Quaeritur: On the Eternal Destiny of Aborted Babies

Quaeritur: On the Eternal Destiny of Aborted Babies

Quaeritur: I have entered into a (friendly) debate on abortion and someone asked me what the Catholic Church teaches about the eternal destiny of the souls of aborted babies. I'm a recent convert, so I wanted some help before I reply. Grazie!

Respondeo:  Most Catholics today sadly just canonize the souls of aborted babies, assuming that since they never sinned, they automatically go to Heaven. But they either forget original sin and the necessity of Baptism, or gloss over these problems by citing God's mercy as the demonstrative proof that they are in fact in Heaven, regardless of what God may have revealed on the matter. But in fact, there is a sharp discrepancy between these new theological tendencies (promoted by the nouvelle theologie) and what the sources of Revelation have to say on the matter. 

The sources of Revelation all point to the concept of the 'Limbo of Children' (limbus puerorum)---to be distinguished from the 'Limbo of the Fathers' (limbus patrum), which is where Christ descended after his death. Limbo itself is not a dogma (i.e., not de fide, but only sententia certa or even a doctrina catholica); but it it is derived from other revealed doctrines that are de fide definita, such as the impossibility of salvation for those who die in original sin. 

First of all, it is a defined dogma that souls of those who die in the state of original sin but without having committed actual sins (this includes generally those who die without Baptism and before the age of reason) cannot enter Heaven. However, they do not suffer the bodily pains of hell either. 

Pope Gregory X, in the 2nd Council of Lyons, declared: 

“Now, the souls of those who depart in mortal sin, or only with original sin, immediately descend into hell, but to be punished differently” (Denzinger 464 [858]). 

This doctrine was infallibly defined and ratified by Eugenius IV, in the Concil of Florence (cf. Denzinger 693 [1306].)  This dogma, that souls with original sin only are punished differently from those which die in mortal sin, is the basis for the constant teaching of the theologians on Limbo. You can read a pretty thorough theological defense of Limbo that cites the authority of the theological sources, including the Magisterium and the consensus of approved theologians throughout the centuries, here.

Now, this is not to say that Limbo is a third eternal destiny, in addition to Heaven and Hell, as is often erroneously supposed. This hypothesis, that Limbo is a distinct state besides Heaven and Hell, was actually condemned: at the end of time, only two states will remain: Heaven and Hell. (Oddly, I've heard and read fallacious arguments that try to refute the existence of Limbo by citing the condemnation, thinking that what is condemned is Limbo itself. But in reality what is condemned is the claim that Limbo is a third state distinct from Heaven and Hell; see Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei; Denzinger 1526 [2626].). No, Limbo is in fact part of Hell. It involves the eternal loss of the Beatific Vision, which is the essence of Hell, even if it does not involve the horrible physical sufferings that we usually associate with Hell and which are only an accidental aspect of the latter.

St Thomas Aquinas specifically distinguishes in hell the punishment or 'pain' of sense (poena sensus) from the punishment of separation or loss (poena damni), which is not really 'pain' at all: souls with actual mortal sins suffer both, but souls with original sin only, are only subject to the latter: they do not see God face-to-face, but they do enjoy a natural sort of happiness where their natural powers (intellect, will, etc.) and body are fulfilled to their natural capacities. And this is known to the faithful by the term 'Limbo' (from the Latin, limbus, border), and was popularized in Catholic imagination by Dante, who wonderfully describes Limbo as the 'first circle' of hell.  (See Summa theologiae Ia-IIae, q. 87, a. 4; IIIae Supp., q. 97, a. 5.)

That's the traditional teaching, but as you can see, it is considered to be a bit harsh for modern sensitivities and so there has been a push within contemporary theology, especially within the nouvelle theologie to replace it with a more 'merciful' view (sound familiar?). Some contemporary theologians theorize that just as there can be a 'baptism of desire' on the part of adult catechumens who die without Baptism, and we thus hope for their salvation, so there could be a sort of 'vicarious' baptism of desire for those babies who die without Baptism but whom the Church desires to baptize. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is steeped in the nouvelle theologie, somewhat dodges the issue (and fails to teach the traditional doctrine of Limbo) in paragraph 1261. In the immediately preceding paragraphs it is noticeably 'soft' on the necessity of Baptism for salvation (as compared to the Catechisms, encyclicals, doctors, theologians, etc. of the previous millenia). And in this context it goes on to state that the Church entrusts the souls of those who die in original sin only to the mercy of God:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them" (Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

These hypotheses are problematic. At heart they seem motivated by a characteristically modern (and partly erroneous) idea of divine justice and of the gratuitousness of salvation; and in the case of some theologians, even perhaps an implicit denial of the reality of original sin. Modern minds find it inconceivable that God would deprive an 'innocent' baby of Heaven. After all--they claim--these babies have done nothing wrong, so why would God deprive them of what they were made for? Wouldn't it be unfair for God to damn them in Hell? 

But, you see, lurking behind the scenes here are two very erroneous assumptions: (a) original sin doesn't really take away these souls' innocence; and (b) God owes it to them to save them, because presumably salvation is what a soul deserves by nature, by default, so long as it does not lose this right by sinning. But of course, these presuppositions are false and heretical. (Most theologians would not dare to state them explicitly; but naïvely the general population does buy into them.) Despite our sensibilities to the contrary, Catholic dogma tells us that these souls are not innocent, but bear the stain of sin and are thus unworthy of the glory of Heaven. Morevoer, God does not owe Heaven to anyone anyway; salvation is a free gift and no one really deserves it (or merit it de condigno). And, what's more, rather than there being some sort of 'unfairness' by assigning to them this eternal lot, God is in fact being merciful towards these souls. God is not punishing them for something they didn't do, but is mercifully granting them an eternal and superabundant natural happiness that they do not deserve. Divine justice, original sin, the gratuity of salvation: we may not like these doctrines, but it's what God revealed. If we really believed in them, we would not find shocking the doctrine of limbo that is widely taught to us by the Catholic tradition throughout the ages, and we wouldn't need to replace it with some vain 'hope' devised to fit our un-Catholic sensibilities.

Quaeritur: What is the Status of a Catholic Who Dissents from the Magisterium?

Quaeritur: What is the Status of a Catholic Who Dissents from the Magisterium?

Quaeritur: I was having an online discussion and we all agreed with the statement that "a Catholic cannot dissent from the traditional teaching of the Church's Magisterium."  But I had further questions about that statement.  Would you say that the word 'cannot' in the statement is to be taken in the strong, descriptive sense of "isn't able to", or merely in the prescriptive sense of "shouldn't"? In other words, is it the case that it is impossible for a Catholic to have a belief that is contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, or merely that a Catholic shouldn't have beliefs contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium? If someone holds a belief that is contrary to the Deposit of Faith or the teaching of the Magisterium, does it render that person no longer Catholic, or just a bad (disobedient) Catholic?

Respondeo: It depends on the level of the Magisterial teaching in question. Some teachings have been defined dogmatically, for example, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and many, many others; such that believing in these teachings is part of the definition of what it means to be Catholic. And if someone obstinately denies even the least of these, then they no longer meet the requirements for the definition of what it means to be Catholic. There is no such thing as a Catholic who denies the divinity of Christ---or for that matter a Catholic who denies that the sacramental accidents of the Eucharist continue to exist without a subject in which to inhere. This includes moral teachings that form part of the Deposit of Faith but are nonetheless commonly rejected by many so-called 'Catholics' today: the indissolubility of marriage, the immorality of sodomy, contraception, abortion, etc.  If you reject any of these dogmatically defined teachings, then you're not Catholic. It doesn't matter if you are baptized, a priest, or a bishop.  I admit the issue has its complexities: there are important nuances such as whether the denial is obstinate, and in the case of the pope there are further complications.  But the basic principle is that part of the definition of being 'Catholic' is accepting defined Catholic teaching.

So there are people who dissent from defined Church teaching but nonetheless think of themselves as ‘Catholics’ simply because they were baptized, or because they have been raised in the Catholic Church, or because they hold some position in the hierarchy. But in reality these people are not Catholic, because none of those criteria are sufficient conditions for being Catholic.  In order to be really Catholic one must also believe in the Catholic faith and preserve it whole and entire.  This is required by the Church's mark of unity: the Church is 'one' in doctrine, worship, and government.  If someone separates himself from the Church's unity of doctrine, worship, and government, then he no longer is in the Church.

On the other hand, if someone denies a teaching that is not dogmatically defined, or especially one that is not directly part of the Deposit of Faith, but is simply a theological conclusion or common teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, then this would be different. You wouldn't cease being Catholic by denying it.  

I'm speaking, for example, of the case of a Catholic who for some reason would deny that Our Lady is the Mediatrix of all Graces---a doctrine that hasn't yet been defined. The same is true of teachings that are logically or theologically derived from defined dogma, but which are themselves not defined. These are known as theological conclusions, and theologically are considered distinct from the dogmas from which they are derived.  For example, the Christological perichoresis (the close union between Christ's two natures) is a theological conclusion that is derived from the dogma the Hypostatic Union (the union of each of His two Natures to the Person of the Word).  The latter is a defined dogma, but the former is not.  Regardless of concrete examples, I'm speaking theologically of the lower notae theologicae, i.e., of statements that are not yet de fide, but are rather at the level of sententiae proximae fidei, sententiae certae, etc.¹ 

In any case, it is not permissible to deny these: such a denial is an act of disobedience towards the ordinary Magisterium, and thus a sin.  But you are not excommunicated, nor cease to belong to the Church for doing so. If you deny them, you may be a bad Catholic, but you're still Catholic.... until the Church elevates them to a dogmatic level, that is.

So we must be careful not simply to hand out excommunications to people who deny this or that teaching, especially if we do not know exactly what the nota theologica of that teaching is. Many doctrines of the Magisterium that we hold dear have not been defined; they are true and certain, but for one reason or another the Church has not exercised its charism of infallibility in teaching them. So just calling everybody who denies any teaching a heretic is a dangerous tactic.  There are many levels of theological censure (censurae theologicae), only the first one of which is 'heresy'; other theological censures include: error in fide, sententia haeresi proxima, haeresim sapiens, sententia temeraria, error theologicus, etc.  And we must be very savvy about these and sufficiently nuanced when assessing theological errors.  This is especially the case when assessinng the claims of the practitioners of the Nouvelle Theologie (from De Lubac, Von Balthasar, Rahner, etc. to Popes John Paul II, Benedict, etc.), who were thoroughly trained in the traditional theology that preceded them and are therefore usually very careful not to fall into 'heresy', strictly speaking, when proposing a novel theological idea.  Otherwise, if every theological error were a heresy, sedevacantism would be inescapable, and in fact few hierarchs in the world would be Catholic. But fundamental theology is much more complex than that.

(1) Cf. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: Herder, 1955), pp. 9, 161, 212, 453.

Voris on Priscillianism, Communion in the Hand, and Spain

Voris on Priscillianism, Communion in the Hand, and Spain

Quaeritur: Heresy, Apostasy, and Schism

Quaeritur: Heresy, Apostasy, and Schism

Quaeritur: What is the difference between heresy, apostasy, and schism.


Respondeo: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (1985 Code of Canon Law, Canon 751).

"After the reception of Baptism, if someone, retaining the name of 'Christian', pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic; if he totally departs from the Christian faith, he is an apostate; and finally, if he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or refuses to be in communion with the members of the Church that are subject to him, he is a schismatic."  (1917 Codex iuris canonici, Can. 1325, § 2).

Note that the sins of heresy, apostasy, and schism can only be committed after the reception of baptism.  This means that Muslims, Jews, pagans, etc. are not properly heretics, apostates, or schismatics. 

Note also that heresy is a pertinacious denial or doubt only of those things that are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith--i.e., that are contained in Divine Revelation and are taught by the Magisterium.  If someone denies a doctrine that is not part of Divine Revelation or are not taught by the Magisterium, that person is not a heretic, although he may be guilty of disobedience, may be sinning gravely, and may be in theological error.  Heresy, thus, is the highest form of theological error, but not by any means the only one.

Note also that it must be pertinacious, which implies that someone who falls into error but accepts the Church's correction is not a heretic.  It is only after being corrected and pertinaciously holding fast to the error that a person obtains all the marks of the heretic.


Cf. St. Thomas' questions on unbelief, heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, etc. in his Summa.

St. Augustine: Heretics are Not in (Partial) Communion with the Church

St. Augustine: Heretics are Not in (Partial) Communion with the Church

From the Mass of the Fifth Sunday After Epiphany: 

† Continuation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew (13:24-30).

AT THAT time, Jesus spoke this parable to the multitudes: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came, and oversowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming, said to him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him, Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said, No: lest perhaps gathering up the cockle you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest, I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

† Sequéntia sancti Evangélii secúndum Joánnem (13:24-30).

IN ILLO tempore: Dixit Jesus turbis parábolam hanc: Símile factum est regnum cælórum hómini, qui seminávit bonum semen in agro suo. Cum autem dormírent hómines, venit inimícus ejus, et superseminávit zizánia, in médio trítici, et ábiit. Cum autem crevísset herba, et fructum fecísset, tunc apparuérunt et zizánia. Accedéntes autem servi patrisfamílias, dixérunt ei: Dómine, nonne bonum semen seminásti in agro tuo? Unde ergo habet zizánia? Et ait illis: Inimícus homo hoc fecit. Servi autem dixérunt ei: Vis, imus, et collígimus ea? Et ait: Non: ne forte colligéntes zizánia, eradicétis simul cum eis et tríticum. Sínite útraque créscere usque ad messem et in témpore messis dicam messóribus: Collígite primum zizánia, et alligáte ea in fascículos ad comburéndum, tríticum autem congregáte in horreum meum.

῾Η παραβολὴ τῶν ζιζανίων

24 ῎Αλλην παραβολὴν παρέθηκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· ὡμοιώθη ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ σπείραντι καλὸν σπέρμα ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ· 25 ἐν δὲ τῷ καθεύδειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἦλθεν αὐτοῦ ὁ ἐχθρὸς καὶ ἔσπειρε ζιζάνια ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σίτου καὶ ἀπῆλθεν. 26 ὅτε δὲ ἐβλάστησεν ὁ χόρτος καὶ καρπὸν ἐποίησε, τότε ἐφάνη καὶ τὰ ζιζάνια. 27 προσελθόντες δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου εἶπον αὐτῷ· κύριε, οὐχὶ καλὸν σπέρμα ἔσπειρας ἐν τῷ σῷ ἀγρῷ; πόθεν οὖν ἔχει ζιζάνια; 28 ὁ δὲ ἔφη αὐτοῖς· ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος τοῦτο ἐποίησεν. οἱ δὲ δοῦλοι εἶπον αὐτῷ· θέλεις οὖν ἀπελθόντες συλλέξωμεν αὐτά; 29 ὁ δὲ ἔφη· οὔ, μήποτε συλλέγοντες τὰ ζιζάνια ἐκριζώσητε ἅμα αὐτοῖς τὸν σῖτον· 30 ἄφετε συναυξάνεσθαι ἀμφότερα μέχρι τοῦ θερισμοῦ, καὶ ἐν καιρῷ τοῦ θερισμοῦ ἐρῶ τοῖς θερισταῖς· συλλέξατε πρῶτον τὰ ζιζάνια καὶ δήσατε αὐτὰ εἰς δέσμας πρὸς τὸ κατακαῦσαι αὐτά, τὸν δὲ σῖτον συναγάγετε εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην μου.

From Matins of the Fifth Sunday After Epiphany, 3rd Nocturn

Online Source: www.breviary.net 

Third Nocturn
Absolutio: A vínculis peccatórum nostrórum absólvat nos omnípotens et miséricors Dóminus. R.  Amen.	Absolution:  May the Lord Almighty and merciful break the bonds of our sins and set us free. R.  Amen.
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Vouchsafe, Reverend Father (O Lord), thy blessing.
Benedíctio 7: Evangélica léctio sit nobis salus et protéctio. R.  Amen.	Benediction 7:  May the Gospel's holy lection be our safeguard and protection. R.  Amen.
Lesson vii
Léctio sancti Evangélii secúndum Matthæum	The Lesson is taken from the Holy Gospel according to Matthew
Chap. 13, 24-30
In illo témpore : Dixit Jesus turbis parábolam hanc : Símile factum est regnum cælórum hómini, qui seminávit bonum semen in agro suo.   Et réliqua.	At that time : Jesus spake this parable unto the multitudes : The Kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field.  And so on, and that which followeth.
Homilía sancti Augustíni Epíscopi	A Homily by St. Augustine the Bishop
Liber Quæst. Evang. in Matth. cap. 11, tom. 4
Cum negligéntius ágerent præpósiti Ecclésiæ, aut cum dormitiónem mortis accíperent Apóstoli, venit diábolus, et superseminávit eos, quos malos fílios Dóminus interpretátur.  Sed quæritur : utrum hærétici sint, an male vivéntes cathólici?  Possunt enim dici fílii mali étiam hærétici, quia ex eódem Evangélii sémine, et Christi nómine procreáti, pravis opiniónibus ad falsa dógmata convertúntur.	In this parable the Lord hath reference to the time when the Shepherds of the Church should begin to wax careless, (or, it may be, to the time when the Apostles should fall asleep in the sleep of death,) at which time, the devil would come and sow that which the Lord calleth a seed of evil-doers.  Now, is this seed of evil-doers a reference to hereticks or to Catholics of bad lives?  It certainly is not unjust to call the hereticks a seed of evil-doers, seeing that they have sprung up from the seed of the Gospel, and have been begotten in the Name of Christ, and afterwards have turned into crooked ways and lying doctrines.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
R.  Ad te, Dómine, levávi ánimam meam : * Deus meus, in te confído, non erubéscam.V.  Custódi ánimam meam, et éripe me. R.  Deus meus, in te confído, non erubéscam.	R.  Unto thee, O Lord, will I lift up my soul ; * My God, I have put my trust in thee, O let me never be confounded.V.  O keep my soul, and deliver me. R.  My God, I have put my trust in thee, O let me never be confounded.
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Vouchsafe, Reverend Father (O Lord), thy blessing.
Benedíctio 8: Divínum auxílium máneat semper nobíscum. R.  Amen.	Benediction 8: May help divine be with us all, for ever abiding. R.  Amen.
Lesson viii
Sed quod dicit eos in médio trítici seminátos, quasi vidéntur illi significári, qui uníus communiónis sunt.  Verúmtamen quóniam Dóminus agrum ipsum, non Ecclésiam, sed hunc mundum interpretátus est : bene intelligúntur hærétici, quia non societáte uníus Ecclésiæ, vel uníus fídei, sed societáte solíus nóminis christiáni in hoc mundo permiscéntur bonis.  At illi, qui in eádem fide mali sunt, pálea pótius quam zizánia reputántur : quia pálea étiam fundaméntum ipsum habet cum fruménto, radicémque commúnem.	But since it is written that this seed was sown in the midst of the wheat, we ought perhaps to understand thereby a reference to such as are of one Communion with the righteous.  However, inasmuch as the Lord saith : The field is the world : and doth not thereby directly speak of the Church, we may with good reason understand the seed of evil-doers to be the hereticks, since in this world they are mingled together with the good, not in one common Communion, but only under one common name of Christian.  And Catholics of bad lives, which nevertheless are of one Faith with the good seed, and yet are themselves worthless, may more fitly be likened to straw than to tares, since the straw springeth from one soil and one root with the good grain-bearing ear of corn.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
R.  Duo Séraphim clamábant alter ad álterum : *Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dóminus Deus Sábaoth :* Plena est omnis terra glória ejus.V.  Tres sunt qui testimónium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spíritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt. R.  Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dóminus Deus Sábaoth.V.  Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto. R.  Plena est omnis terra glória ejus.	R.  The two Seraphim did cry the One to the Other : * Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts : * The whole earth is full of his glory.V.  For there are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost : and these Three are One. R.  Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts.V.  Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. R.  The whole earth is full of his glory.
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Vouchsafe, Reverend Father (O Lord), thy blessing.
Benedíctio 9: Ad societátem cívium supernórum perdúcat nos Rex Angelórum. R.  Amen.	Benediction 9: May the King of Angels give us fellowship with all the citizens of heaven. R.  Amen.
Lesson ix
In illa plane sagéna, qua concludúntur et mali et boni pisces, non absúrde mali cathólici intelligúntur.  Aliud est enim mare, quod magis mundum istum signíficat : áliud sagéna, quæ uníus fídei, vel uníus Ecclésiæ communiónem vidétur osténdere.  Inter hæréticos et malos cathólicos hoc ínterest, quod hærétici falsa credunt : illi autem, vera credéntes, non vivunt ita ut credunt.	However, as touching the net cast into the sea, and enclosing a great multitude of fishes, both bad and good, we may well understand that by the bad are meant Catholics of bad lives.  For the sea is one thing whereby we may understand to be signified the world ; and the net another , which seemeth to signify our Faith, or the Communion of one Church.  Between hereticks and sinful Catholics there is this difference : hereticks believe a lie : sinful Catholics believe the truth, but live not what they believe.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
TE DEUM LAUDAMUS	TE DEUM

Christ's Two Wills: Constantinople III's Dogmatic Definition and Condemnation of Monotheletism

Christ's Two Wills: Constantinople III's Dogmatic Definition and Condemnation of Monotheletism

Celebrating the 1329th Anniversary of the Closing of the 3rd Council of Constantinople 

From Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma, nos. 290-293.

Online Source: Catechetics Online

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE III (AD 680-681)

Ecumenical VI (against the Monothelites)

Definition of the Two Wills of Christ *

290 Besides both in Synodical letters which were written by blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and to the oriental bishops, following also the five holy ecumenical councils and the holy and trusted Fathers, and defining harmoniously with them it confesses: that our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, one of the holy and consubstantial Trinity and giving forth the origin of life, perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in humanity, truly God and truly man, Himself of a rational soul and body; it confesses the same consubstantial with the Father according to Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to humanity, through all things like to us except in sin [Heb. 4:15], before ages, indeed, begotten of the Father according to Godhead, in the last days, however, the same for us and for our salvation of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary properly and truly the mother of God according to humanity, one and the same Christ, the only begotten Lord God in two natures recognized unfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably, indivisibly, never the difference of these natures destroyed on account of union, but rather the property of each nature saved and in one person and in one substance concurring, not into two persons portioned or divided but one and the same only begotten Son of God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, just as formerly the prophets taught us about Him, and our Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us [Conc. Chal., see n. 148].

291 And so we proclaim two natural wills in Him, and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, unfusedly according to the doctrine of the holy Father, and two natural wills not contrary, God forbid, according as impious heretics have asserted, but the human will following and not resisting or hesitating, but rather even submitting to His divine and omnipotent will. For, it is necessary that the will of the flesh act, but that it be subject to the divine will according to the most wise Athanasius.  For, as His flesh is called and is the flesh of the Word of God, so also the natural will of His flesh is called and is the proper will of the Word of God as He Himself says: "Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of my Father who sent me)," [cf. John 6:38], calling the will of the flesh His own. For the body became His own. For as His most holy and immaculate animated flesh deified has not been destroyed but in its own status and plan remained, so also His human will deified has not been destroyed, but on the contrary it has been saved according to the theologian Gregory who says: "For to wish of that one an entire deification, which is understood in the Savior, is not contrary to God."

292 But we glorify two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, unfusedly, inseparably in our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, our true God, that is, the divine operation and the human operation, according to Leo the divine preacher who very clearly asserts: "For each form does what is proper to itself with the mutual participation of the other, that is, the Word doing what is of the Word and the flesh accomplishing what is of the flesh" [see n. 144]. For at no time shall we grant one natural operation to God and to the creature, so that neither what was created, we raise into divine essence, nor what is especially of divine nature, we cast down to a place begetting creatures. For of one and the same we recognize the miracles and the sufferings according to the one and the other of these natures from which He is and in which He has to be as the admirable Cyril says. Therefore we, maintaining completely an unconfused and undivided (opinion), In a brief statement set forth all: that we, believing that He is one of the Holy Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, and after the incarnation assert that His two natures radiate in His one substance, in which His miracles and His sufferings through all His ordained life, not through phantasy but truly He has shown, on account of the natural difference which is recognized in the same single substance, while with the mutual participation of the other, each nature indivisibly and without confusion willed and performed its own works; according to this plan we confess two natural wills and operations concurring mutually in Him for the salvation of the human race.

293 These things, therefore, having been determined by us with all caution and diligence, we declare that no one is permitted to introduce, or to describe, or to compare, or to study, or otherwise to teach another faith. But whoever presumes to compare or to introduce or to teach or to pass on another creed to those wishing to turn from the belief of the Gentiles or of the Jews or from any heresy whatsoever to the acknowledgement of truth, or who (presumes) to introduce a novel doctrine or an invention of discourse to the subversion of those things which now have been determined by us, (we declare) these, whether they are bishops or clerics, to be excommunicated, bishops indeed from the bishopric, but priests from the priesthood; but if they are monks or laymen, to be anathematized.