講道與書信 第 236 章 第 7/7 段

24. Come then, let us subjoin the fifth Nicene canon. «Concerning those who are deprived of communion, whether of the clergy or of the lay order, let the regular sentence prevail by the bishops throughout each province, so that those who are cast off be not received by others. But let it be inquired whether they have been excluded through pusillanimity, or contentiousness (of the bishop). That this may be inquired into more becomingly, it has well pleased that, in each single year, councils be celebrated twice a year throughout each province, so that, with all the bishops of the province gathered together in common, questions of this kind may be discussed; and thus those who have offended against their own (bishop) may, being manifestly excommunicated by the bishop, reasonably be reckoned (excommunicated) by all, until it shall please the gathering of bishops to set forth:»

«whether in common, or it please the bishop, to pass a more humane sentence for such persons, etc.» 25. Let Quesnel now confer—he who had proposed to illustrate the Works of St. Leo with new type—whether the words of the holy pontiff pressing the emperor have any affinity with the decree of this canon; the formula of reasoning being nonetheless observed which the schools call «from the lesser to the greater.» For what has Leo in those words that does not correspond to this canon? Here it is a question of a layman or cleric cut off, and cast out of his grade through oppression, force, and the tyranny of a judge. But Leo treats the cause of bishops, who, overcome by threats and injuries, deviated solemnly from the path of truth.

The council, discoursing of certain evils raging in one single province, of laymen or clerics irregularly excommunicated, and finally of bishops exercising force and tyranny, prescribes, as a remedy to be applied, that a provincial synod be gathered, in which the cause may be inquired into more becomingly, and questions of this kind discussed. But the holy pontiff, interpellated not for discussing questions pertaining to a single province by a petition of appeal, but called upon to abolish the scandals of the whole East—(and) the most holy bishops excommunicated and cast down through force, fury, and violence by unjust oppression—demands that a general synod be held;

and he prescribes this as a remedy necessarily to be applied, that (as he says) by salutary remedies they may be restored to integrity. The Council of Nicaea, finally, determined that toward those whom the synod shall reckon to have been reasonably excommunicated by the bishop, no indulgence be applied until, by the consent of the whole synod or the will of the bishop, it shall have pleased to pass a more humane sentence for such persons. Similarly St. Leo, speaking of those bishops who, maliciously stirred up in the robber-councils, had prevaricated, whose case was harder, prescribed that, if through repentance they should be willing to acquiesce in better counsels, they were not to be cut off from the unity of the Church.

Let Quesnel say, I pray, whether this decree of Leo answers exactly to the Nicene canons. Let him assign the difference. 26. But now some will reply that Launoy and Quesnel have already assigned the difference, saying that the sayings of St. Leo the Great by no means answer to the Nicene decrees, since none of these makes mention of appeals. For since we gather this opinion concerning appeals only confusedly from those three Sardican canons, therefore it rightly follows that the holy pontiff regarded those canons clothed under the name of the Nicene. But what does this reply effect? For Leo's words may bear another sense—this is clear to those who are versed in unfolding the writings of the holy pontiff.

For he himself did not claim that there belonged to him a right of taking up the causes of bishops who appealed, of examining them and settling them by the force of the canons; but rather of prescribing that kind of remedy which alone could succor and benefit the afflicted affairs of the East, the faith that was in peril, and its oppressed defenders. This is what, after an appeal had been lodged, was of necessity demanded, just as the decrees of the canons enacted at Nicaea bear witness. He therefore here supposes that the right of appeals is owed to him on another ground, and that he can and must take them up not on account of the decrees of the canons, but that this right is derived from divine institution, on account of which his administration of ecclesiastical affairs was extended over the whole world.

Concerning this care divinely committed to him he speaks in many letters. But writing to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica, whom he took into a share of his own solicitude by delegating to him the duties of his governance, he assigns no other ground than this: that we may discharge the care which we principally owe to all the Churches by divine institution. And in the last chapter of the same letter, distinguishing the various ranks of bishops—of whom some are appointed in the lesser, some in the greater cities of the provinces, who undertake a lesser or a fuller solicitude—he says: through whom the care of the universal Church might flow together unto the one See of Peter, and nothing anywhere might be at variance with its head.

We meet with a like manner of speaking in his letter to the monks of Palestine, which he began with these words: As I more seriously considered, in the anniversary of my assumption, the care that I owe to the universal Church and to all its sons—made manifest to me by the report of many—I affirm that the administration of each and every bishop is a portion of my own labor; so that, while (he says) men flock together from the whole world to the see of the blessed apostle Peter, and that love of the universal Church, committed by the Lord to him, is required also from our own stewardship, we feel a so much greater burden pressing upon us, inasmuch as we owe greater things to all.

That Leo at times—indeed very frequently—exercised this universal care in the causes of the Easterns independently of any synod, or reserved it to be exercised, is plainly evident from a certain letter written to Anatolius. In it, treating of those who had sinned more grievously in the cause of Eutyches, and on this account had claimed for themselves a higher place in that same unhappy synod (understand the one at Ephesus), so as to burden the simplicity of the more humble brethren with the prejudices of their own arrogance, he says: if perchance they come to their senses, and ceasing from the defense of their deed are turned to the condemnation of their own error, if such satisfaction be offered by these as does not seem to be rejected, let it be reserved to the riper counsels of the Apostolic See;

so that, when all has been examined and weighed, it may be estimated what ought to be determined concerning their very actions. Saint Leo then willed that this reservation of judgment, made to himself, should be of such great weight, that it was not lawful even for Anatolius, nor for the presbyters of the Church of Constantinople, to recite at the altar the names of the lapsed, before the pontiff, from the course of events, had decreed that the satisfaction of those penitents was to be admitted. For he at once added: Nor let the name of any such person be recited at the altar in the Church over which the Lord willed you to preside, as we have already written before, until the course of events shows what ought to be determined concerning them.

He finally closes the letter by saying that he had instructed his legates, whom he had sent from his side, concerning all matters to be transacted and carried out in the new synod of Chalcedon. But if anything should arise to be deliberated beyond what he had described in the memorandum, he requires that everything be referred back to him, that he might carefully determine what is to be observed. And if (he says) anything more is to be deliberated concerning certain matters, let a report be swiftly directed to us; so that, the nature of the causes having been thoroughly examined, our solicitude may determine what ought to be observed. 27. From the foregoing it is therefore manifest that Quesnel and his other supporters are pressed more grievously.

For what need had Leo to claim for himself the right of appeals made by Eastern bishops by the force of the Sardican decrees, when he himself—already consistent with himself in all his writings and judgments—says that there arises from divine dispensation the authority by which he could take care of all the Churches, pass judgment on questions of faith, settle and resolve contentious causes, and remit canonical penalties? What need was there to insist on those canons, drawn up in the fourth century of the Church for the safeguarding of the prerogatives and privileges of his see, when he affirmed that he ought to expend his solicitude on behalf of the universal Church and all its sons, and that this care had been committed to him by the Lord on account of a dispensation full of obligation—which he reckoned a most grave thing, because he owed greater things to all the faithful?

What, finally? Was it only by the privilege of the Sardican canons that the practice began of referring causes to the Apostolic See, when by divine institution the care of the universal Church ought to flow together unto the one See of Peter? Trifles, mere trifles. For Saint Leo reasoned otherwise, so that the members might cleave to their head without any disagreement whatsoever.

And therefore it is no wonder if, by the title of the ecclesiastical primacy granted to him, he prescribed—even independently of any synod—rules to be inviolably observed for the conduct of affairs even in ecumenical synods, restricted their authority within narrow limits in the passing of judgments, and finally reserved to himself to examine and weigh whether the satisfaction and penance of certain men who had fallen into graver crimes deserved pardon and reconciliation. Yet another graver matter remains, by which Quesnel may be confuted, and with him the rest indicated above. Namely, that the holy pontiff willed it to be provided that the bishops, even when assembling in the renowned Council of Chalcedon, should not grant indulgence to certain persons already deprived of communion;

and he forbade Anatolius and the rest of the presbyters or bishops of the Church of Constantinople to dare to recite their names at the altar, before the Apostolic See itself should determine what was to be done. As (he says), the nature of the causes having been thoroughly examined, let our solicitude determine what ought to be observed. 28. These are the things that, for the exposing of the trifles and fallacies of Quesnel, for the wresting away and overthrowing of the false arguments of him and other writers concerning the appeal of Saint Flavian to the Apostolic See and to the one supreme pontiff Saint Leo, we have deemed it necessary to write. Yet not all the points that we have noticed scattered in Saint

the pontiff's Works we have noticed scattered—those by which he asserts that his pontifical care is extended throughout the whole world by divine institution—could we adduce, lest this present exercise of ours should grow as it were beyond measure. Wishing therefore to bring it to an end, we have judged that one thing must still be added: namely, that Saint Leo had regard not only to the fifth genuine canon of Nicaea, when he sent letters to Theodosius, but also to the sixth. And that this is to be understood not as the common codices present it, but in the manner in which it was recited in the Council of Chalcedon. Namely, that the Roman Church always had the primacy.

The bishops of the whole world, approving this reading, testified not obscurely that the primacy of the Roman pontiff depends principally on divine institution. There was therefore no need for Leo to have regard to other canons besides the Nicene ones, or to bring forward in support of his rights the Sardican canons clothed under the name of the Nicene. Finally, because Quesnel, wishing to make trouble for the Roman pontiffs, expended much labor in interpreting the Sardican canons according to his own pleasure, we therefore reserve to speak of these same canons in the following exercise, to which, as an appendix to this one, we now move our pen.