, propria nomina [per haec] distinguuntur. Ubi autem deitas poscitur, unitum nomen [in his] indicatur. Quoniam sumus ad nomina personarum pluraliter dictum demonstratur; ac per hoc in deitate unita unum sunt, et in nominibus personarum tres sunt. »
And again, sounding very much like Cyprian:

Cap XII
Item idem in eodem lihro dc sancto Spiritu : Quod in Patre cl Ptlio con istat. « Non est, inquit, di vina substantia ant extensa vol protensa in aliquo, vel excisa in patribns, sed nec derivationi alicujus rei comparatur; quia liquor non est in hac natura plane, sed nec defluxio quædam est, quia nullum detrimentum vel augmentum sustinet : præsertim cum inenarrabilis sit hæc plenitudo substantiæ indivisæ Trinitatis, sicut ipse Deus Dei Filius indicat : Ego in Patre et Pater in me. Sed et Spiritus sanctus in Patre et Filio et in se consistens, sicut Joannes evangelista in Epistola sua tam absolute testatur: Et tres unum sumt.
https://books.google.com/books?id=e2nnsjLm5FcC&pg=PA695


New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I: Aachen - Basilians
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01.html?term=Aeneas of Paris
https://books.google.com/books?id=l-oVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA58

ÆNEAS OF PARIS: Bishop of Paris 858-870; d. Dec. 27, 870. He is best known as the author of one of the controversial treatises against the Greeks called forth by the encyclical letters of Photius. His comprehensive Liber adversus Græcos (in D’Achery, Spicilegum, Paris, i., 1723, 113-148; MPL, cxxi. 681-762; cf. MGH, Epist., vi., 1902, p. 171, no. 22) deals with the procession of the Holy Ghost, the marriage of the clergy, fasting, the consignatio infantium, the clerical tonsure, the Roman primacy, and the elevation of deacons to the see of Rome. He declares that the accusations brought by the Greeks against the Latins are “superfluous questions having more relation to secular matters than to spiritual.” [The work is mainly a collection of quotations or “sentences,” from Greek and Latin Fathers, the former translated.] - Albert Hauck .

 
Top