Sermons & Letters 245 part 4/4

Spirit's breath pronounce them for the overthrow of heresies. But since the zeal of factious men consists in this, that they may overthrow the sincere doctrine of Christ, they seek to assail and utterly abolish those genuine dogmas derived from the apostles. Wherefore with the greatest solicitude the Roman pontiffs propose them, in order thence to furnish the necessary assent. This indeed they ought not to exhibit without examination, especially because their business is to be transacted with men of injured faith, who, more obstinately adhering to pernicious errors, utterly refuse to submit themselves to those decrees which, besides the sentence of anathema, have joined with them also other penalties—namely of deposition, degradation, and exile.

Let Quesnel therefore tell me, I pray, in what sense and for what reason he judges the authority of the bishops to be depressed, when—Leo being the author—it is granted to the bishops themselves to confirm the truth of the faith by their own examination and consent; and at the same time to act so that the merit of the priestly office may shine forth, since, the authority of the supreme pontificate being preserved, to which they adhere, their liberty is not diminished but rather increased through unanimity and concord of spirits. For the greater glory of God, then, the examination profits which is undertaken with confidence of overcoming adversity, lest what is in itself proved should seem to be reprobate, oppressed by the prejudice of silence. 11.

It seemed to me, therefore, that Quesnel labored in vain in his dissertation concerning Theodoret, proposing one question after another little pertaining to the aim he had set himself, since anyone could most easily have solved them from Leo's words alone and from his manner of acting. Especially since he also appealed unreasonably to the testimony of Pope Gelasius, which he ought at least to have brought forward whole, so that the reader might understand without fresh study in what sense the pontiff spoke. Gelasius therefore affirmed absolutely nothing that is repugnant to our preceding statements. Nay rather, if we weigh his words, the Quesnellian system will go utterly to its ruin.

For we saw in the preceding exercises that the pontiff, writing to the bishops of Dardania, wished to demonstrate that Acacius had been justly condemned by the judgment of the Apostolic See alone. Wherefore in the opening of his letter he inveighs against those who thought Acacius had been condemned unjustly, because he seemed not to have been deposed in a special synod. And by the examples of those heretics, by which it is known that some, polluted with the stain of heresy, had been condemned in synods, yet not in such a way that the Roman See could not also condemn or absolve them even without synods.

But as for what pertains to giving strength and authority to synods, the same pontiff persuades himself thus, that no one weighing the things derived from the ancient tradition of the Fathers could be ignorant: that the constitution of each synod, which the assent of the universal Church has approved, it behooves no see to execute more than the others except the first, which confirms each synod by its own authority and guards it by continued moderation, namely according to its own primacy (which the blessed apostle Peter received by the voice of the Lord, and—the Church nevertheless following—has both always held and retains). The last words of this text, enclosed in brackets, Quesnel sought either to suppress or at least to dissemble.

Which things indeed, if they be compared with the preceding, it will be found that nothing can be drawn from that testimony which is repugnant to the preceding statements. For what did Gelasius say belongs to the bishops gathered into synods, or to the Roman pontiffs who confirm or invalidate the constitutions of councils? The bishops by their assent approve and submit themselves to those statutes and rules which are proposed in synods and consigned to writing; and which attain force and strength insofar as the Apostolic See confirms each synod by its own authority and judgments, and guards it by continued moderation.

To this see, moreover, it especially belongs to commit to execution these confirmed and guarded statutes, by commanding and enjoining, lest in the carrying out of ecclesiastical affairs they remain either neglected or violated. That this office indeed befits it according to its own primacy—which the blessed apostle Peter received by the voice of the Lord, and (the Church nevertheless following) has both always held and now holds—Gelasius most openly asserts, as is understood not only from the words objected by Quesnel, but from the context of the whole letter. Of which we ourselves speak when treating of the Sardican canons. 12.

Quesnel still heaped up many things under a certain pretext (I know not what) of harassing his adversaries, which rather ought to be referred to all the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and which we, following the order of events, shall note. But since among these one thing remains over which pertains to Theodoret himself—namely, whether Leo himself, after the Council of Chalcedon, confirmed the restoration of Theodoret admitted by the consent of the Fathers, just as he confirmed the other judgments of the same synod concerning the private causes of bishops, which some writers (Quesnel being the author) have denied—it also remains to be observed in this place that the same Parisian doctor, so as to adjudge the restoration of Theodoret not to Leo but fully to the synod, wrote:

'Moreover to the sentence of the synod, over which he had presided by his judgment, the Roman pontiff afterward gave his consent, both by other letters, and especially by that which he addressed to Theodoret himself somewhat after the synod had ended.' Here therefore Quesnel utterly adjudged Theodoret's restoration to the synod, concluding 'that Leo had only presided over this.' And in order the more easily to fabricate this, he appeals to the testimony of the same holy Leo praised above, with which he began his dissertation; and in his accustomed manner he utterly passed over what he believed to be repugnant to his own designs. But the words of the holy pontiff which follow lay bare his evil deceit.

For after he had congratulated Theodoret that he had kept himself such as Leo had approved and still approves for the defense of the universal Church, he straightway adds: 'For inasmuch as God dissolves the deceits of all calumniators, we recognize the very great care of most blessed Peter on behalf of us all; who, after he had confirmed the judgment of his see in the definition of the faith, permitted nothing reprobate to appear concerning the person of any one of you who labored with us for the catholic faith: because, the Holy Spirit being judge, none of those could fail to come forth victorious whose faith had already conquered.' Let Quesnel therefore attend to the praised words, let him understand their force and weight; and from thence let him gather whether the restoration of Theodoret is to be adjudged to the synod or to the pontiff.

He indeed adjudges the definition of the catholic faith to the care of the most blessed apostle Peter, who confirmed the judgment of his see in the definition of the faith, and did not permit anything reprobate to appear concerning those persons who labored with the same supreme pontiff for the catholic faith. Leo therefore adjudged both things to the Apostolic See in the dissolving of the calumniators' deceits. The one is the judgment and definition concerning matters of faith; the other is the liberty of the orthodox bishops who were redeemed from the prior oppressions of the factious. If at length so much leisure were granted me at present, that I might run through in discussion the other things which Quesnel there heaped together, note them, and, if it were necessary, refute them.

But since those matters, as we have already said, pertain rather to the history of the Council of Chalcedon than to the cause of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, therefore, lest we abuse the patience of the friendly reader, we will now make our step also to examining the cause of Domnus of Antioch.