Search
Fifty Spiritual Homilies 39:66Macarius of EgyptThat certain propositions taken from these Homilies, and from the seven others referred to on p. xviii, were used by the Euchites, and (as used by them) condemned, is certain. St. John Damascene, in his de Haeresibus (vol. I, p. 95 in Le Quien’s edition of his works), gives eighteen propositions of the Massalians “collected from a book of theirs.” He does not name the author of the book. It would seem likely that it was the book called Asceticus, from which extracts were read at the Council of Ephesus in 431. If so, the Asceticus must have been largely based on these Homilies.Five tomes against Nestorius · Introduction 7:13Cyril of AlexandriaS. John Damascene says,Works · Introduction to vol. 2 3:24Pseudo-Dionysius the AreopagiteYet eccentric critics, on account of the precise theology, cannot believe that the works were written; by a learned Greek,----Chief of the Areopagus----who forsook all to follow Christ,----the convert and disciple of St.. Paul,----the familiar friend of St. John and other Apostles, to whom our Saviour revealed the mysteries of the Father; but those critics can believe that an unknown man, whose century no one can fix, and possibly a Syrian, may have gleaned from writers of the first four centuries these theological pearls expressed in Greek in a style unique and always like itself. They can, believe that the Author of these Divine writings, would incorporate, fictitious allusions to persons and events of the apostolic, age, to add lustre to incomparable works, and to impute them to another. They can believe that writings, so composed, were foisted upon a credulous Christendom, so that Dionysius of Alexandria, Maximus, St. John Damascene, and the |xix Council of Nicea, accepted them as the genuine works of Dipnysius. I do not belong to that school. Only unbelief could believe anything so incredible. Rational men will not hazard the surmise that works known in the first century were gleaned from writings composed four hundred years afterwards.Works · Objections to genuineness 1:13Pseudo-Dionysius the AreopagiteThe Pères Bolandistes are a wonder in Christendom. They are critical, and yet follow the gross blunder of Gregory of Tours. They belong to the papal obedience, and yet prefer Gregory of Tours when wrong, to Gregory XIII., when right. They pronounce the solemn declaration of Pope John XIXth, "that Martial of Limoges was an apostolic man ," as of no historic value. They think that St. John Damascene did not possess the same critical apparatus for proving the authenticity of the writings of Dionysius, that we possess in the xixth Century. Their "actes authentiques " of Dionysius acknowledge that he was sent to Gaul by Clement, successor of Peter; and yet they affirm that he arrived in Gaul, A.D, 250. After Clement I., who succeeded Peter and Paul, there was not another Clement, Bishop of Rome, for a thousand years . Happily, Les petits Bolandistes are more rational and critical than their Pères.Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum 2:10Council of Nicaea of 787The divine Kings Constantine and Leo said: Let the holy and ecumenical synod say, if with the consent of all the most holy bishops the definition just read has been set forth.The holy synod cried out: Thus we all believe, we all are of the same mind. We have all with one voice and voluntarily subscribed. This is the faith of the Apostles. Many years to the Emperors! They are the light of orthodoxy! Many years to the orthodox Emperors! God preserve your Empire! You have now more firmly proclaimed the inseparability of the two natures of Christ! You have banished all idolatry! You have destroyed the heresies of Germanus [of Constantinople], George and Mansur [ mansour , John Damascene]. Anathema to Germanus, the double-minded, and worshipper of wood! Anathema to George, his associate, to the falsifier of the doctrine of the Fathers! Anathema to Mansur, who has an evil name and Saracen opinions! To the betrayer of Christ and the enemy of the Empire, to the teacher of impiety, the perverter of Scripture, Mansur, anathema! The Trinity has deposed these three!Commentary on Wisdom · Chapter 7 4:17Bonaventure(Verse 30.) For night succeeds it, namely corporeal light, according to that passage in Genesis 8: "Night and day shall not cease"; likewise Isaiah 21: "Morning comes and also night." But night does not succeed spiritual light; whence it follows: But malice, which is spiritual darkness, does not overcome wisdom, which is spiritual light, according to John Damascene; whence John 1: "The light shines in the darkness."Commentary on Ephesians · Eph2 1:24Thomas AquinasSecondly, concerning their dwelling place he says of this air , that is, he has power in this darksome atmosphere. Here it should be noted that two opinions exist among the doctors. For some held that the demons who had fallen [from grace] were not from the higher ranks, but from the lower ones in charge of the lower bodies. * It is evident that the whole of material creation is governed by God through the ministry of angels. Thus John Damascene * was of the opinion that the first of those who had fallen had been in charge of the terrestrial order. He may have derived this from Plato’s talk about certain celestial or world substances. In this perspective of this air is interpreted that they were created to preside over this atmosphere.Commentary on Isaiah 2:72Thomas AquinasAnd to this is to be said that God foresaw what was necessary for each thing to be preserved in being, according to the capacity of its nature; and therefore to man he gave reason, through which, by comparing, he is able to devise for himself remedies against harmful things. And because reason is lacking in brute animals, he ordained that nature should supply what is lacking from reason; and therefore weapons and coverings, which man must acquire for himself through art, are given to animals by nature. Similarly, a certain power of natural estimation was also created for them, impelling them to carry out the activity of their species; hence it is better to say that they are acted upon than that they act, as John Damascene says; and when an inferior nature is regulated by a superior nature and is moved, impressions are left in them of superior movements rubbing such movement by which they are moved to provide for themselves in necessities. And obtaining a prediction in such things from birds or the movements of birds or of other animals is not a sin, but only about those things which have their cause from free will, which does not operate by the necessity of the stars.Commentary on Isaiah 45:89Thomas AquinasSecond, he foretells their conversion, setting out the sign of adoration: I have sworn by myself , for I have nothing greater by which I might swear (Heb 6:13); it shall not return , without effect, below: so shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void (Isa 55:11). Every knee shall be bowed to me , by Christians, for this is the manner of adoring the Redeemer, according to John Damascene, in the name of Jesus every knee should bow (Phil 2:10); he also sets out the sign of swearing, every tongue shall swear , for everyone swears by his god: all they shall be praised that swear by him (Ps 62:12[63:11]). He also sets out the sign of true confession: therefore shall he say: in the Lord , that is, in the person of the Lord; my , namely, God’s, justices and empire : to him be glory and empire (Rev 1:6); or my , namely, the Church’s, justices , the figures of the law of the Jews.Commentary on John 199:8Thomas AquinasThomas always maintained that many philosophers of the past have in fact come to know God’s existence through his created effects. At the same time, he was well aware how few these highly gifted “philosophers” were compared to the totality of mankind, the length of time they devoted to the search, and the great number of erroneous notions these philosophers had about “God,” as they understood him. Nevertheless, Thomas never failed to point out the many different paths philosophers found to God. (See J. A. Baisnée, “St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of the Existence of God Presented in Their Chronological Order,” Philosophical Studies in Honor of the Very Reverend Ignatius Smith, O.P., ed. J. K. Ryan, Westminster: Newman, 1952, pp. 29-64). In Thomas’ own presentation of the various paths the philosophers took, he often simplified, clarified, and strengthened the tortuous paths actually marked out by variousphilosophers. He often saw more clearly what Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, or John Damascene wanted to say, and said it with greater precision and less admixture of error. In the Summa theologiae I, 2, 3, Thomas gives only five of the simplest and most convincing ways various philosophers actually used. These “five ways,” of course, were not the only ways in which philosophers have come to know the one, true God. Thomas himself enumerated other ways, and in one’s own personal experience one can find many other ways to God. So there is nothing exclusive, sacrosanct, or all-inclusive in the “five ways” ( quinque viae ) presented to beginners in the Summa theologiae. (See Joseph Owens, “Aquinas and the Five Ways,” The Monist, 58, 1974, 16-35).Commentary on John 199:10Thomas Aquinas(i) Here St. Thomas points out that the “most efficacious way” ( via efficacissima ) for philosophers to know God is through his authority over all things.: We see things in nature that act for an end they do not and cannot know; such is true of the entire universe with all its stars and galaxies. Since such things lack intelligence, they cannot direct themselves to an end, but must be directed and moved by some Intelligence. Since the whole course of nature is most fittingly ordered to a complexity of ends, there must be something beyond nature with intelligence to direct all things as Lord and Master. In the Prologue, Thomas sees all this expressed by Isaiah in the use of the word “Lord,” when he says, “I saw the Lord.” And Thomas notes that John reflects the authority of the Incarnate Word when he says, “He came unto his own,” that is, into the world that belonged to him. This philosophical argument corresponds to the “fifth” of the famous “five ways” in the Summa theologiae. In the Summa contra gentiles (I, c. 13, n. 115), written in Paris early in 1259, this argument is attributed to St. John Damascene ( De fide orthodoxa, I, c. 3) and also associated with Averroes’ In II Phys., com. 75. Altogether, St. Thomas uses this argument from “the governance of all things in the world” eight times, and here he calls it the “most efficacious way.” (See Baisnée, loc. cit. , p. 63). Surely, this way strikes most scientists and those who contemplate the stars and the world of nature. By way of contrast, it might be noted here also, that in the Summa theologiae Thomas called the “first” way, the argument from change throughout the universe, the “more manifest”—and so it was for Aristotle.Commentary on Luke · Translator Preface 1:22Thomas AquinasEvagrius, a Pontian by birth, studied under Greg. Naz. at Constantinople, and afterwards a disciple of S. Macarius in Egypt, wrote many monastic works, of which some are published among the writings of John Damascene.Commentary on Matthew · Translator Preface 1:6Thomas AquinasIt may be added, that the same change took place in dogmatic teaching, as in the exposition of Scripture. This indeed was still more to be expected, for the issue of controversies and the decrees of Councils had given to the doctrinal statements of the Fathers an authority, or rather prerogative, which was never claimed for their commentaries. Accordingly, S. John Damascene’s work on the Orthodox Faith in the viiith century is scarcely more than a careful selection and combination of sentences and phrases from the great theologians who preceded him, principally S. Gregory Nazianzen. A comment or scholia by the same author upon S. Paul’s Epistles have come down to us, which are mainly taken from S. Chrysostom, but with some use of other expositors.Explanation of the Lord's Prayer 1:6Thomas AquinasMoreover, our prayer must be suitable, so that a person asks of God in prayer what is good for him. St. John Damascene says: "Prayer is the asking of what is right and fitting from God."[9] Many times our prayer is not heard because we seek that which is not good for us: "You ask and you do not receive, because you ask amiss."[10] To know, indeed, what one ought to pray for is most difficult; for it is not easy to know what one ought to desire. Those things which we rightly seek in prayer are rightly desired; hence the Apostle says: "For we know not what we should pray for as we ought."[11] Christ Himself is our Teacher; it is He who teaches us what we ought to pray for, and it was to Him that the disciples said: "Lord, teach us to pray."[12] Those things, therefore, which He has taught us to pray for, we most properly ask for. "Whatsoever words we use in prayer," says St. Augustine, "we cannot but utter that which is contained in our Lord's Prayer, if we pray in a suitable and worthy manner."[13]TREATISE ON THE RESURRECTION · Question 71 2:13Thomas AquinasOr we may reply, according to John Damascene, in the sermon quoted above, that these words refer to the retribution which will be made at the final judgment, of eternal glory or eternal unhappiness: for then each one will receive only according as he himself has done in the body. Meanwhile, however, he can be assisted by the suffrages of the living.The Essay 27:58An Essay on the Development of Christian DoctrineReason has ever been awake and in exercise in the Church after Him from the first. Scarcely were the Apostles withdrawn from the world, when the Martyr Ignatius, in his way to the Roman Amphitheatre, wrote his strikingly theological Epistles; he was followed by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian; thus we are brought to the age of Athanasius and his contemporaries, and to Augustine. Then we pass on by Maximus and John Damascene to the Middle age, when theology was made still more scientific by the Schoolmen; nor has it become less so, by passing on from St. Thomas to the great Jesuit writers Suarez and Vasquez, and then to Lambertini.The Essay 27:98An Essay on the Development of Christian DoctrineOn this point I will but remark as follows. It cannot be doubted that the horror of heresy, the law of absolute obedience to ecclesiastical authority, and the doctrine of the mystical virtue of unity, were as strong and active in the Church of St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian as in that of St. Carlo and St. Pius the Fifth, whatever be thought of the theology respectively taught in the one and in the other. Now we have before our eyes the effect of these principles in the instance of the later Church; they have entirely succeeded in preventing departure from the doctrine of Trent for three hundred years. Have we any reason for doubting, that from the same strictness the same fidelity would follow, in the first three, or any three, centuries of the Ante-tridentine period? Where then was the opportunity of corruption in the three hundred years between St. Ignatius and St. Augustine? or between St. Augustine and St. Bede? or between St. Bede and St. Peter Damiani? or again, between St. Irenaeus and St. Leo, St. Cyprian and St. Gregory the Great, St. Athanasius and St. John Damascene? Thus the tradition of eighteen centuries becomes a collection of indefinitely many catenae, each commencing from its own point, and each crossing the other; and each year, as it comes, is guaranteed with various degrees of cogency by every year which has gone before it.The Essay 28:51An Essay on the Development of Christian DoctrineThe introduction of Images was still later, and met with more opposition in the West than in the East. It is grounded on the same great principle which I am illustrating; and as I have given extracts from Theodoret for the developments of the fourth and fifth centuries, so will I now cite St. John Damascene in defence of the further developments of the eighth.