Papal Letters 1 part 18/50

that God both forbade the first man from sin, and punished him with just retribution when he sinned through disobedience, yet, using even our evils for good, He set us free from the bonds of all sins by a singular remedy through the incarnation, passion, death, and resurrection of His only-begotten Son, that is, of our Lord God Jesus Christ. These things therefore having been fittingly condemned, both by the rectitude of orthodox faith and by the authority of the apostolic sentence, we decree that, out of all those matters which we — cleaving to the statutes and traditions of the Fathers — have condemned by apostolic authority, no occasion be afforded of doing injury to the preceding Fathers or doctors of the Church, which without doubt stirs up scandals to the most holy Church:

anathematizing everyone belonging to the ecclesiastical orders who by any means should wish to ascribe or impute reproach to the Fathers and doctors of the Church out of the aforesaid impieties. And since the aforesaid dogmas, which according to the meaning set forth concerning them we have subjected to anathema and condemnation, are recorded in that volume, which was recently transmitted to us by your Piety through our brother Bishop Benignus, as prefaced under the name of Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia —

to this we accordingly turned the concern of our solicitude, that if anything concerning the person or name of the said Theodore had been examined among the Fathers, or if anything had been regularly established or determined by them concerning his name, we should take care to inquire with most diligent investigation. And investigating these things, we noticed that Cyril of blessed memory, bishop of the city of Alexandria, writing back to John of reverend memory, bishop of the city of Antioch, or to the Eastern synod in reply to his letters, concerning the person of the already deceased bishop Theodore, said among other things thus:

'The definition which was produced in the holy synod of Ephesus, as though deposited by Theodore, as those offering it said, having nothing sound, the holy synod indeed abolished it as full of perverse understandings. But condemning those who so think, it made mention of the man by way of dispensation and did not by name subject him to anathema, nor others.' But diligently reviewing that first synod of Ephesus itself, we found that it relates nothing concerning the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, but only the creed which the presbyter Charisius there produced — rather because it had been sent by Anastasius and Photius, who at that time adhered to the heretic Nestorius, through Antonius and Jacobus, holding only the names of presbyters, to the churches of the Philadelphians.

From which it is clear that blessed Cyril — as he professes through his letters — perceived that the name of the already deceased bishop Theodore had been brought forward by the producers of the creed, and that he, by his own foresight, preserving ecclesiastical moderation toward the dead with priestly wisdom, was unwilling that his name should even be contained in the synodal records, on account of the rule which is to be observed concerning those who have died in the priesthood. But how he wished it to be understood that this which blessed Cyril said above was done by way of dispensation — namely that he should by no means subject the man's name to anathema — as something to be extended to the ecclesiastical rule, he added below in the same letter of his, saying: 'But justly shall they hear, even though they be unwilling, who furnish causes of this kind:

'You forget yourselves, when you stretch out the bow against ashes; for he who was enrolled among you is no longer alive. And let no one blame me for having proceeded to these words, but let them yield exceedingly to their predecessor. For it is a grievous thing to insult the dead, even if they were laymen, still more those who laid down this life in the episcopate. For it appears most just to prudent men to yield to Him who foreknows the will of each and knows what sort each one shall be.' Moreover it is established that blessed Proclus, prelate of this royal city, likewise replied in his rescripts to the said John, bishop of Antioch, saying among other things:

'For when did I write to your Holiness that either Theodore or certain others, who died long ago, ought to be subjected to anathema, or did I make mention of anyone by name?' And a little later: 'And those chapters which have been appended I rejected as not having the subtlety of piety: nor did I write, most God-loving one, concerning Theodore nor concerning any other of those who are already dead, either that he should be anathematized or that he should be renounced. But neither did my most dear Theodotus, who was sent by us, the deacon, receive such mandates.' Likewise blessed Proclus himself, in a letter to the deacon Maximus, after other things says thus:

'How then have I now learned through letters that the names of Theodore of Mopsuestia and of certain others have been placed at the head of chapters for anathematizing, since they have already departed to God, and it is superfluous to do injury after death to those who have already left this life, whom we never blamed even while they lived?' And a little later: 'But after the subscription of the tome and after the rejection of the chapters — whose they are we do not know — at once prepare the deacon Theodotus to come to the royal city.' Let therefore the singular wisdom of your Piety weigh well that Proclus, most learned of priests and found not far from the lifetime of Theodore of Mopsuestia, professed that he already then did not know whose were the evil things which he had willingly condemned.

But neither in the holy and venerable Council of Chalcedon do we find anything established or said to the contrary concerning the name of the oft-designated Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia; for in the report which that venerable synod transmitted to Marcian, then emperor of pious memory — which you also in your laws (while, by orthodox profession, you affirm that Christ, one of the holy Trinity, God and our Lord, is to be confessed) have laudably adduced as testimony — the letters of John of Antioch with the Eastern synod, directed to blessed Proclus and to Theodosius, then prince of most pious memory, are reverently mentioned, by which the person of Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, is excused, lest he ought to be condemned after death.

After these things, with fuller care we examined whether our predecessors also of holy memory had decreed anything concerning those who have already died and are by no means found to have been condemned in life. Having inspected these, we recognized that the venerable ordinances of the prelates of the apostolic see, our predecessors, most plainly handed down to us the form of this caution and foresight. For the most blessed Pope Leo, to Theodore bishop of Forlì, after other things says thus: 'Nor is it necessary for us to discuss the merits and acts of those who have thus died, since our Lord God, whose judgments cannot be comprehended, has reserved to His own justice that which the priestly ministry could not fulfill.'

Likewise blessed Pope Gelasius, in the letter which he wrote to the bishops of Dardania concerning the case of Acacius, after other things says thus: 'He who, after falling back into the party of depravity, deserved by right to be excluded from apostolic communion, and, persisting in this same condemnation, died — the absolution which, while living, he neither sought at all nor deserved, now that he is dead he cannot obtain; since to the apostles of Christ themselves it was committed by the voice of the Lord, ‘whatever things ye shall bind upon earth’ and ‘whatever ye shall loose upon earth.’ But now concerning him who has been placed in the divine judgment, it is not lawful for us to decree anything other than that in which the last day found him.'

Likewise the said Pope Gelasius of blessed memory, in the synodal acts drawn up concerning the absolution of Misenus, bishop of Cumae, evidently taught this, saying: 'Let us leave to the divine judgment the whole of that which is above the measure of our capacity; but they will not be able to impute to us why we should remit to the living the offense of prevarication, which, God bestowing it, is possible to the Church:

nor let them demand that we grant pardon to those already dead, which it is manifest is not possible for us; because, since it was said, ‘whatever ye shall bind and loose upon earth,’ those who it is established are already no longer upon earth, God has reserved not to human but to His own judgment; nor does the Church dare to claim for herself that which she sees was not granted to the blessed apostles themselves: because the case of the living is one thing, that of the dead another.'

Moreover it is established that this rule was observed also in the case of the holy John, bishop of Constantinople, whom they call Chrysostom, and of Flavian, bishop of the same city, of venerable memory; for although they were violently expelled, they were nevertheless not held as condemned, since the Roman prelates always preserved their communion inviolate, nor could they be said, nor will they be able to be said, to be cut off from the Church, whom apostolic authority judged to be unshakenly united to itself. In the history of Eusebius, surnamed Pamphili, likewise, in the seventh book, it is read that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, who lived long before, acted thus concerning a certain Nepos, bishop of Egypt.

For this bishop Nepos is asserted to have written concerning the thousand years during which, after the first resurrection, the blessed apostle John says in the Apocalypse that the saints shall reign with Christ; in which matters he is related to have held a Judaic understanding. After his death, when it had come to the notice of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, that all Egypt supposed itself to possess those very books which Nepos had left behind as some great and hidden mystery, both going to that place (for he reports that this very question had been stirred up in the Arsinoite region) and by writing he destroyed and overthrew those same books; but Nepos, who had written them, he attacked with no injury, especially for this reason, that he had already died.

If anyone wishes to learn these things more fully, he will find them in the aforesaid seventh book of the history of the same Eusebius. All these things having been diligently inspected — because, although our Fathers discoursed in a diverse manner of words, yet reasoning by the lead of one understanding, they preserved unimpaired the persons of priests who had died in ecclesiastical peace, and likewise the ordinances of the apostolic see, which we mentioned above, regularly define that it is lawful for no one to judge anew anything concerning the persons of the dead, but that this be left in the state in which the last day found each one; and specially, what our holy Fathers ordained concerning the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia has been evidently expressed above —

we do not dare to condemn him by our sentence, but neither do we grant that he be condemned by anyone else. Yet far be it that we should endure to admit, not only in meaning but even by the ear, the aforesaid chapters of dogmas, which it is established were condemned by us according to the underlying senses of their understanding, or whatever sayings prefaced under anyone's name, which are not congruent and consonant with the evangelical and apostolic doctrines and those of the four synods — Nicaea, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and Chalcedon — and of the apostolic see.

But concerning the writings which are put forward as though under the name of the venerable man Theodoret, formerly bishop, of which you have likewise inquired, we wonder first why it should be necessary that anything be summoned into disparagement, by anyone's zeal, in the name of that priest, who more than a hundred years ago, being placed under the judgment of the holy and venerable synod of Chalcedon, without any man's hesitation subscribed and, with prone devotion, assented to the letter of the most blessed Pope Leo.

Thereupon, when there existed at that time Dioscorus and the Egyptian bishops, who said both that he had anathematized the holy Cyril and that the same Theodoret was a heretic, nevertheless our holy Fathers, hearing these things, after the same Theodoret had thereafter been most diligently examined by scrutiny and, being present, questioned by those present, are known to have exacted nothing else from him except that he should at once anathematize and condemn Nestorius and his impious dogmas — judging this alone to suffice for them, that he, doing so before the whole council, with all the Fathers hearing, condemned Nestorius together with all his dogmas in a clear voice.

From which it evidently appears that, whatever be or has been produced under anyone's name which may seem to agree with the dogmas of the impious Nestorius, this was then in that holy council condemned without hesitation by the venerable man Theodoret; and it is exceedingly contrary, and undoubtedly hostile to the judgment of the synod of Chalcedon, that certain Nestorian dogmas should now be condemned under the name of that priest, who, together with the holy Fathers, then most openly anathematized and condemned, as we have said, that same impious Nestorius and his execrable dogmas.

For what else is it than to show the Fathers who sat in the holy synod of Chalcedon to be liars or dissemblers of the profession of right faith, than to say that some of them held opinions similar to Nestorius, by whose judgment you see Nestorius and his dogmas to have been condemned?

Nor is it to be supposed that our most blessed Fathers in the holy synod of Chalcedon neglected the injuries to Cyril of holy memory, brought — as is thought — by the venerable man Theodoret through his censure of Cyril's twelve chapters; but either, as men having all things before their eyes since the affairs had been transacted recently, they proved that Bishop Theodoret had done no such thing, or they judged that the example of that same Cyril of holy memory was to be followed, who, after many grievous things had been done in writing against him by the Orientals at Ephesus, at the time when he returned into concord with them, left them behind in silence for the love of peace, as though they had not been done — that he might fulfill indeed that apostolic saying which, writing to the Corinthians, he says:

'For to whom ye have forgiven anything, I also.' For it is to be believed that the holy synod of Chalcedon also intended this: that, since the said bishop Theodoret received the doctrine of holy Cyril, from his letters unsealed and accepted in that same synod, with so devout a mind that he even used the testimonies of his doctrine to praise the letter of the most blessed Pope Leo, even if it were established that he had inflicted injuries upon Cyril, he would appear to have made fullest satisfaction by reverently embracing the faith of him whose error he had falsely suspected:

and therefore it does not befit us now either to seek out or to reconsider anything as though it were omitted by our Fathers, and we by all means refute those to whom the censure of holy Cyril now pleases, or who suppose that it pleased those same holy Fathers of ours. Weighing therefore this truth of the matter, we establish and decree that nothing be done or produced by anyone to the injury or disparagement of the man most approved in the synod of Chalcedon — that is, of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus — under the reproach of his name; but, the reverence of his person being preserved in all things, we anathematize and condemn whatever writings or dogmas produced under anyone's name are shown to be consonant with the errors of the wicked Nestorius and Eutyches.

For it ought sufficiently and abundantly to suffice that, condemning and anathematizing Nestorius together with Paul of Samosata and Bonosus, and on the other side Eutyches together with Valentinus and Apollinaris, and at the same time their errors and all other heretics with their dogmas, we likewise condemn those also who, entangled in their errors and remaining incorrigible, departed from the life of the present age. Since by this we leave nothing of perverse doctrine which is not found to be excluded by this sentence brought forth by us from the holy Church of God by apostolic authority. Yet again we also specially add this:

I. That if anyone, preserving the inconvertibility of the divine nature, does not confess the Word made flesh and, from the very conception in the womb of the Virgin, to have united to Himself according to subsistence the beginnings of human nature, but as though God the Word had come to a man already existing, so that through this the holy Virgin is not believed to be truly the Mother of God (Theotokos) but is called so only in word, let him be anathema. II. If anyone denies that the union of the natures in Christ was made according to subsistence, but says that God the Word dwelt in a man existing separately, as in one of the righteous, and does not thus confess the union of the natures according to subsistence — namely that God the Word remained and remains, with the assumed flesh, one subsistence or person — let him be anathema.

III. If anyone so divides the evangelical and apostolic sayings in the one Christ that he thereby introduces also a division of the natures united in Him, let him be anathema. IV. If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ, true Son of God and the same the true Son of man, had ignorance of things to come or of the day of the last judgment, and could know only as much as the Deity, dwelling in Him as in another, revealed to Him, let him be anathema.

V. If anyone, reckoning that saying of the Apostle which is spoken in the Epistle to the Hebrews — that He learned obedience by experience and with a strong cry and tears offered up prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save Him from death — as attributed to a Christ bare of deity, who was perfected by the labors of virtue, so that from this he seems to introduce two Christs or two Sons, and does not believe the one and the same Christ, Son of God and of man, to be confessed and adored out of two and in two inseparable and undivided natures, let him be anathema. These, therefore, and blasphemies of this kind having been thus renounced and condemned by us, we provide as much as possible by this disposition of our present constitution, that —

as we said above, that anything be detracted from the persons who have rested in the peace and communion of the universal Church, under this occasion of the perverse dogma condemned by us; but, the execrable dogmas in the heresiarchs Nestorius and Eutyches and in all their followers having been condemned, let no reproach be engendered against those priests who, in the peace, as has been said, of the catholic Church, have died — lest thence there arise an occasion of injuries, from where rather the reverence of the holy Fathers ought to be preserved.

Concerning also the letter of the venerable man Ibas, formerly bishop of the city of Edessa, about which you likewise inquired, we nonetheless sought with diligent investigation whether anything concerning it had in olden times among our Fathers been moved or agitated or examined or established.

And because, as is known to all and especially to your Piety, we are ignorant of the Greek language, now, through our men who are seen to have knowledge of that same language, most diligently searching the acts of the holy and venerable Council of Chalcedon in the synodal codices, we found clearly and openly that the affair of the aforesaid venerable man Ibas was examined in two sessions of that same synod, and that there, out of the acts held before Photius bishop of Tyre and Eustathius bishop of Berytus, this letter about which inquiry is made was, among other things, produced against him by his accusers; and when, the discussion of his affair being completed, it had been asked by the venerable Fathers what should seem to be determined concerning the affair of Ibas, sentences of this kind consequently issued forth, which run thus:

Paschasinus and Lucensius the most reverend bishops and Bonifatius the presbyter, holding the place of the apostolic see, said through Paschasinus: 'The papers having been read again, we recognize from the sentence of the most reverend bishops that the most reverend Ibas is shown to be innocent. For his letter having been read again, we recognize that he is catholic. And for this reason we decree that both the honor of the episcopate and the church, from which he was unjustly and in his absence expelled, are to be restored to him. Concerning therefore the most holy bishop Nonnus, who a short while ago was made in his stead, it must be dealt with by the most reverend man the bishop of the church of Antioch, what ought to be determined concerning him.' Anatolius the most reverend archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, said:

'The faith and reading of the most reverend bishops and judges, of all the things which followed, demonstrate the most reverend Ibas to be innocent of these accusations which were brought against him. Wherefore I cast off at present all suspicion concerning him, since he both consents and subscribes to the definition of faith now given by the holy council, and to the letter of the most holy archbishop of Rome, Leo; and I judge him worthy of the episcopate and to have the care of the church in which he formerly existed. But concerning the most reverend bishop Nonnus, who was made in his stead, Maximus the most reverend bishop of Antioch will give the form.' Maximus the most reverend bishop of the city of Antioch said:

'From these things which have just been read again, it is manifest that the most reverend Ibas is found innocent of all things brought against him, and from the writing of the letter which was read again, which was produced by his adversary, his composition is declared catholic. Wherefore I also decree that he both receive the dignity of the episcopate and his own city, as it also seemed good to the most holy archbishops — both to these who hold the place of the most holy archbishop Leo, and also to him who is of the royal city, the most holy archbishop Anatolius: the most reverend bishop Nonnus, indeed, who was made in his stead, remaining in the proper dignity of the episcopate, so that with the most holy bishops I may deliberate concerning his ordination.'

Juvenal the most reverend bishop of Jerusalem said: 'Those who are converted, divine Scripture bids to be received. Wherefore we receive also those returning from the heretics. Whence I perceive that the most reverend Ibas merits clemency, since he is both an old man and, being catholic, that he may hold the rank of the episcopate.' Thalassius the most reverend bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said:

'Since the most reverend bishops Photius and Eustathius approved the case of Ibas and did not condemn him, persuaded by their opinion I too wish him to hold his priesthood, as it seemed good to the most holy prelates, because above all he undertook in the proceedings to anathematize those things which his accusers laid against him in writing.' Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, said: 'The reading of the sentence which was delivered at Tyre by the holy bishops Photius and Eustathius has taught us that the most reverend Ibas in that judgment anathematized Nestorius and his impious dogmas and agreed with the right dogmas.'

'Wherefore the aforesaid most reverend bishops, accepting this satisfaction, judged that he ought to hold his episcopate; they approved it. And so at the present time I too wish this most holy Ibas, who anathematizes Nestorius and his impious dogmas, to hold his priesthood.' Stephen, the most reverend bishop of Ephesus, said: 'I also decree, as the holy fathers did, that the most reverend bishop Ibas, who anathematizes Nestorius and Eutyches and their impious dogmas, be in the rank of the episcopate.' Diogenes, the most reverend bishop of Cyzicus, said:

'I have decreed to uphold the definition which was delivered by the most holy bishops Photius and Eustathius concerning the most reverend Ibas, because his very accusers who were present there consent by their own signature to that definition set forth, and to what has now been read again in the holy and universal council.' Constantine, the most reverend bishop of Bostra, said: 'I too consent to what has been rightly decided by the holy council concerning the most holy bishop Ibas.' Theodore, the most reverend bishop of Damascus, said: 'I too consent to what has been subsequently and canonically defined by the holy fathers concerning the person of the venerable Ibas.' Meletius, the venerable bishop of Larissa, holding the place of Domnus, the most reverend bishop of Apamea in Syria, said:

'I too consent to those things which have been rightly settled by the holy and reverend fathers concerning the most reverend Ibas.' Romanus, the most reverend bishop of Myra in Lycia, said: 'As the faith of the things read to us has persuaded, I too decree that this same most reverend bishop Ibas be held in his priesthood, as the most holy archbishops also decreed, provided he anathematize Nestorius and Eutyches and the things they impiously held.' Eunomius, the most reverend bishop of Nicomedia, said: 'Now indeed, from the things which have been read again, the venerable Ibas is proved innocent; for in those places where by his words he seemed wrongly to blame the most blessed Cyril, at the last, rightly confessing those things which he had blamed, he retracted them.

Wherefore I too decree that he is worthy of the episcopate, since he anathematizes Nestorius and Eutyches and their impious dogmas, and consents to the things which were written by the most holy archbishop Leo and by this universal synod.' John, the venerable bishop of Sebaste, and Seleucus, venerable bishop of Amasia, and Constantine, venerable bishop of Melitene, and Patricius, venerable bishop of Tyana, and Peter, venerable bishop of Gangra, and Atarbius, venerable bishop of Trebizond, also holding the place of the most reverend bishop Dorotheus of Neocaesarea, said: 'The definition of the most reverend bishops Photius and Eustathius shows the most reverend Ibas to be innocent;

and likewise his own recantation makes us the more inclined toward him in that he has been received: for clemency is ever dear to the Lord Christ. Therefore, in accordance with the sentence of the holy prelates and of the whole holy council, we too judge it just to receive him again to the rank of the episcopate.' Frangion, the venerable bishop of Philippopolis, and Basil, venerable bishop of Trajanopolis, said: 'We approve that a man who was neither present at the trial nor summoned should in no way be harmed by a sentence pronounced against him.' Nunechius, the most reverend bishop of Laodicea in Phrygia, said: 'We consent to the things which have been defined by the holy fathers concerning the most holy Ibas.' Florentius, the most reverend bishop of Sardis in Lydia, said: