Subordinationism

SUBORDINAZIANISMO

Erroneous theory or even Trinitarian heresy, which admits a certain hierarchical subordination of the three Persons within the Most Holy Trinity (v.) due to a relative inferiority and superiority of nature. Arianism (v.), from the very outset abandoning the Church’s faith, starts from the presupposition that the Word is not true God but a mere creature of nature essentially inferior to the Father, though more perfect than other creatures; the Spirit, in turn, is inferior to the Word, the first creature of the Word. Against this heretical subordinationism, the magisterium defended the faith by proclaiming the consubstantiality of the Persons (v. NICEA, First Council of; COSTANTINOPOLI, First Council of).

Of a quite different spirit is the subordinationist theory among pre-Nicene Catholic doctors.

All admit as a presupposition the Trinitarian faith as imposed by the New Testament and professed by the Church, especially in baptismal practice, which faith simultaneously affirms strict monotheism, the strict divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (against adoptionism [v.]), and the real and personal distinction of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (against modalism [v.]). See, for example, Justin, *I Apol.*, 6, 13; especially for the strict divinity of the Son, ibid. 22, 23; *II Apol.*, 6; *Dial.*, 48, 56, 61, 128; Athenagoras, *Legat.*, 10, 12, 24; Theophilus, *Ad Autol.*, II, 15, 18; Clement of Alexandria, *Adumbrat.*, 3 (PG 9, 734); Origen, *De Princ.*, praef., 4; *Dialektos*, ed. J. Scherer, Paris 1949, p. 129; Tertullian, *Adv. Prax.*, 2; Hippolytus, *Contra Noët.*, 16; Novatian, *De Trin.*, 1, 9, 29, 30. From around the 2nd century, these Christian writers, explicitly combating modalism, were chiefly concerned to emphasize the real distinction of the Persons. Assuming the aforementioned faith, the authors merely sought to offer some scientific explanation that might in some way clarify what faith simply affirmed, namely how the above points can be reconciled with one another (v. , for example, Athenagoras, *Legat.*, 12; Origen, *Dialektos*, ed. Scherer, p. 129; Tertullian, *Adv. Prax.*, 2). In practice, they were especially concerned with the relations between the Father and the Son. The question of the Holy Spirit before about the 360s remained rather secondary.

Among the names by which faith designates the Second Person, pre-Nicene writers preferred that of Logos, the Word of God the Father, and on this basis they constructed their explanations, endeavoring in some way to clarify how God the Father has a Logos distinct from Himself and true God, without prejudice to monotheism. In this attempt, they sought to utilize the ideas of contemporary philosophy, Middle Platonism, concerning the Logos and its relations with the supreme God and the world, especially as these had been elaborated by Philo of Alexandria (v.). Despite nuances and differences, the result among Trinitarian writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries was essentially a uniform theory. They tended strongly to reserve for the Father, to the exclusion of the Son, as a specific property of nature, certain attributes indicating the absolute transcendence of God, which in themselves are common to the three Persons, first and foremost invisibility: only the Son by nature could come into contact with the world and appear, and indeed only He appeared in the Old Testament (v. , for example, Justin, *Dial.*, 60, 126, 127; Theophilus, *Ad Autol.*, II, 22; Tertullian, *Adv. Prax.*, 14, 15; *Adv. Marc.*, 2, 27; Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.*, V, 3, 12; Origen, *De Princ.*, I, 1, 8; *In Io. Com.*, VI, 110; Hippolytus, *Contra Noët.*, 8, 10; Novatian, *De Trin.*, 31; Clement, *Strom.*, IV, 25 and Origen *In Io. Com.*, I, 20, 23). By assigning to the Father alone absolute simplicity of nature, they attributed to the Son a certain multiplicity. Then, still due to the tendency to reserve for the Father absolute transcendence—conceived, moreover, in an exaggerated manner according to Platonic tradition (v. , for example, Justin, *II Apol.* 6; Theophilus, *Ad Autol.*, I, 5; Origen, *Contra Cels.*, VII, 38)—they sought an explanation of the generation of the Logos within God in connection with the creation of the world (v. , for example, Philo, *De spec. Leg.*, I, 81); the Logos is conceived as the necessary intermediary and instrument of the Father for creation.

Striving to imagine the generation of the Logos with the Stoic theory of the Logos endiathetos (the internal word, which every man silently forms within himself in thinking) and the Logos prophorikós (the same word clearly formed, uttered, and perceptible externally), they mostly believed they could distinguish in the intratrinitarian generation of the Second Person two successive moments: first, God the Father, in thinking, eternally and silently forms within Himself His Logos; at this stage the Logos is not yet a perfect, formed Person, distinctly separate from the Father, not yet the Son; He becomes so, however, when God decides to create the world, thus uttering and distinctly forming His Logos with a view to creation and as an instrument of it (v. , for example, Justin, *II Apol.*, 6; *Dial.*, 61; Tatian, *Orat.*, 5; Athenagoras, *Legat.*, 10; Theophilus, *Ad Autol.*, II, 10; Clement of Alexandria, *Excerpta ex Theod.*, 19; *Strom.*, V, 3; *Paedag.*, I, 9; Tertullian, *Adv. Prax.*, 5–7; *Contra Hermog.*, 3; Hippolytus, *Contra Noët.*, 10).

Since the generation of the Son is thus placed in close relation to creation, it is said that the Father generated the Son by His will when He so willed (v. , for example, Justin, *Dial.*, 61, 128; Tatian, *Orat.*, 5; Theophilus, *Ad Autol.*, II, 22; Tertullian, *Adv. Prax.*, 6; Hippolytus, *Contra Noët.*, 10; Novatian, *De Trin.*, 31), with the consequence of endangering the eternal generation of the Son as such (v. Tertullian, *Contra Hermog.*, 3). Yet, to safeguard the faith, some insisted that the generation of the Son as such is eternal (Novatian, *De Trin.*, 31), and Origen believed he could reconcile both assertions by admitting the eternity of creation and thus of the generation of the Son (*De Princ.*, I, 2, 2; IV, 4, 1). All this, naturally, implies an inferiority of nature of the Son with respect to the Father. Tertullian

admitted this explicitly (*Adv. Prax.*, 9, 26; *Adv. Marc.*, 2, 27) and comprehended the entire theory within the concept of “economy” (*Adv. Prax.*, 2; cf. also Hippolytus, *C. Noët.*, 1, 3–5), that is, the hierarchical distinction and subordination of the Persons within the Trinity, manifest also in their work in the world. Origen, more than any other, pressed the consequences of subordination by proposing a Trinity of three descending grades, calling the Son a creature of the Father and ranking the Spirit as the first creature of the Son (*In Jo. Com.*, II, 2; XIII, 25; *Contra Cels.*, V, 39; *De Princ.*, I, 2, 13; 3, 5; *In Matth. Com.*, XV, 10).

BIBL.:
Giustino, *I Apol.*, 6, 13; *II Apol.*, 6; *Dial.*, 48, 56, 61, 128.
Atenagora, *Legat.*, 10, 12, 24.
Teofilo, *Ad Autol.*, II, 15, 18.
Clemente Aless., *Adumbrat.*, 3 (PG 9, 734); *Strom.*, IV, 25; V, 3, 12.
Origene, *De Princ.*, praef., 4; I, 1, 8; I, 2, 2; I, 2, 13; I, 3, 5; IV, 4, 1; *In Io. Com.*, I, 20, 23; VI, 110; XIII, 25; *Contra Cels.*, V, 39; *Dialektos*, ed. J. Scherer, Paris 1949, p. 129.
Tertulliano, *Adv. Prax.*, 2, 5–7, 9, 14–15, 26; *Adv. Marc.*, 2, 27; *Adv. Hermog.*, 3.
Ippolito, *Contra Noët.*, 8, 10, 16; *C. Noët.*, 1, 3–5.
Novatiano, *De Trin.*, 1, 9, 29, 30, 31.
Taziano, *Orat.*, 5.
Filone, *De spec. Leg.*, I, 81.

SUBACO

Cicero’s *De Oratore*, ch. 1°, an incunable printed before 1465 at the monastery of St. Scholastica—copy in the Angelica Library, Rome.

Yet these authors, however, had no intention of renouncing the faith of the Church and thus the strict divinity of the three Persons. They sought to avoid the difficulty by affirming in every way that in the subordination the strict divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit remained unimpaired, since they were always conceived in strict unity of nature with the Father and never separated from Him.

According to a theory accepted by the philosophers of the time (v. Maximus of Tyre, Diss., 39, 5; cf. also Aristides, Apol., 13), they believed that from the unity of operation of the three Persons there could be sufficiently deduced their unity of nature (v. , e.g., Justin, Dial., 56; Origen, Contra Cels., 8, 12; Tertullian, Adv. Prax., 4; Hippolytus, Contra Noet., 14; Novatian, De Trin., 31).

To assert this, they resorted to various metaphors, such as that of the sun, its ray and the apex of the ray; of the root of the tree, the trunk and the fruit; of the spring, the river and the stream. Tertullian, in asserting this unity, arrived at a formulation already definitive in metaphysical terms: unity of substance, distinction of persons (v. Justin, Dial., 61, 128; Athenagoras, Legat., 24; Tertullian, Adv. Prax., 2, 4, 8, 25; Hippolytus, Contra Noet., 8, 14; Novatian, De Trin., 31).

Origen believed he could explain the same unity between Father and Son by resorting to the Platonic theme of the *medium* (v. , e.g., Albinus, Didaskalikos, X, 2-4; XIV, 3) of contemplation as the cause of physical unity: the Son preserves the unity of substance with the Father because the Father is simultaneously contemplation (In Jo. Com., II, 2).

The theory was merely a mistaken notion of certain theologians and does not touch the faith of the Church. This is already demonstrated by the clear distinction made by the authors who proposed it between faith, an absolute norm, and the further doctrinal explanation of the faith proposed by individual authors at their own risk and peril—a distinction always presupposed and not infrequently explicitly affirmed (v. , e.g., Justin, *Dial.*, 48; Athenagoras, *Legat.*, 10; Irenaeus, passim and strongly, e.g., *Adv. Haer.*, I, 10, 2-3; II, 23, 34 and 26, 28; Tertullian, *De praescr.*, 12, 5; 13, 6; 14, 1; *Adv. Prax.*, 2; Hippolytus, *Contra Noet.*, 6; Novatian, *De Trin.*, 30; Origen, with every desirable clarity, e.g., *De Princ.* Praef., 3, 3; 3, 5; 3, 7; 3, 9; 3, 10; 3, 11; 3, 12; 3, 13; 3, 14; 3, 15; 3, 16; 3, 17; 3, 18; 3, 19; 3, 20; 3, 21; 3, 22; 3, 23; 3, 24; 3, 25; 3, 26; 3, 27; 3, 28; 3, 29; 3, 30; 3, 31; 3, 32; 3, 33; 3, 34; 3, 35; 3, 36; 3, 37; 3, 38; 3, 39; 3, 40; 3, 41; 3, 42; 3, 43; 3, 44; 3, 45; 3, 46; 3, 47; 3, 48; 3, 49; 3, 50; 3, 51; 3, 52; 3, 53; 3, 54; 3, 55; 3, 56; 3, 57; 3, 58; 3, 59; 3, 60; 3, 61; 3, 62; 3, 63; 3, 64; 3, 65; 3, 66; 3, 67; 3, 68; 3, 69; 3, 70; 3, 71; 3, 72; 3, 73; 3, 74; 3, 75; 3, 76; 3, 77; 3, 78; 3, 79; 3, 80; 3, 81; 3, 82; 3, 83; 3, 84; 3, 85; 3, 86; 3, 87; 3, 88; 3, 89; 3, 90; 3, 91; 3, 92; 3, 93; 3, 94; 3,215; 3, 216; 3, 217; 3, 218; 3, 219; 3, 220; 3, 221; 3, 222; 3, 223; 3, 224; 3, 225; 3, 226; 3, 227; 3, 228; 3, 229; 3, 230; 3, 231; 3, 232; 3, 233; 3, 234; 3, 235; 3, 236; 3, 237; 3, 238; 3, 239; 3, 240; 3, 241; 3, 242; 3, 243; 3, 244; 3, 245; 3, 246; 3, 247; 3, 248; 3, 249; 3, 250; 3, 251; 3, 252; 3, 253; 3, 254; 3, 255; 3, 256; 3, 257; 3, 258; 3, 259; 3, 260; 3, 261; 3, 262; 3, 263; 3, 264; 3, 265; 3, 266; 3, 267; 3, 268; 3, 269; 3, 270; 3, 271; 3, 272; 3, 273; 3, 274; 3, 275; 3, 276; 3, 277; 3, 278; 3, 279; 3, 280; 3, 281; 3, 282; 3, 283; 3, 284; 3, 285; 3, 286; 3, 287; 3, 288; 3, 289; 3, 290; 3, 291; 3, 292; 3, 293; 3, 294; 3, 295; 3, 296; 3, 297; 3, 298; 3, 299; 3, 300; 3, 301; 3, 302; 3, 303; 3, 304; 3, 305; 3, 306; 3, 307; 3, 308; 3, 309; 3, 310; 3, 311; 3, 312; 3, 313; 3, 314; 3, 315; 3, 316; 3, 317; 3, 318; 3, 319; 3, 320; 3, 321; 3, 322; 3, 323; 3, 324; 3, 325; 3, 326; 3, 327; 3, 328; 3, 329; 3, 330; 3, 331; 3, 332; 3, 333; 3, 334; 3, 335; 3, 336; 3, 337; 3, 338; 3, 339; 3, 340; 3, 341; 3, 342; 3, 343; 3, 344; 3, 345; 3, 346; 3, 347; 3, 348; 3, 349; 3, 350; 3, 351; 3, 352; 3, 353; 3, 354; 3, 355; 3, 356; 3, 357; 3, 358; 3, 359; 3, 360; 3, 361; 3, 362; 3, 363; 3, 364; 3, 365; 3, 366; 3, 367; 3, 368; 3, 369; 3, 370; 3, 371; 3, 372; 3, 373; 3, 374; 3, 375; 3, 376; 3, 377; 3, 378; 3, 379; 3, 380; 3, 381; 3, 382; 3, 383; 3, 384; 3, 385; 3, 386; 3, 387; 3, 388; 3, 389; 3, 390; 3, 391; 3, 392; 3, 393; 3, 394; 3, 395; 3, 396; 3, 397; 3, 398; 3, 399; 3, 400; 3, 401; 3, 402; 3, 403; 3, 404; 3, 405; 3, 406; 3, 407; 3, 408; 3, 409; 3, 410; 3, 411; 3, 412; 3, 413; 3, 414; 3, 415; 3, 416; 3, 417; 3, 418; 3, 419; 3, 420; 3, 421; 3, 422; 3, 423; 3, 424; 3, 425; 3, 426; 3, 427; 3, 428; 3, 429; 3, 430; 3, 431; 3, 432; 3, 433; 3, 434; 3, 435; 3, 436; 3, 437; 3, 438; 3, 439; 3, 440; 3, 441; 3, 442; 3, 443; 3, 444; 3, 445; 3, 446; 3, 447; 3, 448; 3, 449; 3, 450; 3, 451; 3, 452; 3, 453; 3, 454; 3, 455; 3, 456; 3, 457; 3, 458; 3, 459; 3, 460; 3, 461; 3, 462; 3, 463; 3, 464; 3, 465; 3, 466; 3, 467; 3, 468; 3, 469; 3, 470; 3, 471; 3, 472; 3, 473; 3, 474; 3, 475; 3, 476; 3, 477; 3, 478; 3, 479; 3, 480; 3, 481; 3, 482; 3, 483; 3, 484; 3, 485; 3, 486; 3, 487; 3, 488; 3, 489; 3, 490; 3, 491; 3, 492; 3, 493; 3, 494; 3, 495; 3, 496; 3, 497; 3, 498; 3, 499; 3, 500; 3, 501; 3, 502; 3, 503; 3, 504; 3, 505; 3, 506; 3, 507; 3, 508; 3, 509; 3, 510; 3, 511; 3, 512; 3, 513; 3, 514; 3, 515; 3, 516; 3, 517; 3, 518; 3, 519; 3, 520; 3, 521; 3, 522; 3, 523; 3, 524; 3, 525; 3, 526; 3, 527; 3, 528; 3, 529; 3, 530; 3, 531; 3, 532; 3, 533; 3, 534; 3, 535; 3, 536; 3, 537; 3, 538; 3, 539; 3, 540; 3, 541; 3, 542; 3, 543; 3, 544; 3, 545; 3, 546; 3, 547; 3, 548; 3, 549; 3, 550; 3, 551; 3, 552; 3, 553; 3, 554; 3, 555; 3, 556; 3, 557; 3, 558; 3, 559; 3, 560; 3, 561; 3, 562; 3, 563; 3, 564; 3, 565; 3, 566; 3, 567; 3, 568; 3, 569; 3, 570; 3, 571; 3, 572; 3, 573; 3, 574; 3, 575; 3, 576; 3, 577; 3, 578; 3, 579; 3, 580; 3, 581; 3, 582; 3, 583; 3, 584; 3, 585; 3, 586; 3, 587; 3, 588; 3, 589; 3, 590; 3, 591; 3, 592; 3, 593; 3, 594; 3, 595; 3, 596; 3, 597; 3, 598; 3, 599; 3, 600; 3, 601; 3, 602; 3, 603; 3, 604; 3, 605; 3, 606; 3, 607; 3, 608; 3, 609; 3, 610; 3, 611; 3, 612; 3, 613; 3, 614; 3, 615; 3, 616; 3, 617; 3, 618; 3, 619; 3, 620; 3, 621; 3, 622; 3, 623; 3, 624; 3, 625; 3, 626; 3, 627; 3, 628; 3, 629; 3, 630; 3, 631; 3, 632; 3, 633; 3, 634; 3, 635; 3, 636; 3, 637; 3, 638; 3, 639; 3, 640; 3, 641; 3, 642; 3, 643; 3, 644; 3, 645; 3, 646; 3, 647; 3, 648; 3, 649; 3, 650; 3, 651; 3, 652; 3, 653; 3, 654; 3, 655; 3, 656; 3, 657; 3, 658; 3, 659; 3, 660; 3, 661; 3, 662; 3, 663; 3, 664; 3, 665; 3, 666; 3, 667; 3, 668; 3, 669; 3, 670; 3, 671; 3, 672; 3, 673; 3, 674; 3, 675; 3, 676; 3, 677; 3, 678; 3, 679; 3, 680; 3, 681; 3, 682; 3, 683; 3, 684; 3, 685; 3, 686; 3, 687; 3, 688; 3, 689; 3, 690; 3, 691; 3, 692; 3, 693; 3, 694; 3, 695; 3, 696; 3, 697; 3, 698; 3, 699; 3, 700; 3, 701; 3, 702; 3, 703; 3, 704; 3, 705; 3, 706; 3, 707; 3, 708; 3, 709; 3, 710; 3, 711; 3, 712; 3, 713; 3, 714; 3, 715; 3, 716; 3, 717; 3, 718; 3, 719; 3, 720; 3, 721; 3, 722; 3, 723; 3, 724; 3, 725; 3, 726; 3, 727; 3, 728; 3, 729; 3, 730; 3, 731; 3, 732; 3, 733; 3, 734; 3, 735; 3, 736; 3, 737; 3, 738; 3, 739; 3, 740; 3, 741; 3, 742; 3, 743; 3, 744; 3, 745; 3, 746; 3, 747; 3, 748; 3, 749; 3, 750; 3, 751; 3, 752; 3, 753; 3, 754; 3, 755; 3, 756; 3, 757; 3, 758; 3, 759; 3, 760; 3, 761; 3, 762; 3, 763; 3, 764; 3, 765; 3, 766; 3, 767; 3, 768; 3, 769; 3, 770; 3, 771; 3, 772; 3, 773; 3, 774; 3, 775; 3, 776; 3, 777; 3, 778; 3, 779; 3, 780; 3, 781; 3, 782; 3, 783; 3, 784; 3, 785; 3, 786; 3, 787; 3, 788; 3, 789; 3, 790; 3, 791; 3, 792; 3, 793; 3, 794; 3, 795; 3, 796; 3, 797; 3, 798; 3, 799; 3, 800; 3, 801; 3, 802; 3, 803; 3, 804; 3, 805; 3, 806; 3, 807; 3, 808; 3, 809; 3, 810; 3, 811; 3, 812; 3, 813; 3, 814; 3, 815; 3, 816; 3, 817; 3, 818; 3, 819; 3, 820; 3, 821; 3, 822; 3, 823; 3, 824; 3, 825; 3, 826; 3, 827; 3, 828; 3, 829; 3, 830; 3, 831; 3, 832; 3, 833; 3, 834; 3, 835; 3, 836; 3, 837; 3, 838; 3, 839; 3, 840; 3, 841; 3, 842; 3, 843; 3, 844; 3, 845; 3, 846; 3, 847; 3, 848; 3, 849; 3, 850; 3, 851; 3, 852; 3, 853; 3, 854; 3, 855; 3, 856; 3, 857; 3, 858; 3, 859; 3, 860; 3, 861; 3, 862; 3, 863; 3, 864; 3, 865; 3, 866; 3, 867; 3, 868; 3, 869; 3, 870; 3, 871; 3, 872; 3, 873; 3, 874; 3, 875; 3, 876; 3, 877; 3, 878; 3, 879; 3, 880; 3, 881; 3, 882; 3, 883; 3, 884; 3, 885; 3, 886; 3, 887; 3, 888; 3, 889; 3, 890; 3, 891; 3, 892; 3, 893; 3, 894; 3, 895; 3, 896; 3, 897; 3, 898; 3, 899; 3, 900; 3, 901; 3, 902; 3, 903; 3, 904; 3, 905; 3, 906; 3, 907; 3, 908; 3, 909; 3, 910; 3, 911; 3, 912; 3, 913; 3, 914; 3, 915; 3, 916; 3, 917; 3, 918; 3, 919; 3, 920; 3, 921; 3, 922; 3, 923; 3, 924; 3, 925; 3, 926; 3, 927; 3, 928; 3, 929; 3, 930; 3, 931; 3, 932; 3, 933; 3, 934; 3, 935; 3, 936; 3, 937; 3, 938; 3, 939; 3, 940; 3, 941; 3, 942; 3, 943; 3, 944; 3, 945; 3, 946; 3, 947; 3, 948; 3, 949; 3, 950; 3, 951; 3, 952; 3, 953; 3, 954; 3, 955; 3, 956; 3, 957; 3, 958; 3, 959; 3, 960; 3, 961; 3, 962; 3, 963; 3, 964; 3, 965; 3, 966; 3, 967; 3, 968; 3, 969; 3, 970; 3, 971; 3, 972; 3, 973; 3, 974; 3, 975; 3, 976; 3, 977; 3, 978; 3, 979; 3, 980; 3, 981; 3, 982; 3, 983; 3, 984; 3, 985; 3, 986; 3, 987; 3, 988; 3, 989; 3, 990; 3, 991; 3, 992; 3, 993; 3, 994; 3, 995; 3, 996; 3, 997; 3, 998; 3, 999; 3, 1000; 3, 1001; 3, 1002; 3, 1003; 3, 1004; 3, 1005; 3, 1006; 3, 1007; 3, 1008; 3, 1009; 3, 1010; 3, 1011; 3, 1012; 3, 1013; 3, 1014; 3, 1015; 3, 1016; 3, 1017; 3, 1018; 3, 1019; 3, 1020; 3, 1021; 3, 1022; 3, 1023; 3, 1024; 3, 1025; 3, 1026; 3, 1027; 3, 1028; 3, 1029; 3, 1030; 3, 1031; 3, 1032; 3, 1033; 3, 1034; 3, 1035; 3, 1036; 3, 1037; 3, 1038; 3, 1039; 3, 1040; 3, 1041; 3, 1042; 3, 1043; 3, 1044; 3, 1045; 3, 1046; 3, 1047; 3, 1048; 3, 1049; 3, 1050; 3, 1051; 3, 1052; The same prayer from the papyrus of Dér-Balizeh (fol. 1ʳ, lines 8–12: PO 18, 425 and 428; ed. Roberts-Capelle, An early Euchol., Louvain 1949, p. 14), whose wording: ἀλλὰ βύσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς κινδύνου, recalls the periculis cunctis of the Roman S. t. p.

III. IMPORTANCE OF THE PRAYER

a) Historical value. — The tone of the prayer seems to indicate a time of persecution (Valerian, Decius) from which one longs to be freed (βύσαι ἡμᾶς, erne nos; the λύπρωσιά of the Greek liturgy no longer has this meaning, but a theological value).

b) Theological value. — In such great necessity (περίστασις) the Christian seeks refuge under the mantle of the Virgin, in the shadow of her εὐσπλαγχνα, which is not the ἑλεος of the Psalms, an attribute of God, but the great mercy and solicitude of a mother’s heart (cf. Eccli. 30, 7, and viscera misericordiae, σπλαγχνα ἐλεους, of Lk. 1, 78). And the prayer is addressed to her directly, as helper and saviour, since she is the Mother of God, Θεοτόκος. The finding of this word in an euchological text shows that in Egypt it was not merely a school term, but a liturgical one. Thus one understands what the historian Socrates relates, that Origen, in the first book of his commentary on Romans, “explained (ἐμνηνεύων) in what sense (Mary) is called Θεοτόκος” (Hist. eccl., VII, 32: PG 67, 812 B). Considering further that before the Council of Ephesus (431) this dogmatic term is found in authors connected with the School of Alexandria (cf. Hefele-Leclercq, II, p. 244, note; Fliche-Martin-Frutaz, IV, p. 167, n. 17; Manteau-Bonamy [V. BIBLICA.], pp. 10–12), one perceives here an influence of the Alexandrian liturgy, and this explains the greater bitterness of the anti-Nestorian struggle, in which Cyril fought not for a school term, but for an expression of the faith of the people, consecrated by liturgical usage (cf. Denz-U., 139). Hitherto no positive document had been known attesting the invocation of the Virgin in the pre-Nicene period (cf. E. Neubert, Marie dans l’Église anténic., Paris 1908, pp. 268 and 275; E. Dublanchy, Marie, in DThC, IX, col. 2443): Pap. Ryl. 470 fills this documentary gap, removing every discussion. With the clear affirmation of Mary’s divine motherhood, the S. t. p. also manifestly alludes to her immaculate purity, proclaiming the Blessed Virgin as “the only pure one,” “the only chaste and blessed”: ἡ μονὴ ἀγνή, καλὴ εὐλογήμενη.

c) Liturgical value. — The text of the papyrus, reconstructed by Mencenier, represents the primitive recension, and explains the two later forms: the Eastern (Byzantine-Ambrosian) and the Western (Alexandrian-Roman). The Roman formula, indeed, belongs to the same family as the Coptic text, whereas the Ambrosian depends on the Byzantine text.

IV. DIFFUSION AND LITURGICAL USE

From its place of origin, Egypt, the S. t. p. spread through the two principal rites: the Byzantine and the Roman. The Coptic liturgy has preserved almost integrally the original form offered by the Greek papyrus, and even today, at least among Catholics, it is used at Vespers. The Byzantine and Roman liturgies must have received the S. t. p. from Egypt before the Christological controversies of the fifth century.

a) Roman liturgy. — In the Latin West the S. t. p. has had various recensions, testifying to different Greek originals. The Roman formula is found in the Antiphonary of Compiègne (9th–10th cent.) among the antiphons at the Gospel (a series of antiphons intercalated between the verses of the Benedictus) for the feast of the Assumption (PL 78, 799). At present it is in use at Compline of the Little Office of the B.V.M. (antiphon to the Nunc dimittis). It is employed in part in the offices of the Maternity of Mary (11 Oct.: V responsory) and of the B.V.M. Mediatrix of all Graces (31 May: short responsory at the minor Hours). It is also frequently used in various devotional exercises; in France, even in the Saluts of the Blessed Sacrament. A. Wilmart has published a medieval office in honour of the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin, attributed to Innocent IV, where the S. t. p. is the opening prayer for each single part (Auteurs spirituels, Paris 1932, pp. 518, 523–26). In the Dominican liturgy it is sung at Compline for various feasts of Our Lady. The Salesians have it as a special devotion in honour of Mary Help of Christians; among