Sermons & Letters 232 part 2/3

Therefore, because he had not yet received the synodal Acts together with the letters of Flavian, he says he wrote to the same bishop of Constantinople, that he might know it displeased him that he still kept in silence those things which had been done, when he ought first of all to have disclosed everything to him. Not indeed that he might obtain aid, but for the judgment of the cause, which he asserted was owed to him for three most weighty motives: namely, on account of the merit of the cause, the account of faith, and the piety of the imperial solicitude. These required that no place should be open to surreptitious dealings: 'But first,' he says, 'we must be instructed concerning the matters of which he judges him'—namely Eutyches—'to be accused, so that judgment may fittingly be given upon things well known.'

Finally he closes his letter to the emperor, saying that, after the admonition made to Flavian through pontifical letters, he hoped and believed that Flavian would refer everything to his notice, so that, the things which seemed hidden being brought to light, that which accords with evangelical and apostolic doctrine might be judged. Let Quesnel, I pray, observe whether Flavian rejected Leo as an incompetent judge, or despised his admonition; or whether he even obscurely judged that he ought not first have disclosed everything to the Roman pontiff! Or that it did not pertain to the same pontiff to judge what accorded with evangelical and apostolic doctrine?

Or because that stain confined itself within the limits of the Church of Constantinople; or because the whole Catholic truth had been entrusted in its entirety by Christ the Lord not to the Apostolic See, but to all the bishops universally, which each was bound to defend to the best of his ability; and other things of this kind, which Quesnel heaped together by carrying on the greatest trifles, so that—the honor of the primacy excepted—he might feign that an equal authority and jurisdiction was to be admitted in all bishops. 9. We could bring forth here very many things from Leo, by which he affirmed everywhere in his letters and sermons that the prerogative of the ecclesiastical primacy over the whole world belongs and is owed to himself and to his successors.

But lest we should seem to sing out of chorus for the present, we plainly pass them over. 1. In order that Paschasius Quesnel might more easily champion his depraved dogmas, and might be able to peddle the trifles which he had conceived in his mind against the apostolic See of Peter, he everywhere strove to stir up the minds of his readers and to allure them with novelties, since it did not escape him how great a desire novelty is wont to inject into men. From which manner of acting both we and all Catholic writers ought to withdraw, not merely under the pretext of preserving antiquity, but the more diligently to guard against those errors which oppress the truth—more excellent than all things—whether by frauds or by false opinions scattered among the multitude, and bring it into hatred and contempt.

Since therefore the aforesaid writer strove above all to indulge in novelties, in discoursing about the affairs of the Church and the form and principle of its governance, as we ourselves have hitherto explained in the preceding chapters, it is therefore of great importance for our present leisure of writing to inquire into and thoroughly examine that force of truth which can easily defend itself by itself against this man's ingenuity, cunning, and cleverness. About to pursue, therefore, the order of Leonine affairs, there again occur to us the letters of Leo to Flavian, and of Flavian to Leo. And although Quesnel understood exceedingly well that St. Leo…

…the pontiff took up the office of true and supreme judge in the Eutychian cause, and exercised that office with no one gainsaying it, nevertheless he undertakes to harass Cardinal Baronius and to reproach him with soft claw, because he had written: 'From an ancient institution it is without controversy confessed by Flavian and Eutyches, contending between themselves, that the Roman pontiff is the lawful and principal judge of ecclesiastical controversies, to whom both the plaintiff and the defendant of their own accord resort, about to pursue their rights.' 2. Yet Quesnel says slyly that he venerates the pontifical dignity. And at once he adds: 'But since to all the bishops of the Church…

'…share a common dignity with the Roman bishop—Leo himself professing this—far be it that what I venerate in one, I should wish trampled upon in the others. Of our own accord we acknowledge the Roman pontiff as the lawful and, if he be compared with individual bishops, the principal judge of the controversies of the Church: but who therefore was Flavian—whom both the prerogative of his see, and his singular holiness, and his constancy of faith persevering unto martyrdom, ought so greatly to have commended—to be set alongside a rebellious, unlearned, and obscure monk of evil fruit, and that a deposed presbyter should be joined with his own bishop of so great a see, a judge with a defendant; and both, as though contending over dividing a common thing, should be made to stand before Leo, as if about to fight over an uncertain cause.'

'Far be so great an injury from the most sacred assembly of bishops.' These things, and others of the sort, he devises, which he pretends can be chiefly confirmed from the letter of the same St. Leo to Anastasius of Thessalonica, which he noted in the margin, and upon which he flatters himself impudently that his whole depraved interpretation concerning ecclesiastical judgments rests and is supported. But that nothing more effective for the sayings of Baronius and for confirming the truth can be found than that very letter, I shall openly demonstrate in what follows. 3. For in the first place St. Leo…

…the pontiff, discoursing analogically (as they say) about the ecclesiastical assembly, sets up a comparison with the apostle Paul, comparing it to the natural body. In which the connection of the whole makes one soundness, one beauty: and this connection of the whole body requires unanimity, but chiefly demands the concord of the priests. To which he adds: 'Although the dignity be common' (he did not say 'the jurisdiction'), 'yet the order is not general.' For who ever denied that the dignity of bishops, received in the sacred office of ordination, is common to all bishops, or affirmed that one, by the force of the sacred episcopal unction, obtained a greater or lesser dignity in feeding his own sheep?

In this office and honor of feeding, the dignity is common to all bishops: nor on that account is the order general in such a way that anyone may judge concerning any causes whatsoever. For, on the authority of the same St. Leo, among the bishops themselves a discrimination of power must be granted, which Quesnel himself attempts to mix and confound with the honor of dignity. For he adds the example of the apostles. Who, although they were alike in the honor of the office received, nevertheless a discrimination of power or jurisdiction was granted among them: and although all were chosen for the apostolic office, yet one alone was preeminent above the rest. 'For,' he says, 'even among the most blessed apostles, in a likeness of honor there was a certain discrimination of power.'

'And although the election of all was equal, yet to one it was given that he should be preeminent above the rest.' Do you hear, Quesnel? That they are alike in the honor of character and dignity, which admits no degrees, is sufficiently established; but unequal in the prerogative of power, because one ought to preside over the rest. By what reasoning, then, or led by what words of Leo, could Quesnel boast of an equality of rights among the bishops? For not in the exercise of jurisdiction, nor in the passing of judgments, can all bishops claim all things to themselves. Since, on the authority of the same Leo, it has come about by divine as well as ecclesiastical disposition that individuals should be set over individual provinces, whose opinion among the brethren should be held first;

and again that certain ones, established in the greater cities, should undertake a wider solicitude, through whom the care of the universal Church should flow together to the one See of Peter, and nothing anywhere should be at variance from its head. If, therefore, we insist upon this whole context, what do we find that conflicts with the sayings of Baronius? Not the antiquity of the institution, whereby it was established that bishop and presbyter, contending between themselves over matters of faith, should appeal to the Roman pontiff as to the lawful judge of controversies—as we could prove from six hundred more ancient examples, drawn from the histories of Dionysius of Alexandria, Athanasius, Pelagius, Caelestius, Priscillian, Dictinius—which for the present we pass over, lest we seem to act off-stage.

Not those last words, 'to whom both plaintiff and defendant of their own accord resort, about to pursue their rights.' For although between Flavian the bishop and Eutyches the presbyter there was granted the greatest discrimination of rank, condition, and jurisdiction, and the one was the lawful plaintiff and ordinary judge, while the other was an unlearned, rebellious, and obscure condemned monk—as Quesnel reasonably asserts—nevertheless, since the latter did not acquiesce in the sentence passed against himself and had appealed to the one See of Peter, lest Leo the Great should judge with hasty mind concerning unknown matters, he had to hear Flavian the plaintiff and Eutyches the defendant, and even to summon them by letters, that they might disclose the whole series of the deeds done.

But in this, what injury or contumely was done to the prerogatives of the See of Constantinople, and to a bishop of singular holiness, who persevered in constancy of faith unto martyrdom? By no reproach whatsoever and by no disgrace was Flavian's reputation and dignity violated by the supreme pontiff's manner of acting. Nay rather, both before the knowledge of the affairs, and when the deeds done were known, he paid due honor to him, and exercised all moderation and reverence toward him. Just as all his letters directed to the same Flavian clearly make manifest.

If finally he should contend that it is injurious to the assembly of bishops to be made to stand before the Apostolic See for the settling of questions of law and fact, then the care of the universal Church ought by no means to flow together to the See of Peter, then it will be permitted to anyone to dissent from his own head, and it will be all over with the unity of the Church, whose fabric cannot be firm unless the bond of charity has bound the bishops to inseparable solidity. 4. Secondly, who could rightly deny, or would dare to deny…

…that holy Leo, in conducting causes with the bishops, did not provide for and take counsel for the honor and rights of the other episcopal sees just as for his own? Assuredly, even if other monuments were lacking to us, that praised letter to Anastasius of Thessalonica alone would suffice—the very one on which Quesnel insisted, in order to draw and peddle his new wares. For in it, discoursing about various grades of bishops—namely about bishops, metropolitans, and vicars of the Apostolic See—he enjoins and commands that the lawful rights of the metropolitans be perpetually preserved, and that the right of a dignity handed down from antiquity be not violated by the vicars of Thessalonica, though they be legates of the Apostolic See.

Nor did he think that the rights of the metropolitans could on that account be violated, if in judging causes it should happen that the bishops gathered in councils, being at variance, should not come to agreement, either on account of the gravity of the matters or the difficulty of the questions. For he then ordered that these be referred to the judgment of the Apostolic See, reserving to himself and his successors the faculty of establishing the final sentence. For it is read in a very ancient synopsis, canon 7: 'That two provincial councils of bishops be celebrated per year, and if a difficult matter should arise, and not be terminated by the judgment of the bishop of Thessalonica, it should be referred to the Roman prelate.'

Nor did he judge that by this reservation having been made, the rights of the metropolitan bishops or of the suffragans were disturbed or infringed. He also more prudently, and with a stricter mandate and canon, provided for the honor and rights of the bishops. Namely, when he feared lest, under the color of convoking provincial councils, the bishops should suffer violence or injury. In order, therefore, to guard against whatever abuses inflicting injury or ignominy upon the bishops, in the tenth chapter…

…of the same letter he decreed that in summoning the provincial bishops moderation be preserved by the pontiff of Thessalonica, lest under this color the priestly honor be subjected to affronts. And at last he closes his decretal letter with that final chapter to which Quesnel appealed, whose title is so clear, both in the printed and in the most ancient manuscript codices which we ourselves have examined, that we can scarcely doubt concerning the authority of the Apostolic See in re-examining causes long since treated and defined in provincial synods: and then especially, when a business of faith is at issue, and on account of it contentions and scandals arise, just as it is known to all to have happened in the Eutychian cause.

The title, then, of that chapter has these words: 'that if among them' (namely the bishops) 'a contention should arise concerning a matter of business, everything should be disclosed to the Roman pontiff under a report of the proceedings, so that by him what shall have pleased God may be ordained.' Do not all these things cohere with those things which Baronius had written concerning the ancient institution of the Church? Therefore, so far is it from being the case that his sayings are weakened by those things which St. Leo has in his letter to Anastasius of Thessalonica, that they rather obtain more strengthening and vigor. 5. Now let us proceed to the rest. And meanwhile, other things being passed over which we could say about this letter—which we have not only collated and corrected against the Vatican and other manuscript copies…

…but also rendered fuller and more ornate concerning the doctrine of that eighth canon, which we found more copiously and more clearly explained in a certain Greek archetype of the same Vatican library. Moreover, we shall say something about the Greek interpretation and paraphrase of that canon in an appendix which we have subjoined to the same letter. Therefore now it will only be to be inquired whether St. Leo passed judgment concerning the Eutychian cause and the disturbed affairs of the East after receiving the synodal acts and letters from Flavian, or whether he only exhibited and furnished aid and protection to the gravely afflicted bishop of Constantinople.

It behooved Quesnel to affirm the latter, lest he should depart even a little and slightly from his preceding method of discoursing. For after he had said against Baronius that Flavian had stood before Leo not as a plaintiff but as a judge; that he had not brought forward Eutyches to be condemned, but had produced himself as condemned; nor had sought a new judgment from Leo, but had asked that the sentence passed by himself be made known through the care of the Roman pontiff to his Western colleagues, so that all might labor together for the common cause of faith, with common cares, common effort, and common solicitude, he adds in the following chapter: 'Having received the letters of Flavian, Leo promises his aid and effort against Eutyches; and through the illustrious man Rhodanus he sends a letter…'

'…which was also followed by another to Theodosius, in which he professes that he adheres to the Nicene faith, condemns the dogmas of Nestorius and Eutyches, and even requests that a synod be gathered within Italy.' 6. Since therefore two things are there proposed by Quesnel, and are resolved according to the caprice of his discoursing, it will be our task at present to separate the one from the other, and to say something about each. As to the first, we affirm that Flavian indeed stood before St. Pope Leo as a plaintiff; and produced Eutyches as a defendant, already condemned in the provincial synod of Constantinople, yet to be condemned more solemnly and by a final peremptory judgment by the Apostolic See itself. Flavian's prior letter to St. Leo manifestly betrays this.

For whether he wrote that letter immediately after the synod of Constantinople—as we have already most clearly proved in the preceding chapter—or only after he had learned that he was being harassed by Leo with many complaints (as the adversary unreasonably contends), it always becomes evident that he had recourse to the Apostolic See as a plaintiff, about to render an account of the judgment already approved by himself and to obtain its approbation. But if he neither had wished nor ought to have rendered an account of this judgment approved by himself, as Quesnel contends, why did he transmit the synodal acts? Why did he judge it just to make Leo more fully informed concerning all the things done against the newly arisen heresy?

Why, in the end, does he ask that the mind of the pontiff be stirred, as befitted his priestly office, so as to decree that the condemnation pronounced against Eutyches should be held ratified, and to declare this in his own writings? Only because he held, deeply laid up in his mind, this desire, that by this final judgment of the Apostolic See the heresy which had arisen, and the tumults which had been raised on its account, might most easily be destroyed, with God working together, through the most holy letters of the pontiff.

From these observations and turns of phrase it is understood that Flavian did not merely request that the sentence pronounced by him be made known, through the care of the Roman pontiff, to his Western colleagues, but rather sought comfort and defense, whereby (as he himself says) 「you ought by your own concurrence to bring all things to tranquillity and peace.」 Therefore, once Leo alone had approved the judgment of Flavian and of the Council of Constantinople, held it ratified, and confirmed it in writing, the heresy that had arisen, or the tumults that had been stirred up, could be brought to destruction, and all things composed in peace and tranquillity. Here there is no mention of the Western colleagues; no reference by which he might compel them to labor together, with common care, common effort, and common solicitude, for the common cause of the faith.

Merely employing the customary formula of greeting, he closes the letter by saying: 「All the brotherhood that is with you, I and those who are with me salute.」 Whether, then, Flavian appealed to Leo as to a judge, and presented Eutyches as one already condemned and not yet to be condemned by the Roman pontiff, let those judge who are moved and led by no partisan zeal. 7. Equally does that also totter and fall which the same Quesnel subjoined, namely: 「Upon receiving Flavian's letter, Leo promises his aid and effort against Eutyches.」 We find, in truth, not a single word in that letter which he sent by way of the Rhone that savors of any such phrase or could be so interpreted.

For he then wrote a very brief letter, seizing the opportunity afforded by the journey which that honorable man Rhodanus was straightway undertaking toward Constantinople. Yet in it he omitted none of those things that befitted the supreme and principal judge of the Church. For, being now more fully informed from Flavian's letters and from the reading of the synodal Acts that Eutyches held opinions concerning the faith otherwise than is fitting..., one who ought not to have deviated from the Catholic tradition, but is bound by all to persist in the same belief. In the meantime he deferred writing at greater length, but promises to write more fully on the same matter: so that (he says) 「we may instruct your fraternity what ought to be determined concerning the whole cause.」

Nor indeed does he claim and assign to himself merely a universal teaching authority from the words just praised, but in what follows he also pledges that he will hereafter undertake the true role of judge and vindicator, adding: 「For we do not suffer him (Eutyches, that is) to persist in the depravity of his conviction, nor your beloved self, who resist with zeal for the faith a depraved and foolish error, to be troubled by the prolonged assault of the opposing party.」 Let Quesnel, I beseech, attend to this entire passage of the discourse, and sincerely confess whether these things can be understood merely of a colleague bringing aid and expending effort together with Western colleagues. For the cause, although it pertained to the common faith, yet was engaged not in the West but in the East.

Flavian himself was troubled by assault not from the Westerners but from the Easterners. If, therefore, Leo had not held supreme right and supreme power and jurisdiction over the Easterners, by what reason or in what sense would he have promised his ministry, both to judge concerning the Eutychian depravity and to vindicate Flavian's great zeal from the prolonged assault of the opposing party? 8. And indeed that Leo, without any dispute, exercised both offices—that of supreme judge, namely, and of vindicator, as well as of universal teacher—in the cause of which we treat, is gathered from his celebrated letter which they call the Dogmatic, written to the same Flavian a few days later.

I pass over that in the opening of that letter he said he had received Flavian's letter with the synodal Acts too late. I pass over likewise that he expounded the whole dogma of the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ by divine inspiration, and branded Eutyches as foolish and insane, as one who was unwilling to understand that he might do well, and who had even devised iniquity upon his bed—things which make plain that Leo claimed for himself the roles of a true judge and teacher; let me only be permitted to dwell upon the final chapter of that letter, and to argue from it whether Quesnel has reasoned rightly or wrongly in the foregoing.

For he did not refer the examination of the Eutychian cause to other Western bishops, but, having himself surveyed the synodal Acts, found certain things worthy of reprehension and reform, in no way consonant with the rules of ecclesiastical law, which ought necessarily to have been guarded against by the Easterners assembled in synod, lest the faith of the Incarnation—concerning the two natures existing in Christ after the union—should collapse. For he says: 「But when, at the interlocution of your examination, Eutyches replied, saying: I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature.」

For this assertion, being utterly contrary to the dogmas of the faith, when Eutyches had brought it forth in the course of interlocution, was by no means to be heard with impunity and without ecclesiastical censure, but was to be pierced through with anathema and execration, as something repugnant to the symbol of the apostles. Wherefore the holy pontiff, moved with the greatest astonishment against the judges of Constantinople, rebukes them with these words: 「I marvel that so absurd and so perverse a profession of his was reproved by no reprimand of the judges, and that a discourse too foolish and too blasphemous was so passed over by all, as though nothing that could give offense had been heard, etc.」 Is it not, then, in those Acts...

...did Leo find grounds by which he could more reasonably reprove and censure the judges of Constantinople for having conducted themselves less regularly or canonically in the examination of the Eutychian cause and in the compilation of the synodal Acts? Does he not judge that assertion of Eutyches to be impious and blasphemous—the very one which Flavian, together with that whole synod, deemed worthy of no censure, or at least neglected to mark with the censor's rod? Eutyches could indeed have supposed, from the synod's manner of proceeding, that he had spoken either rightly or tolerably, as St. Leo straightway adds, 「because by no sentence of yours was it refuted.」 Wishing to remedy this evil, the holy pontiff...

...admonishes the diligence of Flavian, that if, through the inspiration of the mercy of God, the cause be brought to satisfaction, the imprudence of an unlearned man may be purged from this plague of his mind. Behold, he decrees the conditions to be observed, in what manner Eutyches is to be admitted into communion, as often as he repents. 「Who indeed (he says), as the order of the proceedings has made plain, had begun well to depart from his conviction, when, constrained by your sentence, he professed to say what he had not said before, and to acquiesce in that faith of which he had formerly been a stranger.」 9.

He commands at last that if at any time Eutyches should repent of having said and brought forth such things against the Catholic faith, coming to the fullness of satisfaction and condemning by living voice and present subscription all that had been wrongly held by him, he is to be embraced with the utmost charity, and mercy is to be shown toward one thus corrected.

For the happy outcome and execution of all these matters, he affirms that he is sending four legates to act as vicars of the pontiff in the East, together with a faithful notary, 「trusting (he says) in the aid of the Godhead, that he who had erred, his depravity of thought being condemned, may be saved.」 Let it therefore be permitted me, at the close of the present contention, to ask Quesnel and any other whomsoever whether this can be a manner of acting of a colleague toward a colleague. First of all, Leo reproves the synodal Acts of Constantinople as irregularly made. Secondly, by his own authority he condemns the heretical proposition dissembled by the judges of Constantinople and proscribed by no anathema.

Thirdly, he orders that pardon be granted to Eutyches should he perhaps at some time do penance, and he establishes the manner in which the penitent is to be received. Fourthly, in order that all things enjoined by him might faithfully be committed to execution, he sends from his own side four legates, acting as vicars of the pontiff, who together with the notary Dulcitius should expend their labor that the heresy be abolished and the aroused tumults composed. Had Quesnel attended to this, or not dissembled it, are we to believe that he applied so much study to turning all things upside down, and, led by envy, hatred, and an excessive lust for quarreling, sought to bring the rights of the Apostolic See to ruin? Cultivators of truth, such as Quesnel boasts himself to be, are enemies of fraud.

And therefore he ought by no means to have passed over, or interpreted in a perverse sense, those things which we have received from our elders for the universal governance of the Church; and this all the more because St. Leo the pontiff, ever consistent with himself, also expounds more amply, in his letter to Julian of Cos, what he had said in the closing of that letter, showing that it was necessary that, in order to render an account of his profession, Eutyches 「should be pressed by frequent interrogations of the judges, nor should anything empty flow past unheeded which appeared to be poured out only from the draught of poisonous dogmas. Since indeed judgments have been established either for the settling of controversies or for the punishing of misdeeds.」