Papal Letters 1 part 49/50

Wherein we marvel the more that those who are grounded in catholic sentiments still cling to this, than that those who have fallen from the truth and are astray from the ancient tradition of the Church should hold forth profane novelties of words and the follies of a fleeting perversity—by which, as your charity has reported that they boast, they suppose that Acacius was not justly condemned, because he does not appear to have been deposed by a special synod; and moreover they heap up the madness of their vanity by childishly adding, 'especially the pontiff of the royal city.' Wherefore, spurning their folly, you ought to run through their empty complaints from the blessed apostles themselves and consider prudently; for our fathers, namely the catholic and learned pontiffs,

in each heresy raised up at any time, whatever they sanctioned for the faith, for the truth, for catholic and apostolic communion—according to the path of the scriptures and the preaching of the elders, once the assembly had been gathered—they willed thereafter to stand unshaken and firm, nor did they permit that in this same cause the things which had been fixed beforehand be retracted anew by any recent presumption; most wisely perceiving that, if it were permitted anyone to repeat decrees, however salutary, no ordinance of the Church against any and every error would stand firm, and by the same recurring frenzies every whole definition would forever be thrown into confusion.

For if, even with the limits fixed of the synodal rules once established, the crushed pestilences do not cease, with their contests renewed, to raise themselves against the foundation of the truth and to strike at simple hearts, what would come to pass if it were lawful for the faithless from time to time to enter into council? For however manifest that truth may be, there is never lacking what pernicious falsehood may bring forth—which, even if deficient in reason or authority, yet in sheer obstinacy does not yield.

Our forefathers, perceiving these things by divine inspiration, of necessity took precaution that, against each several heresy, whatever an assembled synod had promulgated for the faith, for communion, and for catholic and apostolic truth, they would not suffer to be mutilated by new retractations thereafter, lest occasion be afforded to the wicked of assailing what had been established as a remedy; but, with the author of any madness condemned and the error together with it, they judged it sufficient that whoever should at any time prove to be a communicator of this error should be bound by the principal sentence of its condemnation—since anyone could manifestly be recognized either by his own profession or by his communion. And, that for brevity's sake we may pass over earlier matters, which a diligent inquirer will easily be able to trace:

The synod condemned Sabellius, nor was it necessary that his followers be afterward condemned, or that individual synods be celebrated for each one; but according to the tenor of the ancient constitution, the universal Church deemed that all who had been partakers either of that depravity or of its communion should be repudiated. Thus, on account of the blasphemies of Arius, the form of faith and of catholic communion set forth by the Council of Nicaea shuts out, without retractation, all the Arians, or whoever should fall into this pestilence whether by conviction or by communion.

Thus the synod, once held, condemning Eunomius, Macedonius, and Nestorius, did not suffer them thereafter to come to new councils; but the Church repudiated all who in any manner relapsed into these blasphemies by the synodal limit handed down to it. Nor is it ever manifest that, under any compelling necessity, it rightly gave way so as to violate anew what had been salutarily established.

But it is not hidden from us that, in the tempest of the Arian persecution, very many pontiffs, breathing again from their exiles when peace had been restored, throughout certain provinces, with the brethren gathered together with them, set in order the churches that had been troubled—yet not so as to alter whatever that Nicene synod had defined concerning the faith and catholic communion, nor to strike anyone with a new condemnation for his lapse; but by the tenor of that decree they judged him condemned unless he should repent, and it followed that unless he corrected himself, he would beyond doubt lie under condemnation.

These things, as has been said, having been suitably weighed from the paternal tradition, we are confident that no one now truly Christian is ignorant that the constitution of every synod which the assent of the universal Church has approved, no see ought more to carry out than the first—which both confirms every synod by its own authority and guards it by continued moderation, namely by reason of that primacy which the blessed apostle Peter, having received it by the voice of the Lord, both ever held and retains, the Church nonetheless following after.

While this see had discovered by certain indications that Acacius had deviated from the truth, not believing these things for a long while—since indeed it had known him to have often been the executor of its necessary disposition against heretics—for nearly three years it did not cease, by letters directed to him, to admonish the same man, as the writings sent familiarly through various persons attest. To these he at first, proposing to answer nothing as though with a devoted silence, at length at some point, by letters sent, professes that he had been mingled in communion with Peter of Alexandria—whom, at the requested authority of the Apostolic See, he himself also as executor had condemned—without the knowledge of the Apostolic See;

But the see of blessed Peter, which knew that it had only condemned Peter of Alexandria and not also absolved him, did not receive him; and therefore, lest through Acacius it should be led into fellowship with Peter, it removed him also from its own communion and in many ways made the transgressor a stranger to its society. Here, if an examination be sought, there was already no need of judgment, after he had himself confessed by his own letters;

if the weight of authority be inquired into, by the tenor of the Council of Chalcedon the execution of that definition is found, by which whoever became a communicator of the error there condemned would nonetheless be a partaker of the aforesaid condemnation—since the same error, which was once condemned together with its author, bears in any partaker whatsoever of its wicked communion both the effect and the execration of itself and its penalty. By which tenor Timothy also, and Peter of Alexandria himself, who assuredly seemed to have held the second see, are proved to have been condemned—not by a repeated synod, but only by the authority of the Apostolic See, with Acacius himself also petitioning or executing it.

But if perhaps it be said that it ought to have been established whether Acacius communicated with the error or with the prevarication, we briefly furnish an answer to these things: for either let them themselves show that Peter was lawfully and truly purged, and duly separated from all contagion of heretics, when Acacius communicated with him—if they think Acacius, his communicator, is to any degree to be excused—or, as is rather the truth, they will not have suitably and lawfully proved that Peter was expiated; and it remains that, by his non-expiation, he too who communicated with him was infected.

Nor do we altogether keep silence about what the Church throughout the whole world knows: that the see of the blessed apostle Peter has the right of loosing whatever has been bound by the sentences of any pontiffs whatsoever, inasmuch as it has the right of judging concerning the whole Church, nor is it lawful for anyone to sit in judgment upon its judgment—since to it the canons willed that appeal be made from any part of the world, whereas from it no one is permitted to appeal. Wherefore let it be sufficiently established that Acacius had no pontifical authority to loose the sentence of the Apostolic See without any cognizance of it. By what synod, indeed, did he presume this, which not even so could he lawfully effect apart from the Apostolic See? Bishop of what see? Prelate of what metropolitan city? Was he not of the parish of the church of Heraclea?

If indeed it was lawful for him, without a synod, to break off the sentence of the Apostolic See, no consultation of it having been sought, was it then truly not lawful for the first see, executing the ordinances of the Council of Chalcedon as was fitting, to thrust down such a prevaricator by its own authority? But neither do we pass this by, that the Apostolic See has frequently, as has been said, after the manner of the elders, even without any preceding synod, possessed the faculty both of loosing what an unjust synod had condemned, and of condemning, with no synod existing, those whom it behoved. For a synod of the East had condemned Athanasius of holy memory, whom nevertheless the Apostolic See, having made an exception, absolved, because it did not consent to the condemnation of the Greeks.

Likewise a synod, even of catholic prelates, had assuredly condemned John of Constantinople of holy memory, whom in like manner the Apostolic See, even alone, because it did not consent, absolved. And likewise holy Flavian, condemned by an assembly of the Greek pontiffs, in like tenor—since the Apostolic See alone did not consent—it absolved; and rather it condemned by its own authority Dioscorus, prelate of the second see, who had there been received, and alone, by not consenting, removed the impious synod, and for the sake of the truth alone decreed that the Council of Chalcedon should be held.

In which, therefore, as it alone had the right of absolving those whom the synodical decrees had struck, so also it is known to have condemned, even without a synod, very many metropolitans in this same cause. But if anyone reprehends these things done by the Apostolic See, whether according to a synod or otherwise—besides that he is convicted by the ancient proof of the facts—meanwhile he will confess all the more that it was not lawful for Acacius. Let him say, therefore, by what synod he judged that the prelate of the second see—of whatever sort, yet certainly catholic and ordained by catholics, and in no way impeached concerning the catholic faith and communion—should be excluded, and permitted a manifest heretic, Peter, condemned also by his own execution, to be substituted for a catholic pontiff.

By what synod did he cause the bishop of the third see, holy Calendio, to be expelled, and nonetheless suffered, by his own disposition, that Peter—so manifest a heretic that Acacius openly did not even pretend to communicate with him—be substituted in his place? By what synod, finally, throughout the whole East, with the orthodox, stained by no crime, cast out, did he by his own provision set beneath them all the wicked and those enmeshed in crimes? By what synod did that nefarious despoiler invade so many privileges belonging to others? But books would not suffice, were we to endeavor to describe one by one the tragedies which he wrought throughout the churches of the whole East. Or do they think that argument of his is to be opposed to us, by which he was seen to cast his crimes upon the imperial person?

Why then, when he willed it, did he withstand Basiliscus, assuredly a tyrant and a heretic vehemently hostile? Why did he not subject his own will to the emperor Zeno himself, because he openly refused to communicate with Peter of Antioch? Behold, he was able to resist in other matters, if he were unwilling. Or does not the apostle say that not only those who do, but also those who consent to the doers, are alike ensnared in guilt? But, to omit those things which need to be explained more at large—what of this, that the emperor Zeno himself professes in his own letters that he had done all things by the counsel of Acacius; nor does Acacius himself, who by his own letters likewise testifies this, conceal it—Acacius who nonetheless wrote that Zeno had done all these things rightly, and did not keep silent that these same things were done by his own counsel?

As though, forsooth, Acacius were a prevaricator only in the communion of Peter of Alexandria, and not also in all those whom he either caused—having driven out the catholic pontiffs, like a tyrant—to be set over whatsoever churches, or with whom, thus set over, he was mingled by perverse communion! Men who by this very fact ought, according to the canons, to have been driven from ecclesiastical communion, in that they suffered themselves to be brought in as successors to living priests. And what Christian does not perceive that, with the catholic pontiffs cast out from their own sees, none but heretics could be introduced? To all of whom, nevertheless, Acacius was either the author of their being substituted, or, once they were substituted, acceded as their communicator—to these, that is, who in no way differed from the communion of heretics.

Why then, even when he saw these things being done, did he not take care to refer them to the Apostolic See, as he had already done under Basiliscus, so that, if he alone could not, then with counsels and deliberations joined to the same see, those things which pertained to religion might be alleged before the emperor?

For if Basiliscus, as has been said, a heretical tyrant, was vehemently broken by the writings of the Apostolic See and recalled from very many excesses, how much more could a legitimate emperor, who wished to be seen as catholic, have been mollified by the moderate suggestion of all the pontiffs together with the Apostolic See—especially since he was the special favorer and lover of the same Acacius, and had by his own letters extolled with great praises both Acacius himself and the holy pope Simplicius, because they had most steadfastly resisted the heretic? Why did Acacius for so long a time keep silence amid these things, unless because he was unwilling to be hindered in any way from the things which he desired to be accomplished?

Yet let us grant that, even if no synod had preceded of which the Apostolic See might rightly become the executrix, with whom was a synod to be entered upon concerning Acacius? Surely not with those who were already held as partakers with Acacius, and who—throughout the whole East, with the catholic priests violently excluded and relegated to divers exiles—were evidently associates of an alien communion, transferring themselves to these associations before they consulted the decrees of the Apostolic See? With whom, then, was a synod to be entered upon? The catholic pontiffs had already been driven out on every side, and there remained alone the associates of the faithless, with whom it was no longer lawful to hold an assembly, the psalm saying: I have not sat in the council of vanity, and with those who do iniquity I will not enter in.

Nor is it of ecclesiastical custom to hold council with those who have communion polluted and mingled with the faithless. Rightly, therefore, was such a prevarication repelled by the form of the Council of Chalcedon, rather than brought to a council—which was neither needful after the first synod, nor lawful to be held with such persons. For they could not be ignorant, if they were willing to understand, what was being done concerning the catholic faith, since they saw the catholic pontiffs, with no discussion of a synod, with no council, expelled throughout the whole East—especially since they weighed that the causes were new—and the rest could have learned, from the character of those men, what they themselves should beware.

It remains, therefore, that it be clear that they were of that party to which they gave themselves after so many trials, and deservedly they were now not so much to be consulted by the Apostolic See and the other catholics, but rather to be marked as guilty. But we have laughed that they wish a prerogative to be procured for Acacius, because he was bishop of the royal city. Was it not at Milan, at Ravenna, at Sirmium, at Trier that the emperor resided for many periods of time? Did the priests of these cities usurp anything for their own dignities beyond the measure anciently allotted to them?

Did Acacius, in order to expel from Alexandria John—an ordinary man, to be sure, yet a Catholic ordained by Catholics—and to receive without any consultation of the Apostolic See Peter, who had already been exposed and condemned as a heretic, boldly seize upon this at least with some synod held there on the spot? Is it shown that he did this by any synod, so as to drive Kalendion from Antioch and to admit again, without the knowledge of the Apostolic See, the heretic Peter whom he himself had condemned? If indeed it is a question of the dignity of cities, greater is the dignity of the bishops of the second and third sees than that of a city which is not only in no way reckoned among the sees but is not even counted among the rights of metropolitans.

For as to what you say, 'of the royal city,' the power of a secular kingdom is one thing, and the distribution of ecclesiastical dignities is another. For just as however small a city does not diminish the prerogative of the present kingdom, so the imperial presence does not alter the measure of religious dispensation. Let that city be illustrious in the power of the present empire; religion under that same empire then stands firm, then free, then advanced, if rather, with that empire present, it holds its own measure without any disturbance. But it may perhaps be said that concerning the Alexandrian and the Antiochene, for certain reasons the emperor rather than Acacius commanded what was done.

But a Christian prince ought to have been advised by the bishop—especially by one of whose intimacy and favour he enjoyed—that vindication for the injury and insult done to him would be safe, provided only that the Christian prince allowed the rules of the Church to be kept; for a new case had arisen in the matter of both bishops, and it consequently called for a new examination, and, as had always been done, judgments concerning bishops should proceed from a priestly council, and bishops of whatever rank—even if human error had crept in, yet not in any way transgressing against religion—should not seem to be struck down by a secular power. Or, for advising the prince of these just things, was one not exalted by the honour of the royal city?

If he had been made more exalted by that royal city, so much the more ought he to have been more steadfast in advising these things; but if in those things which had to be put forth on behalf of religion he proved contemptible and despised, and either slothful or lacking the confidence to make them known, in what was he made greater through the royal city? The prophet Nathan openly and publicly, to the very face of King David, both declared the error committed and did not keep silence that David had committed it, and, when he had been corrected by confession, consequently absolved him.

But this good man and outstanding bishop showed that he both could have made such representations and disclosed that he was unwilling to—nay rather made plain that he had approved—so much so that the emperor did not keep silent that he had done everything on his counsel, and he himself extolled the emperor with great praises for doing these things and betrayed that he had been a partner in these transactions. But grant that Kalendion had taken away the emperor's name, and that John is claimed to have lied to the prince: yet since these were new cases, a new ecclesiastical examination ought to have taken place.

Or ought those who were said to have sinned against a man, the emperor, to have been deposed without any intervening synod, while against God—who is the highest and true emperor—Acacius, who offended and was zealous to mingle the sincere communion of the divine sacrament with the treacherous, contrary to the synod by which this treachery was condemned, ought not to have been excluded? What of the Catholic bishops driven out from countless cities throughout the whole East, and the heretics substituted in their place? Surely these were new cases, and consequently a new synod was owed for them.

Why then did it not come to mind that in such cases at least some sort of synod should be requested from the prince to be convened, so that whenever bishops were seen to be everywhere excluded by even a specious judgment against ecclesiastical tradition—not only bishops of any cities whatever, but without hesitation metropolitan prelates—Acacius, since he did not resist by such representation as he could, consented by communicating with all who had been substituted as heretics in the place of Catholics? But the Apostle says that not only those who do such things, but also those who consent to those who do them, are without doubt reckoned guilty.

Or was it permitted to the secular power, and to Acacius consenting to such acts, to accomplish these things without any synod—which the very novelty of the affairs demanded—and without consultation of the Apostolic See, while it was not permitted to the Apostolic See, according to the tenor of the Synod of Chalcedon, in a matter indeed already old and condemned by a just definition under an old decree, to expel from its communion Acacius, who was communicating with the enemies of the Synod of Chalcedon? But they say, Acacius could not oppose the emperors. Why then did he oppose Basiliscus, because he wished? Why did he not lend his assent to Zeno himself, so as not to seem openly to communicate with Peter of Antioch, although he did this covertly?

Behold, the emperor did not resist him when he objected; behold, he did not force him when he was unwilling; behold, he conceded manifest defilements to one who was fleeing them. Finally, why, over so long a time, while these things were being done or he came to know they were to be done, did he not take care to refer them to the Apostolic See, from which he knew the care of those regions had been delegated to him, but rather became himself a praiser of the deeds before he even forewarned that such things were to be attempted, or resisted lest they be attempted—as he had already done under Basiliscus? Why did he consent to communicate with those others who, once the Catholic bishops were driven out, had without doubt been substituted as heretics in the individual cities?

Finally, if he failed in his own part and did not care to do what befitted a Catholic bishop, was the Apostolic See therefore permitted, or bound, to pass over what pertained to it? By whatever means it rejected the accomplice of heretics and removed from its communion a partner of an alien communion; nor was there need of a new synod, since the form of the old decree sufficiently prescribed this; nor was there need to make known to the bishops of the East that these things were to be done—bishops who, it is plain, were not ignorant of the expulsion of Catholics that was being carried on in a matter of the faith, and who, by communicating with the substituted heretics, had consented to such a deed.

There is no doubt that they too were rendered members of an alien communion, and that therefore the decrees of the Apostolic See could now neither be, nor ought to have been, treated of with them. Behold, in the profession of those who most steadfastly persevered, they recognized what was owed to the faith and to Catholic communion. Behold, they recognized how, by withdrawing from such men—nay rather by contriving things contrary to such men—Acacius had deviated from the Catholic faith and communion, and how they had likewise subjected themselves along with him to the same error.

Behold, they recognized for how just causes—on behalf of the Catholic and apostolic faith and communion, with which both those who had stood firm in it were in accord, and from which those who opposed the steadfast were taught to be estranged—Acacius was removed by the authority of the Apostolic See, and likewise whoever were his accomplices, and was deservedly severed together with them from that communion, from which he is known to have separated himself first, by dissenting with his associates from the Catholic bishops; and rightly did he receive the sentence of condemnation to be promulgated to his other associates, who alone, on behalf of all his associates, professed in a letter sent to the Apostolic See that he had fallen back into the communion of treachery.

If the Eastern bishops had communicated with him before he referred the matter here, they were without doubt proved to be involved in an equal guilt, and rightly through him they received the sentence of transgression, as having been made partners with him in an alien communion—men who indeed ought no longer to be consulted as men of our communion, but to be rejected as set in a contrary fellowship. But if they had not communicated before Acacius referred here, they ought both to have marked him as one communicating, and themselves rather to have referred concerning him here, and deservedly to have approved him as struck down by the vigour of the Apostolic See, and to have held concord rather with that Apostolic See and with those so many Catholic bishops.

But because they had defected from the fellowship of those men and had chosen to communicate with their successors, therefore they by no means agreed with the Apostolic See, since they had fallen into the lot of the prevaricator Acacius, and saw that they were without doubt consequently bound by his sentence; on this account they were unwilling that he should appear to be condemned, because they knew themselves condemned in the same prevarication, in which even to this day they persist in remaining.

But just as these men, bound by a like condition, cannot judge their accomplice to have been unjustly condemned, nor fittingly absolve one guilty of the charge, so, since that prevaricator was justly condemned, these too lie prostrate under an equal condemnation, nor can they at all be absolved from it except by coming to their senses; for as through one man who wrote, the transgression of them all was published—men who had fallen back into the same action of treachery—so in one and the same man, who had written on behalf of all, or by writing had betrayed the wills of all, when his transgression was punished, the transgression of all the accomplices was likewise punished together with him or in him.

These things we judge to be amply and more than sufficient for the instruction of your beloved selves, although we shall endeavour, if the Lord grants the opportunity, to set forth these same matters more fully, so that every one of the faithful may know that the Apostolic See has decided nothing—far be it!—over-hastily.

Yet although that sentence directed against Acacius, even if in the name only of the apostolic prelate—whose authority it certainly was—is lawfully proved to have been pronounced (especially since it seemed it had to be conveyed secretly, lest, with watch-guards everywhere set out, the saving arrangement, hindered by whatever difficulties, might fail to have its necessary effect); nevertheless, because with the orthodox everywhere cast out and only heretics and their associates now left in the East, there were either no Catholic bishops remaining at all, or they exercised no freedom, a gathering of very many Catholic bishops in Italy reasonably acknowledged that the sentence against Acacius had been rightly pronounced.

This gathering of bishops that took place convened not against Chalcedon, nor as a new synod against the old and first, but rather, according to the tenor of the old decree, was made a participant in the apostolic execution, so that it may sufficiently appear that the Catholic Church and the Apostolic See—because elsewhere it now could not at all—where it could and with whom it could, omitted absolutely nothing that pertained to a fraternal treatment on behalf of the undefiled faith and sincere communion. HERE ENDS THE ACCOUNT OF THE REASON TO BE RENDERED THAT ACACIUS WAS COMPETENTLY CONDEMNED BY THE APOSTOLIC SEE, AND THAT NO ONE CAN BE MADE A PARTAKER OF HIS COMMUNION WITHOUT PERIL TO HIS OWN SOUL. II. THE ORDER OF THE NARRATIVE CONCERNING THE DEPRAVITY OF DIOSCORUS OF ALEXANDRIA.

After Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, on account of the character of his deed—that is, because he had consented to the heretic Eutyches and had condemned Flavian, the Catholic bishop of Constantinople—was condemned at Chalcedon both by the prince of holy memory Marcian and by the palace authorities and by the whole synod, Proterius was made Catholic bishop. Then Timothy the presbyter, whose surname was Aelurus, and Peter the deacon, followers of Dioscorus, separated themselves from the Church of Alexandria. When bishop Proterius could not recall them to their proper ministry, he condemned them both.