Enchiridion of Creeds and Definitions (Denzinger)

(The incarnation). Clinging firmly to the "foundation" of the Catholic faith "against which," as the Apostle testifies "no one is able to place anything different" [cf. 1 Cor. 3:11], we openly acknowledge with holy mother Church that the only begotten Son of God in all these things in which God the Father is, existing eternally together with the Father, parts of our nature as well as unity, from which He Himself existing as true God in Himself became true man, namely, a human body capable of suffering and an intellective or rational soul, forming the body by Himself and essentially, assumed it temporarily in the Virginal womb unto the unity of its substance and person. And that the same Word of God in this assumed nature, for working out the salvation of all, wished not only to be fastened to the Cross and to die on it, but also, after His Spirit had been given up, permitted His side to be pierced with a lance, that in the streams of water and blood which flowed from it there might be formed the one and only immaculate virgin, holy Mother Church, the Spouse of Christ, just as from the side of the first man asleep Eve was formed into a marriage with him, that so truth should respond to a certain figure of the first and ancient Adam "who," according to the Apostle, "is formed for the future" [cf.Rom. 5:14], in our new Adam, that, is, Christ. That is, I say, the truth, made strong by the testimony of that very great eagle which the prophet Ezechiel saw flying around the other evangelical animals, namely of St. John, the Apostle and Evangelist, who narrating in his Gospel the condition and order of this sacrament said: "But after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers with a spear opened His side, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he that saw it has given testimony and his testimony is true. And he knows that he speaks the truth, that you [also] may believe" [John 19:33-35]. We, therefore, turning our attention to such remarkable testimony and to the common opinion of apostolic reflection of the Holy Fathers and the Doctors in accord with which alone it is proper to declare these things, with the approval of the sacred council we declare that the above mentioned Apostle and Evangelist John had kept the right order of the deed accomplished in the aforesaid, when he said that Christ "already dead, one of the soldiers opened His side with a lance."

[The soul as a form of the body]. Furthermore, with the approval of the above mentioned sacred council we reprove as erroneous and inimical to the Catholic faith every doctrine or position rashly asserting or turning to doubt that the substance of the rational or intellective soul truly and in itself is not a form of the human body, defining, so that the truth of sincere faith may be known to all, and the approach to all errors may be cut off, lest they steal in upon us, that whoever shall obstinately presume in turn to assert, define, or hold that the rational or intellective soul is not the form of the human body in itself and essentially must be regarded as a heretic.

Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as "one God and one faith" [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.

But because certain theological doctors are found to have contrary opinions as to how great the effect of baptism (is) in the case of children, certain of these saying that through the power of baptism indeed sin is remitted to children, but grace is not conferred, others asserting on the contrary that sin is remitted for them in baptism and virtues and forming grace are infused as a habit [see n. 410], although not for them at the time as a function, we, however, considering the general efficacy of the death of Christ, which through baptism is applied equally to all the baptized, with the approval of the sacred council, consider the second opinion to be preferred, which says that forming grace and virtue are conferred on children as on adults, as more probable, more consonant and more in agreement with the words of the saints and the modern doctors of theology. JOHN XXII 1316-1334 The Errors of the Fraticelli (the Church and the Sacraments) * [Condemned in the law "Gloriosam Ecclesiarn," January 23, 1318]

If anyone shall fall into that error, so that he obstinately presumes to declare that it is not a sin to exercise usury, we decree that he must be punished as a heretic. The Errors of Peter John Olivi (The Wounds of Christ, the Union of the Soul and Body,. and Baptism *) [From the edict "De Summa Trinitate et fide catholica"]

As a report worthy of faith holds, the sons of the above mentioned rashness and impiety have been driven to this weakness of mind, that they think impiously in opposition to the most renowned and salutary truth of the Christian faith; they contemn the sacraments of the Church which should be venerated, and in an attack of blind fury they who should be crushed by it, press against the glorious primacy of the Roman Church, saying that it ought to be overthrown by all nations.

(1) Thus, the first error which breaks forth from their dark workshop invents two churches, the one carnal, packed with riches, overflowing with riches [others, luxuries], stained with crimes which they declare the Roman prefect and other inferior prelates dominate; the other spiritual, cleansed by frugality, beautiful in virtue, bound by poverty, in which they only and their companions are held, and which they, because of the merit of their spiritual life, if any faith should be applied to lies, rule.

(2) The second error, by which the conscience of the above mentioned insolent is stained, cries out that the venerable priests of the Church and other ministers of jurisdiction and order' are so devoid of authority that they cannot pass sentences, nor perform the sacraments nor instruct nor teach the subject people, imagining that these have been deprived of all ecclesiastical power, whom they see are free of their own heresy; because only in themselves (as they themselves vainly think), just as the sanctity of a spiritual life, so authority remains; and in this matter they are following the error of the Donatists. . . .

(3) The third error of these men conspires with the error of the Waldensians, since both declare that an oath was to be taken in no case, propounding that who happen to be bound by the sacredness of an oath are defiled by the contagion of mortal sin and are bound by punishment.

(4) The fourth blasphemy of such wicked men, breaking forth from the poisoned fount of the Waldensian teachings pretends that priests rightly and even legitimately ordained according to the form of the Church, yet weighed down by any sins cannot consecrate or confer the ecclesiastical sacraments. . . .

(5) The fifth error so blinds the minds of these that they declare that the Gospel of Christ has been fulfilled in them alone at this time, because up to now (as they foolishly think) it has been concealed or indeed entirely extinct. . . .

There are many other things which these very presumptuous men are said to babble against the venerable sacrament of matrimony; many things which they foolishly believe concerning the course of time and the end of time; many things which they propagate with lamentable vanity concerning the coming of the Antichrist which they declare even now to be close at hand. All these things, because we recognize them as partly heretical, partly senseless, partly fabulous, we decree must be condemned together with their authors rather than pursued or refuted with a pen. . . . The Errors of John of Pouilly ("Confession and the Church") * [Examined and condemned in the edict "Vas electionis," July 21, 1321]

(1). That they who have confessed to brothers having the general permission of hearing confessions are bound to confess again those same sins which have been confessed, to their own priest.

(2). That under the existing law "everyone of each sex" published in the General Council [Later. IV. see n. 437] the Roman Pontiff cannot bring it about that parishioners be not bound to confess all their sins once a year to their own priest, who, it says, is the parish curate; indeed neither could God do this, because, as it says, this involves contradiction.

(3). That the Pope cannot give the general power of hearing confessions, indeed neither can God, without the one who has confessed to one having general power being bound to confess these same sins again to his own priest, who, it says, as we have already indicated, is the parish curate. . . . All the above mentioned articles and each one of them we, by apostolic authority, condemn and reprove as false and erroneous and deviating from sound authority . . . . declaring that the true and Catholic doctrine is contrary to them. Hell and Limbo(?)* [From the letter "Nequaquam sine dolore" to the Armenians, Nov. 21, 1321]

It (The Roman Church) teaches. . . . . that the souls . . . . . of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places. The Poverty of Christ* [From the edict "Cum inter nonnullos," Nov. 13, 1323]

Since among some learned men it often happens that doubt is again raised as to whether should be branded as heretical to affirm persistently that our Redeemer and Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles did not possess anything either in particular or even in common, even though there are different and adverse opinions on that question, we, in a desire to put an end to this controversy, declare on the advice of our brethren by this perpetual edict that a persistent assertion of this kind shall henceforth be branded as erroneous and heretical, since it expressly contradicts Sacred Scripture, which in many passages asserts that they did have some possessions; and since with regard to the aforementioned it openly submits that Sacred Scripture itself, by which surely the articles of orthodox faith are approved, contains a ferment of falsehood and consequently, in so far as in it lies, completely voiding the faith of Scripture it renders the Catholic faith, by destroying its approval, doubtful and uncertain. Moreover, in the future to affirm persistently that the right to use these same possessions which Sacred Scripture testifies that they had was by no means appropriate to our aforesaid Redeemer and His apostles, and that they did not have the right to sell or to donate them or to acquire others by means of them, which, nevertheless, Sacred Scripture testifies that they did according to the aforesaid or submits expressly that they could have done, since such an assertion evidently includes use and deeds on their part, in the aforesaid, it is not just; since surely it is wicked, contrary to Sacred Scripture, and to Catholic doctrine about the use, actions, or deeds on the part of our Redeemer, the Son of God, we declare on the advice of our brethren that the persistent assertion shall henceforth be worthily branded as erroneous and heretical. Errors of Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun (The Constitution of the Church) * [Examined and condemned in the edict "Licet iuxta doctrinam" Oct. 23, 1327]

(1) That what we read about Christ in the Gospel of St. Matthew, that He Himself paid tribute to Caesar, when He ordered the stater which had been taken from the mouth of the fish [cf.Matt. 17:26] to be given to those who sought a drachma, He did this not with condescension out of liberality or piety, but forced by necessity. [ Thence according to the Bull they concluded ]: That all temporal affairs of the Church are subject to the emperor and he can accept these things as his own.

(2) That blessed Peter the Apostle had no more authority than the other Apostles had nor was he the head of the other apostles. Likewise that God did not send forth any head of the Church, nor did He make anyone His vicar.

(3) That it pertains to the emperor to correct, to appoint, to depose, and to punish the pope.

(4) That all priests, whether the pope or archbishop or a simple priest, are by the institution of Christ equal in authority and jurisdiction. (5) That the whole Church joined together can punish no man by 499 forced punishment, unless the emperor permits this.

forced punishment, unless the emperor permits this.

We declare by sentence the above mentioned articles..... to be contrary to Sacred Scripture and enemies of the Catholic faith, heretics, or heretical and erroneous,and also that the above mentioned Marsilius and John, will be heretics-rather they will be manifest and notorious archheretics. Errors of Eckart (The Son of God, etc.) * [Examined and condenined in the edict "In agro dominico," Mar. 27, 1329]

(1) And when asked why God did not create the world first, he answered that God was not able to create the world first, * because He cannot make things before He is; therefore, as soon as God was, He immediately created the world.

(2) Likewise it can be granted that the world existed from eternity.

(3) Likewise at the same time and once, when God was, when He begot the Son coeternal with Himself, through all things coequal God, He also created the world.

(4) Likewise in every work, even evil, evil I say, as of punishment and of sin, the glory of God is manifested and reflects equally.

(5) Likewise he who blames anyone, in the blame itself by the sin of blaming praises God, and the more he blames and the more gravely he sins, the more he praises God.

(6) Likewise anyone by blaspheming God Himself, praises God.

(7) Also he seeking anything here or there seeks evil and badly be cause he seeks the denial of good and the denial of God, and he prays God to be denied to him.

(8) In those men who do not seek after wealth, or honors, or utility, or interior devotion, or sanctity or reward, or the kingdom of heaven, but renounce all these things even that which is theirs, God is honored.

(9) Recently I have considered whether I would wish to receive or to wish for anything from God; I wish to deliberate exceedingly well about this, because when I was receiving from God, then I was under Him or below Him, as a servant or slave, and He [was] as a master in giving, and thus we ought not to be in eternal life.

(10) We are transformed entirely in God, and we are changed into Him; in a similar manner as in the sacrament the bread is changed into the body of Christ; so I am changed into Him because He Himself makes me to be one with Him, not like (to Him); through the living God it is true that there is no distinction there.

(11) Whatever God the Father gave to His only begotten Son in human nature, all this He has given to me; here I except nothing, neither union, nor sanctity, but He has given all to me as to Himself.

(12) Whatever Sacred Scripture says about Christ, all this also is verified with respect to every good and divine man.

(13) Whatever is proper to divine nature, all this is proper to the just and divine man; because of this that man operates whatever God operates, and together with God he created heaven and earth, and he is the generator of the eternal Word, and God without such a man does not know how to do anything.

(14) A good man ought so to conform his will to the divine will that he himself wishes whatever God wishes; because God wishes me to have sinned in some way, I would not wish that I had not committed sins, and this is true repentance.

(15) If man had committed a thousand mortal sins, if such a man were rightly disposed, he ought not to wish that he had not committed them.

(16) God properly does not prescribe an exterior act.

(17) An exterior act is not properly good or divine, neither does God properly operate it or produce it.

(18) We bring forth the fruit not of exterior actions which do not make us good, but of interior actions which the Father abiding in us does and operates.

(19) God loves souls, not works outside.

(20) A good man is the only begotten Son of God.

(21) A noble man is that only begotten Son of God whom the Father has begotten from eternity.

(22) The Father begot me His son and the same Son. Whatever God does, this is one; because of this He Himself begot me His Son without any distinction.

(23) God is one in all ways and according to every reason, so that in Himself He cannot find any multitude in intellect or outside intellect; for he who sees two, or sees a distinction, does not see God, for God is one beyond the above number, neither is He counted one [read: number I with anyone. It follows, therefore, that no distinction can exist or be understood in God Himself.

(24) Every distinction is foreign to God, either in nature or in person; it is proved that nature itself is one and this oneness, and any person is one and the oneness which is nature.

(25) When it is said: "Simon, do you love me more than these?" [John 21:15 f.], the sense is: That is, more than those and indeed well but not perfectly. For in thefirst and the second and more and less thereis both a degree and a rank; in oneness, however, there is no degree nor rank. Therefore, he who loves God more than his neighbor, (loves) indeed well but not yet perfectly.

(26) All creatures are one pure nothing; I do not say that they are something ordinary or anything, but that they are one pure nothing. In addition there is an objection against the above said Eckart, because he preached two other articles under these words:

(1) Something is in the soul which is uncreated and incapable of creation; if the entire soul were such, it would be uncreated and incapable of creation, and this is the intellect.

(2) That God is not good nor better nor best; so I speak badly whenever I call God good, as if I should call white black.

. . . We condemn and expressly disapprove the first fifteen articles and also the two last ones as "heretical," but the eleven others already mentioned as "evil-sounding, rash, and suspected of heresy," and no less any books or works of this Eckart containing the above mentioned articles or any one of them. BENEDICT XII 1334-1342 The Beatific Vision of God and the Last Days * [From the edict "Benedictus Deus," Jan. 29, 1336]