Papal Letters 1 part 28/50

All which things are taught both by the acts of the Church, drawn up throughout each several region concerning their depravity, and by the sanctions of public censure. Behold, whose ears would fain hear catholic teaching, receive their questions, handle their snares, and patiently admit their blasphemies—O if only they would be zealous to know against them the books and responses of our forefathers! There it would in every way be discerned that there is absolutely nothing which was not both ventilated by these and ground to powder by those with magnificent truth; and thus concerning the refuting of all their villainies the faithful would be rendered so instructed that nothing further would be sought.

But if perchance certain propositions from their notions have stirred untaught minds, then by the teachings of the venerable Fathers both all their madness is published and by what remedies it is cured is shown, so that from these things—God granting them to be foreseen—all that they have woven of their tissue may seem both perilous to those who follow them and foolish to those who detect them; so that, if anyone should think that resistance must be made, he stands forth not so much a contradictor of the sentences of the ancients, but openly and plainly professes himself an enemy to human salvation and to Catholic doctrine. Wherefore let him be the more attentively vigilant …

The care of shepherds ought to ward off from the sacred flocks the savagery of wolves, since whatever loss befalls the holy sheep condemns—which be far from us—the carelessness of the prelates; just as, from the regenerate flocks, the driving off of harmful beasts will procure for the guardians a perpetual increase of their rewards. Certainly, if—as we rather hope—these things have been reported by false rumours, we desire to learn it as soon as possible, so that we who tremble over the vexation of Christ's members may rejoice all the more over their stability. Given on the fifth day before the Kalends of August, Faustus, most distinguished man, being consul.

(99.) In the cause of the Christian faith, to which from its very outset enemies are proved never to have been wanting, in our own age—but at an interval of time—Nestorius and Eutyches put forth, not new dogmas of their perversity, but new names. For Nestorius, about fifty-eight years ago, following the error of Photinus and Paul of Samosata, deserved to be banished into the exile of Oasis by saying—as he had learned from his authors—that Christ our Lord was begotten of the Virgin Mary as man only.

Against whom Eutyches, many years afterward, thinking he was disputing, knew not how to keep the straight path, and fell into the madness of Apollinaris, bursting forth into these words, whereby he asserted that Christ was not a true man, nor were two natures to be believed in Him, but one only, that of God the Word, yet incarnate. Which flesh indeed he declared to be not of a man but human, so that a likeness rather of a human body than the truth itself might be urged: whereas the Catholic faith confesses Christ the Son of God to be true God and true man, not of one nature but of one existence and person.

When therefore Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, had found this Eutyches, presbyter and abbot of the city of Constantinople, persuading such things, with a zeal for the faith which he had shown even while he was an agent in affairs (for he himself in his time also rebuked Nestorius preaching sacrilegious things in the church), he reported it to Bishop Flavian and appealed to judgement. The cause was pleaded. When this presbyter Eutyches saw his party being pressed, through Chrysaphius the sword-bearer he sought the protection of the emperor Theodosius. By whose command Florentius, an illustrious man of consular rank, could not be absent from the examination of Eutyches; and now by his very presence Eutyches is convicted and condemned.

The emperor is offended and commands a synod to be gathered at the city of Ephesus. Nearly three hundred and sixty bishops are present, the chief being Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eustathius of Berytus, Eusebius of Ancyra, Basil of Isauria. There were present also legates directed from the Apostolic See: Julius, bishop of Puteoli, Hilarus, archdeacon of the City—for the presbyter Renatus had been prevented by death on the island of Adelum. There was present also Dulcitius, notary of the church. In which assembly the dogmatic letters of Pope Leo, directed to the synod and to Flavian, were rejected, nor were they permitted in any degree to be read out—the whole day, that is, on the sixth before the Ides of August.

Nothing else was read out except the acts of the formerly condemned Nestorius, that is, of the first Ephesine synod. At the same time also, all the documents being read, the judgement concerning Eutyches passed by Flavian of holy memory is discussed. Meanwhile, when the blasphemies of Eutyches were read out, it was acclaimed by all that this was the true faith, this the orthodox. Flavian is cast down, the Roman legates contradicting, and Eutyches is received.

There is condemned also Bishop Eusebius, the accuser of the same presbyter, as a Nestorian—he who before, while yet a layman, had been the accuser of Nestorius. For thus these Eutychianists will have nothing to lie between themselves and Nestorius, so that whoever among them is not a Eutychianist is straightway held to be a Nestorian—whereas Catholic doctrine unites the two natures in Christ, and does not divide them as Nestorius did. And these men are found to prate worse things; for they say most confidently a foolish thing, a thing to be abhorred even by dullards: that before the union, that is, the incarnation, two natures ought to be spoken of, but afterward one of God the Word, yet incarnate—as though we should say something waxed, or pitched, or tinned, or coloured by any other kind whatsoever.

On the third day after the synod, on which Flavian of holy memory was cast down, Domnus of Antioch is likewise deposed. Dioscorus suddenly departed, and the assembly was dissolved. Flavian is led into exile, and at Epipae, which is a city of Lydia, whether by death supervening or by death inflicted, he died. At that time a certain Anatolius, a presbyter of Alexandria, was tarrying at Constantinople; for this is the custom of the aforesaid, that clerics be sent in turns to the court, in case any matter of business or necessity should perhaps arise. This Anatolius, then, is made bishop of Constantinople, a man of Dioscorus's party. A year having passed, the emperor Theodosius dies, Chrysaphius is punished, Marcian is made prince.

Grievously bearing the injured faith, he proclaims a synod at Nicaea, at which both he himself and Pulcheria sat, and all the powers of the world together with the senate. Which synod he afterward transferred to Chalcedon, on account of the nearness of the palace. There assemble five hundred and more bishops of the whole East and of Egypt; Dioscorus is brought forth, that he may plead in the council the causes of his deed. The emperor himself likewise took part in the assembly; all the judges took part, the senate and all the powers of the court. That Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, fleeing from exile nearly a year before, had come to Rome, and now hastened to be present at the Chalcedonian synod. He too accuses Dioscorus, and other Alexandrians. Why say more? Dioscorus is condemned.

The body of Flavian of holy memory is most dutifully carried back to Constantinople; at Alexandria Proterius is made a Catholic priest. A certain Timothy, a presbyter surnamed Aelurus, and Peter, a deacon who has now seized the episcopate of the Alexandrian church—followers of Dioscorus—had separated themselves from the Alexandrian church. When Proterius, their bishop, could not recall them to their proper ministry, he condemned them both. The prince Marcian being dead, having gathered mobs of heretics, Timothy and Peter come to Alexandria, and Timothy is ordained bishop by the heretics. Two bishops, therefore, began to be at Alexandria.

Three days before the Pasch, on which the Lord's Supper is celebrated, the church—to which Proterius of holy memory had betaken himself for fear—is seized by hired ruffians. There, on the aforesaid day, he is slain in the baptistery, mangled, cast out, and his corpse burned, and his ashes scattered to the winds. Leo takes up the empire, to whom the complaint of the Catholics concerning so great a crime came. Against these the heretics made supplication, asking that the Chalcedonian synod be abolished; but the others demanded vengeance for the crime. The emperor, considering it exceedingly grievous that the priests should be harassed by so great a journey—most of whom either age or infirmity or even poverty forbade to undergo this labour—directs officers of the magisterium throughout the whole East;

Bishop Anatolius also directs his own deacon Asclepiades. Through all these, those bishops who had been gathered at Chalcedon learn what had been done at Alexandria, and being consulted, they write back that the Chalcedonian synod is to be defended even unto blood, because it had established no other faith than the Nicene synod; that Timothy is not only not to be held a bishop, but even to be deprived of the appellation of Christian. This being done, another Timothy is made Catholic bishop of Alexandria. That Timothy is scarcely driven out, Peter flees, Timothy is sent into exile to Cherson, which is a hidden place in Pontus. As long as the emperor Leo lived, Timothy the bishop of Alexandria lived in quiet.

But when Basiliscus had seized the empire, he began to condemn the Chalcedonian synod and to put the Catholics to flight. Then at length that condemned Timothy, having received his liberty, came to Constantinople and restored the condemned heretics to their places. He goes to Alexandria; Timothy the Catholic flees and hides in a monastery. That Peter again joined himself to Timothy, with whom he had before been condemned. The emperor Zeno returns to the kingdom, Basiliscus is crushed. He is sent to Alexandria, that, the usurper Timothy being expelled, Timothy the Catholic might be restored to the church. But that Timothy being condemned and prevented by death, Peter his associate is ordained bishop of the Alexandrians by a single heretic.

Whom nonetheless the most Christian emperor ordered to be cast down, and Timothy the Catholic to be brought back, as is contained in the letters of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople. When certain bishops, or clerics, or monks, or men of secular life were unwilling to come to the communion of the Catholic bishop Timothy, the most clement emperor terrified them by divers sacred edicts. Timothy writes to Pope Simplicius, saying that Peter had long ago been condemned in the diaconate, and now too was removed from Christian society, charging through Bishop Isaiah that the emperor should be written to concerning sending Peter farther off into exile, because he lurked in the city of Alexandria and lay in wait against the church.

For nearly three years or more, Pope Simplicius of holy memory never ceased to write to Bishop Acacius, that concerning Peter there might be done what Timothy the bishop demanded. The prince too was written to, but never was any reply given thence. After all this, Timothy sent to the prince his own presbyter and steward John, asking that, if aught should perchance befall him according to human lot, his piety would order that a Catholic be ordained by Catholics. To whose petitions a reply was made, and both to himself and to the clerics it was written, and by those same sacred edicts the steward John is proclaimed with many praises, so that already he was reckoned by almost all at Alexandria a candidate for the episcopal office.

That Timothy the bishop being dead, that steward John, whom the most clement emperor had written to labour for the church and the faith, is ordained a Catholic bishop by Catholics. And when, after the manner of the forefathers, he had sent synodical writings to the Apostolic See through Isidore the presbyter and Peter the deacon, Uranius the subaide coming upon them and delivering a sacred edict of the prince against Bishop John, he was suspended from the confirmation of his episcopate by the pope. And because in those same sacred edicts he had made mention of restoring Peter, whom he himself had condemned, this part was altogether refused. Whence the most clement emperor appears to have been offended.

When therefore the writings so often directed before by Pope Simplicius of holy memory to Acacius, for the peace of the Alexandrian church and the integrity of the Catholic faith, availed nothing, the same holy Bishop John arrived in flight, who, as was fitting, was received by the Apostolic See. For his predecessors likewise, in time of persecution, had sought refuge with the Roman church. His coming laid open all things more fully. And when we read to him the writings of Acacius, which he had sent concerning Peter and John, the excesses of Acacius, most grievous also in this cause, were laid bare.

For at that time when he reported concerning the condemned Peter of Alexandria, he had also written thus concerning Peter and John of Antioch: that Peter had governed a monastery at Constantinople, but having abandoned it on account of crimes had fled to Antioch; that there, Martyrius the Catholic bishop being driven out by the vilest populace and by heretics, he had seized his see, and, being straightway condemned by the bishops and by the prince Leo, was deported to Oasis; that thence, having lapsed, he returned to Constantinople and gave his faith that he would dare henceforth to make no disturbances at all; but, as has been said above, that in the times of Basiliscus he had been sent back to Antioch by that condemned Timothy who had come to Constantinople, that he might again hold the episcopate there.

Which being done, this same Peter ordains a certain John—the presbyter concerning whom we said Acacius had reported—as bishop of the Apameans; by whom, not being received, he returns to Antioch and expels Peter, the author of his own episcopate, and invades his church. These two, condemned together, Acacius again mentions, asking of the Apostolic See that, if perchance they should flee to it, it should not hold them worthy even of its very sight, and that, if they had perhaps already obtained some indulgence, it ought to be void, nor should their penance be received.

When the aforesaid holy John, bishop of Alexandria, had read this over, he could not keep silent that that John, whom Acacius had condemned together with Peter and had caused to be condemned by the Apostolic See without the remedy of penance, he had, after so many condemnations, sent to preside over the church of the Tyrians.

After therefore holy Pope Felix had learned that not only had the letters of his predecessor availed nothing, but that certain mockeries were being made by Acacius unto the overthrow of the faith and of all ecclesiastical discipline, having chosen Vitalis, bishop of Truentum from the region of Picenum, and Misenus, bishop of the church of Cumae from the region of Campania, he sent them under these instructions: that Peter should be expelled from the Alexandrian church, and that Acacius should answer the petition of the holy John, bishop of Alexandria, and that it should be announced to Acacius himself that he pronounce anathema upon Peter of Alexandria.

But the aforesaid legates, although thrust into custody in hostile fashion and having lost their documents, nevertheless ought not to have accommodated the perfidious and condemned heretics with the one thing that could be denied—namely, their will. Not only, therefore, did they fail to do the things that were commanded, or that they were able to accomplish, but they even communicated with the heretics, carrying back the confirmation of the episcopate of Peter, to expel whom they had been sent, and bearing insults against Bishop John written back by Acacius. Moved by which, the most blessed pope, a synod being held, suspended Vitalis and Misenus from office and communion, and thereafter condemned Acacius.

Afterward, committing worse deeds by his audacity, he even sent that Peter of Antioch, the Catholic Calendio being cast out, to the church of Antioch—Peter ordained by himself. After John came as bishop, whom, as was fitting, the Roman church received, holy Pope Felix appointed a legation, as has been said. Which experienced among lost souls all that hostility is. For, thrust into custody and their documents lost, it returned scarcely with great reproach, bringing back confirmed the episcopate of Peter, to expel whom it had been sent. Whom the Roman church anathematized thus: Pope Felix, to the bishops established throughout Egypt, the Thebaid, Libya, and Pentapolis, after other matters:

But Peter—who separated himself from the unity of the Church under Proterius of blessed remembrance, and who joined himself to the parricide Timothy unto that man's death for the persecuting of the orthodox—we permit to rejoice in no fellowship of so great a name or honour, since in his own authors, not unlike himself, from his very outset he is found to be fallen, which is what he supposes himself to be. The aforesaid man, therefore, is anathema to all, nor let it ever be believed that he is received by the Catholic Church—he who, after most frequent coercion and through the space of so many years persevering in his own perversity, has lost the place of satisfaction. (100.) OF THE SAME POPE GELASIUS AGAINST ANDROMACHUS AND THE OTHER ROMANS WHO ESTABLISH THAT THE LUPERCALIA ARE TO BE CELEBRATED ACCORDING TO THE ANCIENT CUSTOM.

Certain men sit in their own houses knowing neither what they are saying nor concerning what they make assertions, yet striving to pass judgement on others, while they themselves do not examine their own case; they wish to accuse before they understand, and to teach before they learn; and with matters undiscussed, causes uninvestigated, and the reason of things unsought, whatever comes to their lips they pour out heedlessly and vomit forth in haste, pronouncing not with the assertion of truth put forward but out of a zeal for evil-speaking, condemning the very things they do not know; and they have advanced so far that they even strive to tear apart things rightly done, with a purpose of malice. Yet if they were wise, they would not rush their opinion at all, but would first examine matters and only then bring forth what ought to be spoken.

But since they charge us with being slothful censors in restraining the vices of the Church, let them accordingly learn from us that not only is the sin of bodily adultery — which ought both to be examined and justly punished — but that there is a far greater kind of fornication and adultery, which in any Christian whatever (since every Christian is a member of the Church) ought fittingly to be avenged. For the crime of sacrilege is as much greater as the fornication of the soul is worse than that of the body; for through the soul's fornication one departs from union with God Himself, and passes over to unclean spirits by a kind of spiritual adultery.

But how does he not fall under this charge, who, though he wishes to be seen and professes and says that he is a Christian, nevertheless does not shudder to preach openly and publicly, does not shrink back, does not tremble to say that diseases arise for this reason — because the demons are not worshipped and no sacrifice is offered to the god February — to that god! Where has he found out these ravings? How is he not a transgressor, who runs into these profanities of blasphemy? How is he not to be reckoned a sacrilegious man, who, having forsworn the providence and power of the one God which he had confessed, is seduced to prodigious superstitions and empty fictions? According to the Apostle, it is far worse and more justly to be condemned to abandon the truth once confessed than if he had in no way believed in it.

For although the fictions which he brings forward are ridiculous, yet the very disposition and will lie in the crime, and the profession and preaching are justly to be condemned. And through this, whoever wishes a sentence of condemnation to be pronounced against another without delay, let him recognize that in that wherein he judges another, he condemns himself. For should the bishop take vengeance upon those who commit bodily adultery, and yet not take vengeance upon those who commit sacrilege — that is, spiritual fornication and adultery? Did not the Lord Himself, when the adulteress was brought to Him, say to her accusers: 'If any of you is without sin, let him first cast a stone at her'? He did not say, 'If any of you is not an adulterer in like manner,' but 'If any is without sin.'

Therefore whoever is bound by any sin whatever, let him not dare to cast a stone at one guilty of another sin. And when they then departed, each according to his own conscience, the Saviour of the world added: 'Woman, where are thy accusers? No one has condemned thee, neither will I condemn thee. But go: sin now no more.' You hold and you are held; you press and you are pressed; you bind and you are bound. You demand the bishop's examination and call for punishment: remember that the same is to be pronounced against every crime. Do not even human laws say that a guilty man cannot make another guilty? You see the mote in your brother's eye, and do you not see the beam in your own? You who accuse fornicators, do you commit adultery, and do you, a spiritual adulterer, assail bodily adulterers?

Surely you demand an examination — you, a diligent, mature, and religious man; you do not wish anyone in the Church to sin; you desire the sinner to be examined and accordingly assigned to punishment. Whatever you put forth against another, you are compelled to bring forth against yourself as well. For this you do lest the bishop be accused of slothfulness, lest the Church be stained. The bishop's care and severity, then, ought not to be lacking in any wrongdoing, and the Church's reputation ought to be cleansed of all. But perhaps you may say that you are a layman, and he a minister of the Church, and so you magnify the crime as the graver. You speak truly, nor do I deny it: he is to be examined all the more anxiously the nearer he is, and is the more guilty the more he was established in that ministry and ought least of all to have done these things.

Behold, censure is not lacking: he is heard, and if he is convicted, he is accordingly assigned to punishment. Come now — what do you wish concerning yourself? Because you are not in the sacred ministry, are you therefore not among the sacred people? Or do you not know that you too are a member of the Supreme Pontiff? Or are you ignorant that the whole Church is called a priesthood? Finally, if he is guilty who, approaching the ministry of the Church, transgresses, are you not also guilty, who after confessing the truth are led back to the depraved, perverse, profane, and diabolical fictions which you professed to renounce? And so you too, after blasphemies openly and publicly poured forth, must by all means be kept away from the sacred Body.

For you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons, nor drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot be at once the temple of God and the temple of the devil; light and darkness cannot meet together in you. I may grant that you press and compel that wrongdoing be avenged in another: yet you cannot decline the weight of your own crime; and the more you do not allow the crime in another to pass unpunished, the more you show what we ought to do in your case too, according to the reason of things. Nevertheless, in those very…

…in your very blasphemies, for which you are justly punishable, plainly acknowledge your own ignorance and, as that man says, that you have the will to lie but not the art of feigning, since you thus understand yourself to have an evil disposition and a perverse purpose of apostatizing — so that no matter of that vanity should be supplied to you at all, nor could you build up what you conceive in your heart and bring forth with your mouth. Tell me: since it is often read in the Roman histories, in Livy the orator, that very frequently, when plague broke out in this city, countless thousands of men perished, and it frequently came to this, that there was scarcely anyone from whom an army could be enlisted in those warlike times — was no sacrifice at that time being offered to your god February, or was this cult of no profit whatever?

At that time were the Lupercalia not celebrated? For you will not say that these rites had not yet begun in that time, which are reported to have been brought into Italy by Evander before Romulus. But for what reason the Lupercalia were instituted — as far as concerns the inventions of that superstition itself — Livy tells in his second decade; and he does not record them as instituted for warding off diseases, but, as it seems to him, for driving out the barrenness of women which had then occurred. Accordingly, if it had any power even to this very end, then, this being neglected, no disease would have occurred, against which the Lupercalia were not devised; but rather women should by no means have been able to bear children, for whose fecundity the inventions are sung.

What will you say about famine, about barrenness, about the continual storm of wars? Did even these come about because of the abolition of the Lupercalia? But if the Lupercalia were not provided for the sake of either avoiding or curing these things, why are you tossed about by an empty disturbance? What did the offense over the Lupercalia do to Tuscia, to Aemilia, and to the other provinces in which scarcely any human being survives — so that they were consumed by the necessity of war — provinces which were laid waste long before the Lupercalia were abolished? When the emperor Anthemius came to Rome, the Lupercalia were indeed being celebrated, and yet so great a pestilence crept in that it was scarcely endurable. Were the Lupercalia being celebrated through Campania, so that, being abolished, they might breed diseases and pestilence there?

But you will say that all things pertain to Rome as to a head, and that what was not done here has harmed the various provinces pertaining to it. Why then, before these provinces pertained to Rome, did they flourish by their own resources without the Lupercalia? Did the abolished Lupercalia bring it about that the barrenness of lands has continued, or rather did the deserts of our sins, of which it was long ago said: 'And whatever the morals of the Romans deserved to lose'? Surely the barrenness of women ought to have come about — for whose removal the Lupercalia are boasted to have been instituted — not the barrenness of lands, for whose removal the Lupercalia were not instituted. Whence comes the barrenness in Africa? Whence in the Gauls? Did these Lupercalia bring it about, or did our morals?

Thefts, murders, adulteries, injustices, iniquities, ambitions, greed, perjuries, false witness, oppressions of the wretched, the assailing of good causes and the defense of bad, and in all things an unheard-of perversity, and finally — what is above all — minds feigned before God, and sacrileges and magical arts horrible even to the pagans? Behold, it is these things that produce everything adverse and hostile to us — not the Lupercalia, which were abolished for your salvation. But what do you yourselves say, who defend the Lupercalia and propose that they be performed? You cheapen them; you render their cult and celebration base and vulgar.

If the offense of the Lupercalia has brought adversity upon us, it is your own fault: you who suppose it to benefit you in particular, yet most negligently and with an utterly unequal cult and devotion consider it to be celebrated, than that with which the elders of your profanity celebrated it. For among them the nobles themselves ran, and matrons were flogged in public with their bodies bared. You, then, were the first to commit an offense against the Lupercalia. It would have been better not to perform them at all than to celebrate them with insult; but you have brought down that cult, which you deem venerable and salutary, to base and trivial persons, to the abject and lowest sort.