Letter 32: Gelasius challenges the Eastern bishops who style themselves prudent men and acute minds to explain how, if they had...

Of blessed Pope Gelasius, to the bishops of the East, concerning the giving of an account of the same matter. 1. What, then, of these prudent men who probe the inward things of religion with sharp minds, men established in the regions of the East: if they [...] a person of this sort established in the church of Antioch, why did they lend their consent by communicating with such men? Why did they not remove themselves from such a contagion, when they already plainly perceived that Calendio had been driven out for this very purpose, that the door might lie open to heretics? Why did they here treat nothing of a synod, nothing of the matter, nothing of the Christian cause, nothing of the examination of persons? But if they voluntarily submitted themselves to that communion, they have certainly been separated from the apostolic [see]: with such men and among such men, even if it could be done, no synod could possibly come about at all. But if they say they were ignorant of what sort of man succeeded as prelate at Antioch after Calendio, what wonder is it if those placed in the East could not know the things which had happened in their own [...], and so were ignorant of the things which had been done before the apostolic [see]? Yet why, after it came to their knowledge what sort of priest had been established at Antioch, did they not at once reject communion with him? Why do they put forward an excuse under the color of ignorance, when even today they pursue the manifest [...] of the faithless, things which have been more often reproached by us? Whereby it is sufficiently [shown] that, just as they would not even then have refused them, even if they had known, so even now they do not refuse the things made public. In short, into whatever direction and pretext they turn the case, they are so choked off from the manifest truth that they can be confounded by their own words and deeds, [and have nothing left] but to fan abroad the sole ruin of their obstinate faithlessness. But these things which have been said of the venerable Calendio fit, by a sure reasoning, also the person of John of Alexandria. Indeed, the same matter may be inquired into more widely: there [were] so many tragedies there, so many repeated errors, that, if those very men who perpetrated the same be the judges, when they have often been confuted, they will not refrain from their own condemnation. For it is there openly and plainly shown that nothing else was sought than how, with the Catholic pontiff of whatever sort driven out, access might be opened up to the heretic Peter. At that time no one discussed this, no one demanded a synod, and everywhere all things seemed to be done lawfully by whomsoever [pleased]: no distinction of the matter [was kept], no examination was set down for the Church; but just as it came into anyone's mind concerning each, a Catholic bishop was driven from his cities, not only the metropolitan but also the prelates of the third and second sees. In these matters no investigation of the affair was sought; no councils were boasted to be held. Heretics were substituted, no one resisted: but like dumb cattle led to the snare, with their wills made subject, they followed faithlessness. It is no wonder indeed if they now strive to defend those whose undiscussed worthlessness they followed with blind minds. But we wonder that they are not ashamed to make excuse, in the condemnation of these men, about a synod not having been held, when they know that so many and so great pontiffs were deposed by no synod. In the rejection of these men they complain of a council not entered upon: let them recognize why they did not also seek this in the rejection of the others, [if they wish] to accuse [...]. But if in the rejection of the rest councils were necessary, let them recognize that they were not necessary in these cases either. Or was there no need of a synod in the casting down of Catholics, and was a council greatly to be demanded in the condemnation of a confessed prevaricator? 3. What then remains, except that they should say the heretics were not [heretics]? Let them not, then, complain of a synod, who openly profess themselves followers of the outward communion. Why, then, should a synod seem necessary to them, who are known to come against the Council of Chalcedon, by which the Eutychian error, together with its authors, was condemned by the general Church? Nor is there any doubt that, just as in each one of these matters (which must be repeated without ceasing, because no Christian doubts it to be firm), all accomplices, followers, and communicants are reckoned by an equal lot of the same depravity once [condemned]. And therefore let it be consequent that, just as Timothy and Peter, the followers of such men, were condemned according to the tenor of that synod, with no recent assembly of pontiffs being held, so too was Acacius, who communicated with Peter, made a partaker of the crime so as to be made also a sharer of the penalty. Why then do they cloak these things with ambiguities and clouds, so that they strive to conceal their impudence and their raging mind lethally by empty fables rather than to heal it medicinally by disclosing it? For we have nothing in common with men of the outward communion. Therefore any person whatever is summoned to judgment, so that either he may confess the charges or be convicted of the charges. But after a confession drawn forth from the very tenor of his own letters, why should Acacius be summoned to judgment, who confessed himself to have associated by communion with Peter, whom he asked to be condemned by the command of the apostolic see? Nor could he now be believed, having become of the outward communion, either for his own or for their or for Peter's defense, he who had first mingled himself with him by a wicked partnership, and had made himself common with his cause without hesitation. With such a man, an examination having first been sent ahead, and a lawful purgation, if it had been so, [he would have been] mingled in due order once he was received; but having been associated by communion with the same man not yet lawfully examined and purged, as much as he mingled himself with one still accused, so much did he not have confidence to speak on his behalf. For since Acacius was supported by no privilege to be able to pass judgment concerning the second see, could he by right condemn [him]? In like manner, unless the authority of the first see had been obtained, he had neither the right of examining Peter nor at all the power of receiving [him]. 4. This being established in due order, and Peter having in no way been absolved by us, whom we know that we condemned, but whom we do not know to have examined or absolved: it remains that we demonstrate this, that the same Peter, whom Acacius pretends to have received into communion as purged, never ceased from the contagion of heretical communion, and not only at that time when Acacius communicated with him, but even after the communion of the prevaricator Acacius, Peter of Alexandria always persisted in the college of heretics; and so both through this Acacius received the contagion of faithless communion, and through the same was joined by the same plague to those heretics with whom Peter communicated. He who presumed to receive Peter without the order being kept, neither examined nor known to have been received as purged: and therefore he is shown to have usurped for himself a reception of him that was not lawful, apart from the knowledge of the apostolic see, so that he might measure his examination and purgation according to his own will; and that he might receive him neither examined nor at all purged. And if he truly wished to receive him examined and purged, he would rather have kept the order in his examination and reception, but so that he might seem rather than truly be purged by right. Just as therefore he did not previously condemn him before he both referred and demanded that he be condemned by apostolic power, so too in receiving he ought to have kept a measure: that before he mingled himself with him in communion, he should ask through the apostolic see that he be examined and purged by lawful reasoning; since he himself had neither the pontifical right of examining or receiving him, and could fulfill this only through the authority and consent of that see, without whose authority he himself had not been able to condemn him, and by [whose] chief diligence he could both be examined and purged and be conveniently admitted to communion. For since it is established that persons of this sort were always either discussed or purged by the authority of the apostolic see, or were absolved by other bishops to whom it belonged, in such a way, however, that their absolution depended on the consent of the apostolic see: where both were lacking, neither a lawful discussion nor a firm purgation, and through this it is established that the reception was undue. If you, without my communion, judged Peter to be Catholic, and, despising me, received him as though by your own right, why do you make complaint if I have repelled him from my communion, which you wished to be despised, as though without your knowledge or consultation? Do you wish to acquiesce? You are mine. Do you not wish to acquiesce? You are not mine. For he who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters. 5. I ask of you: do you think Peter was a heretic, or a Catholic, or one afterward corrected from heresy? If a heretic, you ought in no way to have communicated with him, and by communicating with him it is manifest that you were made a partaker of heresy, and consequently that you are bound by the condemnation coming forth according to the tenor of the synod. If a Catholic, you are openly the defender of his whole doctrine, which you proclaim to be Catholic, and nonetheless you are reckoned in his error. If you should define him to have been a heretic, but pretend that he afterward corrected himself, and declare that you communicated with him as purged: meanwhile, in the person of one in whom you believed I was to be neglected, you cannot complain that in this same person of his I neglected you. Then, since without me you had no right either of absolving or of receiving a person of this kind duly, it is established that it was neither lawfully purged nor regularly received. As it was regularly not received, so it is established that it was not lawfully purged, and therefore not rightly purged, because not lawfully received. For while my sentence remains upon him, since you had not, without me, the pontifical right to dissolve my sentence, by what power was he discussed, or by what authority is he asserted to have been received? Behold, meanwhile, in these matters your case wavers and totters; if these alone were the case, it is utterly overturned. 6. But yet another thing is brought forward besides, which may be added to the heap of conviction. For what if it be shown that you not only came into his communion [...], nor only when you came into communion, but even afterward continued in communion with him among the heretics: would not heresy either come through him to you, or were you passing over into a heretical communion by your dealings with him? Show, therefore, that Peter of Alexandria ever ceased from communion with Peter of Antioch, and that down to the very day when Peter of Antioch lived in this light, there was not partnership between the two of them. Or will you say that Peter of Antioch too was corrected? Why did Acacius boast that he had not communicated with him down to the end? But what did it profit that he was unwilling to communicate with that man in person, when he reckoned himself to communicate with the same man through Peter of Alexandria without any odium? What do we do about so many cities, from which Catholic pontiffs were driven out? If [heretics] were substituted, why were the Catholics rejected? But it is evident that, since the Catholics were rejected, those who were substituted were not Catholics. It remains that whoever succeeded the Catholics were heretics. Why did you communicate at once? Why did you not, when this new aspect of affairs and the tragedy concerning the succession of living pontiffs by a synod [...], act? Or does Acacius grieve over one alone, that he was not confuted by a special synod, when he himself uncovered his own crime by his own letters, and ought not to have been heard once he had confessed of his own accord; and does he not grieve over so many Catholic pontiffs shut out without any discussion? Who indeed, if they had known those Catholic whose communion they had avoided, would rather have communicated with them than, not communicating with them, be driven out by harsh persecution. 7. Behold, so many Catholic priests show by this very thing that they recognized what the apostolic see had decreed, and constantly proved that it was to be held; whereby, preserving Catholic communion, they chose as partners both those who communicated with the apostolic see, and refused as partners, even to the assaults of persecution, those with whom the apostolic see in no way communicated. Certainly it is boasted that what the apostolic see had decreed did not become known to the Eastern bishops. Whence, then, did so many and so great pontiffs, holding one and the same opinion with the apostolic see and approving it, sanction things fitting and true for the most holy religion, things which they not only judged were to be followed by themselves but even to be manfully maintained even to persecution? Behold, you had those who would both press upon you the knowledge of the apostolic constitution and furnish constancy in holding to it. If the apostolic see had sent, it could scarcely have directed two or three. Behold, so many pontiffs, following the decrees of the apostolic see, press upon you knowledge and offer examples of preserving the truth. You who closed your eyes against so many established in that very place, how could you hear two or three? By this very thing you doubtless knew that those men pleased the apostolic see, by which you saw that you displeased it. Either therefore follow those through whom you understood the will of the apostolic see, or [there is] nothing that you may pretend about ignorance, since, abusing such great and so many indications, you preferred to reject rather than receive the constitutions of the apostolic see, with such great testimonies present. 8. Were not all these whom we have mentioned, the bishops, hostile to the emperor? Did all of them remove the emperor's name from the diptychs? When therefore they were being driven out, and while Catholic pontiffs were living, heretical successors were created, and not concerning bishops of the lower cities but even metropolitan pontiffs remaining in Catholic communion: why then did you not feel compassion for such great brothers of yours? Why did you not approach the emperor? Why did you not, with continued lamentations, bewail the calamity of the Church and the wretched defacement of the priesthood? Pleading: that the Church alone had ever judged concerning pontiffs; that it was not the business of human laws to pass sentence concerning such men, especially concerning pontiffs principally established in the Church; that Christian princes ought to obey the decrees of the Church, not to set their own power before it; that a prince was accustomed to bow his head to bishops, not to judge concerning their heads; by what councils of the Church, by what synod were they being driven out; what, finally, they had committed, that without any discussion the prelates of the churches should be expelled at human pleasure and the arbitrary will of secular power; that men unheard, undiscussed, unconvicted ought not to be struck down, especially when new cases and a new aspect of affairs appeared, so that these rulers of the people were deprived of their sacred dignities by sudden assaults for the will of worldly power; that they were neither convicted nor shown to be partakers, from any prior cause, from any fellowship of guilt nor by participation in any error already condemned before, so that they might in any way be judged bound by a past definition: and therefore, because they were recent men in respect of causes preceding before, why they were cast out [...] ought to be shown what those assaults were, and that it ought always to be established by ecclesiastical laws. At least, even for the sake of your own place, you ought to have taken counsel for their miseries, fearing in yourselves what you saw admitted violently against others, contrary to that custom. If they were chargeable with any crime, it ought to have been ascertained by ecclesiastical examination. 9. I am silent that it ought also to be referred to the apostolic see by custom, lest we should seem to be looking after our own privileges. Let it be enough to show what you ought to have done according to the rules and the canons of the fathers, especially since even the public laws themselves, obeying ecclesiastical rules, have sanctioned that such persons be judged by none but bishops. But if they had been attacked concerning any heresy whatsoever, so much the more did it befit those to take cognizance of these things, who could both examine these matters according to the tenor of religion, and had the ancient pontifical right of judging, [the right] from which the Christian religion exists. For those concerning whom those mockeries were everywhere being carried on and those detestable robberies were raging were either Catholics or heretics. If heretics, they ought by all means to have been exposed, discussed, and lawfully convicted, to be confuted either by their own confessions or by the voices of others. I am silent, because by paternal custom it ought to have been referred to us, and I only admonish what it was fitting should be done by ecclesiastical right. But if they were proved Catholics, you, who not only ceased from their expulsion but even chose to communicate with those substituted, are undoubtedly heretics. You who, with Catholics driven out and withdrawing, were not ignorant that the cause of the faith and of Catholic communion had been laid open throughout the whole world through so many great prelates; but plainly, knowing and willing, without any discussion of the matters, without any synodal examination, without any reverence for the apostolic see, you assented to heretics, willingly holding and patiently allowing the Catholic prelates to be thrust down by a lot unheard of before and wretched. If you thought these men to be erring from the integral faith and Catholic communion, you ought to have referred [the matter] to the apostolic see, according to the decrees of the elders and as has always been done: just as Acacius is shown to have done concerning Peter of Alexandria or concerning Peter of Antioch, concerning John and Paul. But since you knew them to hold the same opinion with the apostolic see, and what the apostolic see decreed by its own definition, it is established through those so many and such bishops that the Eastern prelates were in no way ignorant; and through those men you betrayed those contrary to Catholic and apostolic communion and fell away from the same, since you were not joined to them in suffering, but rather connected by fellowship with their persecutors. Here a synod never came into your mind, and certainly concerning persons, as has been said, bound by no past [...] law. Here, with no council, it entered your mind that the Church not of one city or one bishop, but of the whole East, ought to be cared for by an ecclesiastical council being held. But you men, who with your whole purpose and whole affection had relapsed into the contrary party, even by zeal declined the councils that were rather necessary, lest through them something of the sort should be decreed by which, the matters being evidently shown to you and lawfully confuted, it might not be permitted you to come into the fellowship of heretics. 10. Why then do you put forward ignorance, when throughout the whole East you saw that so many pontiffs not only knew the Catholic faith and the sincere communion agreeing with the apostolic see, but even most constantly defended it down to the very end? If you had not heard us, what we decreed concerning the Catholic and apostolic faith and communion, you ought to have looked to them, and either to follow them, if you believed them to be Catholics, or rather to accuse them before the apostolic see, if you believed them to be erring: [to recognize] that they erred, or that they had held that opinion by their own purpose, by acknowledging what the apostolic see defined. Either, therefore, you ought to have followed your colleagues and brothers near at hand in your sight as Catholics, or to attack them if you believed them to err, and not to lend consent to those by whom they were vexed with no [just] distinction; until the truth, laid open from all sides, should be established, and the form of ecclesiastical judgment should proceed regularly concerning them. But if, by following the rule of the apostolic see, you perceived that they held this constancy, consequently through them you were not uncertain also of what our definition contained, and by assenting to their persecutors you withdrew yourselves from the fellowship of the apostolic see, not being ignorant of its sentence. And still you say that you were ignorant of what the apostolic see had decreed, when from those priests, flourishing in Catholic faith and communion, you learned all things not by words or letters, but by persons present; and you seem to have separated yourselves from the same by your own judgment? And still you say that a synod ought to have been held in the person of one man, which you did not seek in the condemning of so many Catholic pontiffs? But whom do you wish us to believe concerning the report of such cases? Catholics or heretics? Those separated from all contagion of heretics, or those polluted with the communion of heretics? But who would not see that those are Catholics and wholly alien from every heretical plague, who were thrust from their own cities and reduced to exile; and that those who dared to become successors while the Catholics survived are not Catholics at all, but either manifest Eutychians or communicants with their followers? 11. This pestilence endures among them down to this day. For indeed those who had succeeded the Catholics are mingled in communion indifferently with both Peter of Alexandria and Peter of Antioch, and are mixed even today with the successors of each Peter. Add to these also those who, although they did not succeed the Catholics, yet, while the Catholic pontiffs were being driven out, joined themselves to the communion of such men. This is that mixture, this is that confusion, by which throughout the whole East there is no distinction between Catholic and heretical communion: indeed, whoever attempts to distinguish is rather held a heretic, is struck down by persecution, is punished with exile and affliction. It remains therefore that in this filth of universal things, just as whoever is separated from the same is proved [a man] of sincere communion and therefore Catholic; so whoever is found a partaker of that detestable commerce is removed from Catholic and apostolic [communion] as much as from sincere communion. Nor let anyone put forward that he had perhaps not communicated, or seems not to communicate, with some more evident heretic. For what does it profit, if he does not communicate with that man, yet is joined in communion with these, who are not different from the communion of that man? But if he has communicated with none of them, or communicates with none at all, this man will be one of sincere, Catholic, and apostolic communion and faith; otherwise he can in no way avoid the insincere contagion of that indiscriminate mixture. In this way too that good Acacius, who boasted that he did not openly communicate with Peter of Antioch, is detected to have communicated through others without ambiguity. For Acacius did not suspend himself from the communion of all those who communicated with Peter of Antioch. And through this, what did it profit that he was unwilling to communicate openly with the man to whom, through his accomplices, he was bound by [...] communion? Acacius communicated with Peter of Alexandria; but until Peter of Antioch survived, who is certainly shown to have died after the Acacian pact was entered into with Peter of Alexandria, Peter of Alexandria never ceased to communicate with Peter of Antioch. 12. What the report of the Catholic priests contains, and of the others remaining in the Catholic faith, cannot lie hidden from the conscience of the whole East. And to be silent of the fact that through Zenon the emperor himself, who certainly without doubt was mingled in communion with Peter of Antioch, whom he had brought in and whose priesthood he had approved, Acacius communicated, we can demonstrate very many prelates of various cities, with whom, communicating with Peter of Antioch, Acacius nonetheless communicated, and through them he communicated consequently both with the one of Antioch and with Peter. But these things are reckoned among the Greeks to be an easy and blameless mixture, among whom there is no distinction of the true and the false; and when they wish to be common with all the reprobate, they are shown to stand in no probity. But this is that Peter of Antioch, whom Acacius did not even ask to be received into Catholic communion through penance, even by the apostolic see. And through this, why do they complain of us that Acacius was condemned, when, this profession having been sent ahead, and communion received through the windings of Peter of Antioch, he is shown to have condemned himself? Where, however, not only is Acacius held guilty, but all the pontiffs of the East, who in like manner relapsed into these contagions and are deservedly held bound by a similar condemnation, nor can they in any way be extricated from it, except by abstaining from such men while they survive. Nor ought we in such cases to believe any but those who either know themselves wholly preserved, by divine favor, distinct from the bonds of this faithlessness, or those who have withdrawn from the fellowship of the faithless. For to those established in the contagion of the faithless, what faith can we give as testimony of sincere communion, who are placed in an insincere communion? Nor will we be able to rely, for the truth, on the testimonies of those who strive to assail the truth with falsehoods. It remains that we ought to believe none but those who are free from all contagion.

seu (a. 495.) Beati Gelasii papae ad episcopoB Orientis de eadem ratj reddenda.') 1. Quid^) ergo isti prudentes viri et argutis mentibas religionis intema rimantes; in Orientis partibus constituti, si < verunt hujusmodi personam^) in Antiochena ecclesia consti cur commimicando talibus praebuere consensum? Cur non 0 Ita msB. DiP^^FioN^d* {Incipit de eadem raiione reddendd ad epUeopa iis)] d* Ex epistola Gelasii papae ad Orientales episcopos post oHaf praep* ex ncc non verbis post alia, quibus fragmentum dumtaxat hic haberi pan! tius significatur, de buo a^jectis. >) N« O^ X< y> c^ hic subjicit: DUectissimis fratribus episeopis OrienUd laeiusy quod quum absit ab exemplaribus yetustioribuB coUectionis D et laidoro a^jectum suspicamur, maxime quum GelasiuB, dum istud sciibebat talium communionem respueret. Venet. b. Ifiiarc. 169, 0' c*, ut jam in praevio observatum , aine ulla distinctiono Gelasii epietolae 26 n. 14 (post traeiatum) nostram adnectunt: Quid ergo isti etc. Sed pravam ligaton ipse sensus palam prodit. ') Supple qiialis erat Petrus Fullo, do quo antea sermonem, qui ea habitum esBe palam est. BPISTOLAE 26. 27. 423 DStfimty cur non se a tali contagio removerunt; quwn jam^) evi- (a. 495.) f adTerterent ideo Galendionem depulsimi^ ut haereticis pan- ir introitoB? Quare hic nihiP) de synodo, nihil de re, nihil le Ghristiana, nihil de personarum examinatione tractarunt? ro illi se^) communioni yolimtarie subdiderunt, ab apostolica certe separati sunt: cum talibus et apud tales, etiamsi esset le fieri, nulla posset omnino synodus proyenire. Quodsi igno- se dixerint; qualis apud^) Antiochiam post Galendionem suc- )6t antistes, quid mirum, si; qui in Oriente positi quae in e sna contigerant scire nequiyerunt, ea quae apud apostolicam gesta fuerant ignorarint? Gur tamen^ posteaquam ad eorum jn peryenit, qualis esset sacerdos apud Antiochiam constitu- on ejus consortia continuo respuerunt? Quid excusationem de jitiae colore praetendunt; quum hodieque et manifestata^) con- perfidorum et a nobis saepius exprobrata sectentur? Quo satis $t, quia nec tunc quidem^ etiamsi cognoscerent^ refutarent, 0 nimc etiam publicata non renuunt. Prorsus in quamlibet rtem causationemque^) conyertant, manifestae yeritatis ita 3 soffocantur, ut suis ipsi yerbis possint actibusque concludi^ fii solam perniciem obstinatae perfidiae residuam yentilare. Haec autem, quae de Galendione venerabili dicta sunt^ et annis Alexandrini conyeniunt certa ratione personam. Immo^ 9a eadem latius iaquiratur; tantae illic tragoediae^ tanti repe- r errores, ut, si ipsi sint judices, qui eadem perpetrarunt, quum ter fuerint confutati^^), a sui damnatione non temperent. enim illic aperteque monstratur, nihil aliud quam quaesitam 1, quemadmodum catholico qualicunque depulso pontifice hae- Petro reseraretur accessus. Tunc istud nemo discutiebat, sy- i nemo poscebat, passim omnia licito fieri a quibuscunque ;ta P* P" N' 0*; c* c^ c' c^o taniy 0* c* cum evidenter, moxque d* animad- i. [ta inss. D W 0« 0* d<; c>^ omittit mha de synodo, ^ c^ c^ c^^ addmit eorum, quod abest a mss. Verbum illi perinde est at- c. De communione autcm cum Petro Fullone inita sermo est. Mox cum i dem est quod cum OrientaUbus, qui iales evaserunt. 5» o^ c^ c^o AnHocMae^ 0* c> in Antiochia, moxque P* F» c c contigerint ... (a. 495.) videbantur: nuUum discrimen renun'^)^ nulla examinatio posiQL tur Ecclesiae; sed i»:out de^^) unoquoque venisset in mentem, suis urbibus catholicus pellebatur episcopus^ non solum metio] tanus^ sed etiam tertiae et secundae sedis antistites. In his i rerum vestigatio^^) quaerebatur; nulla facienda concilia jactabai Subrogabantur haeretici, nemo resultabat: sed velut muta pecoi captionem ducta^ subditis yolimtatibus perfidiam sectabantur. mirum quidem^ si nimc eos defendere moliantur, quorum indis sam caecis^^) mentibus secuti sunt vilitatem. Sed miramur, eos non pudeat in istorum damnatione de synodo non facta caiu quum sciant tot tantosque pontifices nulla synodo fuisse depo] In'^) istorum rejectione de non inito concilio conquenmtor: co( scant se^ cur non et hoc in aliorum rejectione quaesiverint, a sari. Si^^ vero in cetelrorum rejectione concilia necessaria fuerunt; nec in istis necessaria fuisse cognoscant. An in catho rum dejectione non fuit opus synodo^ et fuit mi^opere con ganda in praevaricatoris damnatione confessi? 3. Quid igitur restat^ nisi ut dicant haereticos non fui Non ergo de synodo conquerantur^^)^ qui se palam lcommuni extemae perhibent sectatores. Cur ergo eis synodus necessaria fi yideatur; qui se contra Calchedonensem synodum yenire oogno8< qua Eutychianus error cum suis auctoribus generalis Ecclesiae damnatus est? Nec dubium, quod, sicut^^) in unaquaque hac (quod incessabiliter repetendum est^ quia firmum esse nullus am Christianus), omnes complices^ sectatores^ communicatores dami semel pravitatis pari sorte censentur. Ideoque sit consequens sicut Timotheus atque Petrus talium sectatores secundum illius i rem synodi nulla recenti facta pontificum congregatione dan ^<) D^ d^ rei, qui tamen mox rerum vestigatio retinuerunt. Utrobiqiu constant mss.; neque vero de uno tantum episcopo, sed de pluribus e ra bibuB ezpulBis expostulatio est. ") 0* c* investigatio, moxque D* condUabula et c*** suhrogantur. ") Ita Di D* F* F"» N»; 0» 0« c» a sds mentihus, moxque c* c» c» c«« ailifi d* voluntatem ... etiam cum sciant. 1«) D^ omittit reliqua hi\jus num. 2. In sequentibuB D> 0* c c omittai nodo. '^ d^ conqueruntur ... videtur; c^ c** c*^ autem ibidem Cwr enim^ et dfliii d^ d' contra Calchedonensem venisse. Sequimur in prioribus mss D, in his J N'0* 0*. Moxque 0* 0* c* cognoscunt. Quid Eutychianus ^ ac deinde c* c' cum auctorihus generali Ecdesiae voce (D^ vocabulo). sont^ sic et^*) qui Petro commuiiicayit Acacius, ut criminis parti- (a. 495.) cepS; ita consors sit factus et poenae. Quid igitur ambagibus et nebolis ista praetexunt^ ut impudentiam suam mentemque yesanam inanibns potius fabulis celare^) lethaliter; quam prodendo medici- naliter sanare contendant? Nihil enim nobis commune cum homi- nibos oommunionis extemae. Ideo yocatur ad judicium certe quae- eonque persona; ut aut fateatur objecta^ aut convincatur objectis. Poet confessionem porro litterarum tenore^i) depromptam cur ad jndicium vocaretur Acaclus, qui se confessus estPetro, quem^^) pe- tiit a sedis apostolicae praeceptione damnari; communione sociasse ? Nec^') ei jam credi, extemae communionis eflFecto, vel pro sua vel pro illomm vel pro Petri defensione jam^*) posset, cui se prius mi- 8cuerat nefando consortio, feceratque se cum ejus causa sine dubi- iatione communem. Cui^^) examinatione praemissa et legitima, si ita esset, purgatione suscepto regulariter misceretur; sed cum eodem jQQndum legitime discusso atque purgato communione sociatus, quam fldhuc reo se miscuit, tam pro eodem non habuit loquendi fiduciam. Nam quum Acaciu^ nullo privilegio fulciretur, ut de secunda sede posaet ferre judicium, potuit^*) jure damnare? Simili modo, nisi ") 0» 0« ei Petro quia, d« etiam qui Peiro, ■•) c^ seqq. velare^ et mox 0* c* ad judicium certum, d* autem Ideo certe Acacinm a Simplicio petiisse, ut Petrus damnaretur, et quum istud impetrasset, piraecepti illinB exsecutorem fuisse. Hinc in proxima epistola 26 n. 7 legimus, Petrum ab Acacio sua exsecutione damnaium, et in fine n. 4: Timotheus Aelurus eifue ipse Alexandrinus Petrus auctoriiate tantummodo sedis apostoHcaey ipso quoque Acado vel postulante vel exsequente, probantur esse damnaii. Vide Acacii ad Simpli- ehim epistolam 8 n. 2 et Simplicii ad ipsum Acacium epistolam 18 n. 3. ") d* Nec entm ei, moxque omittit vel pro iUorum, quibus verbis ii notan- tur, de quibtu paulo ante n. 2 dictum: Non mirum quidem, si nunc eos defendere wsoimniur. H) d* omittit Joni, moxque d^ feceratque ejus causamy D* d* feceraique secum 0jut eauiom. Sequimur D» W F«» F» 0« 0* cc. ») Ita 0» 0« d* d* c« c«o. D^ F^ F™ N», 8 mss. a', c^ 6» qua, pro quo restituen- dom dadt a' quam, hoc sdlicet ad prius referens. Moxque 0* c* purgatione su- eeepia et d^ d' tam pro eo loquendi fiduciam non habuit. *^ Id vnlg^tis (etiam d^ d') sec. N* non potuit Jure quemquum damnare^ ubi mftzime iUnd quemquam praeter mentem Gelasii ai^ectum est, nec uUo quantum •do' codice folcitur. Sequimur antiquiores mss. D* F<^ F™ N', a quibus hoc tan- tam dissident 0' 0* 0' E* ^ c^ quod damnari pro damnare habeant. Praefert D^ poimU a prima jure damnari; minus displiceret non poiuit nisi a prima jttre damnari. Fereiidaaiitem^^est oratio, si interrogatio negativa ponatur, aut suppleatur non (a.495.)priiiiae sedis auctoritate percepta, nec examinandi Petri jus hab nec recipiendi penitus potestatem. 4. Quo^^) regulariter constitutO; nec apud nos Petro ullatei absoluto, quem damnasse nos-novimuS; examinasse vel absolTi nescimus: restat^ ut illud demonstremus^ eumdem Petrum, qoem purgatum communione recepisse praetendit Acacius, nunquam haereticae communionis contagione cessasse, ac^^) non solum ij tempore^ quo ei communicavit AcaciuS; sed etiam post communion praevaricatoris Acacii semper Alexandrinum Petrum in haereticor collegio perdurasse^ atque ita et per hunc Acacium perfidae c« munionis suscepisse contagium^ et per eamdem illis haereticis, « bus Petnis^^) communicabat , eadem peste conjunctum. Qui p: sumpsit non servato ordine Petrum susciperC; nec examinatum n nec cognoscitur recepisse purgatum: et ideo praeter sedis apo licae notitiam^^) non legitimam sibi ejus receptionem usurpare luisse^ ut examinationem ejus et purgationem posset pro sua voJ tate metiri; atque eum nec examinatum nec reciperet omnino f gatum. Quem si revera veUet examinatum purgatumque recipe ordinem in ejus examinatione et receptione^') potius custodis» sed ut videretur magis^ quam veraciter esset, jure purgari. Sic ergo ante non prius damnavit; quam et referret et posceret aposi lica^) potestate damnandum; sic et in recipiendo modum serva debuisset; ut priusquam se ei communione misceret, per sedem a] stolicam posceret examinari eum et legitima ratione purgari: qu\ nec examinandi aut recipiendi eum haberet ipse pontificium^ et n nisi per illius sedis auctoritatem consensumque hoc posset imple ef ) sine cujus auctoritate eum non potuerat ipse damnare^ et cu nisi petiia sedi* apastoUaie praecepiione, utpote sine c^Jus auetoritaie^ qaeni modum infra n. 4 didtnr, eum (Petrum) non potuerat ipse damnare, ") Ita c* c' d*; F* F" 0* nec non solum, 0* nec solum, Moxque N* fuo et F* F"» d« omittunt et, ac deinde 0* 0» c* et in haereiicorum. Acacias saltem in speciem horum communionem aversari videretor. Petrom v nulla ratione mutatum fuisse, confirmarunt illius ad Flavitam litterae ab £▼«( lib. 3 c. 28 memoratae. w) 0* 0* c* Hcentiam, moxque 0* c* c* eeq. mentiri, '^) d* purgatione, Tum c^ seqq. ne videretur magis quam (seqaentia eti D*) possei Jure purgare, Sequimur mBs. D* F* F"» N* 0' 0* c* d» d« (c* pror^gt et prorsus plana esset oratio, si pro sed legeretur scHicet vel saiiem, ") Ita mss. D F* F« 0» 0« N', editi delent et; moxque 0« c» poienU, jdfli ftolus d* fi damnari vel purgari et ad, et paalo post mss. 0 c* convemiemtem. pnncipali diligentia et discati potuit et purgari et ad communionem (a. 495.) con?eiiienter admitti. Quum enim constet, semper auctoritate^) sedis apostolicae hujusmodi personas aut discussas vel esse purgatas, aut gic ab aliis quibus competebat episcopis absolutas , ut tamen abso- lotio earum ex sedis apostolicae consensione penderet: ubi utrumque defmt; nec discussionem legitimam^ nec purgationem firmam^ ac per hoc receptionem fuisse constat indebitam. Si tu absque mea com- mimiQne^^) Petrum judicasti esse catholicum, meque despecto tuo eum jure recepisti, quid causaris^ si illum ego a communione mea, quam tu voluisti contemptam^^), tamquam absque tua notitia vel consultatione repulerim? Vis acquiescere? meus es. Non vis ac- qniescere? non es meus. Qui enim mecum non est, contra me est, ^t^^so fm mecum non colligit, spargit. 5. Quaero abs te, Petrum haereticum fuisse putas, an catho- licum, an ab haeresi postea esse correctum? Si haereticimi; nulla- tenns eidem communicare debuisti, et eidem communicando haeretici te manifestum est factum fuisse participem, et ejus consequenter ex synodi tenore veniente damnatione constringi. Si catholicum, palam totius dogmatis es defensor^ quod catholicum esse pronuntiaS; ac nihilofflinus illius errore censeris. Si haereticum fuisse definias, sed postea correxisse praetendas, eique te purgato communicasse pro- unnties*, interim in cujus persona me negligendum esse credidisti, caoBari non potes, quod in hac eadem te ejus persona neglexerim. Deinde quum sine me jus non habueris vel absolvendi vel recipiendi knjnsmodi rite personam, nec^) purgatam legaliter, nec regulariter constat esse receptam. Quam regulariter non receptam ^) , tam legaliter non constat esse purgatam, et ideo non jure purgatam, quia legaliter non receptam. Mea enim in illum manente sententia, te sine me^) pontificium, ut meam sententiam resolveres, non ha- ^iite, qua potestate vel discussus est, vel qua auctoritate receptus ^ D^F^F"* etniBB. a^ aut sedis apostolicae h^flismodi, d^ d* a sede apostolica, c^ seqq. (^i sedis aposioHeae auctoritaie, 0' c* semper (c* super) auctoriiate sedis ^toHeae. Mox d* et esse purgatas, Ixa EomaniB pontifidbos una eademque est, referendae simt; cf. Ballerinii de antiqu, can, coU. p. n c. 11 § 4 n. 5. ^ d* addit quia, deinde c^^ purgatum, 0* 0* autem omittunt nec purgatam regnlariter; addimus mox cum 0* 0* c* recepiam (post constat esse), quod, etsi a2a editi cmn D^ F<^ F"" omittunt, sequentia apcrte confirmant. (a. 495.) asseritor? Ecce interiin in his causa^^) yestra nutat et labiti haec sola sint, prorsus tota subruitur. 6. Sed adducitur^*) adhuc aliud, quod ad cumulum conyictionis accedat. Quid enim si doceatur^ non solum pi in ejus communionem veneritis^^); neque tantummodo quum communionem yenistiS; sed etiam postea in haereticorum nih eum communione durasse : nonne aut per illum apud yos cc peryeniebat haeretica^ aut in haereticam communionem commercio transibatis? Docete igitur^ Petrum Alexandri Antiocheni Petri unquam communione desiisse^ et non u diem, quum^') Antiochenus Petrus in hac luce yersatus est duum utrisque fuisse consortium. An dicturi estiS; et Antic Petrum fuisse correctum? Cur^^) usque in finem se non a casse gloriabatur Acacius? Sed quid profuit^ quod illi per communicare non yoluit^ quum eidem per Alexandrinum Peti ulla se communicare putaret inyidia? Quid facimus de tot t ciyitatibuS; ex quibus catholici pontifices sunt repulsi? Si < subrogati sunt, cur catholici sxmt rejecti**)? Sed eyidenter quia quum catholici sunt rejecti^ non catholici fuerunt si: Bestat, ut catholicis haeretici quicunque successerint. Cur mere communicastis? Cur non^ ut ista noya facies rerum tragoedia de pontificum successione yiyentium a**) synodo ") Ita N» 0« K«; D* F* F» addudt, 0» c^ addudte, d» d« a^jidiur, c* Moxque aliqui iqbs. (etiam F** F"») convinctionis. *•) Al. ed. venireiis, 0* omitidt veneritis neque — ad ejus commumom que ^qui mss. (etiam F^* F"») transiehatis , et K' descisse, Gelasii loco Henricus YalegiuB in Evagr. h. e. lU, 23 obseryat, falli nem et Cedrenum, qui Petrum FuUonem post Petrum Mong^um e viv scribunt. Fullonis mortem Victor Tunonensis ad annum 488 refert. I autem cum Petro Mongo, atque higus cum Petro Fullone commnmoi dus EvagriuB h. e. UI, 16. Gelasius in epistola superiore n. 8 ait: Zenoni, quia palam Antiochi noluit communicarej suam non subdidit voluntatem; et num. 13: Ipsi Zenot lam Petro Antiocheno f quamvis latenter hocfecerit, communicare ddereiwr, modavit assensum, <«) D» omittit a. Mox 0« 0» K» c« dolent. Elegantius ceteti, retur, egistis? An de uno dolet Acacio, quod speciali synodo non(a. 496.) fuerit confutatus, quum proprium crimen suis litteris ipse detexerit, oec audiri debuerit jam sponte confessus; et de tantis pontificibus catholicis non dolet sine ulla discussione seclusis? Qui utique^ si catholicos nossent eos, quorum communionem vitaverant, his potius commimicare maluissent; quam non communicantes eis dura perse- cutione depelli. 7. Ecce tanti catholici sacerdotes hoc ipso se indicant, quid apostolica sedes censuerit, cognovisse constanterque probasse reti- nendtun, quo*^) communionem catholicam reservantes, et eos, qui apostolicae sedi communicarent; elegere consortes, et illos, quibus sedes apostolica minime*®) communicaret, usque ad persecutionis ^c^irsus renuere consortes. Certe quae sedes apostolica decreverat, Orientalibus episcopis non innotuisse jactatur. Unde ergo tot tanti- 4^6 pontifices unum idemque cum sede apostolica sentientes eamque pit>bantes apta religioni sacrosanctae veraque sanxisse, quae non solum sequenda sibi judicaverint**) sed etiam usque ad persecutio- ^^m viriliter exserenda? Ecce habuistis, qui apostolicae constitutio- ^^ et notitiam vobis ingererent, et retinendi constantiam ministra- '^^t. Si apostolica sedes misisset, vix duos aut tres dirigere potue- ^*- Ecce tot pontifices, apostolicae sedis scita sectantes, ingerunt ^obis notitiam et praebent servandae veritatis exempla. Qui contra ^^tos clausistis oculos ibidem constitutos, quomodo duos vel tres ^udire possetis? Hoc ipso sine dubio cognovistis illos apostolicae *®dx placere, quo*®) vos displicere videbatis. Aut illos ergo secta- ^*ii, per quos intelligebatis sedis apostolicae voluntatem, aut nihil ^S quod de ignorantia velitis obtendere, quiun indiciis tantis et ta- l^^a abutentes, sedis apostolicae constituta tantis testimoniis prae- ^^^^tibus respuere potius quam recipere maiuistis. 8. Numquid omnes isti, quos memoravimus, episcopi imperatori J^^^titi sunt? Numquid omnes imperatoris nomen ex diptychis abs- ^^^runt**)? Quum igitur pellerentur, et vivis pontificibus catholicis ^ ^^onaHter, quomodo dicitur pudetf piget etc. Alioqmn dicendum faisset '*) c* Beqq. quod, 0* 0* c* ym, mss. D d* quo, , Qj ^) Ita mas. D P<* F" N' 0' ; D* (J c'* seqq. decreverat minime communicare, et mox ^ ^* non tenuere, F^ F" N' 0* D' et alii 4 mss. a' tenuere, 0* c'^ seqq. renuere. ^Otom locum ita contrahit: qui communionem catkoHcam resonantesy et eos, qui ^^toUcae sedi communicarent, usque ad persecutionis incursus tenuere consortes. jj. ^) 0' 0* c c Judicaoerunt. Moxque d* persecutionem exercenda cognoverunt, ^^<^« habuisti, 0* 0* exsecranda, c* exercenda; nostram lectionem praebent D* F<* ^c* Beqq. d*. (a. 495.) successores haeretici crearentur^ et nou de inferioribus quibi civitatibus sed etiam metropolitani pontifices in catholica JQ communione durantes^ cur^^) igitur compassi non estis tantis f bus yestris? Cur non adiistis imperatorem? Gur non Ecdesiae sam et sacerdotii miserabilem decolorationem continuatis yo deflevistis ? allegantes : nunquam de pontificibus nisi Ecclesiam casse; non esse humanarum legum de talibus ferre sententiam que Ecclesiae principaliter constitutis pontificibus; obsequi i principes Ghristianos decretis Ecclesiae, non suam praeponer testatem^ episcopis caput subdere principem solitum, non de e capitibus judicare^^); quibus Ecclesiae conciliis; qua synodo pell tur; quid denique commisissent, ut sine ulla discussione renm ecclesiarum praesules pro humano libitu et saecularis pote arbitrio pellerentur; inauditos^ indiscussos^ inconvictos ^) non d percelli; maxime quum novae causae et nova rerum facies appai ut rectores isti plebium^^) repentinis incursionibus pro mun<i potentiae voluntate sacris dignitatibus privarentur; ex nulla i causa^ ex nuUo collegio reatus nec participatione^^ cujuslibe roris jam ante damnati teneri eos convincique consortes, ut tam( ex praeterita definitione judicarentur obstricti: et ideo, quia i ante praecedentibus causis recentes^^) essent; cur ejicerentar cursus qui illi essent^ debere monstrari^ et ecclesiasticis legibii semper oportere constare. Saltem vel pro vestro loco iUorum i retis miseriis consulendum; formidantes in vobis^ quod in ahis neretis praeter illum^^) morem yiolenter admitti. Si criminereq erant ahquo, ecclesiastica debuit examinatione cognosci. lendion postulabantur? Unde et in proxima epistola 26 n. 12 legimiiB: Esii lendion imperaioris nomen ahstulerit^ et Johannes prindpi mentitus fmsse Jaetei *«) Ita mBB. D F* F" N* 0* 0* d«; d* inquam, c* aeqq. cur eompassi. *•) Ita msB. D 0» 0« c» d«. F^ F» N» parUcipaHo, D* c* aeqq. parHeipSo; que O^ convinctique, s») c* seqq. reienti, rectius in aUifl libris (D F* F» N» 0» 0« c« d«) re essent, id est: necdum judicatae causae. Mox D^ legibus esse ui temper. M) Editi (etiam d<) praeter uUum. At F^ F" mss. a* et c^ praeter mmm, Bcil. GelaBios prozime explicait Mox in msB. 0 c* desideratar W^lenrer. 9. Taceo^), et ad sedem apostolicam ex more deferri, ne no-(a. 495.) stra priyilegia curare videamur. Satis sit ostendere, qnid secundum regolas et patrum canones facere deberetis, praecipue quum etiam ipsfte leges publicae ecclesiasticis regulis obsequentes, tales persouas non nisi ab episcopis sanxerint judicari. 8i vero de qualibet hae- resi fuerant impetiti, tanto magis eos decuit ista cognoscerC; qui et secondam religionis tenorem possent ista discutere, et haberent pri- stiniun, ex quo est Christiana religio, pontificium judicandi. Aut caiholici enim erant aut haeretici, de quibus passim illa ludibria gerebantor et latrocinia detestanda saeviebant®^). Si haeretici, piodi, discuti et legitime convinci modis omnibus debuerant, vel siiis confessionibus vel aliorum yocibus confutari. Taceo, quia ad nos paierna fuerat consuetudine referendum, tantumque commoneo, qnid fieri ecclesiastico jure convenerat. Si vero catholici probaban- tur, Yos, qui non solum in eorum depulsione cessastis^^), sed etiam snbrogatis communicare delegistis, indubitanter haeretici. Qui^^) depnkis catholicis secedentibus non ignorastis causam fidei commu- niomsque catholicae per tantos antistites toto orbe patefactam; sed plane scientes volentesque sine ulla discussione rerum, sine ulla synodali examinatione, sine ulla sedis apostolicae reverentia assen- si8ti8 haereticis, libenter habentes patienterque sinentes, catholicos antistites inaudita prius et miserabili sorte detrudi. Quos si a fide mtegra^) communioneque catholica putaretis errare, ad apostolicam «rfem, secundum scita majorum et sicut semper est factum, referre ^buistis: sicut de Petro Alexandrino vel de Antiocheno Petro, «***) Johanne e^ Paulo fecisse monstratur Acacius. Sed quoniam ") Ita mss. D F^ F" N» 0» 0« c» d*; c^ seqq. Taceam, moxque d' addit quod. ^^^^ de legibus, quae in sequentibus memorantur, consulatur cod. Theod. 1. ^ i 8 c. 12, 23, 41; XVI t. 11 c. 1 et Valentiniani III Nov. de anno 462 (ed. Gothofred. tii Xn, ed. Haenel. Nov. 34). ") d* terviebant, moxque d> et vel suis. ") B« D' 0» 0« c^ seqq. cessistis, c' c» cessatisy D^ D^ D« F<* F°» N» d» d« cessa- ** 0». e. acquievistis). Tum D* D' d" sed etiam haereticos subrogastis (D^ d* ad- ^™»* «*) eommunii^are delegistis indubitanler (d» addit favetis) haereticis. D« D* D'- F"i™ j^Qi Qt q! q5 Beqq. d* sed etiam subrogatis (D* subrogastis) communicare ^9^ Indubitanier haereticis (c^ seqq. et codices a' haeretici), unde nostra ™io, qaa ima senfiUB integer efficitur. Fortasse litera s ex aliquo vetere inter- F^^u^niB signo simili in textum irrepsit. ■) D» D* D» F* F» N» 0» 0« c^ qui (c* quibus)y depulsis catholicis succedentibus w" tficcendentibus, D^ succedentibusque) non ignorastis; quam lectionem etiam codici- rai 8018 approbat a', nisi quod cmn c^ seqq. secedentifnts praeferendum ducit. i^ d^ suecedentibusque haereticis, nescio num satis auctoritate codicum fultL •*) Ita omnes codices a* d» cc (nisi quod D* F'* F"» N* rfe Johanne Pauto, 0* 0* de Johanne Pauloque). Solns d^ cum D^ omittunt de Johanne et Paulo; haec duo namina pariter in epist. 10 n. 5 praetermitti obseryat Quesnel. In qao nonni- (a. 495.) noveratis eos cum apostolica sede seutire; et quid sedes apostolica sua definitione censeret; per illos tantos ac tales episcopos oonstat Orientales antistites nullatenus ignorassC; et^^) per illos catholicae atque apostolicae communioni prodidisse contrarios et ab eadem de- fecisse^ qumn non illis estis passione conjuncti; sed potius perBecu- toribus eorum societate connexi. Hic vobis synodus nunquam venit in mentem^ et certe de personis, ut dictum est, nulla veteris*®) l^pe constrictis. Hic nullo concilio*'), non unius urbis vel unius epi- scopi sed totius Orientis Ecclesiam subiit animum vestrum facto sacerdotali concilio debere curari. Sed homines, qui in contrariam partem toto proposito et toto recideratis^^) affectu, concilia potius necessaria etiam studio declinastis, ne per eadem tale aliqoid censere- tur, quo vobis rebus evidenter ostensis et legitime confutatis in haereticorum non liceret venire consortium. 10. Quid igitur de ignorantia praetenditis, quum per totom Orientem catholicam fidem communionemque sinceram sedi apostc^ cae congruentem non solum cognovisse tot pontifices videbatis^ sed**) etiam usque ad extremum constantissime defendisse? Si nos noii audieratiS; quid de fide et communione catholica atque apostotica censeremus, illos adspicere debuistis, et aut sequi, si credebatis esse catholicos, aut apud apostolicam sedem potius accusare, si credeba-' hil est mcmoria lapsus. Inde enim ipse non Johannis sed Peiri PauUque nomina removerat, et hoc quidem renitentibus mss. Is porro Johannes primum Apa- menae ac deinde Tyriae, Paulus Ephesinae ecclesiae praefectus fderat, ut es Simplicii epistola 7 n. 3 et Gelasii tract. I n. 12 comperimus. «s) c^ seqq. et vos catkolicae, mss. D F<* F™ N' 0* 0* et per illos, a' sec. suoft codices ac per hoc vos legisse videtur. Mox D* c* seqq. a' d* prodidisse; N' D* ••) c* c* seqq. d* veteriy D* P<* F"» N' 0* et mss. a' veteris subaudita vooe d* veteris offensae lege , nulla mss. auctoritate suffultus. Hic vero veUis nou quitatem sed simpliciter, quod praeteritum atque anteactum est, sonat. Noitne lectioni lucem confert, quod in epistola superiori n. 13 et 14 diBseritor acprae- sertim illud: non tamquam nova synodus contra veterem primamque connemtf sed potius secundum tenorem veteris constituti etc. Hic porro de iis episcopis agitiir, qui superius n. S dicti sunt dignitatibus suis privati ex nulla veteri eoMMa^ af Umt- quam ex praeterita definitione judicarentur obstricti, ••) c* seqq. d* recesseraiis ^ plerique mss. (etiam F*F») recederatis, veriai 0* 0* K' c* d^ (O^ D* secundis curis) redderatis. Habemus infra n. 12 omim fices Orientales ... in haec recidere contagia, Ita et in epistola superiore n. 14 mus Acacium tn communionem reddisse perfidiae. Idemque htgoB yerbi uBoa aaepe in his epistolis recurrit. ••) F* F"» omitt. sed. Mox 0» c« Si vos. KPiSTOLA 27, 433 tis errasse quid'®) illos, vel suo proposito illaiii tenmsse sententiam, (a. 495.) agnoscendo^^) qnid sedes apostolica definiret. Aut igitur eoUegas et fratres de proximo in conspectu vestro vel catholicos sequi de- buiflids, yel impetere si credebatis errare, nec illis^ a quibus nullo discriniine yexabantur, praebere consensum; donec veritas ex omni- bns patefacta constaret, et regulariter de eis ecclesiastici judicii forma procederet. Sin'^) vero sedis apostolicae regulam subsequendo perspiciebatis illos hanc tenere constantiam, consequenter per illoS; et qoid nostra definitio contineret, non habuistis incertum, et illo- mm persecutoribus adnuendo a sedis vos apostolicae; non ignorantes ejns sententiamy consortio retraxistis. Et adhuc dicitis ignorasse TOB, quid sedes apostolica censuisset; quum ab^^) illis sacerdotibus catholica fide et communione pollentibus non verbis aut litteriS; sed personis praesentibus didiceritis universa; et ab eadem vos proprio jndicio separasse videamini^^)? £t adhuc dicitis; synodimi in imius lumiinis persona debuisse tractari^ quam in damnandis tantis ponti- ficibus catholicis non quaesistis? Quibus autem vultis^ ut de talium cansarum relatione credamus? Catholicis an haereticis? Ab omni haereticoruin contagione discretis^ an haereticormn communione poUntia? Quis autem non videat^ illos esse catholicos et ab omni haeretica peste prorsus alienos^ qui propriis urbibus detrusi et in frygiliiiTTi sunt rcdacti; et eos^ qui superstitibus catholicis successores fieri ansi sunt^ catholicos omnino non esse^ sed aut Eutychianos manifestos, aut eorum sectatoribus communicantes ? 11. Haec pestis'*) apud eos hodieque. perdurat. Siquidem et emn Petro Alexandrino et cum Antiocheno Petro inditferenter ii, w) D* N» 0* 0« Quid illos vel, unde d» Quid Ulos dicitis vei, D* IV c* seqq. d« Qmid Uios Juvai vel. Neutra lectio interpolationis suspicione vacat, immo Gclasii meotem neutra exprimit. Unde lectionem F<* F°* O^ arripientes, cui fere in omni- bos laveDt D' N* 0* c\ speramuB satis nos sensum et verba auctoris asdecutos Similiter a' resarciendum suasit: errasse quidem illos vel suo proposito iliatn Menteniiam, aut cognoscendoy quid sedes apostoiica definirei, cognoseendo, "^) d' addit enim. Mox 0' commixtione permixti, BPI8TOLXB SOMAII. PONTIF. I. 28 (a. 495.) qui oatholicis successerant^ commuuione permixti sunt^ et succes ribus utriusque Petri hodieque miscentur. His adde etiam illos, q licet catholicis^^) non successerint, sed dum catholici pontifices ] berentur, talium se communioni junxerunt. Haec illa mixtura, h est illa confusio^ qua per Orientem totum inter catholicam haen camque communionem nuUa discretio est: immo qui disderni'^) t taverit, potius habetur haereticus, persecutione percellitur, exsi et afflictione raultatur. Restat ergo, ut in hac colluvione cunc nim, sicut quisquis ab eadem separatus est, sincerae communio et ideo catholicus comprobatur; ita quisquis illius dctestandi cc mercii particeps invenietur, quantum a sincera communione^ tant a catholica atque apostolica sit remoius. Nec praetendat quisqos quod alicui forsitan evidentiori non communicasset'^) vel commu care videatur haeretico. Quid enim juvat, si illi non communic et his tamen communione jungatur'^), qui ab illius non sunt a munione diversi? Quodsi eorum nulli communicavit vel omn non communicat hic erit ille sincerae^ catholicae apo8tolicae< communionis et fidei; alioquin nuUo modo poterit indiscretae il mixtionis insincerum vitare contagium. Hoc modo etiam iUe bonus Acacius Antiocheno Petro, cui se 'palam non commimic jactabat, per alios sine ambiguo communicasse detegitur. Ne enim ab onmium, qui Antiocheno Petro coramunicabant, semet A cius communione suspendit. Ac per hoc quid profuit, quod vit volebat illi palam iion communicare, cui per suos complices su civae^") communionis nectebatur? Alexandrino Petro communic Acacius; sed donec advixit Antiochenus Petrus, qui utique ] Acacianimi cum Petro Alexa,ndrino foedus initum defunctus os ditur, nunquam Antiocheno Petro Alexandrinus Petrus eomm care desiit. 12. QuckI catholicorum continet relatio sacerdotum ceteror que iii catholica fide^^) durantium, nec conscientiam latere pc totius Orientis. Et ut taceam; quod per ipsimi Zenonem imper rem, qui utique Antiocheiio Petro, quem introduxerat et cujus cerdotiuiii comprobaverat , sine dubio communione*-) permii '®) Supple exftulsis. Deinde d' d* tainen tum^ ubi D* N' ()* c'* seqq. sed O* c' sed cum et c'* seqq. communione. "j J.)"* d' discernere. Rectius ceterifl iu libris discerni scil. ab haeretica > luuiiiuiie. Moxque iidem petlitur pro percetlitur. '^y Ita D* F<* F"" N^ c'^ seqq.; at d' communicasse. so^ yd pm subsive, 0* c^ suh signo commuuioms. Moxque ()• jiiejcamdrimo J Hon communicavit Acacius. "*) Solus d' rommixtus omiBBO communione, . KPisTOLAE 27. 28. 4:j5 commusicabat Acacius , plurimos diversarum urbium praesules pos- (a. 495.) sumus demonstrare, quibus cum Antiocheno Petro communicantibus nihilominus communicabat Acacius, et per illos Antiocheno communi- cabat consequenter et Petro. Sed haec apud Graecos facilis et in- culpabihs putatur esse permixtio, apud quos nulla est veri falsique discretio; et quum omnibus reprobis volunt esse communes, in nulla monstrantur probitate constare. Hic autem ille est Petrus Antio- chenus, quem nec per poenitentiam ad communionem catholicam recipi etiam a sede apostolica poposcit Acacius. Ac per hoc quid^^) queruntur a nobis Acacium fuisse damnatum, quum hac professione praemissa et per^^) anfractus Antiocheni Petri recepta communione, se doceatur ipse damuasse? Ubi tamen non solum reus tenetur Acacius, sed omnes pontifices Orientis, qui pari modo in haec reci- dere^^) contagia meritoque simili damnatione tenentur obstricti, nec inde possunt uUatenus expediri, nisi dum supersimt a talibus absti- ttendo. Nec nos oportet in talibus causis nisi illis credere, qui aut onmino se sciunt ab hujus perfidiae nexibus divino beneficio servare discretos, aut his, qui a perfidorum consortio recesserunt. Nam in perfidorum contagio constitutis quam fidem pro sincerae communio- nis testificatione possumus adhibere , qui in*^'') insincera communione sunt positi? Nec eorum testimoniis niti^^) pro veritate poterimus, qui impugnare nituntur falsitatibus veritatem. Restat, ut non nisi illis credere debeamus, qui ab omni contagione sunt liberi.