Innocent III (1168-1216) on the Possibility of a Heretical Pope Losing Office

  

Qualiter ergo de quolibet alio prælato possit intelligi, satis apparet; sed qualiter intelligi debeat de Romano pontifice, non est adeo manifestum. Servus enim, secundum Apostolum, suo domino stat aut cadit (Rom. xiv). Propter quod idem Apostolus ait: Quis es, qui judicas alienum servum? (Ibid.) Unde cum Romanus pontifex non habeat hominem nisi Deum, quantumlibet evanescat, quis potest eum foras mittere, aut pedibus conculcare? cum illi dicatur: Collige causam tuam in sinum tuum. Verum non frustra sibi blanditur de potestate, neque de sublimitate vel honore temere gloriatur; quia quanto minus judicabitur ab homine, tanto magis judicatur a Deo. Minus dico; quia potius est ab hominibus judicari, vel potius judicatus offendi, si videlicet evanescat in hæresim; quoniam qui non credit, jam judicatus est (Joan. iii). In hoc siquidem casu debet intelligi de illo, quod si sal evanuerit, ad nihilum valet ultra, nisi ut mittatur foras, et conculcetur ab hominibus. (Sermon IV: On the Consecration of a Bishop, Migne, PL 217:665-72)

 

 

How this can be understood of any other prelate is sufficiently clear; but how it ought to be understood of the Roman Pontiff is not so obvious. For a servant, according to the Apostle, stands or falls to his own master (Rom. 14). Hence the same Apostle says: "Who are you to judge another's servant?" Therefore, since the Roman Pontiff has no superior but God, however much he may lose his savor (quantumlibet evanescat), who can cast him out or trample him under foot? For to him it is said, "Keep your case within your own bosom." Nevertheless, he should not flatter himself vainly because of his power, nor boast rashly of his exalted dignity or honor; for the less he is judged by men, the more he is judged by God—indeed, rather, I should say that it is better to be judged by men than by God. If, however, he should lose his savor by falling into heresy, then in this case the saying is to be understood of him: "If the salt loses its savor, it is good for nothing any longer except to be cast out and trampled under foot by men."

 

 

Thomas Aquinas on 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Christ being "Made Sin"

  

Reply Obj. 4: God made Christ sin—not, indeed, in such sort that He had sin, but that He made Him a sacrifice for sin: even as it is written (Hos 4:8): They shall eat the sins of My people—they, i.e., the priests, who by the law ate the sacrifices offered for sin. And in that way it is written (Isa 53:6) that the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all (i.e., He gave Him up to be a victim for the sins of all men); or He made Him sin (i.e., made Him to have the likeness of sinful flesh), as is written (Rom 8:3), and this on account of the passible and mortal body He assumed.  (STh., III q.15 a.1 ad 4, in Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae [trans. Laurence Shapcote; The Works of St. Thomas Aquinas 19; Green Bay, Wis.: Aquinas Institute; Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2018], 167)

 

Latin:

 

Ad quartum dicendum quod Deus fecit Christum peccatum, non quidem ut in se peccatum haberet, sed quia fecit eum hostiam pro peccato, sicut Osee 4 dicitur, peccata populi mei comedent, scilicet sacerdotes, qui secundum legem comedebant hostias pro peccato oblatas. Et secundum hunc modum dicitur Isaiae 53, quod dominus posuit in eo iniquitates omnium nostrum, quia scilicet eum tradidit ut esset hostia pro peccatis omnium hominum. Vel, fecit eum peccatum, idest, habentem similitudinem carnis peccati, ut dicitur Rom. 8. Et hoc propter corpus passibile et mortale quod assumpsit. (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae [The Works of St. Thomas Aquinas 19; Green Bay, Wis.: Aquinas Institute; Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2018], 167)

 

Aquinas understands

 

the Pauline words in the sense that God made Christ “sin,” not so that Christ had sins but in the sense that He became the victim of sin. (Mauro Gagliardi, The Mystery of Christ our Savior: The Person, Life, and Redemption of Jesus According to St. Thomas Aquinas [Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 2025], 84)

 

Robert F. Smith's Summary of Kirk Magleby on the Orientation of the River Sidon

  

Orientation of River Sidon

 

Briefly, the Sidon River “originates near the south wilderness and the land of Manti and flows northward past the eastern boundary of Zarahemla, eventually reaching the sea.”508 The Hill Amnihu is on the east of the Sidon (Alma 2:15). How do we know this, and how does the direction of flow for the River Sidon tie everything together? Assuming that up means rise in elevation (Alma 43:34, III Nephi 4:1), Kirk Magleby demonstrates systematically the correct direction of flow for the Sidon River:

 

1. Manti is south of Zarahemla (Alma 17:1), the Narrow Strip of Wilderness separates Zarahemla from Nephi (22:27), while the head of Sidon and borders of Manti are by NSW (22:27, 43:22); one goes from head of Sidon down to Zarahemla (56:25); thus, Sidon River flows north from Manti to Zarahemla.

 

2. Land of Nephi is south of Land of Zarahemla (Alma 50:7); east/west line running by head of Sidon separated Nephi from Zarahemla (50:11); from Zarahemla to Nephi was up (2:24); River Sidon bordered Zarahemla (2:15); thus, Sidon flows north from Nephi and NSW to Zarahemla.

 

3. Mulekite first landfall in Land Northward (Alma 22:30); Mulekite capital, Zarahemla, in Land Southward (Mormon 1:6); City of Zarahemla along Sidon (Mormon 1:10); Mulekites up from seacoast south to City Zarahemla (Alma 22:31); thus, River Sidon flows northward downhill.

 

4. East bank of River Sidon in wilderness, and wilderness south of Manti (Alma 16:6); Wilderness up from and beyond borders of Manti (16:6); thus, River Sidon flows northward from wilderness to Manti.

 

5. Wilderness south of borders of Manti (Alma 16:6); wilderness down to borders of Manti (43:32); thus, River Sidon flows northward from wilderness to Manti.

 

6. Nephi was south of Zarahemla (Alma 22:29,33-34, 50:7); Minon between Zarahemla on the north and Nephi on the south (2:24); Minon west of Sidon same as Zarahemla (2:27,34); Minon above Zarahemla (2:24); thus, River Sidon flowed downhill northward from Minon to Zarahemla.

 

7. Head of Sidon was near the NSW (Alma 22:27) separating the Land of Nephi on the south (22:33, 50:7) from the Land of Zarahemla on the north (22:29, 50:11); River Sidon flowed through the Land of Zarahemla (Alma 2:15, Mormon 1:10) and from there to the sea (Alma 3:3); thus, from the Head of Sidon to the land of Zarahemla is north, which means Sidon flows north. (Robert F. Smith, The Metanarrative of the Book of Mormon & Associated Features [The Ethnological Foundations of the Book of Mormon 1; Provo, Utah: Deep Forest Green Books, 2026], 106)

 

 

Joseph Carola (RC) on Early Chrisitans Imputing Personal Sin to Mary

  

In fact, patristic error regarding the Mother of Jesus is not simply limited to Origen or other ancient authors who lack ecclesiastical approval. John Chrysostom declared Mary to be both suicidal on account of her pregnancy and ambitious in her desire to demonstrate her maternal authority over Jesus. Cyril of Alexandria held that at Calvary Mary came to doubt her Son’s mission. (Joseph Carola, Engaging the Church Fathers in Nineteenth-Century Catholicism: The Patristic Legacy of the Scuola Romana [Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2023], 213)

 

Melissa Davis on the Late Origin of Creatio Ex Nihilo

  

The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo arose in the second century as a philosophical-theological response to the then-current challenges to Christianity—Platonism, Stoicism, and Gnosticism. While not explicitly stated in Scripture, it is a “biblically compelled piece of metaphysical theology.” (Soskice, “Creatio Ex Nihilo,” 25) (Melissa Davis, “Creation ex Nihilo, Participation, and Sanctification of Matter,” in In Spirit and in Truth: Analytic Essays in Pentecostal & Charismatic Theology, ed. D. T. Everhart, Joanna Leidenhag, and Christopher Woznicki [Analyzing Theology Series; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2026], 178)

 

Ken Penner on Isaiah 7:14 (LXX)

  

14 S puts the two words Υμίν σημεΐον in their own paragraph. They could serve as a title for what follows, but that would leave the preceding sentence without an object. Because εξει a durative verb, it appears to refer to pregnancy, whereas λήμψεται refer to conception. Matt 1:23 has ίδού ή παρθένος έν γαστρί έξει καί τέξεται υίόν, καί καλέσουσιν τό όνομα αύτοϋ Έμμανουήλ, ό έστιν μεθερμηνευόμε- νον μεθ' ήμων ό θεός. The only difference is the plural καλέσουσιν for the singular καλέσει. Α, Β (Swete, Rahlfs, Ziegler) have καλέσεις, and so do D, Origen, and Eusebius. In S the maiden will name the child; in A and B, Achaz will do so. When quoted by Luke, the form of the verb is second person, as in A and B, but the subject is the maiden, as in S. Luke 1:31 has καί ίδού συλλήμψη έν γαστρί καί τέξη υίόν, καί καλέσεις τό όνομα αυτού Ίησοϋν. Dozens of articles have addressed Greek Isaiah 7:14 specifically (C.H. Gordon 1953; das Neves 1972; Dubarle 1978; Cazelles 1986; Kamesar 1990; Rosel 1991; Heath 1994; Troxel 2003; J. Lust 2004; de Sousa 2008), and Lincoln provides the most recent review of the issues (Lincoln 2012). Much of the discussion over Isa 7:14 has to do with whether certain translations are justifiable. Is παρθένος a reasonable translation of העלמה? Yes, Gen 24:43 provides a precedent. Is "virgin" a reasonable translation of παρθενος? Yes, Rev 14:4 associates παρθένος with sexual inexperience. But although these translations are reasonable, there is reason to think that sexual inexperience is not the prototypical characteristic of a παρθένος, even in G's mind. Lincoln adduced many examples of παρθένος with the more general meaning of a woman who has not yet borne a child: Pausanias 8.20.4; Diodorus Siculus 20.84-3; Lycophron, Alexandra 1141,1175; Sophocles, Oedipus Rex 1462, and most clearly Sophocles, Women of Trachis 1216-1229, "where the dying Heracles implores his son to marry a παρθενος who has already been his own lover" (Liνcoln 2012, 215). Similarly the LXX has non-virginal uses of the word in Gen. 34:3 and Joel 1:8, and even in Isa 62:5 we encounter the phrase συνοικών νεανίσκος Tapeev, where the cohabitation (notably in the present tense) implies that not sexual inexperience but age appears to be what G had in mind, since παρθένος is the female counterpart of ωεανισκος. Michael N. van der Meer noted Rosel's argument that העלמהrendered as παρθένος echoes the birth of Aion as reported by Hippolytus. Pursuing this possibility that the Greek translator was influenced by Hellenistic mystery cults, van der Meer detected parallels between Greek Isaiah 7:14–17 and Greek Egyptian prophecies close in time and space to where and when Isaiah was translated into Greek. Specifically, certain phrases and images are shared between Greek Isaiah and The Dream of Nectanebo, The Oracle of the Lamb of Bokchoris and the Oracle of the Potter, and The Oracles of Ḥor. In common with the Dream of Nectanebo, Isa 6 stresses verticality (high; lintels raised). According to one possible reading, the Lamb oracle mentions a city called “a bundle of cucumbers and gourds,” reminiscent of the city razed like a cucumber field in Isa 1:8. The Potter oracle shares a topic and the word ἀνεμόφθορον with Isa 19:17, a general theme of self-destruction with Isa 19:2, the word ἀγάλματα with Isa 19:3, and most importantly, a common enemy: the Syrian king. Assuming Isa 14:4–21 and Isa 22:1–14 allude to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, van der Meer saw another parallel between the Egyptian oracle and Greek Isaiah: they both contemporize oracles of doom originally about Assyria to this Seleucid king. The Ḥor oracle contains a line, “The confirmation of this: the Queen bears a male child.” The queen must have been Cleopatra II, who would have given birth to this male child Ptolemy Eupator while she was a teenager. As in Isa 7:14, the birth of a male heir by a young mother while threatened by Syria served as a confirmation of the prophecy (van der Meer 2010). Van der Meer was right to admit these parallels do not indicate literary dependence. In most of the cases raised, the parallels (such as between Ḥor and Isa 7) are already present in the Hebrew. The few lexical parallels that are specifically Greek are not at all strong. The allegedly significant historicalcultural parallel exalting Memphis over the other cities is due (as van der Meer noted) to the translator’s misunderstanding of נשאו in Isa 19:13. Even the claim that the reception history of both the Egyptian oracles and Isaiah (evidenced by its Greek translation) both exemplify fulfilment interpretation regarding the Seleucid period (specifically Leontopolis around 140BCE) assumes such an interpretive method is characteristic of the translator of Greek Isaiah. Christian interpreters since the Gospels have seen here a reference to Jesus’ birth. Even if sexual inexperience were the only meaning of παρθένος, G indicates that the mother was a virgin only at the time of the prophecy, not at the time of the birth. Lincoln demonstrated that Matthew’s account does not imply the conception took place without a male human, but only that the father was not Joseph. Usually the fathers quoted 7:14 to show that the scriptures prophesied the miraculous birth of Christ, but also to show that the Son had a physical body (Ignatius, Philippians 3). Justin Martyr bore witness to the Jewish interpretation that the prophecy referred to Hezekiah (Dial. 43 and 67). In response, Justin (Dial. 43, 48, 66, 67–71, 77f., 84) insisted that without a miraculous birth there would be no “sign,” and therefore the mother must have been a virgin after a miraculous conception. Since Ἐμμανουήλ is given as a name, it is transliterated rather than translated. (Ken Penner, Isaiah [Septuagint Commentary Series; Leiden: Brill, 2021], 398-400)

 

Thomas Aquinas on Luke 24:39

  

Reply Obj. 2: This saying of Damascene may be taken in two ways: First, as referring to human nature, which, as it is in one individual alone, has not the nature of a common species, but only inasmuch as either it is abstracted from every individual, and considered in itself by the mind, or according as it is in all individuals. Now the Son of God did not assume human nature as it exists in the pure thought of the intellect, since in this way He would not have assumed human nature in reality, unless it be said that human nature is a separate idea, just as the Platonists conceived of man without matter. But in this way the Son of God would not have assumed flesh, contrary to what is written (Luke 24:39), A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see Me to have. Neither can it be said that the Son of God assumed human nature as it is in all the individuals of the same species, otherwise He would have assumed all men. Therefore it remains, as Damascene says further on (De Fide Orth. iii, 11) that He assumed human nature in atomo, i.e., in an individual; not, indeed, in another individual which is a suppositum or a person of that nature, but in the Person of the Son of God.

 

Second, this saying of Damascene may be taken not as referring to human nature, as if from the union of soul and body one common nature (viz. human) did not result, but as referring to the union of the two natures Divine and human: which do not combine so as to form a third something that becomes a common nature, for in this way it would become predicable of many, and this is what he is aiming at, since he adds: For there was not generated, neither will there ever be generated, another Christ, Who from the Godhead and manhood, and in the Godhead and manhood, is perfect God and perfect man.  STh., III q.2 a.5 ad 2 in (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae [trans. Laurence Shapcote; The Works of St. Thomas Aquinas 19; Green Bay, Wis.: Aquinas Institute; Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2018], 26-27)

 

Latin:

 

Ad secundum dicendum quod verbum Damasceni potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, ut referatur ad humanam naturam. Quae quidem non habet rationem communis speciei secundum quod est in uno solo individuo, sed secundum quod est abstracta ab omni individuo, prout in nuda contemplatione consideratur; vel secundum quod est in omnibus individuis. Filius autem Dei non assumpsit humanam naturam prout est in sola consideratione intellectus, quia sic non assumpsisset ipsam rem humanae naturae. Nisi forte diceretur quod humana natura esset quaedam idea separata, sicut Platonici posuerunt hominem sine materia. Sed tunc filius Dei non assumpsisset carnem, contra id quod dicitur Luc. ult., spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Similiter etiam non potest dici quod filius Dei assumpsit humanam naturam prout est in omnibus individuis eiusdem speciei, quia sic omnes homines assumpsisset. Relinquitur ergo, ut Damascenus postea dicit in eodem libro, quod assumpserit naturam humanam in atomo, idest in individuo, non quidem in alio individuo, quod sit suppositum vel hypostasis illius naturae, quam in persona filii Dei.

 

Alio modo potest intelligi dictum Damasceni ut non referatur ad naturam humanam, quasi ex unione animae et corporis non resultet una communis natura, quae est humana, sed est referendum ad unionem duarum naturarum, divinae scilicet et humanae, ex quibus non componitur aliquid tertium, quod sit quaedam natura communis; quia sic illud esset natum praedicari de pluribus. Et hoc ibi intendit. Unde subdit, neque enim generatus est, neque unquam generabitur alius Christus, ex deitate et humanitate, in deitate et humanitate, Deus perfectus, idem et homo perfectus. (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae [The Works of St. Thomas Aquinas 19; Green Bay, Wis.: Aquinas Institute; Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2018], 26--27)

 

 

Quoting Luke 24:39 again, St. Thomas records that Christ said He had flesh and bones. Now, flesh and bones are formed of corruptible elements. Therefore Christ had a fleshly and earthly body. A heavenly body would be incorruptible, whereas Christ suffered His Passion and death in His earthly body. (Mauro Gagliardi, The Mystery of Christ our Savior: The Person, Life, and Redemption of Jesus According to St. Thomas Aquinas [Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 2025], 41)