Sermons & Letters 245 part 3/4

Moreover, even though some, condemning Theodoret's previous manner of acting, and wishing to flatter Dioscorus, cried out: «Cast this man out; cast out the master of Nestorius»; yet no one dared to deny that this right could belong to Leo. There is added too that the aforesaid clamors and complaints of the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops, stirred up that Theodoret be cast out, were ineffectual — as they would have been, had his cause been similarly transacted in the synod. For it would rather have been necessary first to deal with that man's faith, and rigorously to scrutinize whether he was pure from every note of heresy, and to compel him to clear himself from the calumnies with which he had been assailed;

and to hear, on this side and that, the arguments of both parties, so that his restitution might be completed. Since, then, none of these things was done, I do not see on what foundation that restitution made by Leo ought not to be called absolute. For the clamors and complaints of the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops the Oriental Asians, Pontics, and Thracians tempered with sure reason; for, wishing to provide for Theodoret's innocence, and to excuse themselves as oppressed and deceived by the arts and violence of Dioscorus, they openly answered, complaining: «We subscribed Theodoret's condemnation at the Robbery of Ephesus on blank paper; we were beaten, and so we subscribed.»

When Dioscorus had heard them speaking thus, as though wishing to render an account of the decree he had issued against Theodoret, he interjected: «Why is Cyril cast out, who has been anathematized by this man?» And, wishing to recall to the judges' mind the old quarrels which had passed between Cyril and Theodoret in former times — no mention being then made of the subsequent peace between them — he thought he could obtain some patronage or excuse for himself. Nevertheless all the Orientals, who already favored Theodoret, cried out: «Cast out Dioscorus the murderer; who does not know the deeds of Dioscorus?»

And after some contention, the judges themselves, having no respect to one party or the other, interjected: «The most reverend Bishop Theodoret, receiving back his own place from the most holy bishop of the city of Rome, has now entered in the place of an accuser.» And although these same judges, in order to restrain the now-excited clamors of the faction of Dioscorus and Eutyches, used a certain mode of acting, replying at once: «Whence let it be granted that the things which have been begun may be finished, lest any confusion be made in the auditory»; and added: «For no prejudice will be generated from the person of the most reverend Bishop Theodoret — every accusation being, namely, reserved after these things, both for you,»

«and for him, and whatever things you shall wish to exercise against one another, because he holds the right faith — especially since the most reverend bishop of Antioch, the great city, is present even without writings and bears witness to the catholic faith.» Although, I say, I ought not to dissemble these things, nevertheless I can scarcely grant that Theodoret was declared pure by the Apostolic See under condition in that sense — namely, that the decree of the Roman pontiff should be subject to the judgment of the council. Rather, therefore, with the illustrious

Christian Lupus I am compelled to confess that the whole controversy, then stirred up by the Eutychian faction against Theodoret, must have turned on this alone: that the adversaries contended merely that Theodoret's restitution was surreptitious — as though he had deceived the pontiff's mind by certain false representations, so as to obtain his former rank and honor in the synod. For by the sixth canon of Constantinople it had been provided that a degraded bishop should lack the right of accusing another bishop. Wherefore, even though the cause was one requiring much examination, yet the judges, faithfully adhering to Saint Leo's decree, granted him for the time the freedom of accusing, reserving to themselves afterward, in another session, diligently to examine the charges proposed against Theodoret.

For by employing this prudent mode of acting, they neither did any violence to the Leonine decree, by which it was enjoined that Theodoret should become a partaker of the synod because he had been restored to the episcopate; nor, on the opposite side, did they shut off access to Theodoret's accusers, to inquire whether he had been restored by surreptitious means, or was infected with the Nestorian taint — as the Egyptians, shouting, kept clamoring: «Do not call him a bishop. He is not a bishop. Cast out the impugner of God. Cast out the Jew. Theodoret accused Cyril. We cast out Cyril, if we receive Theodoret. The canons cast this man out. God is against this man.» Behold, then, the crimes which were objected to Theodoret by the Egyptians.

This man had already condemned Cyril's chapters, and for this cause they had condemned him as a heretic — taking no account at all that, with all ambiguities removed, he had obeyed the decrees of the general ecumenical council, and ever afterward maintained the fullest concord with Cyril himself. What wonder, then, if the judges, attending to these clandestine machinations of Dioscorus, and to the fact that the synod was split into two opposing factions (for the Orientals proclaimed Theodoret as orthodox, saying: «Cast out the orthodox man to the synod, the seditious out» — i.e. bring in the orthodox, cast out the seditious), fearing yet graver things, interjected with vexation, saying: «These popular acclamations neither befit bishops nor help the parties.»

«Will you allow the reading of all things to be made?» What wonder, I say, if — since the Egyptians still refused to desist from the clamors they had begun — the judges themselves, in earnest and with the authority in which they were strong, imposed silence upon all, and ordered that the reading of all the Acts of the Robbery of Ephesus be made through Constantine? In these circumstances of affairs, moreover, who does not see that the judges would have acted less circumspectly, and more precipitately than prudently, had they deliberated to give Bishop Theodoret a place among the judges? For first it had to be inquired, from the whole reading of the Acts, whether Dioscorus had had at least some colored title for deposing and degrading, along with the other orthodox bishops, Theodoret too.

In this question that man certainly could not play the part of a judge according to all the laws, but only that of an accuser. If therefore he entered the council as a true bishop, even by the sentence of the judges, I do not see by what reasoning it can be said that Leo's decree concerning the restoration of Theodoret to his own see and episcopal honor was not absolute; especially since afterward he was also admitted to the synodal vote and to the full communion of all the most holy bishops. 7. Yet the difficulties hitherto unraveled, derived from the opinions of other writers, would profit the present cause but little, unless our discourse should once again turn to Quesnel. For not only does he himself deny Theodoret's appeal,

but also the very judgment of the Apostolic See. Wherefore, in order to embellish a new history of the events, he has mixed everything together and brings forward very many things which present merely the appearance of truth. With what brevity I can, therefore, I shall strive to gather together the many things he has added. First, then, he freely grants that no council was convoked by St. Leo in Theodoret's case. Concerning Theodoret's letters to the Supreme Pontiff it is established; but what the Roman Pontiff wrote is not made known. Secondly, he affirms that Leo held no tribunal to examine Theodoret's case, but that Theodoret was joined to him in unbroken communion; this, he says, can be drawn from Leo's letter 40, in which he treats of a general synod that necessarily had to be summoned;

or from letter 47, from which it is gathered that he held all the acts of the Robber Synod of Ephesus as void, and that he begged the emperor Theodosius to order that everything should be in the state it had been in before any judgment, until a greater number of bishops from the whole world should be gathered. Thirdly: that it was lawful for Theodoret to return to his own see, because the sentence pronounced against him by Dioscorus was held to be null; moreover the pontiff had received testimony from the East, from the recently ordained Anatolius, that Theodoret had already subscribed to the encyclical letter to Flavian, and had not only condemned the Nestorian and Eutychian doctrines, but had even pronounced anathema upon Nestorius and Eutyches themselves. On this account Quesnel adduces the testimony of St.

Leo's testimony from letter 68 to Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, chapter 5, which he says he 'now for the first time brings to light.' He concludes therefore that, both from the report received and from the letter showing Theodoret to be free from every stain of heresy, nothing stood in the way of Leo's imparting communion to him in the customary manner, and of his retaining his own Church in ecclesiastical peace. 'Such,' he adds, 'is the judgment of the Apostolic See, of which mention is made in the letter we are commenting upon'; which, however, does not prove that his see was restored to him by a judicial sentence of the pontiff, but only that a certain suspicion of error was removed.

Fourthly, under number 5, he asserts that neither Anatolius of Constantinople, nor Maximus of Antioch (Theodoret's primate), nor any other Eastern bishops had ever broken the bond of communion with him. Hence he proceeds to affirm that he cannot assert the whole matter to have been settled by Leo's act, 'since it is known to anyone reviewing the Acts of this synod that it was again called back to the anvil by the Fathers of Chalcedon.'

Hence he repeats many things he had said in what preceded, and, to drive his own system into the readers' minds, using much exaggeration, he harps upon the outcries 'not of a few,' he says, 'but of very many bishops of Palestine, Egypt, and Illyricum, who contended that Theodoret ought to be cast out of the synod; which bishops, as though by indulgence and dispensation, acquiesced in the testimony of Maximus of Antioch.' In the fifth place he describes what was done in the eighth session of the Council of Chalcedon in Theodoret's case; and, having narrated matters at his own pleasure, he exerted every effort to suppress whatever he judged to be opposed to himself and to his system;

and finally he concludes that Theodoret was restored to his see for no other reason than that he anathematized both Nestorius and Eutyches, not only in writing, but in the presence of the whole assembly, with his own mouth. 8. Both from the five points we have here noted, and from those previously adduced, Quesnel flattered himself that full and undoubted credence ought to be given to his opinion; perhaps trusting that after him no one would wish to reexamine Theodoret's case and to call back to scrutiny the things he had written.

For that reason he turns his pen against certain persons—suppressing their names—who, disparaging and holding up to ridicule the most sacred authority of the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical synod (and much more outside the synod), contend that the mere execution of pontifical mandates belongs to them by their office, both in this case of which we treat and in all others; whereas it is rather no small praise of the Apostolic See to be the executrix of ecumenical synods—a prerogative in which Pope Gelasius gloried in his letter 13. If therefore all these things which the Parisian writer adduces in defense of his system cohered with the truth, the things noted by us hitherto in this case would utterly fall to the ground.

But since they involve fallacies, hence the argument of our Exercise is more and more strengthened. And first of all: what inference could that be, that, neither from Leo nor from other documents, is it drawn that a council was held by the Roman See in Theodoret's case? 'Therefore Leo held no tribunal to examine Theodoret's case?' What sort of consequence is this, which is utterly repugnant to those words of the holy pontiff with which the adversary began his dissertation: 'Blessed be our God, whose invincible truth has shown thee, according to the judgment of the Apostolic See, to be clean from every stain of heresy.' Or shall we judge that Leo lied?

Nor can the adversary find any support for himself from those letters of Leo which he praised, written to Theodosius after the Robber Synod of Ephesus, in which he asks that all things be ordered to be in the state in which they had been before any judgment, until, etc.; and that therefore he had nowhere broken the bond of communion with Theodoret. For the restoration of matters to their former state 'until a greater number of priests from the whole world should be gathered' is not the same as interposing a definitive decree, but is to reserve the causes for a future examination, until a more diligent inquiry be held.

Therefore judgment was not on that account passed concerning Theodoret's faith and innocence, from the fact that the pontiff abolished the acts of the Robber Synod, since at the same time he decreed that judgment of all matters should be reserved to another time and to another assembly. Wherefore, even if after the abolition of these Acts it had been lawful for Theodoret and the other deposed bishops to return to their sees, nevertheless it was not established whether they had been deposed justly or unjustly, whether it was by right or by dispensation and indulgence that they were permitted to retain their sees. For this had to be examined by a new inquiry and demonstrated by a new decree, their cause meanwhile remaining as it were 'in reserve' (as they say), until the definitive sentence.

That reasoning adduced in the third place wavers too much, if we attend to the things we have described in the preceding chapters. For the testimony of Anatolius could not plead Theodoret's cause before Leo, since that man's faith, ordination, and close connection with Dioscorus and the Eutychian faction had stirred up such suspicions in the pontiff's mind that—taking no account of the entreaties of the emperor Theodosius and of the empress Pulcheria—Leo himself was unwilling to communicate with the now-ordained Anatolius's own ordainers;

until, after Abundius of Como had been sent with three other apostolic legates and a public assembly had been held, the same Anatolius was ordered solemnly to make a profession of faith in this assembly, to pronounce anathema upon Nestorius and Eutyches, and to subscribe to the letter addressed to Flavian. For unless Anatolius had faithfully obeyed these mandates, he would never have been regarded by Leo and the orthodox as a legitimate bishop. But let Quesnel tell me, I pray, from what document he has drawn that Anatolius gave, or could have given, testimony concerning Theodoret's faith?

To us indeed it became known that Leo received good testimony concerning Theodoret's faith and purity, and concerning the readiness of his mind, with which he joyfully subscribed, for the destruction of heresies, to the pontifical letter to Flavian; but all these things became known to Leo either from the report of Abundius while he was still at Constantinople—who, as we have seen, was informed for certain that Theodoret himself, and the bishops Ibas and Aquilinus, had sincerely furnished testimonies of their faith. There is added the fact that St.

Leo was exceedingly well informed concerning the faith, morals, and manner of acting of Theodoret and of the other Easterns, from the continual exchange of letters which he had with the Constantinopolitan clergy and archimandrites who adhered to Flavian, with Julian of Cos, with the empress Pulcheria, and with other orthodox men coming to Rome from the East here and there, or going to the East; and finally with Eusebius the bishop of Dorylaeum himself, who after the disaster of Ephesus had come to Rome to defend his own cause and that of the other Catholics before Leo.

Therefore the judgment of the Apostolic See in the case of which we treat was not merely such that it nowhere broke off communion with him, or that Leo received testimony of his faith from the recently ordained Anatolius. These things could have availed Theodoret little or nothing, so that the holy pontiff might with all truth affirm that the bishop of Cyrus had been shown to be clean from every stain of heresy by a decree of the Apostolic See. But whether Anatolius broke the bond of communion with Theodoret, I shall not affirm.

Yet I do not know how this man could have persevered in communion with Anatolius, or how Anatolius did not break the bond of communion, since the latter was raised to the throne of Constantinople, after the murder of Flavian, solely on account of the services rendered to Dioscorus, Chrysaphius, Eustathius the bishop of Berytus, and the rest of the Eutychian faction. Could he communicate with the zeal and desires of the heretics, promote their causes—as is evident from the acts against Photius of Tyre—and not break off communion with Theodoret of Cyrus, who labored for the faith and was so greatly hated by that band of factious men?

Nay rather, was he not pursued by these same men the more vehemently, the more he himself adhered to Flavian, to the Apostolic See, and to its legates? If Quesnel does not bring forward new documents which describe the whole sequence of events otherwise, wise readers will nowhere give him credence. 9. And indeed credence cannot be given to him from those things which he has reviewed from the eighth session of the Council of Chalcedon. For what is there from it? The outcries of many bishops against Theodoret, whom they unjustly suspected to be tainted with Nestorian soot: he was compelled in the full synod to pronounce anathema upon Nestorius, to accept the definition of faith set forth by the same Council of Chalcedon; and after he had protested that he had already subscribed to the definition of faith and to St.

Leo's letter, and after every doubt was dissolved—namely that he had obtained from the Apostolic See a decree surreptitiously—at last the solemn sentence was pronounced: 'The most glorious judges said: All doubt concerning Theodoret is now dissolved. It remains therefore that a sentence be pronounced by your Reverence, that he may receive his own Church, even as the most holy archbishop Leo also has judged.' Wherefore without delay the adversaries refrained from tumults and clamors. Nay rather, all the bishops of that great synod had cried out: 'Theodoret is worthy of the see of the Church. Let the Church receive its pastor. Let the Church receive the orthodox teacher. Many years to Archbishop Leo! After God (or with God) Leo has judged.'

These therefore are the things which anyone can faithfully gather from the sequence of that eighth session, without any deception whatsoever. To these plainly corresponds the decree pronounced by Paschasinus and Lucentius the bishops, Boniface the presbyter, and Julian the bishop of Cos—the legates of the Apostolic See and holding its place—which we have resolved here faithfully to transcribe, that those things may be made known which (I know not whether studiously or carelessly) were suppressed by Quesnel: 'The most holy and venerable bishop Theodoret was long ago received into communion by the most holy and most blessed Leo, bishop of the city of Rome, of the universal Church (note the following words), in such wise as the letters from him to our Humility attest.' To which they added these other words:

'If therefore he professes the Catholic faith as he promises, and, in accordance with the aforesaid blessed bishop, has declared his subscription in his own document, and has moreover shown to our Humility, by another document given, that he has anathematized both Nestorius and Eutyches, not only in writing but also in the presence of the whole assembly with his own mouth: by this judgment the most holy and most venerable synod, and moreover our Humility also, has determined that his own Church be restored to him.' 10. Who then does not see that that whole contention turned upon this point: whether Theodoret had obtained from the Apostolic See, by surreption and obreption, the decree of restoration and of integrity of faith?

For they did not call the judgment and authority of the Roman pontiff into question, nor did they add anything to the weight of his sentence; only by Theodoret's solemn confession pronounced with his mouth did they wish to be made more certain that he sincerely pronounced anathema upon Nestorius, just as he had already testified by his own written document directed to the Roman pontiff. This manner of acting, just as it did not injure the authority of the Roman See—which had long ago received Theodoret into communion and had judged him worthy of obtaining his see (as the Fathers of Chalcedon themselves attested)—so neither can it be injurious to the dignity of the bishops gathered together in councils, provided that, both in councils and outside them, they adhere to the head in pronouncing their judgments.

Wherefore that complaint of Quesnel seemed to me too inopportune, by which he supposes that the authority of the bishops is depressed if they are ordered to execute the mandates of the Apostolic See. For what depression of the episcopal rank can be held to occur, if the individual pastors of all the Churches, dispersed throughout the whole world, adhere together with the Supreme Pontiff—the head of the whole body of the faithful—in those matters which pertain to faith, morals, and discipline?

For the bond of the ecclesiastical society stands in this: that all bishops venerate the judgments of the Apostolic See with irrevocable assent, and submit themselves to them with that subjection which we know to have been preserved between the members and the head, and which Christ also decreed, with a certain wondrous sweetness, for the having of the perfect unity of the mystical body, that He might the more easily diffuse, through the head alone, the gifts of His beneficence into all the members. Wherefore the holy pontiff, in his letter to the same Theodoret, established a distinction between the manner of acting proper to the Roman See and the authority of the bishops gathered together in ecumenical synods, writing thus to our purpose: 'Whence we glory in the Lord, singing with the prophet:

"Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth," who has permitted us to sustain no loss in our brethren. But the things which He had previously defined through our ministry, He confirmed with the irrevocable assent of the universal brotherhood, that He might show to have truly proceeded from Himself what the judgment of the whole Christian world had received, after it had first been formed by the first see of all; so that in this too the members might be in concord with the head.' Who, moreover, does not see that Leo asserted one manner of acting for himself and another for the bishops gathered into the synod? For he claims for himself the ministry of defining, but for the bishops the right or duty of furnishing assent. Then does he not there also distinguish, that holy

Leo—between the judgment formed by the first see of all, and that judgment which is said to be received by the whole Christian world? It cannot be denied. Therefore, if such is the reason and order of the divine institution, that in graver matters pertaining to faith and morals the Church should use the ministry of the Roman See in definitions and judgments, in such wise that the judgment which was first formed by the first see of all should be solemnly received by the whole Christian world with irrevocable and firm assent;

it follows that the execution of the decrees of the Apostolic See is committed to the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical synod, as is made known from the Acts of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and will be more evident from what follows, where we shall demonstrate that a most grave crime was adjudged to Dioscorus, in that, refusing to execute the mandates of St. Leo in the second synod convoked at Ephesus, he turned the synod into a robbery. But Leo himself indeed made himself the interpreter in this matter. For, speaking words concerning this consent of the bishops expressed in the Acts of the councils, in the same chapter of that letter, he asserts that it is obtained by the Apostolic See neither by flattery nor by obreption:

'For the removing of which suspicions, even if some were found, incited by the author of dissension, who might be in doubt concerning the judgments of the Apostolic See, nevertheless, for the greater confirmation of the truth, this was permitted, God willing, that a greater good might be attained. For (he says), lest the consent of the other sees to that one which the Lord set to preside over all the rest should seem to be flattery, or lest some other adverse suspicion could creep in, there were first found those who were in doubt concerning our judgments. And while some, incited by the author of dissension, leapt forth to the wars of contradictions, by the Author of all goodness dispensing, the evil of this was turned to a greater good.'

It does not, however, escape me that Quesnel expunged certain readings of the ancient editors from the text of this letter, introducing new ones (he says) by the aid of his own codices, or wrote various annotations at the end of the second volume according to his own pleasure; so that, namely, he might persuade the readers of what he most had in his wishes. O that those who labor to introduce a new form of judgments into the Church, in order to cast down the authority of the Apostolic See, would cast their eyes upon the heading of this letter; and, all violent interpretation being set aside, would understand that distinction which St.

Leo indicated to intervene between canonical judgment and consent, between the rights which belong to the first see and those which are predicated of the bishops gathered together in synod! For they would not have stirred up so many and such grave questions, erroneous and akin to schism, in which they strive to extend the authority of the bishops beyond its due bounds, so as to restrict the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiffs within too narrow limits. Nevertheless the efforts of the adversaries profit the truth of things more than they can harm it, since—Leo himself being the author—Truth itself both shines more clearly and resists more strongly, while the later examination confirms what faith had first taught.

At last the authority of the episcopal order is by no means depressed, but rather shines forth more, where the authority of the highest is so preserved that the liberty of the lower is thought to be diminished in none; and the end of the examination profits unto the greater glory of God, when it takes up the confidence of exerting itself for this, that adversity may be overcome; lest what is in itself proved should seem to be reprobate, oppressed by the prejudice of silence. From which forms of speech we plainly conceive how both the rights of the Roman pontiffs and those of the bishops are preserved in synods, each exercising the authority and jurisdiction befitting himself. For the Roman pontiffs confer the causes of faith with the rules of the apostolic creed, and pronounce their judgments by a special inspiration of the Holy