| It has to be recognized that the ‘bishops’ of the so-called ‘Orthodox Church of Ukraine’, formed by a decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew from two earlier existing non-canonical structures – the UOAC and the UOC KP – have no canonical consecration and as such are not bishops. Any bishop of a canonical church who concelebrates with them, precisely as a result of this concelebration, according to the ecclesiastical canons (the 9 th canon of the Council of Carthage; the 2 nd and 4 th canons of the Synod of Antioch; the 11 th and 12 th apostolic canons) are joined to the schism and are to be excommunicated. Having neither the right, nor the desire to enter into eucharistic communion with these ‘bishops’ after their recognition by Constantinople, the Russian Orthodox Church, at her session of the Holy Synod of 15 th October 2018, was compelled to state the impossibility of eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople until it renounces its anti-canonical decisions. The subsequent resolutions of the Holy Synod on the impossibility of eucharistic communion were also extended to include the primates and bishops of the local Orthodox Churches who recognized the legitimization of the Ukrainian schism and who concelebrate with those who have no canonical ordination. True to the spirit and letter of the sacred canons, the Russian Orthodox Church will henceforth strictly adhere to the canonical resolutions which forbid concelebration with schismatics and the self-consecrated. Any departure from these canons will inevitably lead to the undermining of peace within the church and a worsening of the schism. 4. The claim by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the right of receiving clerics without letters of dismissal. Yet one more innovation by the primate of Constantinople is the declaration that he has the supposed right to receive clerics from any local Orthodox Church without letters of dismissal from the bishops of these clerics. In citing the supposed “customary rights” of his see, it was in this way that Patriarch Bartholomew took “under his omphorion” five former clerics of the diocese of Vilnius in February 2023 and two clerics of the Belarusian exarchate in April 2023, as well as a cleric of the Moscow diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church who was “restored to his priestly rank” in June 2023. |
| by A. Anastassiadis, Athens, 2013, pp.283-302. κκλησιαστικ λθεια. 1922, p. 130. In particular, in 1993, when the Patriarchate of Jerusalem decided to restore its earlier existing diocese in Australia and appointed an exarch to it, this decision provoked an extremely negative reaction on the part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. At an enlarged session of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople which took place in Istanbul from 30 th to 31 st July 1993 with the participation of the primates of the Churches of Alexandria and Greece, as well as representatives of the Church of Cyprus, two bishops of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem were defrocked and the Patriarch of Jerusalem Diodoros was censured for an “impious violation” of the holy canons and the leading into temptation and division of the Greek people. The Church of Constantinople ceased to commemorate him in the diptychs, yet by virtue of “mercy and love for mankind” he was given time to repent while told that the refusal to annul the decision to set up a jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in Australia would lead to his defrocking. In these circumstances Patriarch Diodoros was compelled to renounce his plans to set up an exarchate in Australia and other countries of the diaspora, after which he was once more commemorated in the diptychs and the defrocked bishops were restored to their episcopal rank. See: ‘The Orthodox Church of Constantinople’ in The Orthodox Encyclopedia (in Russian), Moscow, 2015, vol.37, p.289. This logic was used by Constantinople when the former bishop of Sergievo Basil (Osborne) was received into the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 2006 without a letter of dismissal from the Russian Orthodox Church (in 2010 the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople defrocked bishop Basil and removed him from the monastic estate in connection with his desire to marry). Letter of the locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne of Moscow metropolitan Pimen to the Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras no.85 of 14 th January 1971. Statement by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of 15 th April 2008. Document of the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Pre-conciliar conference on the Orthodox diaspora, Chambésy, 2009. The participation of bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in these assemblies was halted as per the statement of 14 th September 2018 of the Holy Synod with regard to the unlawful intervention of the Patriarchate of Constantinople into the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. Interview with the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew to Etnikos Kirix on 13 th November 2020. Ibid. Print publication Share: Page is available in the following languages Feedback |
| The commentaries by John Zonaras on the 9 th and 17 th canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council shed light on this problem. They concern the appeals and concern only those metropolitans who were under the Patriarch of Constantinople. By analogy with this commentary by Zonaras, we may say that the right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to receive clerics without letters of dismissal to which Balsamon refers was applied exclusively at that time to clerics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In his commentary on the 17 th canon of the Council in Trullo Balsamon states that this privilege belonged also to the bishop of Carthage: “We are to make an exception for the bishop of Constantinople and the bishop of Carthage, for they alone can, as has often been said, receive clerics without the the consent of those who ordained them.” The 55 th (66 th ) canon of the Council of Carthage does indeed grant to the bishop of Carthage as the then primate of Africa the privilege of consecrating as bishop clerics from other African dioceses without requiring the obligatory consent of the bishop to whom the cleric was subject. It is, however, quite evident that this privilege did not extend beyond the confines of Africa. Thus, it is sufficiently clear that Balsamon is talking about the fact that the bishop of Constantinople, by analogy with the bishop of Carthage, enjoys jurisdictional rights that are greater than those of other bishops, but only within the Church of Constantinople. We must recall also that it is the canons themselves that have authority within the Church and not their commentaries, regardless of how authoritative. And the obvious meaning of the canons which Patriarch Bartholomew speaks about, refer rather to the ban on receiving clerics without letters of dismissal from their bishops. It is for this reason that the Russian Orthodox Church does not recognize and will never recognize this interpretation of the canonical tradition which ascribes to the Patriarch of Constantinople universal supra-jurisdictional rights, and will steadfastly hold to the principle of the jurisdictional equality of the autocephalous churches and their primates, regardless of their place in the holy diptychs, while the reception by the Patriarch of Constantinople into his jurisdiction of clerics of another local church without letters of dismissal is regarded as and will be regarded as a violation punishable, according to the canons, by defrocking. |
| Appendix, continens scripta artificialia, quae ad nullam eruditionis partem referri possunt (стр. 473–474, 28 названий). Catalogus manuscriptorum. Sectio I – M-sta theologica (стр. 477–478, всего 20 рукописей почти все протестантскит: сочинения предков Миллера, Гильдебранда, Scherzeri, Scheibleri, Starckii, Fechtii, Bebelii и др., XVII-XVIII вв). – Sectio II – M-sta juridica (стр. 479, 5 рукописей: Collegium juris canonici incerti autoris anno 1675, в 4-ку, Collegium ad ult. titulum digestorum de diversis regulis juris, в 4-ку; Collegium practicum hab. а I. M. Mühlpfort calamo except, a R. W. Rügerch.; Diversor, autorum collegia juridica, practica, Lipsiae 1675; Incerti autoris elementa (principia) juris secundum methodum institutionum, f. – Sectio III – M-sta medica (стр. 479–480, 18 рукописей, сочинения немецких ученых: I. D. Millii, Michaelis, Wedelii, Schröderi, Brendelii, I. P. Eyselii). – Sectio IV – M-sta philosophica (стр. 481–483, 38 рукописей, почти все сочинения немецких ученых XVII-XVIII вв.: Bechmanni, Sybelii, Arcularii, Scherzew, Loeberi, Kortholts, Sneideri, Fechtii и др.). После этого каталога прежде следовал новый catalogus dissertationum, понятие о котором дает уцелевшее в начале рукописи (лл. 5– 8 первого счета) оглавление. Dissertationes подразделялись на след. отделы: I – Theologicarum (theologicae dogmaticae – 63 диссертации, th.-dogmatico-polemicae – 13, th. exegeticae – 14, th. philologico-exegetico-biblicae – 8, th. morales et varii generis practicae, th. miscellaneae), II – Juridicarum, III – Medicarum, IV – Philosophicarum; dissertationes, quae pertinent ad studia humaniora; orationes Academicae aliaeque (германские главным образом); cat. dissertationum epistolicarum varii argumenti и Zeich-Predigten. – 32,7 X 20,5]. X (по старому каталогу 182). Authentica de signo ss. Crucis [Lublini apud pp. ord. Praed. existentis. Anno 1620. – Delitiae Lublinenses, hoc est mira et inaudita miracula, quae Deus optimus maximus operator semper per lignum vinificum Sanctae Crucis Lublini in aede s. Stanislai martiris ac patroni regni Poloniae manens, cujus de notione flagrantes simul custodes sunt fratres ordinis Praedicatorum. Ha 70 листах, из коих лл. 28–37, 43–44 чистые; лл. 51–59 нет; после 70 листа около 23 листов чистых. В конце рукописи рукою XVII века отмечено: «чюдеса о животворящем Кресте, что в Люблине». В начале рукописи почерком начала XVIII в.: «книга латинская рукописная с полским о некаких (потом поправлено на: некоторых) чудесех животворящаго Креста в Люблине в церкви святаго Станислава» и другим почерком XVIII в.: «книга рукописная латинская, содержащая подлинное описание чудес бываемых от древа животворящаго Креста Господня. В Люблине 1620 года». «М» и зачеркнуто: «А». – Чудеса описывются с 1434 по 1647 г. – 31,7X20,5]. |
| Any appeal, though, from the former metropolitan of Kiev Philaret, would have been deemed worthless beforehand as, having been condemned, he did not cease to celebrate the divine services and conduct ordinations, thereby, according to the canons, losing the right for his case to be reviewed. The unilateral decision, without any court or review of his case, by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to “restore to his priestly rank” the former metropolitan Philaret Denisenko is worthless in relation to the holy canons, in particular, the 15 th canon of the Synod of Antioch, the 105 th (118 th ) canons of the Council of Carthage and the canonical epistle of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine. The actions undertaken in Constantinople in October of 2018 can in no way be described as a court of appeal as there was not only no attempt to study the ecclesiastical and canonical decisions taken with regard to Philaret Denisenko and Macarius Maletich, but there was also not even the simplest attempt to acquaint themselves with the biographies of these persons. Thus, Patriarch Bartholomew wrote of the appeals he had received from the “one-time lord bishop of Kiev Philaret, as well as the one-time lord bishop of Lviv Macarius”, even though at the moment he entered into schism Nikolai (Macarius’ secular name) was a married archpriest. In striving to broaden the field of its supposed rights and create new precedents, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on 17 th February 2023 “cancelled” accordingly the decision of the ecclesiastical court of the diocese of Vilnius to defrock five priests for canonical violations and, following the recommendation of Patriarch Bartholomew, “restored” them to their previous priestly rank. At the same time, in spite of assurances to “study in detail their cases”, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was not in possession of the materials relating to their cases and took as their foundation solely the personal statements made by the aforementioned priests, thereby reflecting one-sidedly their opinions and interests. On 27 th June 2023 in this manner, without studying the evidence of the case and based upon a personal statement, a priest of the Moscow diocese was “restored” to his priestly rank, even though the process of defrocking him initiated by the diocesan ecclesiastical court had not yet been completed, i.e., the confirmation by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia of the sentence had not yet been announced at the time when the case was being reviewed in Constantinople. |
| – St. John of Kronstadt, My Life in Christ, Jordanville, 1997. You have exchanged the notion of the motherland for a vacuous internationalism, although you know very well that when it comes to defending the motherland, the proletarians of all nations will be its faithful sons, not its traitors. – St. Tikhon of Moscow, “Letter to the Council of People’s Commissars, October 13/26, 1918,” L. Regelson, The Tragedy of the Russian Church (1917– 1945), Paris, 1976 (in Russian). Ethnophyletism Ethnophyletism is a phenomenon that arose at the end of the 19 th and the 20 th centuries, a product of the Enlightenment and the French revolution. It was the new political theory on the basis of which the nation-states of Europe were created, in particular those of the Balkan peninsula. This theory is, alas, still being applied in the Balkans today, with its familiar disastrous consequences on the lives of the people of the region and on peace. The idea of ‘the nation’ in the historical sources, in the lives of ordinary people and in the formation of states before the 18 th century, i.e. before the French revolution, did not have the ethnophyletic meaning attributed to it today. In antiquity and until the 18 th –19 th centuries, ‘the nation’ was defined by religion and culture, not by race. This was the politico-religious theory of the Persians, of the Ancient Greeks, of the pagan Romans and also of the Christian Romans (Byzantines), as well as of the Jews (as it still is to this day), and of the Muslims. When the latter, Arabs first and then later the Ottomans, conquered Roman (‘Byzantine’) countries and territories, they applied an administration ‘by nations’ (millet), i.e. by religious communities, not by race. The religious leaders of the communities within the Muslim states were also ethnarchs of these communities. So the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was also the ethnarch of the Orthodox Christian ‘nation’ within the Ottoman Empire, irrespective of race or language, as were the other patriarchs, metropolitans and other bishops locally. The Sultan/Caliph was the ethnarch of the Muslims, irrespective of the particular race, and so on. 189 The ideas of the French Revolution (1789) and of the Enlightenment created, as has been said, a new political theory, which ignored religion or culture as elements shaping communities and administrative units. States were now formed according to this dominant theory, on the basis of ethnophyletic criteria – either those already in existence or, mainly, those invented by means of politics or propaganda – with all the sad consequences we know today (ethnic cleansing and so on). Of course, for Christ and His Church, “there is neither Jew nor Greek … for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” ( Gal. 3:28 ). |
| 638 Th. Pol., XII, 144AB(4); Th. Pol., XI, PG 91, 140B(7); Ep., XII, PG 91, 464D(3); Rel. mot., VI, PG 90,120C(8); Ep. Cal., PG 90,136A(9); Ep. An., PG 90,132A(11) 640 Th. Pol., XI, PG 91, 140AB; VII, PG 91, 84A, 88C; VIII, PG 91, 89CD, 92D; IX, PG 91, 116B, 128B; XII, PG 91, 141A, 143CD; 144A; XV, PG 91, 160C; XVII, PG 91, 209D; Ep., XI, PG 91, 461BC; XII, PG 91,464D, 465AB; XIII, PG 91, 532CD; XVII, PG 91, 580C, 581CD; XVIII, PG 91, 584D-584A; Ep. Cal., PG 90, 136A; Rel. mot., VI, PG 90,120C. В Ер., XV, PG 91 преп. Максим приводит цитату из свт. Василия Кесарийского или выражение с той же коннотацией 647 V CROCE, Tradizione e ricerca, II metodo teologico di san Massimo il Confessore, p. 70; см. также: р. 71–72, 79–80 649 Le Corps du Christ vivant», Cahiers théologiques de Iactualité protestante, HS 4,1948, p. 24. См. также: В. Н. ЛОССКИЙ По образу и подобию, гл. IX, «О третьем свойстве Церкви», М, 1995, стр. 154–157: «Мы верим, что соборность является неотъемлемым свойством Церкви постольку, поскольку она обладает истиной» (стр. 154). 650 Здесь не идет речь о численной совокупности, которая возрастает во времени. Как об этом писал прот. Г. ФЛОРОВСКИЙ : «Сегодня Церковь не знает Христа лучше, чем она знала Его с самого начала. На самом деле, Истина дана сразу вся целиком. Но восприятие Истины происходит постепенно. Это то, что развивается в процессе христианского существования. Это не есть Сама Истина, но свидетельство Церкви» («Le Corps du Christ vivant», p. 45). Это очень точно соотносится с концепцией преп. Максима. В сущности, нельзя не согласиться, что преп. Максим привнес в христологию важнейшие идеи. При этом у него самого было четкое сознание не вносить в христианский догмат никаких новшеств (см.: Th. Pol., XIX, PG 91, 224D-225A). В начале одного из своих самых главных богословских посланий он пишет: «Я не буду говорить ничего, что исходило бы от ме ня; я учу только тому, что говорили святые отцы без того, чтобы что- нибудь там изменить» (Ер., XV, PG 91, 544D). Он подчеркивает, что «все Соборы святых и православных людей не вводили абсолютно никаких вероучительных определений, вставляя свои собственные формулировки [...], нет, они исповедовали ту же веру [...], но, истолковывая ее, как бы для того, чтобы вновь разглядеть ее подробно и восстановить ее для тех, кто понимал ее превратно» (Th. Pol., XXII, PG 91, 257А-260С). См.: J. PELIKAN, «Council or Father or Scripture». The Concept of Authority in the Theology of Maximus the Confessor, p. 286. |
| В любом случае, историки считали, что авторитет, признанный за Римом Восточными Церквами, никогда не был юридического и политического свойства (кроме отдельных претензий и авторитарности некоторых пап) и не подменял собой и не противопоставлял себя, по существу, принципу коллегиальности и его исполнению, чему всегда оставались приверженными Восточные Церкви . 581 Можно найти подтверждение этого толкования слов Христа в Послании XIIÏ «[...] Благочестивое исповедание [веры], которого лукавые уста еретиков, отверстые, как врата ада, не одолеют никогда» (Ер., XII, PG 91, 512В). 585 Как это заметил J. PELIKAN, «Council or Father or Scripturë The concept of Authority in the Theology of Maximus the Confessor», p. 287 603 Прп. Максим Исповедник и христологические споры VII столетия//Диспут с Пирром, с. 237; Th. Pol., XII, PG 91, 144A-D(4); Rel. mot., VI, PG 90, 120CD(8); XIII, 128B(8); Dis. Biz., XI, PG 90, 145B(10); Ep. An., PG 90, 132A(11). 613 Th. Pol., X, 136A(6); Ep. Cal., PG 90, 136B(9); Dis. Biz., IX, PG 90, 144C(10); XII, 145C-148A(10). 614 Можно найти многочисленные справки и отличный анализ у J. PELIKAN «Council or Father or Scripture». The Concept of Authority in the Theology of Maximus The Confessor, p. 277–288, частично перепечатанный в: La Tradition chrétienne, t. II, LEsprit du christianisme oriental, 600–1700, p. 9–39. См. также очень хорошее исследование: V. CROCE, Tradizione e ricerca. II metodo meologi-co di san Massimo il Confessore. 616 Rel. mot., IX, PG 90, 124A. Эти разные составные части, о которых говорит преп. Максим, тщательно проанализированы в великолепном исследовании V. CROCE, Tradizione e ricerca. II metodo teologico di san Massimo il Confessore 618 См.: V. CROCE, Tradizione e ricerca. II metodo teologico di san Massimo il Confessore, p. 83–101 620 Tradizione e ricerca. II metodo teologico di san Massimo il Confessore, p. 89. Выражение преп. Максима можно найти в: Ер., XVII, PG 91, 581D; Th. Pol., XIX, PG 91.205A, 224В 621 Диспут с Пирром, с. 175–177. В связи с последним вопросом см.: Th. Pol., XIX, PG 91, 224D-225A; Ер. XIII, PG 91, 532С 627 «Council or Father or Scripture». The Concept of Authority in the Theology of Maximus the Confessor, p. 287 632 Он различает таким образом выражения «Вселенская Церковь » и «Поместные Церкви» (для обозначения последних см., например: Th. Pol., VII, PG 91, 77В; X, PG 91,136С; XIX, PG 91,229C; XX, PG 91, 237C; Dis. Biz., XIII, PG 90,148A) |
| Itaque praesumpsi ego & cum lachrymis deprecans eum, confessus sum ei passionem, quae me nimis & incessanter non desinebat impugnare.» 11. 11–24 cf MSE : «Et ipse ait mihi: non conturbet te haec causa, non enim pateris hoc a negligentia, attestatur quippe tibi & locus, & difficultas rerum, & quia non est in locis illis ulla visitatio foeminarum: Sed magis ex invidia diaboli, qui semper insidiatur, & decipere festinat animas hominum.» 11. 25–48 cf MSE: «Ecce ut vides me jam senem hominem, quadragesimum annum habeo in hac cella, & auxiliante gratia Christi sollicitus sum de salute animae meae, tarnen usque nunc tentationem sustineo. Nam cum Sacramento dicebat mihi, quia super duodecim annos post quinquagesimum annum nec nocte mihi, nec die pepercit, in tantum ut putarem quia forte dereliquit me Deus, & ideo instanter & sine cessatione hujus molestiam passionis paterer. Elegi ergo magis mori irrationabiliter, quam talem pati corporis passionem. Egressus ergo circuibam репе omnem solitudinem, & inveni leaenae speluncam, & posui me jacere ibi per totum diem nudum, ut ingredientes ferae comederent me. Cum ergo facta esset vespera, egredientes bestiae, masculus & foemina, odorati sunt me a capite usque ad pedes, & lingentes me totum, recesserunt a me. Ego autem putabam, quod devorarent me. Jacui ergo ibi per totam noctem, sed non accesserunt ad me. Cogitavi ergo, quia pepercit mihi Deus, & re versus sum in cellam meam.» 11. 49–62 cf MSE: «Post paucos autem dies herum eadem tentatio validius insurrexit mihi, ita ut репе in blasphemiam pervenirem. Conversus enim daemon in Aethiopissam puellam, quam videram aliquando in juventute mea spicas in messe colligentem, sedit super genua mea, & vehementer me commovit, unde cum nimio furore dedi ei pugnos & alapas in maxillas, & statim non comparuit phantasma illud. Per biennium autem manus meae unde percussi quasi faciem ejus, foetorem & brumam sufferre non poteram. Desperabam ergo de salute animae meae, & prae tristitia nimia defectio animi affligebat me, & nimio moetore tabescebam» 11. |
| Вместе с тем схоласты особо отмечали, что восприятие Богом Словом как человеческой души, так и плоти произошло одновременно ( Hugo Vict. Sum. sent. I 16; De sacr. II 1. 9; Petr. Lomb. Sent. III 2. 3; Thom. Aquin. Sum. Th. III 6. 3-5; III 33. 2). Плоть Христа не была сначала зачата, а потом воспринята, но «воспринята в зачатии и зачата в восприятии»; в противном случае она имела бы какое-то время свою собственную ипостась, отличную от Ипостаси Бога Слова, что невозможно ( Petr. Lomb. Sent. III 2. 3; Thom. Aquin. Sum. Th. III 33. 3). При этом, если человеческое тело Бог Слово воспринял от Девы Марии, то душу Он сотворил из ничего, или, по словам Гуго Сен-Викторского, «воспринял, сотворив, и сотворил, восприняв» (Sum. sent. I 15). Поэтому схоласты подчеркивали, что Бог Слово соединил с Собой всю человеческую природу сразу (simul - Thom. Aquin. Sum. Th. III 6. 1). Согласно Бернарду Клервоскому, соединение божества с человеческой душой и телом во Христе было одновременно чем-то «новым, древним и вечным»: новым, поскольку человеческая душа Христа была создана из ничего и «влита» в тело; древним, поскольку человеческая плоть Христу была передана по преемству от первого человека, Адама; вечным, поскольку Слово, воспринявшее и душу, и плоть, было рождено от вечного Отца и совечно Ему (De considerat. V 10. 23). VI. Аналогия «душа - тело». Мн. схоласты, следуя за Августином, рассматривали соединение божественной и человеческой природы во Христе по аналогии с соединением души и тела в отдельном человеке ( Anselmus. Cur Deus. II 7; Hugo Vict. Sum. sent. I 15; Bernard. Clar. De considerat. V 9. 20; Thom. Aquin. Sum. Th. III 2. 5. 1). Т. е., различая во Христе две природы, к-рые сохраняют свою целостность, они мыслили их соединение в одном Лице подобно соединению тела и разумной души, к-рые, сохраняя свои природные свойства, составляют не двух, но одного человека ( Anselmus. Cur Deus. II 7). В обычном человеке не разумная душа, соединяясь с телом, получает от него лицо, но сама сообщает телу возможность стать с ней одним лицом. Так и во Христе Слово, восприняв не существовавшее до этого в качестве лица человечество, не от него получило лицо, но Само наделило его Лицом ( Hugo Vict. De sacr. II 1. 11; Sum. sent. I 15; Thom. Aquin. Sum. Th. III 2. 5. 1). Кроме того, человеческая душа не всегда является лицом, т. е. «индивидуальной субстанцией разумной природы» (substantia individua rationalis naturae), но только в том случае, если она существует сама по себе (per se est, per se sonans, букв.- сама по себе звучит). Однако душа Христа никогда не существовала сама по себе, но всегда была лично соединена со Словом; значит, при восприятии души не было воспринято человеческое лицо ( Petr. Lomb. Sent. III 5. 5; 10. 2; Thom. Aquin. Sum. Th. III 2. 5. 1). |
|
|
