Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/467

 HOLY

413

HOLY

council held at Aachen, in 809. However, as it proved a stumbling-block to the Greeks, Pope Leo III disapproved of it; and, though he entirely- agreed with the Franks on the question of the doctrine, he advised them to omit the new word. He himself caused two large silver tablets, on which the creed with the disputed expression omitted was engraved, to be erected in St. Peter's. His advice was unheeded by the Franks; and, as the conduct and schism of Photius seemed to jvistify the Westerns in paying no more regard to the feelings of the Greeks, the addition of the words was accepted by the Roman Church under Benedict VIH (cf. Funk, " Kirchengeschichte ", Paderborn, 1902, p. 243).

The Greeks have always blamed the Latins for making the addition. They considered that, quite apart from the question of doctrine involved by the expression, the insertion was made in violation of a decree of the Council of Ephesus, forbidding anyone "to produce, write, or compose a confession of faith other than the one defined by the Fathers of Nica^a ". Such a reason will not bear examination. Supposing the truth of the dogma (established above), it is inad- missible that the Church could or would have deprived herself of the right to mention it in the symbol. If the opinion be aflhered to, and it has strong arguments to support it, which considers that the developments of the Creed in what concerns the Holy Ghost were approved by the Council of Constantinople (381), at once it might be laid down that the bishops at Ephesus (431) certainly did not think of contlemning or blam- ing those of Constantinople. But, from the fact that the disputed expression was authorized by the Coun- cil of Chalcedon, in 451, we conclude that the pro- hibition of the Council of Ephesus was never under- stood, and ought not to be understood, in an absolute sense. It may be considered either as a doctrinal, or as a merely disciplinary pronouncement. In the first ca.se it would exclude any addition or modifica- tion opposed to, or at variance with, the deposit of Revelation; and such seems to be its historic import, for it was proposed and accepted by the Fathers to oppose a formula tainted with Nestorianism. In the second case, considered as a disciplinary measure, it can bind only those who are not the depositaries of the supreme power in the t'hurch. The latter, as it is their duty to teach the revealetl truth and to preserve it from error, possess, by Divine authority, the power and right to draw up and propose to the faithful such confessions of faith as circumstances may demand. This right is as imconfinable as it is inalienable.

VI. Gifts of the Holy Ghost. — This title and the theory connected with it, like the theory of the fruits of the Holy Ghost and that of the sins against the Holy Ghost, imply what theologians call appro- priation. By this term is meant attributing espe- cially to one Divine Person perfections and exterior works which seem to us more clearly or more imme- diately to be connected with Him, when we consider His personal characteristics, but which in reality are common ^o the Three Persons. It is in tliis sense that we attribute to the Father the perfection of omnipo- tence, with its most striking manifestations, e. g. the Creation, because He is the principle of the two other Persons; to the Son we attribute wisdom and the works of wisdom, because He proceeds from the Fa- ther by the Intellect; to the Holy Ghost we attribute the operations of grace and the sanctification of souls, and in particular spiritual glflx and fruits, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son as Their mu- tual love and is called in Holy Writ the goodness and the charity of God.

The gifts of the Holy Ghost are of two kinds: the first are specially intended for the sanctification of the person who receives them; the second, more properly called charismata, are extraordinary favours granted for the help of another, favours, too, which do not

sanctify by themselves, and may even be separated from sanctifying grace. Those of the first class are accounted seven in number, as enumerated by Isaias (xi, 2, 3), where the prophet sees and describes them in the Messias. They are the gifts of wisdom, under- standing, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety (god- liness), and fear of the Lord. The gift of wisdom, by detaching us from the world, makes us relish and love only the things of heaven. The gift of understanding helps us to grasp the truths of religion as far as is necessary. The gift of counsel springs from super- natural prudence, and enables us to see and choose correctly what will help most to the glory of God and our own salvation. By the gift of fortitude we receive courage to overcome the obstacles and difficulties that arise in the practice of our religious duties. The gift of knowledge points out to us the path to follow and the dangers to avoid m order to reach heaven. The gift of piety, by inspiring us with a tender and filial confidence in God, makes us joy- fully embrace all that pertains to His service. Lastly, the gift of fear fills us with a sovereign respect for ( !oil, and makes us dread, above all things, to offend Him. As to the inner nature of these gifts, theologians con- sider them to be supernatural and permanent qualit ies, which make us attentive to the voice of God, which render us susceptible to the workings of actual grace, which make us love the things of God, and, conse- quently, render us more obedient and docile to the inspirations of the Holy Ghost. But how do they differ from the virtues? Some writers think they are not really distinct from them, that they are the virtues inasmuch as the latter are free gifts of God, and that they are identified essentially with grace, charity, and the virtues. That opinion has the particular merit of avoiding a multiplication of the entities infused into the soul. Other writers look upon the gifts as per- fections of a higher order than the virtues; the latter, they say, dispose us to follow the impulse and guid- ance of reason; the former are functionally intended to render the will obedient and docile to the inspira- tions of the Holy Ghost. For the former opinion, see Belleviie, " L'oeuvre du Saint^Esprit " (Paris, 1902), 99 sq.; and for the latter, see St. Thomas, I-II, Q. Ixviii, a. 1, and Froget, " De I'habitation du Saint- E.sprit dans Ies ames justes" (Paris, 1900), 378 sq.

The gifts of the second class, or charismata, are known to us partly from St. Paul, and partly from the history of the primitive Church, in the bosom of which (iod plentifully bestowed them. Of these "manifestations of the Spirit", "all these things [that] one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will", the Apostle speaks to us, particularly in I Cor., xii, 6-11 ; I Cor., xii, 2S- 31; and Rom., xii, 6-8. In the first of the.se three passages we find nme charismata mentioned: the gift of speaking with wisdom, the gift of speaking with knowledge, faith, the grace of healing, the gift of miracles, the gift of prophecy, the gift of discerning spirits, the gift of tongues, the gift of interpreting speeches. To this list we must at least add, as being foimd in the other two passages indicated, the gift of government, the gift of helps, and perhaps what Paul calls distributio and misericordia. However, exegetes are not all agreed as to the number of the charismata, or the nature of each one of t hem ; long ago, St. Chrys- ostom and .St. Augustine had pointed out the obscu- rity of the question. Adhering to the most probable views on the subject, we may at once classify the charismata and explain the meaning of most of them as follows. They form four natural groups: (1) Two charismata which regard the teaching of Divine things: sermo sapientia:, serino scientiw, the former relating to the exposition of the higher mysteries, the latter to the body of Christian truths. (2) Three charismata that lend support to this teaching: fides, gratia sani- tatum, operalio virlutum. The faith here spoken of is