Steven Avery
Administrator
Alberto III Pio, Prince of Carpi - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Albert Pio correspondence in 1531 with Erasmus - Arian element
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Tracy is not on the heavenly witnesses here, but at the bottom of p. 4 near Lee (and Stunica)
Erasmus and the Arians: Remarks on the "Consensus Ecclesiae" (1981)
James D. Tracy
https://www.jstor.org/stable/250209...7f79f8c9e42c514a&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents
Four years later, in the second of two apologies against the Italian
humanist Alberto Pio, another of his orthodox critics, Erasmus was
forced once again to defend his statement that Arianism was more a
faction or schism than a heresy. As before, he points out that Pope
and Emperor at one time supported the ‘Arlans.’ But he now adds a
qualification: “It was heresy in the sight of God, but among men there
was uncertainty, the public voice of the Church having not yet been
heard.”31 Thus for the first time he suggests that a transcendent
standard of dogmatic truth did exist, even when it could not yet be
discerned within human time. A subtle but significant shift may also
be noted in his use of the argument that the Arians could be refuted
31 LB IX, 1172A
...
Against Alberto Pio ten years later he argues as follows:33
For this is what I have written, that the pertinacity of the Arians could
not be evidently refuted from the Scriptures, unless ratiocinatio were
also employed. And I have shown that this ratiocinatio should be taken
from the most simple simplicity of the divine nature. Scripture without
doubt calls the Son of God ‘only-begotten.’ John 1, “And we have seen
His glory as the only-begotten Son of the Father.” Again chapter 3, “God
so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son.” He is not there-
fore a Son through grace, as are the other saints. Thus through nature:
and if by nature, born of the substance (substantia) of the Father.
Erasmus and the Arians: Remarks on the "Consensus Ecclesiae" (1981)
James D. Tracy
https://www.jstor.org/stable/250209...7f79f8c9e42c514a&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents
Four years later, in the second of two apologies against the Italian
humanist Alberto Pio, another of his orthodox critics, Erasmus was
forced once again to defend his statement that Arianism was more a
faction or schism than a heresy. As before, he points out that Pope
and Emperor at one time supported the ‘Arlans.’ But he now adds a
qualification: “It was heresy in the sight of God, but among men there
was uncertainty, the public voice of the Church having not yet been
heard.”31 Thus for the first time he suggests that a transcendent
standard of dogmatic truth did exist, even when it could not yet be
discerned within human time. A subtle but significant shift may also
be noted in his use of the argument that the Arians could be refuted
31 LB IX, 1172A
...
Against Alberto Pio ten years later he argues as follows:33
For this is what I have written, that the pertinacity of the Arians could
not be evidently refuted from the Scriptures, unless ratiocinatio were
also employed. And I have shown that this ratiocinatio should be taken
from the most simple simplicity of the divine nature. Scripture without
doubt calls the Son of God ‘only-begotten.’ John 1, “And we have seen
His glory as the only-begotten Son of the Father.” Again chapter 3, “God
so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son.” He is not there-
fore a Son through grace, as are the other saints. Thus through nature:
and if by nature, born of the substance (substantia) of the Father.
Steven Avery
Administrator
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Chris L. Heesakkers - (1935-2018)
https://neerlandistiek.nl/2018/12/in-memoriam-chris-heesakkers/
SUPERB STUDY
ARGUMENTATIO A PERSONA IN ERASMUS’ SECOND APOLOGY AGAINST ALBERTO PIO
Chris L. Heesakkers
https://books.google.com/books?id=ccwUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA79
Spanish
Summary: The philological reputation of Erasmus is inseparably linked to its new Latin translation and editio princeps del Nuevo Greek Testament (1516; revised editions 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), and a his edition of Saint Jerome and other Fathers. For Erasmus, the 4 moto': of humanism, ad forties, that is, returning to the cultural sources of antiquity to elevate European society, was equally applicable to the theology and the Christian life, philosophia Christi: the New Testament and the
https://neerlandistiek.nl/2018/12/in-memoriam-chris-heesakkers/
SUPERB STUDY
ARGUMENTATIO A PERSONA IN ERASMUS’ SECOND APOLOGY AGAINST ALBERTO PIO
Chris L. Heesakkers
https://books.google.com/books?id=ccwUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA79
Spanish
Summary: The philological reputation of Erasmus is inseparably linked to its new Latin translation and editio princeps del Nuevo Greek Testament (1516; revised editions 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), and a his edition of Saint Jerome and other Fathers. For Erasmus, the 4 moto': of humanism, ad forties, that is, returning to the cultural sources of antiquity to elevate European society, was equally applicable to the theology and the Christian life, philosophia Christi: the New Testament and the
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
more planned