Bernard

Spomenik Srbu, ki je zaslužen, da je Bled del Slovenije Odkritje spomenika Mihajlu Pupinu na Bledu Objavljeno: 9. oktober 2015 ob 13:46, zadnji poseg: 9. oktober 2015 ob 14:17 Bled - MMC RTV SLO Mihajlo Pupin je na Bledu dobil svoj spomenik, častni občan pa je postal leta 1921. Foto: BoBo Srbsko-ameriški znanstvenik Mihajlo Pupin, kateremu pripisujejo zasluge, da je Blejski kot po koncu 1. svetovne vojne ostal del Slovenije, je na Bledu dobil spomenik. V Sloveniji je na dvodnevnem uradnem obisku srbski predsednik Tomislav Nikolić in skupaj s slovenskim predsednikom Borutom Pahorjem sta v četrtek v spomin na njuno srečanje v Tivoliju odkrila "klop miru", znamenje, ki bo "trajno spominjalo na dobre odnose med državama". V petek dopoldne pa sta na Bledu odkrila spomenik znamenitemu matematiku, fiziku in izumitelju mednarodnega slovesa Mihajlu Pupinu, ki se je leta 1919 na povabilo Kraljevine SHS udeležil pariške mirovne konference in s svojo intervencijo pomagal, da je Slovenija ohranila del ozemlja, kot so zapisali v Pahorjevem uradu. Pupin je tudi krater na Mesecu Kdo je bil Mihajlo Idvorski Pupin, kot se je glasilo njegov uradno ime, in kakšne zasluge ima za Slovenijo? Slovenski biografski leksikon, ki ga izdaja SAZU, navaja, da se je Pupin rodil v banatski vasi Idvor v bližini Pančeva, pozneje je odšel v ZDA, kjer si je velik ugled pridobil z znanstvenimi razpravami in izumi na področju elektrotehnike. Leta 1928 je prejel kolajno ZDA za inženirske iznajdbe za izum telefoniranja po zraku na velike razdalje. Po koncu 1. svetovne vojne je ob razpadu avstro-ogrskega cesarstva, kot osebni prijatelj predsednika ZDA Woodrowa Wilsona odločilno vplival na ugodno razmejitev jugoslovanskega ozemlja v Banatu, s svojo temeljito spomenico o Dalmaciji, Istri in Sloveniji, ki jo je aprila 1919 izročil Wilsonu, je dosegel, da je Dalmacija pripadla Jugoslaviji. V svojih spominih pa je navedel, da je, ko je izvedel, da so zavezniki Bled z okolico pripojili k Italiji, z osebnim posredovanjem pri predsedniku Wilsonu dosegel, da je preklical svoj podpis na že pripravljeni dokumentu. Na Bledu so zato Pupinu že leta 1921 podelili častno občanstvo. Pupin je za Koroško pri ameriškem predsedniku dosegel kompromisno rešitev dveh pasov, od katerih bi južni pripadal Jugoslaviji, severni pa Avstriji. To rešitev so vladajoči slovenski krogi v Ljubljani odklonili, zahtevali plebiscit, s katerim je nato Slovenija izgubila Koroško. Pupin je umrl leta 1935 v New Yorku. V njegovo čast so po njegovi smrti poimenovali več znanstvenih inštitutov in tudi manjši krater na Mesecu. https://www.rtvslo.si/moja-generacija/spomenik-srbu-ki-je-zasluzen-da-je-bled-del-slovenije/375942

Ако Србија не подигне споменик Пупину, ја ћу то учинити Kуд год је ишао Михајло Пупин, „Њујорк тајмс” га је пратио у стопу, а то је велика ствар. Толико је учинио у науци, за српски народ у Америци и за Србију. Он је Србију довео у Америку. Међутим, са стварањем Југославије Пупин се брише са сцене и тек педесетих година овде излази његова биографија, каже професорка Радмила Милентијевић, чију књигу о Пупину треба да објави Универзитет Колумбија, а у јуну ће изаћи и превод на српски. Радмила Милентијевић у Америци живи од 1954. године. Студирала је на Економском факултету у Београду, магистрирала историју на Чикашком универзитету и докторирала на Универзитету Колумбија у Њујорку. Предавала је Савремену европску историју на Сити колеџу Градског универзитета у Њујорку, где је била и професор емеритус. У Србију долази четири пута годишње. Сваког јуна, од 2011, додељује се награда с њеним именом нашим студентима историје и књижевности. Добитница је награде острва Елис, која се додељује заслужним емигрантима, а међу добитницима је седам председника САД. Ауторка је књиге о Милеви Марић Ајнштајн, која је с енглеског преведена на српски, француски и румунски. Помињете да је Пупин остао непознат и овде и у Америци... Његове књиге биле су веома популарне. Када је објављена његова аутобиографија у септембру 1923, у новембру је већ распродата и изашло је друго издање. Следеће године добио је Пулицерову награду и те године излазе четири издања по 10.000 примерака. После тога сваке године по два или три издања до 1929. и економске кризе. Такође, Пупин је имао 34 патента, а не 24 како се овде често помиње. Вудро Вилсон га је ставио у владину комисију за аеронаутику како би се нашао начин да се путем далекосежне телефоније успостави веза између авиона. Када је Пупин отишао у пензију, председник САД Хардинг писао му је писмо у којем помиње да је његов изум у авијацији велико благо. По завршетку Другог светског рата комунисти нису хтели да чују за таквог човека. Пупиново име отварало је многа врата, али је имао и непријатеље? Био је сељачки син, с пет центи у џепу дошао у Америку и остварио амерички сан. Много је учио, био је један од најбољих студената Колумбија универзитета који му је дао прву Тиндалову награду за усавршавање у Берлину. Усавршавао се и у Кембриџу и сматрао је да наука треба да служи човечанству. Још у гимназији у Панчеву био је слободољубив, газио је аустроугарску заставу и хтели су да га избаце из школе... Студије је започео у Прагу па отишао у Америку. Тамо је затекао српске раднике разбацане широм земље у тзв. локална друштва и он лансира идеју да се удруже у федерације да би имали боље осигурање. Радили су у челичанама и ако се повреде или разболе, газда за то није био одговоран. У Удружењу „Србобран” у Питсбургу украдено је 32.000 долара и они су били за федерацију да се не би прочуло да су банкротирали. Молили су да их Пупин уједини. Он основа федерацију „Слога”, пријавио је држави Њујорк, а за новац од чланарине куповао акције. Паја Радосављевић, психолог, био је импресиониран Пупином. Како сам није имао такав утицај, удружио се са „Србобраном” у намери да склоне Пупина с места председника „Слоге” и да Тесла постане потпредседник. У писмима Тесли, Паја Пупина назива најгорим именима. Мудри Тесла не одговара писмено него му каже да ће причати кад се виде. Тесла даје своје име на изборе, али народ бира Пупина с 91 одсто. Пупинов циљ је био да сачува „Слободу” и српски народ обезбеди у невољи. На крају, у писму Радосављевићу, Тесла 1919. пише да он као амерички грађанин неће да се меша у српску политику и каже да диже руке од ових питања. Какав је био однос Пупина и Тесле? Тесла га је звао у позориште а Пупин њега на пиће у хотел „Асторија”. Једини конфликт је овај у вези с Радосављевићем. Кад је био Теслин 75. рођендан, организатор је звао Пупина који је одговорио да Теслу није видео више од 20 година и зато му није послао честитку. Пупин се није свађао ни са ким. Никад није написао нешто против Тесле или Радосављевића. Тесла је дошао кад је Пупин био на самрти, али не зна се о чему су причали. Пупинова улога у Париској мировној конференцији 1919? Никола Пашић је рекао председнику владе Протићу да без Пупина тешко да може нешто да уради у Паризу. Казао је да сви из америчке делегације знају Пупина и да га дижу у звезде. У америчкој делегацији су два Пупинова друга с Колумбије, а годину дана раније српска застава вијорила се не само на Белој кући, као што се често понавља, већ је цео Вашингтон био под српским заставама које су биле истакнуте на свим државним институцијама. Вилсон је у свом прогласу апеловао на народ да се тог дана у цркви помоле за Србе због њихове изузетне улоге у Првом светском рату... У Паризу су преговарале велике силе: Енглеска, Француска, Италија и Америка. Пашић је позвао Пупина да хвата први брод јер је на дневном реду Банат. Шта су се сетили? Рекли су америчкој делегацији да је Пупин из Идвора у Банату и да ту само Срби живе. Вилсон је наредио делегацији да Срби добију пределе где су Срби у већини. Кад је стигао Пупин, Пашић му исприча да је Банат решен, али треба решити Далмацију и острва. Две недеље су Пупина обучавали о тим питањима и сачували су јадранску обалу, Блед и Триглав за Словенију. Хрвати му никада нису захвалили, али Словенци јесу. Прогласили су га почасним грађанином Бледа и подигли му тамо споменик. Треба рећи и да је Србија у САД послала пуковника Прибићевића да сакупља волонтере за Први светски рат. Пупин му је казао да са Србима неће имати проблема, али да су Хрвати и Словенци под утицајем католичког клера и аустроугарских конзула, имају добре послове и неће да гину за српског краља. Требало је да сакупе 15.000 Хрвата и Словенаца, а нашли су свега 300. У приватном животу Пупин није имао среће... Прву жену је много волео и након њене смрти био је веома утучен. С њом је имао кћерку Варвару, којој је оставио осигурање да може да живи до краја живота и да јој Колумбија исплаћује 9.000 долара годишње. Играла је тенис, јахала коње, имала ергелу, ишла на трке. Није хтела да студира и стално је била у дуговима. Побегла је с учитељем јахања и убрзо се развела од њега. Удала се онда за човека који је завршио Харвард и имао је велико наследство. Нису имали деце. У другој години брака, у Детроиту, зет пише Пупину да његово наследство није довољно и да им Пупин шаље више. Пупин је оставио Колумбији новац и своју велику вилу, око 10 хектара земље – где је имао 100 сименталки, али после његове смрти Колумбија је из сентименталних разлога кућу вратила његовој кћерки. Зет је продао скупе тепихе, Пупинове медаље од злата, а папире из куће запалио. Био је ментално оболео и једно време у душевној болници. Пупин је имао и другу, невенчану жену, такође Американку. Она је имала двоје деце из првог брака, а с њим није имала порода. Да ли ће Пупинове мошти бити враћене у Србију? Пупин је сахрањен на гробљу у Бруклину, јер тада није било српског гробља, а предлог је да се његове мошти пренесу у Цркву Светог Саве на Врачару. Имао је три сестре и оне имају унуке. Контактирала сам с једним од њих и он је за то да се мошти врате у Србију. Та одлука мора да се региструје у суду и да се сагласе остали потомци. Иначе, сада је српска црква у Патерсону купила имање за прво српско гробље. Дала сам им донацију и даћу још. А ако Србија за годину-две не подигне споменик Пупину, ја ћу то учинити. Близу два милиона долара свог новца дали сте институцијама у Србији, САД, Румунији и Француској... Шта друго да радим? То је моје поимање смисла на овој земљи. Моји корени су веома јаки. Одрасла сам без дедова који су погинули у Првом светском рату. Моја неписмена баба стално је говорила о Светом Сави, цару Лазару, Карађорђу. Увек је давала новац Циганкама које су просиле. Питала сам зашто даје наше паре уместо да ми да за бомбоне. Она је говорила: „Душо моја, живи и помози гладном да живи.” Из Америке сам слала помоћ породици. За време студија у САД радила сам као келнерица у кафани у Чикагу, рачуновођа у једној фабрици и преводила стручне радове с руског за професора хемије. Прва донација била ми је 10 долара за школовање принца Александра у Америци. Како је Америка тада хтела да окрене Тита на запад, доводили су наше министре преко лета. Положила сам испит у Стејт департменту и радила као преводилац. Међу њима је била Станка Веселинов, министар културе, која ме је после водила по нашим манастирима. Ту сам видела тешко стање, касније и помагала Цркву. У нашој влади сте били министар без портфеља од јула до новембра 1992. и министар информисања од фебруара 1997. до марта 1998. Држали сте предавања о југословенској кризи на америчким универзитетима, давали интервјуе за Би-Би-Си, Си-Ен-Ен, Фокс њуз... Председник САД Клинтон је одговарао на ваша писма. Како је слика о нама пролазила до медија? Слободан Милошевић ме је позвао у владу. Рекао је да тражимо начин за мир у Босни. Панић је после ангажовао владу да обара Милошевића, о чему сада пишем у мемоарима. На универзитету у САД радила сам и односе с јавношћу и доста новинара сам знала. Да сам нападала српску владу као што сам нападала америчку била бих на Голом отоку, али у Америци ипак има слободе. Хтели су да ме избаце с факултета јер браним геноцидан народ, рекавши да због тога нисам квалификована да предајем историју. Међутим, ректор и УО су стали уз мене. Нису сви новинари тамо против Србије. Прва моја велика дебата на Си-Ен-Ену била је с Матом Мештровићем, професором историје на америчком универзитету, сином Ивана Мештровића. Новинар нас пита ко жели први. Ја кажем: „Ово је 20. век, ако господин хоће први, слободно.” Он поче да су велике разлике – Хрвати су цивилизовани, а Срби су налик Циганима. Рекла сам да хоћу да цео свет чује да су разлике између Срба и Хрвата огромне и оне су дошле до изражаја када је Хитлер напао Југославију. Хрвати су га загрлили, он им је дао независну државу, а Срби су се борили против њега и нацизма. Кажем да су Хрвати створили концлогоре и убијали Србе, бацали у јаме и палили их у црквама, да су чак и немачки командири били тиме згрожени. Убијали су тада и Јевреје и Цигане и зато овај господин нас изједначава с Циганима. А кад се завршио рат, ми смо прихватили државу јединства. За Милошевића је рекао да је диктатор, а ја сам казала да га је народ изабрао и да он не да цепање држава. У Сједињеним америчким државама сте члан Демократске странке. У Демократској странци сам од краја шездесетих година. Кад су нас бомбардовали, нападала сам Клинтона у медијима да нам разара земљу против сваког међународног закона. Сада сам у опозицији у оквиру странке јер нисам за политику коју Америка води од завршетка Хладног рата. Америка мора да промени политику и да се не понаша као империја која поседује арсенале за уништавање. Важно је да схвати да више није једина сила на свету и да се констелација снага мења. Русија стаје на ноге, Кина је јака, мала Северна Кореја има атомску бомбу и Иран ће да је добије. Америка мора да сарађује с великим силама а не да изазива трећи светски рат. У извештају Ције из 1989. писало је да се Југославија распада и да нема силе која ће то да заустави. Да разлог распада почиње на Косову и да је ту све припремљено – Шиптари с Косова су у Албанији обучени за герилски рат а муниција пребачена и из Немачке. Писало је да то уводи Србију у грађански рат, да ће Милошевић покушати то да спречи, али ће му руке бити везане на Косову. Као министар сам два пута била на југу Косова где нико није дошао да их обиђе од краја Другог светског рата. Људи су ми љубили стопе, остављени и напуштени. Показивали су рупе кроз планине кроз које су Албанци долазили јер је Косово за њих било спас. Тито је то дозволио. Граница није чувана. Какво је расположење сада у нашој дијаспори? Већина не воли ову политику сада. Припремамо се да идемо на суд зато што је владика источноамерички Иринеј од 2016. распустио парохију у Њујорку и потрошио силан новац. Живи у дворцу с 24 собе, с базеном, а скупштина цркве није одржана четири године. Он нас је разорио, многи људи из цркве су отишли због њега у српску цркву у Њу Џерзију, неки у руску, а неки чак у грчку цркву. Кад је реч о Доналду Трампу он неће моћи много да уради јер нема већину у Конгресу. Ја сам гласала за њега јер нисам хтела Клинтонове који су нас бомбардовали. Трамп нема углађеност и нису га још научили томе. Они га нападају, а он се рита. Али поново ће добити изборе. Смањио је незапосленост која је мања него пре неколико деценија, што је добро за радничку класу, а контролише и инвазију емиграната. Ово ће бити велика опомена естаблишменту у Америци да усклади политику с потребама народа и оним што су заиста амерички интереси. Новац и лекови за српски народ Радмила Милентијевић финансијски је помагала српски народ у Крајини, Републици Српској и Косову, уложила је новац у одбрану Милошевића, Младића и Караџића у Хагу. Милошевићеву одбрану у Хагу превела је на енглески. Од 1993. до 2001, у више од 20 прекоокеанских летова, доносила је лекове као председница Светског српског добровољног фонда за хуманитарну помоћ – у клиничке центре у Бањалуци и Приштини, Војни болнички центар у Книну, Дечју клинику у Тиршовој... Лично је помогла Саборну цркву у Београду с 269.000 долара, Цркву Светог Саве на Врачару с 91.300 долара, Цркву Светог Саве у Њујорку 143.300, Цркву Светог Јована Крститеља у Патерсону 7.200, дала је 21.100 долара Народном музеју за витрину за Мирослављево јеванђеље, Цркви Свете Петке у Бондију, у Француској 20.000, за САНУ 19.310, Хиландару 13.100, Цркви Светог Вазнесења Господњег у Решици у Румунији 60.000, Универзитету у Београду 45.000, за споменик кнегињи Милици у Трстенику 21.000 и многим другима. http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/446193/Ako-Srbija-ne-podigne-spomenik-Pupinu-ja-cu-to-uciniti

Byzantinismus oder Cäsaropapismus 27. Februar 2018 Was ist Byzantinismus oder Cäsaropapismus So nennt man jene Grundsätze und Anschauungen, welche in geistlichen und weltlichen Dingen sklavische Unterwürfigkeit unter die weltlichen Fürsten verlangen. Der Name Byzantinismus kommt von der alten Stadt Byzanz, welche Konstantinopel genannt wurde, seitdem Kaiser Konstantin I. der Große dorthin seinen Kaisersitz verlegt und es zur Hauptstadt des Reiches gemacht hatte (330). Infolge dessen sank Rom in politischer Hinsicht, blieb aber selbstverständlich als Sitz des Nachfolgers des hl. Petrus die Hauptstadt der Christenheit. Im alten Byzanz, einer unbedeutenden Stadt, sich geschichtlich keine Bischöfe in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten nachweisen. Byzanz erscheint noch im vierten Jahrhundert als ein der Metropolie oder dem Erzbistum Heraklea in Thracien untergebenes einfaches Bistum. Als erster Bischof dort selbst kann nachgewiesen werden Metrophanes (307-317), welchem der von Afrika bedrängte Alexander (317-336) folgte. Daß die Kirche von Byzanz durch den hl. Apostel Andreas gegründet worden sei, ist ganz unbegründet. Ebenso sagenhaft sind die Bischöfe von Byzanz vor dem vierten Jahrhundert, wie, daß Domitius, ein Bruder des Kaisers Probus, um 280 in Byzanz Bischof geworden sei, und diesem seine Söhne Petrus und Metrophanes sodann in diese Würde gefolgt seien. Stadt und Bistum Byzanz traten vor der Gründung der Kaiserresidenz dort selbst in keiner Weise hervor. Der Nachfolger Alexanders war der hl. Paulus I., welcher durch den Arianer Eusebius von Nikomedien (339-342) und dann von Macedonius, der die Gottheit des Heiligen Geistes leugnete, verdrängt wurde. Erst 376 konnte Paulus seinen Bischofssitz in Konstantinopel einnehmen. Paulus wurde wiederum von Macedonius verdrängt und Macedonius von dem Arianer Eudoxius abgelöst. Diesem folgte Demophilus, dem die Katholiken im Jahr 370 den Evagrius entgegen stellten. Aber der arianische Kaiser Valens vertrieb den rechtgläubigen Evagrius mit Waffengewalt und nahm den Katholiken alle Kirchen in Konstantinopel weg … So war die Kirche der nachher so stolzen Residenzstadt durch Irrlehren und Irrlehrer verunstaltet, bis endlich nach dem Tod des arianischen Herrschers Valens († 378) Theodosius der Große dort Ordnung zu schaffen suchte. Theodosius zwang völlig den hl. Gregor von Nazianz das Bistum zu übernehmen, welches derselbe von 379-381 verwaltete. Gregor von Nazianz, durch seine Schriften rühmlichst bekannt, richtete durch seinen Eifer und seine Beredsamkeit die Kirche von Konstantinopel wieder auf und verschaffte dem katholischen Glauben in kurzer Zeit wieder das Übergewicht. Die ketzerischen Gegenbischöfe, der gemeine Maximus, welcher bald dem unbedeutenden Dorotheus weichen musste, verfielen in Missachtung, aber gegen den aus Kappadozien gekommenen Gregor waren viele Griechen bei ihrem Stolz eingenommen. Dieser Heilige dankte nun freiwillig ab und lebte hinfür nur der Wissenschaft und Gottseligkeit bis zu seinem Tod 390. – Zum Bischof von Konstantinopel wurde Nektarius, ein Laie, erhoben, dessen Ehrgeiz einen höheren Rang für die Kirche von Konstantinopel zu erlangen strebte. Mit Hilfe des Kaisers wurde auf dem Konzil 381 der Beschluss durchgesetzt: Der Bischof von Konstantinopel soll den Vorrang der Ehre haben nach dem Bischof Roms, weil jene Stadt Neu-Rom ist. Papst Damasus hatte diesen Beschluss aber ausdrücklich verworfen, trotzdem für den Bischof von Byzanz nur ein Ehrenvorrang, aber keine höhere Amtsbefugnis über andere Bischöfe der Umgebung zugesprochen worden war. Bisher galten nach der Kirche von Rom, die einst durch den heiligen Petrus gegründeten Kirchen von Alexandria in Ägypten und Antiochia in Syrien als die ersten Kirchensprengel. Durch den Ehrgeiz seiner Vorsteher rückte also nach fast vierhundert Jahren die Kirche von Konstantinopel allmählich zur zweiten Kirche der Welt empor. Allein auch noch unter Nektarius († 397) blieb der Bischof von Konstantinopel noch ein einfacher Bischof. Stillschweigend suchten die Oberhirten der neuen Kaiserstadt nun die Unabhängigkeit von dem Oberbischof von Heraklea durchzuführen. Nach dem schwachen Nektarius kam 397 der hervorragende Johannes Chrysostomus. Da die kirchlichen Verhältnisse in der Provinz (Klein-)Asiens sehr zerrüttet waren, schritt Chrysostomus in edler Absicht ein und schaffte Ordnung, was besonders in Ephesus nötig war; ebenso in der Erzdiözese von Thracien und Pontus. Darauf steiften sich seine Nachfolger, obschon man im Jahre 403, als Chrysostomus auf der Synode „an der Eiche“ (Eichensynode) verurteilt wurde, seine Kläger unter anderem auch noch dies als eine unbefugte Einmischung in fremde kirchliche Angelegenheiten geltend gemacht hatten. Chrysostomus wurde abgesetzt und verbannt. Es wurde diesem Arkadius, ein Bruder des Nektarius, zum Nachfolger gegeben, der schon 405 starb. Nun wurde Attikus gewählt, der von 406-426 den bischöflichen Stuhl inne hatte. Da Chrysostomus noch lebte (407), war die Einsetzung beider ungültig. Deshalb wurde Attikus von Papst Innozenz I. mit dem Bann belegt. Kaiserliche Dekrete können keine bischöfliche Gewalt verleihen, und der Statthalter Christi auf Erden kann dieselbe geben. Durch Kirchengesetze ist die kirchliche Ordnung genau festgesetzt. Solange ein Bischof seinen Sitz noch rechtmäßig besitzt, ist jeder andere ein Eindringling; so auch Attikus in Konstantinopel zu Lebzeiten des hl. Chrysostomus. Erst 412 söhnte Attikus sich mit dem Papst aus. Die Staatslenker des Oströmischen Reiches mischten sich immer mehr in kirchliche Dinge ein; dadurch wurde die Kirche um so abhängiger vom Staat. Die Bischöfe der Hauptstadt wurden von den Regenten in ihrer Machterweiterung mächtig unterstützt. Ehrgeiz, Herrschsucht, Stolz und Anmaßung taten das ihrige, um den bischöflichen Stuhl über alle anderen des Orients zu erheben. So erlangte der Bischof von Konstantinopel, Patriarch genannt, allmählich einen kirchlichen Rang, der unbestreitbar hinter dem Papst steht. Die weltlichen Verhältnisse wirkten da mit den kirchlichen zusammen, um so mehr, da das alte Rom nicht mehr Residenzstadt der Kaiser des Abendlandes war. Rom blieb aber immer noch das Zentrum und die Hauptstadt der Christenheit. Wäre der Primat, der Vorrang der Kirche Roms, nur eine menschliche und nicht eine göttliche Einrichtung gewesen, so hätte die oberste Leitung der Kirche mit der Übertragung des Kaisersitzes nach Konstantinopel auch dorthin kommen müssen, aber das war nicht der Fall; im Gegenteil, die Bischöfe von Konstantinopel oder Neu-Rom, wie man es auch bezeichnete, erkennen noch immer den Primat des römischen Bischofs an. Nur steckten sich die Patriarchen gerne hinter die Kaiser; diese unterstützten jene bereitwilligst bei Erweiterung ihres kirchlichen Machtgebietes. Dafür wurden die Patriarchen um so gefügiger gegen den Kaiser. Auf solche Weise entwickelte sich der Cäsaropapismus, das Staatskirchentum, welches die Kirche bevormundete. Attikus erschlich sich ein kaiserliches Edikt, welches das östliche Balkangebiet, das sogenannte Ost-Illyrien, der Amtsgewalt des Patriarchen von Konstantinopel unterordnete. Aber dieser unberechtigte Eingriff in die Patriarchenrechte der römischen Kirche scheiterte diesmal an dem Widerspruch des Papstes Bonifatius. Dafür gelang es dem Atticus, von dem schwachen Kaiser Theodorius II. (408-450) ein Gesetz zu erwirken, wonach ohne Bestimmung eines Konzils von Konstantinopel aus die Bischöfe für Thracien und die Provinz Asia (Vorder-Kleinasien) geweiht werden durften. Derlei Konzilien wurden unter dem Vorsitz des Bischofs von Konstantinopel gebildet durch jene Bischöfe, welche sich am Hoflager des Kaisers zahlreich aufhielten. Man sieht, die Kirche von Neu-Rom oder Konstantinopel besitzt kein apostolisches Vorrecht vor anderen Kirchen der Welt, wie Rom. Sie war durch vier Jahrhunderte ein gewöhnliches Bistum und verdankt ihr Emporkommen vor allem den weltlichen Fürsten, durch deren Macht, Gunst und Einmischung in kirchliche Angelegenheiten sie nach und nach einen Vorrang vor anderen Kirchen des Morgenlandes gewann. – aus: P. Andreas Hamerle C.Ss.R., Geschichte der Päpste 1907, S. 158 – S. 160 https://katholischglauben.info/byzantinismus-oder-caesaropapismus/

Šta će ti? Džabe traćiš vreme. Na tom Saboru su se rodile dve klice. Prva klica je kulminirala 1054. god. i došlo je do raskola 1054. god. Iz druge klice se je izrodila vaša unutrašnja međupravoslavna nesloga.

Exsurge Domine Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther Pope Leo X - 1520 Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it. Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth. We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter’s. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors. Rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. He is like the heretics “whose last defense,” as Jerome says, “is to start spewing out a serpent’s venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished.” For although you have said that there must be heresies to test the faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like your wolves. Finally, let the whole church of the saints and the rest of the universal church arise. Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, “It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man’s, or what is worse, the devil’s.” Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church. For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor; alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors. Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world’s glory, and contrary to the Apostle’s teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be. Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed. These errors have, at the suggestion of the human race, been revived and recently propagated among the more frivolous and the illustrious German nation. We grieve the more that this happened there because we and our predecessors have always held this nation in the bosom of our affection. For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church’s advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church’s independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance. Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation no less learned than true and holy of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord’s field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history. In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows: 1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle. 2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ. 3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven. 4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom. 5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors. 6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner. 7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: “Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life.” 8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed. 9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God’s mercy for pardon. 10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness. 11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: “Whatsoever you shall loose, etc.” Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition. 12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved. 13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much. 14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire. 15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy. 16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics. 17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints. 18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous. 19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice. 20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit. 21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient. 22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things. 23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church. 24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them. 25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter. 26. The word of Christ to Peter: “Whatsoever you shall loose on earth,” etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself. 27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works. 28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council. 29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever. 30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn. 31. In every good work the just man sins. 32. A good work done very well is a venial sin. 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. 34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them. 35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride. 36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally. 37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon. 38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity. 39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment. 40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves. 41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary. No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful. Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord’s field as harmful thornbushes. We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church. Now Augustine maintained that her authority had to be accepted so completely that he stated he would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had vouched for it. For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): “I will be with you to the consummation of the world”; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism. With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…. Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people. As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad. But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council. Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church. Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency. We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher. {And even though the love of righteousness and virtue did not take him away from sin and the hope of forgiveness did not lead him to penance, perhaps the terror of the pain of punishment may move him. Thus we beseech and remind this Martin, his supporters and accomplices of his holy orders and the described punishment. We ask him earnestly that he and his supporters, adherents and accomplices desist within sixty days (which we wish to have divided into three times twenty days, counting from the publication of this bull at the places mentioned below) from preaching, both expounding their views and denouncing others, from publishing books and pamphlets concerning some or all of their errors. Furthermore, all writings which contain some or all of his errors are to be burned. Furthermore, this Martin is to recant perpetually such errors and views. He is to inform us of such recantation through an open document, sealed by two prelates, which we should receive within another sixty days. Or he should personally, with safe conduct, inform us of his recantation by coming to Rome. We would prefer this latter way in order that no doubt remain of his sincere obedience. If, however, this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices, much to our regret, should stubbornly not comply with the mentioned stipulations within the mentioned period, we shall, following the teaching of the holy Apostle Paul, who teaches us to avoid a heretic after having admonished him for a first and a second time, condemn this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices as barren vines which are not in Christ, preaching an offensive doctrine contrary to the Christian faith and offend the divine majesty, to the damage and shame of the entire Christian Church, and diminish the keys of the Church as stubborn and public heretics.}* . . . * Webmaster comment: This added text in italics was obtained from a secondary source, translator Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed. “The Reformation in its own Words” (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1964), pp80-84 https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF POPE PAUL VI INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA WHEREBY THE REVISION OF SACRED INDULGENCES IS PROMULGATED Chapter 1 1. The doctrine and practice of indulgences which have been in force for many centuries in the Catholic Church have a solid foundation in divine revelation(1) which comes from the Apostles and "develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit," while "as the centuries succeed one another the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her."(2) For an exact understanding of this doctrine and of its beneficial use it is necessary, however, to remember truths which the entire Church illumined by the Word of God has always believed and which the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, and first and foremost among them the Roman Pontiffs, the successors of Peter, have taught by means of pastoral practice as well as doctrinal documents throughout the course of centuries to this day. 2. It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death,(3) or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments.(4) Therefore it has always been the conviction of the faithful that the paths of evil are fraught with many stumbling blocks and bring adversities, bitterness and harm to those who follow them.(5) These punishments are imposed by the just and merciful judgment of God for the purification of souls, the defense of the sanctity of the moral order and the restoration of the glory of God to its full majesty. Every sin in fact causes a perturbation in the universal order established by God in His ineffable wisdom and infinite charity, and the destruction of immense values with respect to the sinner himself and to the human community. Christians throughout history have always regarded sin not only as a transgression of divine law but also—though not always in a direct and evident way—as contempt for or disregard of the friendship between God and man, (6) just as they have regarded it as a real and unfathomable offense against God and indeed an ungrateful rejection of the love of God shown us through Jesus Christ, who called his disciples friends and not servants. (7) 3. It is therefore necessary for the full remission and—as it is called—reparation of sins not only that friendship with God be reestablished by a sincere conversion of the mind and amends made for the offense against his wisdom and goodness, but also that all the personal as well as social values and those of the universal order itself, which have been diminished or destroyed by sin, be fully reintegrated whether through voluntary reparation which will involve punishment or through acceptance of the punishments established by the just and most holy wisdom of God, from which there will shine forth throughout the world the sanctity and the splendor of his glory. The very existence and the gravity of the punishment enable us to understand the foolishness and malice of sin and its harmful consequences. That punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequently do even after the remission of guilt(8) is clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory. In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those "who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions (9) are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments. This is also clearly evidenced in the liturgical prayers with which the Christian community admitted to Holy Communion has addressed God since most ancient times: "that we, who are justly subjected to afflictions because of our sins, may be mercifully set free from them for the glory of thy name.(10) For all men who walk this earth daily commit at least venial sins;(11) thus all need the mercy of God to be set free from the penal consequences of sin. Chapter 2 4. There reigns among men, by the hidden and benign mystery of the divine will, a supernatural solidarity whereby the sin of one harms the others just as the holiness of one also benefits the others.(12) Thus the Christian faithful give each other mutual aid to attain their supernatural aim. A testimony of this solidarity is manifested in Adam himself, whose sin is passed on through propagation to all men. But of this supernatural solidarity the greatest and most perfect principle, foundation and example is Christ himself to communion with Whom God has called us.(13) 5. Indeed Christ "committed no sin," "suffered for us,"(14) was wounded for our iniquities, bruised for our sins...by his bruises we are healed."(15) Following in the footsteps of Christ,(16) the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in his sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies.(17) This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints,(18) whereby the life of each individual son of God in Christ and through Christ is joined by a wonderful link to the life of all his other Christian brothers in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ till, as it were, a single mystical person is formed.(19) Thus is explained the "treasury of the Church"(20) which should certainly not be imagined as the sum total of material goods accumulated in the course of the centuries, but the infinite and inexhaustible value the expiation and the merits of Christ Our Lord have before God, offered as they were so that all of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. It is Christ the Redeemer himself in whom the satisfactions and merits of his redemption exist and find their force.(21) This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body. "For all who are in Christ, having his spirit, form one Church and cleave together in him" (Eph. 4:16). Therefore the union of the wayfarers with the brethren who have gone to sleep in the peace of Christ is not in the least weakened or interrupted, but on the contrary, according to the perpetual faith of the Church, is strengthened by a communication of spiritual goods. For by reason of the fact that those in heaven are more closely united with Christ, they establish the whole Church more firmly in holiness, lend nobility to the worship which the Church offers to God here on earth and in many ways contribute to building it up evermore (1 Cor. 12: 12-27). For after they have been received into their heavenly home and are present to the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8), through him and with him and in him they do not cease to intervene with the Father for us, showing forth the merits which they have won on earth through the one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5), by serving God in all things and filling up in their flesh those things which are lacking of the sufferings of Christ for his Body which is the Church (Col. 1:24). Thus by their brotherly interest our weakness is greatly strengthened.(22) For this reason there certainly exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth a perennial link of charity and an abundant exchange of all the goods by which, with the expiation of all the sins of the entire Mystical Body, divine justice is placated. God's mercy is thus led to forgiveness, so that sincerely repentant sinners may participate as soon as possible in the full enjoyment of the benefits of the family of God. Chapter 3 6. The Church, aware of these truths ever since its origins, formulated and undertook various ways of applying the fruits of the Lord's redemption to the individual faithful and of leading them to cooperate in the salvation of their brothers, so that the entire body of the Church might be prepared in justice and sanctity for the complete realization of the kingdom of God, when he will be all things to all men. The Apostles themselves, in fact, exhorted their disciples to pray for the salvation of sinners.(23) This very ancient usage of the Church has blessedly persevered,(24) particularly in the practice of penitents invoking the intercession of the entire commu-nity, (25) and when the dead are assisted with suffrages, particularly through the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.(26) Good works, particularly those which human frailty finds difficult, were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners from the Church's most ancient times.(27) And since the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for the law of God were considered of great value, penitents used to turn to the martyrs, to be helped by their merits to obtain from the bishops a more speedy reconciliation.(28) Indeed the prayer and good works of the upright were considered to be of so great value that it could be asserted the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people.(29) It was not believed, however, that the individual faithful by their own merits alone worked for the remission of sins of their brothers, but that the entire Church as a single body united to Christ its Head was bringing about satisfaction.(30) The Church of the Fathers was fully convinced that it was pursuing the work of salvation in community, and under the authority of the pastors established by the Holy Spirit as bishops to govern the Church of God.(31) The bishops, therefore, prudently assessing these matters, established the manner and the measure of the satisfaction to be made and indeed permitted canonical penances to be replaced by other possibly easier works, which would be useful to the common good and suitable for fostering piety, to be performed by the penitents themselves and sometimes by others among the faithful.(32) Chapter 4 7. The conviction existing in the Church that the pastors of the flock of the Lord could set the individual free from the vestiges of sins by applying the merits of Christ and of the saints led gradually, in the course of the centuries and under the influence of the Holy Spirit's continuous inspiration of the people of God, to the usage of indulgences which represented a progression in the doctrine and discipline of the Church rather than a change.(33) From the roots of revelation a new advantage grew in benefit to the faithful and the entire Church. The use of indulgences, which spread gradually, became a very evident fact in the history of the Church when the Roman Pontiffs decreed that certain works useful to the common good of the Church "could replace all penitential practices"(34) and that the faithful who were "truly repentant and had confessed their sins" and performed such works were granted "by the mercy of Almighty God and...trusting in the merits and the authority of his Apostles" and "by virtue of the fullness of the apostolic power," not only full and abundant forgiveness, but the most complete forgiveness for their sins possible."(35) For "the only-begotten son of God...has won a treasure for the militant Church and has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the keybearer of heaven, and to his successors, Christ's vicars on earth, that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation, applying it mercifully for reasonable causes to all who are repentant and have confessed their sins, at times remitting completely and at times partially the temporal punishment due sin in a general as well as in special ways insofar as they judge it to be fitting in the eyes of the Lord. It is known that the merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect...add further to this treasure.(36) 8. The remission of the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven insofar as their guilt is concerned has been called specifically "indulgence."(37) It has something in common with other ways or means of eliminating the vestiges of sin but at the same time it is clearly distinct from them. In an indulgence in fact, the Church, making use of its power as minister of the Redemption of Christ, not only prays but by an authoritative intervention dispenses to the faithful suitably disposed the treasury of satisfaction which Christ and the saints won for the remission of temporal punishment.(38) The aim pursued by ecclesiastical authority in granting indulgences is not only that of helping the faithful to expiate the punishment due sin but also that of urging them to perform works of piety, penitence and charity—particularly those which lead to growth in faith and which favor the common good.(39) And if the faithful offer indulgences in suffrage for the dead, they cultivate charity in an excellent way and while raising their minds to heaven, they bring a wiser order into the things of this world. The Magisterium of the Church has defended and illustrated this doctrine in various documents.(40) Unfortunately, the practice of indulgences has at times been improperly used either through "untimely and superfluous indulgences" by which the power of the keys was humiliated and penitential satisfaction weakened,(41) or through the collection of "illicit profits" by which indulgences were blasphemously defamed.(42) But the Church, in deploring and correcting these improper uses "teaches and establishes that the use of indulgences must be preserved because it is supremely salutary for the Christian people and authoritatively approved by the sacred councils; and it condemns with anathema those who maintain the uselessness of indulgences or deny the power of the Church to grant them."(43) 9. The Church also in our days then invites all its sons to ponder and meditate well on how the use of indulgences benefits their lives and indeed all Christian society. To recall briefly the most important considerations, this salutary practice teaches us in the first place how it is "sad and bitter to have abandoned ... the Lord God."(44) Indeed the faithful when they acquire indulgences understand that by their own powers they could not remedy the harm they have done to themselves and to the entire community by their sin, and they are therefore stirred to a salutary humility. Furthermore, the use of indulgences shows us how closely we are united to each other in Christ, and how the supernatural life of each can benefit others so that these also may be more easily and more closely united with the Father. Therefore the use of indulgences effectively influences charity in us and demonstrates that charity in an outstanding manner when we offer indulgences as assistance to our brothers who rest in Christ. 10. Likewise, the religious practice of indulgences reawakens trust and hope in a full reconciliation with God the Father, but in such a way as will not justify any negligence nor in any way diminish the effort to acquire the dispositions required for full communion with God. Although indulgences are in fact free gifts, nevertheless they are granted for the living as well as for the dead only on determined conditions. To acquire them, it is indeed required on the one hand that prescribed works be performed, and on the other that the faithful have the necessary dispositions, that is to say, that they love God, detest sin, place their trust in the merits of Christ and believe firmly in the great assistance they derive from the Communion of Saints. In addition, it should not be forgotten that by acquiring indulgences the faithful submit docilely to the legitimate pastors of the Church and above all to the successor of Blessed Peter, the keybearer of heaven, to whom the Savior himself entrusted the task of feeding his flock and governing his Church. The salutary institution of indulgences therefore contributes in its own way to bringing it about that the Church appear before Christ without blemish or defect, but holy and immaculate,(45) admirably united with Christ in the supernatural bond of charity. Since in fact by means of indulgences members of the Church who are undergoing purification are united more speedily to those of the Church in heaven, the kingdom of Christ is through these same indulgences established more extensively and more speedily "until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the deep knowledge of the Son of God, to perfect manhood, to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ."(46) 11. Therefore Holy Mother Church, supported by these truths, while again recommending to the faithful the practice of indulgences as something very dear to the Christian people during the course of many centuries and in our days as well—this is proven by experience—does not in any way intend to diminish the value of other means of sanctification and purification, first and foremost among which are the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, particularly the Sacrament of Penance. Nor does it diminish the importance of those abundant aids which are called sacramentals or of the works of piety, penitence and charity. All these aids have this in common that they bring about sanctification and purification all the more efficaciously, the more closely the faithful are united with Christ the Head and the Body of the Church by charity. The preeminence of charity in the Christian life is confirmed also by indulgences. For indulgences cannot be acquired without a sincere conversion of mentality ("metanoia") and unity with God, to which the performance of the prescribed works is added. Thus the order of charity is preserved, into which is incorporated the remission of punishment by distribution from the Church's treasury. While recommending that its faithful not abandon or neglect the holy traditions of their forebears but welcome them religiously as a precious treasure of the Catholic family and duly esteem them, the Church nevertheless leaves it to each to use these means of purification and sanctification with the holy and free liberty of the sons of God. It constantly reminds them, though, of those things which are to be given preference because they are necessary or at least better and more efficacious for the attainment of salvation.(47) Holy Mother Church has then deemed it fitting, in order to give greater dignity and esteem to the use of indulgences, to introduce some innovations into its discipline of indulgences and has accordingly ordered the issuance of new norms. Chapter 5 12. The following norms introduce appropriate variations in the discipline of indulgences, taking into consideration the proposals advanced by the episcopal conferences. The rulings of the Code of Canon Law and of the decrees of the Holy See concerning indulgences which do not go counter to the new norms remain unchanged. In drawing up the new norms these three considerations have been particularly observed: to establish a new measurement for partial indulgences; to reduce considerably the number of plenary indulgences; and, as for the so-called "real" and "local" indulgences, to reduce them and give them a simpler and more dignified formulation. Regarding partial indulgences, with the abolishment of the former determination of days and years, a new norm or measurement has been established which takes into consideration the action itself of the faithful Christian who performs a work to which an indulgence is attached. Since by their acts the faithful can obtain, in addition to the merit which is the principal fruit of the act, a further remission of temporal punishment in proportion to the degree to which the charity of the one performing the act is greater, and in proportion to the degree to which the act itself is performed in a more perfect way, it has been considered fitting that this remission of temporal punishment which the Christian faithful acquire through an action should serve as the measurement for the remission of punishment which the ecclesiastical authority bountifully adds by way of partial indulgence. It has also been considered fitting to reduce appropriately the number of plenary indulgences in order that the faithful may hold them in greater esteem and may in fact acquire them with the proper dispositions. For indeed the greater the proliferation (of indulgences) the less is the attention given them; what is offered in abundance is not greatly appreciated. Besides, many of the faithful need considerable time to prepare themselves properly for acquisition of a plenary indulgence. As regards the "real" and "local" indulgences, not only has their number been reduced considerably, but the designations themselves have been abolished to make it clearer that indulgences are attached to the actions performed by the faithful and not to objects or places which are but the occasion for the acquisition of the indulgences. In fact, members of pious associations can acquire the indulgences proper to their associations without the requirement of the use of distinctive objects. NORMS n. 1—An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due sins already forgiven as far as their guilt is concerned, which the follower of Christ with the proper dispositions and under certain determined conditions acquires through the intervention of the Church which, as minister of the Redemption, authoritatively dispenses and applies the treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and the saints. n. 2—An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due sin. n. 3—Partial as well as plenary indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of suffrage. n. 4—A partial indulgence will henceforth be designated only with the words "partial indulgence" without any determination of days or years. n. 5—The faithful who at least with a contrite heart perform an action to which a partial indulgence is attached obtain, in addition to the remission of temporal punishment acquired by the action itself, an equal remission of punishment through the intervention of the Church. n. 6—A plenary indulgence can be acquired only once a day, except for the provisions contained in n. 18 for those who are on the point of death. A partial indulgence can be acquired more than once a day, unless there is an explicit indication to the contrary. n. 7—To acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill three conditions: sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion and prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff. It is further required that all attachment to sin, even to venial sin, be absent. If this disposition is in any way less than complete, or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be only partial, except for the provisions contained in n.11 for those who are "impeded." n. 8—The three conditions may be fulfilled several days before or after the performance of the prescribed work; nevertheless it is fitting that Communion be received and the prayers for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff be said the same day the work is performed. n. 9—A single sacramental confession suffices for gaining several plenary indulgences, but Communion must be received and prayers for the Supreme Pontiff's intentions recited for the gaining of each plenary indulgence. n. 10—The condition of praying for the Supreme Pontiff's intentions is fully satisfied by reciting one "Our Father" and one "Hail Mary"; nevertheless the individual faithful are free to recite any other prayer according to their own piety and devotion toward the Supreme Pontiff. n. 11—While there is no change in the faculty granted by canon 935 of the Code of Canon Law to confessors to commute for those who are "impeded" either the prescribed work itself or the required conditions [for the acquisition of indulgences], local Ordinaries can grant to the faithful over whom they exercise authority in accordance with the law, and who live in places where it is impossible or at least very difficult for them to receive the sacraments of confession and Communion, permission to acquire a plenary indulgence without confession and Communion provided they are sorry for their sins and have the intention of receiving these sacraments as soon as possible. n. 12—The division of indulgences into "personal," "real" and "local" is abolished so as to make it clearer that indulgences are attached to the actions of the faithful even though at times they may be linked with some object or place. n. 13—The Enchiridion Indulgentiarium [collection of indulgenced prayers and works] is to be revised with a view to attaching indulgences only to the most important prayers and works of piety, charity and penance. n. 14—The lists and summaries of indulgences special to religious orders, congregations, societies of those living in community without vows, secular institutes and the pious associations of faithful are to be revised as soon as possible in such a way that plenary indulgences may be acquired only on particular days established by the Holy See acting on the recommendation of the Superior General, or in the case of pious associations, of the local Ordinary. n. 15—A plenary indulgence applicable only to the dead can be acquired in all churches and public oratories—and in semipublic oratories by those who have the right to use them—on November 2. In addition, a plenary indulgence can be acquired twice a year in parish churches: on the feast of the church's titular saint and on August 2, when the "Portiuncula" occurs, or on some other more opportune day determined by the Ordinary. All the indulgences mentioned above can be acquired either on the days established or—with the consent of the Ordinary—on the preceding or the following Sunday. Other indulgences attached to churches and oratories are to be revised as soon as possible. n.16—The work prescribed for acquiring a plenary indulgence connected with a church or oratory consists in a devout visit and the recitation of an "Our Father" and "Creed." n.17—The faithful who use with devotion an object of piety (crucifix, cross, rosary, scapular or medal) properly blessed by any priest, can acquire a partial indulgence. But if this object of piety is blessed by the Supreme Pontiff or any bishop, the faithful who use it devoutly can also acquire a plenary indulgence on the feast of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, provided they also make a profession of faith using any legitimate formula. n.18—To the faithful in danger of death who cannot be assisted by a priest to bring them the sacraments and impart the apostolic blessing with its attendant plenary indulgence (according to canon 468, para. 2 of the Code of Canon Law) Holy Mother Church nevertheless grants a plenary indulgence to be acquired at the point of death, provided they are properly disposed and have been in the habit of reciting some prayers during their lifetime. To use a crucifix or cross in connection with the acquisition of this plenary indulgence is a laudable practice. This plenary indulgence at the point of death can be acquired by the faithful even if they have already obtained another plenary indulgence on the same day. n.19—The norms established regarding plenary indulgences, particularly those referred to in n. 16, apply also to what up to now have been known as the "toties quoties" ["as often as"] plenary indulgences. n.20—Holy Mother Church, extremely solicitous for the faithful departed, has decided that suffrages can be applied to them to the widest possible extent at any Sacrifice of the Mass whatsoever, abolishing all special privileges in this regard. Transitional Norms These new norms regulating the acquisition of indulgences will become valid three months from the date of publication of this constitution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Indulgences attached to the use of religious objects which are not mentioned above cease three months after the date of publication of this constitution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The revisions mentioned in n. 14 and n. 15 must be submitted to the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary within a year. Two years after the date of this constitution, indulgences which have not been confirmed will become null and void. We will that these statutes and prescriptions of ours be established now and remain in force for the future notwithstanding, if it is necessary so to state, the constitutions and apostolic directives published by our predecessors or any other prescriptions even if they might be worthy of special mention or should otherwise require partial repeal. Given at Rome at St. Peter's on January 1, the octave of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 1967, the fourth year of Our Pontificate. POPE PAUL VI NOTES 1. Cf. Council of Trent, Session 25, Decree on Indulgences (DS [Denzinger-Schonmetzer] 1835); cf. Matt. 28:18. 2. Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum on Revelation, n. 8 (A.A.S. 58, 1966, p. 821); cf. Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius on the Catholic Faith, ch. 4 On Faith and Reason (DS 3020). 3. Cf. Gen. 3:16-19; also cf. Luke 19:41-44; Rom. 2:9 and 1 Cor. 11:30. Cf. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 58 1:13—"Iniquitas omnis...Deo vindicante" (CCL 39, p. 739; PL 36, 701). Cf. Thomas, Summa Theol. 1-2, q. 86, a. 1: "Cum autem...depressio poena est." 4. Cf. Matt. 25:41-42; see also Mark 9:42-43; John 5:28-29; Rom. 2:9; Gal. 6:6-8. Cf. Council of Lyons II, Session 4, profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus (DS 856-858). Cf. Council of Florence, decree for the Greeks (DS 1304-1306). Cf. Augustine, Enchiridion, 66, 17: "Multa etiam...mundo damnemur" (ed. Scheel, Tubingen 1930, p. 42; PL 40, 263). 5. Cf. Hermae Pastor, Mand. 6, 1, 3 (Funk, Apostolic Fathers 1, p. 487). 6. Cf. Isaiah 1:2-3. Also cf. Deut. 8:11 and 32:15 and ff.; Ps. 105:21 and 118 and other places; Wis. 7:14; Isaiah 17:10 and 44:21; Jer. 33:8; Ez. 20:27. Cf. Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum on Divine Revelation, no. 2: "Hac itaque...eamque suscipiat" (A.A.S. 58, 1966, p. 818). Cf. also ibid., n. 21 (loc. cit., p. 827-828). 7. Cf. John 15:14-15. Cf. Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes on the Church in the Modern World, n. 22 (A.A.S. 58, 1966, p. 1042) and the Decree Ad Gentes Divinitus on the Missionary Activity of the Church, n. 13 (A.A.S. 58, 1966, p. 962). 8. Cf. Num. 20:12; 27:13-14; 2 Kings 12:13-14. Cf. Innocent IV, Instruction for the Greeks (DS 838). Cf. Council of Trent, Session 6, canon 30 (DS 1580; cf. also DS 1689, 1693). Cf. Augustine, tract on John's Gospel 124, 5: "Cogitur homo...detinet culpa" (CCL 36, p. 683-684; PL 35, 1972-1973). 9. Council of Lyons II, Session 4 (DS 856). 10. Cf. Septuagesima Sunday, Oration; Monday after First Sunday in Lent, Oration over the People; Third Sunday in Lent, Postcommunion. 11. Cf. James 3:2; 1 John 1: 8, the Council of Carthage gave a commentary on this text for which see DS 228. Cf. Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree On Justification, ch. 11 (DS 1537). Cf. Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Nature of the Church, n. 40: "Cum vero debita nostra" (A.A.S. 57, 1965. p. 45). 12. Cf. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 1, 28 (PL 43, 124). 13. Cf. John 15:5; 1 Cor. 12:27. Also cf. 1 Cor. 1:9 and 10:17; Eph. 1:20-23 and 4:4. Cf. Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Nature of the Church, n. 7 (A.A.S. 57, 1965, p. 10-11). Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis: "Ex eadem...Christum totum" (DS 3813; A.A.S. 35, 1943, p. 230-231). Cf. Augustine, second exposition on Psalm 90, 1: "Dominus noster...est Christus" (CCL 39, p. 1266 PL 37, 1159). 14. Cf. 1 Peter 2:22 and 21. 15. Cf. Isaiah 53:4-6 with 1 Peter 2:21-25; also cf. John 1:29; Rom. 4:25 and 5:9 and ff.; 1 Cor. 153; 11 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:7 and ff.; Heb. 1:3 etc.; 1 John 3:5. 16. Cf. 1 Peter 2:21. 17. Cf. Col. 1:24. Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Lib. "Quis dives salvetur" 42: "S. Joannes ... vicariam dabo" (GCS Clement 3, p. 190; PG 9, 650). Cf. Cyprian, De Lapsis 17, 36: "Credimus quidem...fecerint sacerdotes" (CSEL 3 1, p. 249-250 and 263; PL 4:495 and 508). Cf. Jerome, "Contra Vigilantium" 6: "Dicis in libello...et triumphos?" (PL 23, 359). Cf. Basil the Great, "Homily in martyrem Julittam" 9: "Oportet igitur...dignum est" (PG 31, 258-259). Cf. John Chrysostom, "In epist. ad Philipp." 1, hom. 3, 3: "Igitur non...mortui fuerint" (PG 62, 203). Cf. Thomas, Summa Theol. 1-2, q. 87, a. 8: "Si loquamur...ab homine." 18. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Mirae Caritatis: "Nihil est...forma caritas" (Acts of Leo XIII 22, 1902, p. 129; DS 3363). 19. Cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-13. Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis: "Ita (Christus) in Ecclesia...praedicat Christum" (A.A.S. 35, 1943, p. 218). Cf. Thomas, Summa Theol. 3, q. 48, a. 2 ad I and q. 49, a. 1. 20. Cf. Clement VI, jubilee bull Unigenitus Dei Filius: "Unigenitus Dei...praestare noscuntur..." (DS 1025, 1026, 1027). Cf. Sixtus IV, encyclical "Romani Pontificis": "...Nos, quibus...afferre cupientes..." (DS 1406). Cf. Leo X, Decree "Cum postquam" to papal legate Cajetan de Vio: "...thesaurum meritorum Jesu Christi et Sanctorum dispensare...(DS 1448; cf. DS 1467 and 2641). 21. Cf. Heb. 7:23-25; 9:11-28. 22. Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Nature of the Church, n. 49 (A.A.S. 57, 1965, p. 54-55). 23. Cf. James 5:16; 1 John 5:16. 24. Cf. Clement of Rome, "To The Corinthians" 56, 1: "Oremus igitur...et perfecta" (Funk, Apostolic Fathers 1, p. 171). Cf. The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 8, 1: "Cum autem...catholicae ecclesiae (Funk, Apostolic Fathers 1, p. 321, 323). 25. Cf. Sozomenus, "Church History" 7, 16: In public penance, after the solemn celebration of Masses, the penitents in the Roman Church "cum gemitu...eos dimittit" (PG 67, 1462). 26. Cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 24 (mystag. 5), 9; 10: "Deinde et pro...jacet victima." After he confirms this by the example of the crown which used to be offered to the emperor in order that he might grant indulgence to the exiles, the Holy Doctor concludes his discourse: "Ad eundem modum...propitiate satagentes", (PG 33, 1115; 1118). Cf. Augustine, Confessions 9, 12, 32 (PL 32, 777) and 9, 11, 27 (PL 32, 775); Sermones 172, 2 (PL 38, 936); "De cura pro mortuis gerenda" 1, 3 (PL 40, 593). 27. Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Lib. "Quis Dives salvetur" 42: (St. John the Apostle on the conversion of the young thief) "Exinde partim....gremio admovisset..." (CGS 17, p. 189-190; PG 9, 651). 28. Cf. Tertullian, Ad martyras 1, 6: "Quam, pacem...exorare consueverunt" (CCL 1, p. 3, PL 1, 695). Cf. Cyprian, letter 18 (alias: 12), 1: "Occurrendum puto...factis desideraverunt" (CSEL 3, p. 523-524; PL 4, 265; cf. Idem, Letter 19 [alias: 131, 2, CSEL 311, p. 525; Pl, 4, 267). Cf. Eusebius of Caesaria, "Ecclesiastical History" 1, 6, 42 (CGS Eus. 2, 2, 610; PG 20, 614-615). 29. Cf. Ambrose, De paenitentia 1, 15: velut enim omnes redimerentur" (PL 16, 511). 30. Cf. Tertullian. De paenitentia 10, 5-6, "Non potest...filius postulat" (CCL 1, p. 337; PL 1, 1356). Cf. Augustine, exposition on Psalm 85, 1 (CCL 39, p. 1176-1177; PL 37, 1082). 31. Cf. Acts, 20, 28. Also cf. Council of Trent, Session 23, Decree "On the Sacrament of Order," ch. 4 (DS 1768); Vatican I, Session 4, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus on the Church, ch. 3 (DS 3061 ); Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Nature of the Church, n. 20 (A.A.S. 57, 1965, p. 23). Cf. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrnaeos 8, 1: "Separatim ab episcopo nemo quidquam faciat eortim, quae ad ecclesiam spectant..." (Funk, Apostolic Fathers 1, p 283). 32. Cf. Council of Nicea 1, can. 12: "...quicumque enim...de eis statuere...." (Mansi, SS. Conciliorum collectio 2, 674). Cf. Council of Neocaesaria, can. 3 (loc. cit.. 540). Cf. Innocent I, letter 25, 7, 10 (PL 20, 559). Cf. Leo the Great, letter 159, 6 (PL 54, 1138). Cf. Basil the Great, letter 217 (canonica 3), 74: "Quod si...misericordiam consequi" (PG 32. 803). Cf. Ambrose, De paenitentia 1, 15 (see above, in note 29). 33. Cf. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium primum, 23 (PL 50, 667-668). 34. Cf. Council of Claremont, can. 2: "Quicumque pro...paenitentia reputetur" (Mansi. SS. Conciliorum collectio 20, 816). 35. Cf. Boniface VIII, bull Antiquorum habet: "Antiquorum habet...veniam peccatorum...." (DS 868). 36. Clement VI, jubilee bull Unigenitus Dei Filius (DS 1025, 1026 and 1027). 37. Cf. Leo X, Decree Cum postquam: tibi significandum indulgentiae aequivalet" (DS 1447-1448). 38. Cf. Paul VI, Letter Sacrosancta Portiunculae: "Indulgentia quam...creavit illum" (A.A.S. 58, 1966, p. 633-634). 39. Cf. Paul VI, cited Letter: "Iis vero christifidelibus...precibus adlaborat" (A.A.S. 58, 1966, p. 632). 40. Clement VI, jubilee bull Unigenitus Dei Filius (DS 1026). Clement VI, Letter Super quibusdam (DS 1059). Martin V, bull inter cunctas (DS 1266). Sixtus IV, bull Salvator noster (DS 1398). Sixtus IV, Encyclical Romani Pontificis provida: "Nos scandalis...concessimus indulgentiam..." (DS 1405-1406). Leo X, bull Exsurge Domine (DS 1467-1472). Pius VI, Constitution Auctorem fidei, proposition 40: "Propositio asserens, indulgentiam secundum suam praecisam notionem...in art. 19 Lutheri damnata" (DS 2640). Ibid., proposition 41: "Item in eo...in art. 17 Lutheri damnata" (DS 2641). Ibid., proposition 42: "Item in eo, quod superaddit...in art. 22 Lutheri" (DS 2642). Pius XI, Indiction of the extraordinary holy year Quod nuper: "...plenissimam totius...ac venia" (A.A.S. 25, 1933, p. 8). Pius XII, Indiction of the universal jubilee Jubilaeum maximum: "Hoc igitur...atque impertimus" (A.A.S. 41, 1949, p. 258-259). 41. Cf. Lateran Council IV, ch. 62 (DS 819). 42. Cf. Council of Trent, Decree On Indulgences (DS 1835). 43. Cf. Ibid. 44. Jer. 2:19. 45. Cf. Eph. 5:27. 46. Eph. 4:13. 47. Cf. Thomas, commentary on the fourth book of the "Sentences," dist. 20, q. 1, a. 3, q. la 2, ad 2 (Summa Theol. Suppl., q. 25, a. 2, ad 2): quamvis hujusmodi...poenae temporalis." http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_01011967_indulgentiarum-doctrina.html

VOM KONFLIKT ZUR GEMEINSCHAFT LUTHERISCHES BEKENNTNIS VON SÜNDEN GEGEN DIE EINHEIT 236. Auf seiner Fünften Vollversammlung in Evian 1970 hat der Lutherische Weltbund als Antwort auf eine tief bewegende Ansprache von Johannes Kardinal Willebrands erklärt, dass „wir als lutherische Christen und Gemeinden bereit sind zu sehen, wie das Urteil der Reformatoren über die Römisch-katholische Kirche und Theologie ihrer Zeit oft nicht frei war von polemischen Verzerrungen, die zum Teil bis in die Gegenwart nachwirken. Wir bedauern aufrichtig, dass unsere römisch-katholischen Brüder durch solche polemischen Darstellungen gekränkt und missverstanden worden sind. Mit Dankbarkeit erinnern wir uns an die Erklärung Papst Pauls VI. zu Beginn der zweiten Session des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils, in der er seine Bitte um Vergebung aussprach für alle Kränkungen, die durch die Römisch-katholische Kirche geschehen sind. Im Gebet des Herrn bitten wir zusammen mit allen Christen um Vergebung. Lasst uns deshalb darauf bedacht sein, einander aufrichtig und in Liebe zu begegnen.“82 237. Lutheraner bekannten auch ihr eigenes Fehlverhalten gegenüber anderen christlichen Traditionen. Auf seiner Elften Vollversammlung in Stuttgart 2010 erklärte der Lutherische Weltbund, dass Lutheraner „tiefes Bedauern und Schmerz über die Verfolgung der Täufer durch lutherische Obrigkeiten empfinden und besonders darüber, dass lutherische Reformatoren diese Verfolgung theologisch unterstützt haben. Deshalb will der Rat des Lutherischen Weltbunds […] öffentlich sein tiefes Bedauern und seine Betrübnis darüber zum Ausdruck bringen. Im Vertrauen auf Gott, der in Jesus Christus die Welt mit sich versöhnte, bitten wir deshalb Gott und unsere mennonitischen Schwestern und Brüder um Vergebung für das Leiden, das unsere Vorfahren im 16. Jahrhundert den Täufern zugefügt haben, für das Vergessen oder Ignorieren dieser Verfolgung in den folgenden Jahrhunderten und für alle unzutreffenden, irreführenden und verletzenden Darstellungen der Täufer und Mennoniten, die lutherische AutorInnen bis heute in wissenschaftlicher oder nichtwissenschaftlicher Form verbreitet haben.“83 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_ge.pdf

Hilary of Poitiers (Latin: Hilarius; c. 310 – c. 367)[2] was Bishop of Poitiers and a Doctor of the Church. He was sometimes referred to as the "Hammer of the Arians" (Malleus Arianorum) and the "Athanasius of the West",[3] His name comes from the Latin word for happy or cheerful. In addition to his important work as Bishop, Hilary was married and the father of Abra of Poitiers, a nun and saint who became known for her charity.[4] His optional memorial in the General Roman Calendar is 13 January. In the past, when this date was occupied by the Octave Day of the Epiphany, his feast day was moved to 14 January.[5] Early life[edit] Hilary was born at Poitiers either at the end of the 3rd or beginning of the 4th century A.D.[6] His parents were pagans of distinction. He received a good pagan education,[7] which included a high level of Greek.[8] He studied, later on, the Old and New Testament writings, with the result that he abandoned his Neo-Platonism for Christianity, and with his wife and his daughter (traditionally named Saint Abra), was baptized and received into the Church.[3] The Christians of Poitiers so respected Hilary that about 350 or 353,[9] they unanimously elected him their bishop. At that time Arianism threatened to overrun the Western Church; Hilary undertook to repel the disruption. One of his first steps was to secure the excommunication, by those of the Gallican hierarchy who still remained orthodox Christians, of Saturninus, the Arian Bishop of Arles, and of Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa, two of his prominent supporters.[3] About the same time, Hilary wrote to Emperor Constantius II a remonstrance against the persecutions by which the Arians had sought to crush their opponents (Ad Constantium Augustum liber primus, of which the most probable date is 355).[10] Other Historians refer to this first book to Constantius as "Book Against Valens," of which only fragments are extant.[11] His efforts did not succeed at first, for at the synod of Biterrae (Béziers), summoned by the emperor in 356 with the professed purpose of settling the longstanding dispute, an imperial rescript banished the new bishop, along with Rhodanus of Toulouse, to Phrygia.[12][13] Hilary spent nearly four years in exile, although the reasons for this banishment remain obscure. The traditional explanation is that Hilary was exiled for refusing to subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius and the Nicene faith. More recently several scholars have suggested that political opposition to Constantius and support of the usurper Silvanus may have led to Hilary's exile.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_of_Poitiers

Arius, pa Nestorius, pa monoteletizam, pa, mogao bih još da nabrajam pa nemam vremena. Kad god vam zaškripi - halo Rim, javite se, imamo hitan slučaj.

Polako burazeru , gde si odma navalio sa ovim oproštajnicama, da krenemo izpočetka sa pokorom. Kad sam bio u Svetoj zemlji na grobu Isusa Krista, vrtu Getsemani i na Kalvariji smo bili sami katolici i ceo bataljon pravoslavnih hrišćana. Pokora, pokora, pokora i samo pokora. Nisam sreo nijednog protestanta. Ja imam osećaj da su protestanti malo posvađani sa tom pokorom pa bih te zamolio da mi ti bar nešto malo napišeš šta je to za vas pokora....... Ili još bolje, šta je o pokori rekao konkretno sam Luter?

I sa nama katolicima isto.