PCARR Search Result: pcarr - Theodosius
Found: IV. If anyone says that the union of the Word of God with man was onlyaccording to grace or function or dignity or equality of honor orauthority or relation or effect or power or according to his goodpleasure, as though God the Word was pleased with man, or approved of him,as the raving Theodosius says; or that the union exists according tosimilarity of name, by which the Nestorians call God the Word Jesus andChrist, designating the man separately as Christ and as Son, speaking thusclearly of two persons, but when it comes to his honor, dignity, andworship, pretend to say that there is one person, one Son and one Christ,by a single designation; and if he does not acknowledge, as the holyFathers have taught, that the union of God is made with the flesh animatedby a reasonable and intelligent soul, and that such union is according tosynthesis or hypostasis, and that therefore there is only one person, theLord Jesus Christ one of the holy Trinity -- let him be anathema. As theword "union" has many meanings, the followers of the impiety ofApollinaris and Eutyches, assuming the disappearance of the natures,affirm a union by confusion. On the other hand the followers of Theodoreand of Nestorius rejoicing in the division of the natures, introduce onlya union of relation. But the holy Church of God, rejecting equally theimpiety of both heresies, recognizes the union of God the Word with theflesh according to synthesis, that is according to hypostasis. For in themystery of Christ the union according to synthesis preserves the twonatures which have combined without confusion and without separation.
Found: 390: Ambrose defies Emperor Theodosius, refusing him Communion after his brutal killing of thousands in Thessalonica; the act influences church-state relations for generations.
Found: I answer that, The custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of catholic doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever. Now it was never the custom of the Church to baptize the children of the Jews against the will of their parents, although at times past there have been many very powerful catholic princes like Constantine and Theodosius, with whom most holy bishops have been on most friendly terms, as Sylvester with Constantine, and Ambrose with Theodosius, who would certainly not have failed to obtain this favor from them if it had been at all reasonable. It seems therefore hazardous to repeat this assertion, that the children of Jews should be baptized against their parents' wishes, in contradiction to the Church's custom observed hitherto.
Found: Reply to Objection 3: The prophets who foretold the coming of Christ could not continue further than John, who with his finger pointed to Christ actually present. Nevertheless as Jerome says on this passage, "This does not mean that there were no more prophets after John. For we read in the Acts of the apostles that Agabus and the four maidens, daughters of Philip, prophesied." John, too, wrote a prophetic book about the end of the Church; and at all times there have not been lacking persons having the spirit of prophecy, not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts. Thus Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 26) that "the emperor Theodosius sent to John who dwelt in the Egyptian desert, and whom he knew by his ever-increasing fame to be endowed with the prophetic spirit: and from him he received a message assuring him of victory."