Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
Al respecto de la sinderesis, se debe senalar con el Aquinate que es el habito natural quasi innatus que, en cuanto habito, recuerda a la razon, en el sentido de dar un conocimiento inmediato, los preceptos de la ley moral natural (45) que son los principios del conocimiento practico (46).
IV, II, 5, 42: "[appetitus naturalis] hominis ad beatitudinem hie enim innatus est omnibus hominibus (...); sed appetitus naturalis fundatur in naturali capacitate, et non tendit nisi im rem aliquot modo naturae possibilem, quia appetitus naturalis est naturae consentaneus: ergo beatitudo, quae est objetum hujus appetitus, est res possibilis homini cujus ipse est capax natura sua".
He later renamed this organism Micromyces universalis innatus and regarded it as a micro fungus.
(119.) La sinderesis "est quodammodo innatus menti nostrae ex ipso lumine intellectus agentis, sicut et habitus principiorum speculativorum".
disclplinis quibus non innutritus tantum, sed innatus est, sic esse
The first charge is that Origen declared the Son of God to be innatus;(7) it is met by three quotations from the Commentaries on Romans and John's gospel, and then there follow three passages from the Commentary on Hebrews, which is now no longer extant.
The second objection is stronger, as it rests on evidence rather than suspicion: most readers have been struck by the apparent incoherence of the argument as it stands in the extant version of the Apology.(21) Pamphilus is rebutting the first allegation against his master, that he thought the Son innatus; this must render the Greek term [Alpha][Gamma][Epsilon][Nu][Nu][Eta][Omicron][Sigma](22) and imply that the Second Hypostasis did not depend for his origin on the Father.
His own vocabulary seemed to allow both `coming-to-be' and `creation' within the Trinity, and for this he was repeatedly condemned.(24) Furthermore, if there were some ground for a charge of having made the Son innatus, it could not be met by citing the word homoousios, for this implies no more than that the Son and Father share a common nature or common attributes, and says nothing about the order of generation.
If it were thought to militate against the orthodox teaching that the Son was generated by the Father, we can understand both the source of the accusation that Origen thought the Son innatus and the manner in which that accusation is treated by our text.
My conjecture would therefore be that the crime ascribed to Origen, that of calling the Son innatus, was not the Sabellian error (b),(31) but either (a) or (c) or a combination.