Monday, February 27, 2012

NICEA'S Ltn., ( Con-Substantia ) WAS ACCUSED OF ORIGINATING WITH "...MONTANUS..." - THE FALSE PROPHET - ACCORDING TO SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS & SOZOMEN


LATIN TEXT: “...Etenim qui consubstantialis vocem aversabantur, Sabellii ac Montani dogma ab iis qui vocem illam probabant, induci arbitrabantur ; atque ideirco impios illos vocabant, utpote qui Filii Dei existentiam tollerent. Contra vero illi qui consubstantialis vocem tuebantur, cum multorum deorum cultum adversarios introducere censerent, eos tanquam superstitionem gentilium invehentes aversabantur...” - (Page 113-114, Section 57-58, CAP. XXIII. Quomodo Eusebius Nicodediensis et Theognis Nicaenus, resumpta fiducia Nicaenam fidem subvertere conati sunt, structis Athanasio insidiis. SOCRATIS SCHOLATICI, HERMIAE SOZOMENI – HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA, M.P.G.)

SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS (circa. 380-Unknown C.E.): “...FOR THOSE WHO WERE ADVERSE TO THE TERM [Ltn., ( con-substantialis )] “OF THE SAME-SUBSTANCE,” CONSIDERED THOSE WHO APPROVED, TO BE LEADING IN [Ltn., ( dogma )] THE DOGMA OF SABELLIUS - AND - ( MONTANUS ), - accounting and calling them impious,{*} for the reason that [they were] [Ltn., ( tollerent )] elevating the existence of the Son of God. On the other side, however, those who defended the term [Ltn., ( con-substantialis )] “of the same-substance,” were judging their enimies to be [and] with bringing in the worship of many gods, as if the ones just mentioned were bringing in the credulous-superstition [Ltn., ( Gentilium )] of the Gentiles, these, they were detesting...” - (Book 1, Chapter 23:57-58; “THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS,” Translated by Matt13weedhacker 28/02/2012-Revised-14/03/12.)
[FOOTNOTE *]: GREEK TEXT ADDS: “...And through this blasphemed calling-out/speaking-out-that...”
 
SALMINIUS HERMIAS SOZOMEN (circa. Unknown-448 C.E.): “...At this period, the bishops had another tumultuous dispute among themselves, CONCERNING THE PRECISE MEANING OF THE TERM: “CON-SUBSTANTIAL.” Some thought that this term could not be admitted without blasphemy ; that it implied the non-existence of the Son of God ; AND THAT IT INVOLVED THE ERROR OF - ( MONTANUS ) - AND SABELLIUS. Those, on the other hand, who defended the term, regarded their opponents as Greeks (or pagans), and considered their sentiments led to polytheism...” - (Page 71, Chapter 28, “Ecclesiastical History,” By Sozomen Kessinger Publishings Legacy Reprint Series 2004.)