By Pope St. Gelasius I
Translator’s preface: Pope St. Gelasius I (r. 492-496) will be known to Josias readers as the author of the famous letter Famuli vestrae pietatis, more commonly known by its famous phrase Duo sunt. It is the paradigmatic statement of “Gelasian dyarchy.”
Pope Gelasius here addresses the case of Peter III “The Hoarse,” patriarch of Alexandria (477-489), a Monophysite and hence an opponent of the Council of Chalcedon (451). He had been excommunicated by Pope Felix III in 484 for accepting the heretical Henoticon, or reunion formula, of the Emperor Zeno. This episode, called the Acacian Schism after the Monophysite patriarch Acacius of Constantinople who held communion with Peter the Hoarse, is described more fully in our preface to Famuli vestrae pietatis.
In this Tome, meanwhile, Pope Gelasius insists that that imperial authorities have no power to absolve Peter from his excommunication, which is reserved to the Apostolic See. This occasions a more general discussion of the distinction between ecclesiastical and temporal authority.
1. Lest perhaps they should say, as they are wont to do, that if the Council of Chalcedon is received, everything that was produced there must stand firm—for either it should be received in its entirety, or if it is objectionable in part, it cannot stand firm at all—let them know that what is according to the holy Scriptures and the tradition of our forefathers, according to the canons and rules of the Church, for the Catholic and Apostolic faith, communion, and truth, for which the Apostolic See commanded this council to be held and confirmed it once it was held, is undoubtedly received by the whole Church. But other things, which by unauthorized presumption were there brought forth, or rather brandished about; which the Apostolic See in no way commanded to be done; which it is clear were immediately opposed by the vicars of the Apostolic See; which the Apostolic See in no way approved, even though the Emperor Marcian requested it; which the prelate of the Church of Constantinople at that time, Anatolius, publicly declared he did not arrogate to himself, and which he did not deny are placed in the power of the bishop of the Apostolic See—these things, therefore, as has been said, the Apostolic See did not accept, because what is shown to be contrary to the privileges of the universal Church cannot be held to be good.
2. What then? Forasmuch as in the holy books, which assuredly we venerate and follow, the profanities and wicked deeds of certain people are narrated, therefore must we follow or venerate everything equally, since it is all contained in the holy and venerable books? We read that St. Peter, the first apostle, thinking the grace of the New Testament ought to be preached in such a way that it not recede from the precepts of the old law, did certain things through pretense among the Jews and the Gentiles: are those deeds of his, which his fellow apostle rightly contradicted and which he himself consequently later forbad, therefore to be adopted alongside those things that he as the first apostle preached as beneficial? Is either his correct teaching to be repudiated along with what happened through human weakness, or his feeble ignorance accepted along with his finished teaching? Are not many things found in the heretics’ books that belong to the truth? Must then the truth be refuted because their books, where wickedness is in them, are refuted? Or should their wicked books be accepted because the truth that is mixed in there is not denied? The Apostle says, Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good.1 We know that the Apostle even cited certain things from the books of the pagans;2 is therefore everything written alongside them to be accepted too? The Apostle himself says that many preachers preach Christ each in his own way:3 yet, while it is necessary to admit that Christ is preached, albeit in whatever way, nevertheless he admonishes us to avoid the means by which Christ was not preached correctly. He bewails malefactors, some of whose deeds he teaches are to be refuted and others to be followed.4 These and suchlike examples teach, and the divine testimonies confirm, that we are not to accept indifferently everything said by whomever or written wherever, but keeping the good things, to refute what is harmful.
3. Death was introduced into sinful man, yet death, by being introduced into the man Jesus Christ, made the Devil guilty, because where there was no cause for death, namely sin, the penalty for sin did not belong. Judgment is or was attached to error always: the judgment, once attached to this error, will never in any way be undone. For just as, insofar as it is an error, it never ceases to be error, so it is never released from the attached judgment, because error, which is acknowledged to be condemned, and the judgment are shown to be tightly connected, as long as the error remains. Therefore those who are in that error are bound by the judgment of the error, and as long as they remain in it, they are in no way absolved, just as the error in which they are is not absolved either. For error is never worthy of indulgence, but rather the one is who is truthfully free of it and recedes from participation in it. As long as it is in them, therefore, error retains its damnation and is never released, because error always deserves punishment. But the participants in error either are always participants in its punishment, if they persist in it, or else if they retreat from it, as they become strangers to error and are removed from participation in it, so they will consequently be strangers to its punishment. Since punishment is attached to the erring man, as long as he continues erring, he is constrained by the same punishment; because a man cannot err without the punishment for the erring, this same punishment is perpetual and never to be undone, as long as he persists in erring. If he ceases to err, the punishment, which was perpetually attached to the erring man, to the man who is not erring—that is, to another object than the one to which it was attached—not only can it not be perpetual, but neither can it any longer be a punishment. For it is not he to whom it was attached: it was attached to the erring man, not to the unerring man. The judgment that was attached to the erring man is perpetual and perpetually constrains him, and it can no longer hold an unerring man. Let it be said to the man erring that the penalty will be perpetual, let it be said that it will never be absolved: it truly and completely remains, and it is certain, that what is attached in it cannot be absolved at all as long as it is due to the one who remains in error. But for one who is not erring there can be no punishment, since punishment ought not to be brought against one who is not erring. What is due to an erring man is neither changed in any way nor undone. It is therefore attached in its hold, and in its right it can in no way be rescinded. If it cannot have its hold, it is understood to be already voided, and it cannot have a right where it does not have a cause for existing.
4. The Holy Scriptures are full of this form of justice. It is said: Let sinners perish from the earth, so that they be no more: that they be no longer sinners, that they cease being sinners, in this let them perish, that they leave off being sinners.5 Otherwise, if sinners, according to the judgment of the prophet, everywhere perished, such that they no longer subsisted, who could have been saved by our Redeemer, who came not to call the just, but sinners?6 Or about whom is the Apostle speaking: Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief;7 and When we were yet sinners, God sent His Son8 and other verses of this kind? Here, truly, many also substantially perished as sinners by remaining in their sins, and the sentence passed on them remained true and was never absolved. Yet since the same sentence remained perpetually fixed on those to whom it had been attached, in a certain way nevertheless the sentence remained in those who did not forever persist, i.e. those who did not forever perdure in their sins. For although they perish, they perish as sinners, as it is written—they perished in a certain way, not penally, but remedially. And in a certain way the sentence remained attached, until by remaining it made them cease to be sinners. The sentence was fulfilled even in them, and not by remaining for perishing sinners once its hold was finished, in such a way that they were no longer sinners. But it could not remain in those who were not sinners, because in those upon whom it was not inflicted, it did not have a right to remain. Thus neither in its right nor in its course was it in any way absolved, and the same sentence remaining in those upon whom it was inflicted was made alien to those who were separated from its jurisdiction. Nor, without injuring its terms, does it have any right to remain on those upon whom it was not inflicted.
5. The Lord said that those who sinned against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven either here or in the world to come.9 Yet how many offenders of the Holy Spirit do we know, such as the various heretics—Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians—who, returning to the Catholic faith, here both obtained forgiveness for their blasphemy and received hope of obtaining indulgence in the future? Nor as a result is the Lord’s judgment untrue, nor will it be thought to be in any way rescinded, since as regards those who continue to be heretics, it remains, never to be rescinded, but upon those who become unlike these heretics it is not inflicted. Consequently, just as also the blessed Apostle John says, There is sin unto death: I say that it not be prayed for; and there is a sin not unto death: I say that it be prayed for.10 There is sin unto death for those remaining in that same sin; there is sin not unto death for those who turn from that same sin. Certainly there is no sin either for whose remission the Church does not pray or from which the Church, granted the power from on high, cannot absolve or restore those who turn from it, since it is said to her: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.11 “Whatsoever” includes all things, however great and of whatever type they are. Their sentence nevertheless remains true, since by it he who persists in it is declared never to be absolved, but not also the one who turns away from it later.
6. This will be seen reasonably also in the sentence of Acacius, in which, although it is said to him You will never be absolved, there is not added Even if you come to your senses, even if you turn away from your error, even if you cease violating your trust. The plain text is You will not be absolved, but that must be understood according to the way in which he is bound. If he had not become such as needed to be bound, he would have been shown to be absolved. Just as the obligation is lacking when the cause of the obligation is lacking, so certainly he would have been absolved. To that extent Acacius would seem to have been able to be absolved already from the bond of the aforementioned sentence if he had become no longer a sinner, and he would become absolved by the lack an obligation. And as regards sinners, the sentence would be rendered as in no way soluble. Did he send, seek and demand and then find himself rejected? Thus he made the sentence indissoluble in himself, because he chose to remain a sinner who truthfully cannot be absolved; and he did not wish to become a sinner, concerning whom, since the judgment remains concerning sinners, once he became no longer a sinner the sentence would not remain indissoluble, for it would not have the right to remain concerning one who had been made no longer a sinner. How much more, as has been said, warned by this example and danger, should those who are held by the same bond hasten to ensure that they not remain such to whom that sentence is indissolubly attached, and that they begin to be such to whom the sentence, not attached indissolubly, can be dissoluble. To the one who has been made no longer someone to whom the judgment is attached indissolubly, the judgment can be dissoluble. For now to Acacius, who does not wish to be no longer a sinner, just as the judgment remained unabsolved for one who remained a sinner until the end, so now the judgment can no longer be dissoluble for the one who did not wish to cease being a sinner. Did Acacius not have many bishops whose example he could have followed, who, having fallen into the Robber Synod of Ephesus, somehow relapsed into the consent of wickedness? At any rate, nevertheless, even if it had not been said, and they could have borne eternal damnation, unless, coming to their senses and becoming no longer such as they had been made, i.e. deserving of eternal damnation: those who withdrew from the cause of eternal damnation deserved to be absolved from the damnation, as those who persisted made their damnation indissoluble.
7. Therefore, it does not matter at all—it makes no difference—whether he is called never to be absolved or not, because the ecclesiastical sentence obliges the guilty and the transgressing. For just as it is not possible to support him, because he is not called never to be absolved, yet, if he remains in error, he persists in every way unable to be absolved, nor can he be absolved therefrom unless he ceases to be a sinner—in just the same way, no one can be condemned prejudicially, even if he be called never to be absolved, the obvious reason being that he is in no way ever to be absolved if he remains what he was when he was bound. He is certainly such as never to be absolved as he was bound. But I do not add even if he comes to his senses and corrects himself, so that there may be no doubt that if he becomes no longer the sort of person who was called never to be absolved, but rather someone who is not called never to be absolved, namely someone corrected and reformed, consequently corrected he can be absolved.
8. It is to be noted that those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit in whatever way, if they come to their senses and correct themselves, will be forgiven both here and in the world to come; and hence the sentence of the Lord cannot waver, which is said to remain upon those who remain blasphemers, not upon those who cease being such. But as long as they remain in that sin, they are such to whom the punishment remains permanently attached. But if they retreat from that sin, they are made no longer such for whom the punishment is permanently declared, and therefore, having been made no longer such, they now can be forgiven both here and in the world to come. Otherwise, which God forbid, the Church would appear to reconcile such persons in vain. But because the Church cannot act in vain, by this understanding in all ways, the judgment of the Lord being preserved, it must be declared that, as far as it pertains to us, it can in no way happen.
9. Therefore, Acacius was called such as he was bound, never to be absolved. He remained such until the end; he never ceased to be such; thus he is today exactly what he was called, and now he can no longer be otherwise. Hence he was never going to be absolved by remaining such. If he had ceased to be such, neither would the phrase never to be absolved have continued to apply to him, because one who is not such as to be called never to be absolved can be absolved, and from one who is not such the never to be absolved withdraws, and thus the can be absolved comes forward. What the Apostolic See has not consented to, neither the Emperor has imposed nor Anatolius exercised, and everything, as has been said, has been placed in the power of the Apostolic See. Thus what the Apostolic See has confirmed in a synod obtains force, and what it has rejected cannot stand firm. And she alone rescinds what the synodical assembly wrongfully believed it should grasp, not promulgating a new judgment but carrying out the old one along with the Apostolic See.
10. Yet because it is said of one and the same man—whether of one remaining such as rightfully receives the sentence or of one made no longer such and absolved from that sentence which is not pronounced of one no longer such—and in every city it is read to be likewise attached and brought out among the people at the same time, there is a similarity as regards the whole world. For it is the same world which it is said will perish, and the word of God cannot pass away, and nevertheless in this world it is not spoken by one receding from evil intentions. Thus Tyrus and Berytos and Gaza and Egypt are said to be about to perish,12 which through the Gospel we know were later saved. Therefore they passed away in a double way: either by remaining in what had earned them that sentence, or by departing from what they had been and beginning to be as they had not been when the sentenced was pronounced, so that consequently the sentence did not apply to them. Thus also God peremptorily pronounced through Isaias the prophet concerning the Jewish people: Blind the heart of this people, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes: lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.13 Here also the correction and emendation are shown to be forbidden, and the hope of repentance is also certainly cut off. Yet from that same people, however, we know the Apostles and the early Church came, and so many thousands of men were in one day saved by baptism. See how the sentence remained as it was promulgated upon those who persisted in wickedness, nor were they at all allowed to come to the correction of health, but they were condemned to perish in their iniquity; and, the divine judgment remaining, they were not converted by their own emendation and their own minds or will and their own power or ability, so that they might be healed, but rather by the grace of God were they healed, so that they might be converted. Lest they be converted, it says, and I heal them: lest by their own will or their own works, in which they particularly trusted, or lest following their own justice, they might not be subject to the justice of God by trusting in their own power and not submitting themselves to the illumination of the divine mercy. And therefore the result of their proud presumption was retained upon them: lest they be converted by their own intentions, their own exertions, as they thought; and I heal them, lest saving grace should be given as if to their merits coming from their own powers, and in this way grace would no longer be grace, if it were not given freely to those without merit, but instead wages paid to those who earned them. Therefore, it is not they be converted, and I heal them; but healed by grace, they might acknowledge how they are converted to Christ’s humility. Thus in each, that is, both in those who remain as they were when they received the judgment and in those saved from it, the divine sentence remains firm. Yet, that sentence remaining, health is brought to them in such a wonderful way, that the sentence does not appear changed, but rather remains the same, while health comes not from their own confidence but from the divine gift.
11. If, then, they shrink from touching these things, and they know that these do not belong to the limits of their power, which is allowed to judge human things only, not to preside over divine things: how do they presume to judge concerning these matters, by which the divine affairs are governed? These things existed before the coming of Christ in figure, so that, while yet established in corporeal actions, certain people were both kings and priests, as the sacred history tells us holy Melchizedek was. The devil also imitated this in his affairs, he who always tried with a tyrannical spirit to claim for himself what belonged to divine worship, so that the pagan emperors were also called maximi pontifices. But since the true King and Priest came, no longer has the emperor given himself the name of priest, nor has priest claimed the royal rank, though His members, that is, the members of the true King and Priest, according to their participation in His wonderful nature, are said to take part in His sacred generosity, so that both the royal and the priestly kinds remain at once. For Christ, mindful of human frailty, tempered what was fitting for the salvation of His faithful with a wonderful dispensation: He separated the duties of the two powers with their own proper actions and distinct dignities, desiring His faithful to be saved by healing humility, not to be once again waylaid by human pride. Thus Christian emperors need priests for eternal life, and priests use the imperial ordinances for the course of temporal things, so that spiritual action is separated from carnal incursions, and no man, being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular businesses,14 and in turn he who is involved in secular affairs does not seem to preside over divine things. Thus the modesty of each order is preserved, lest one be lifted up over the other, and the competent occupation is fitted specially to the qualities of its actions.
12. It is quite evident to all right-thinking persons that a priest absolutely cannot be either bound or absolved by the secular power. Thus it is manifestly proved that Peter of Alexandria could in no way be absolved by a merely imperial judgment. If the consent of priests also is attached to it, we ask whether it came before or after the imperial judgment. If it came after, then the result is this: an absolution ordered and principally begun by the secular power cannot be valid, and the assent of the priests afterward will have been more out of sycophancy than legitimate approval. If it came first, let it be shown by whom and where it was done, whether it took place according to the rule of the Church, whether it came forth from the tradition of the Fathers and the custom of our ancestors and a competent examination. When doubtless we must find out whether it was conducted by a synodal assembly (which, in the reception of a condemned man or the expulsion of a Catholic, since the case was a new one, most certainly ought to have happened); whether, according to the rules of the Church, it was referred to the first See, which the sentence by which Peter was bound concerns; whether the church that had bound him without absolving him could be overruled even without her knowledge. If these things are not done, by what custom, by what right does Peter of Alexandria purport to be absolved, when neither by priests and ecclesiastical laws was he legitimately set free, nor could he circumvent the Church and be absolved by the secular power?
13. But perhaps someone will say, “The emperor did not absolve; he only requested that Peter be absolved by the priests.” How much more, then, should it have been intimated to the emperor when he requested this that if he wanted Peter to be absolved legitimately, a legitimate absolution of ecclesiastical force ought to be issued, and all the aforementioned things ought to be observed according to the Church’s procedure, especially when the case concerns the bishop of the second See,15 nor can he be lawfully absolved by any inferior See but only by the first. Indeed the inferior cannot absolve the more powerful, for only the more powerful rightly absolves the inferior. Hence the bishops of the inferior place, who in no way considered themselves able to absolve someone more powerful than themselves without the first See, especially one whom they knew to be bound by its judgment, did not free him by their treacherous absolution, but rather bound themselves by their treachery. Thus Peter’s absolution is invalid in both ways: because they could neither absolve the guilty man by their treacherous absolution, and once the Catholic bishops everywhere were deposed and heretics substituted, or those who were polluted by maintaining communion with the heretics, and also were polluted by insincerity in sacred religion, they were unable to absolve an accomplice of theirs because they themselves had not been absolved. And hence as betrayers of the ecclesiastical rule and as defilers of the integrity of the sacred communion by their association with heretics, what judgment could they render concerning a guilty man so like themselves? For as regards the Catholic bishops throughout the whole East, whoever stood firm was thrown out, and those who remain consented to error and did not withdraw themselves from the contagion of the erring. Therefore, what could be their judgment about anyone’s error, if they have never shown themselves free from error, and, mixing the confession of Catholic with that of heretics, have disturbed the entire true and sincere religion, and polluted Catholic and apostolic purity? Behold those who would absolve the guilty man, those who before everyone else were shown to be guilty! Behold those whom the synod to absolve the guilty man ought to have begun with! If the Catholic faith and communion was retained, why were the Catholic bishops being driven out? If the Catholic bishops were being driven out, how is it not only the heretics who remain?
- 1 Thess. v, 21. ↩︎
- Acts xvii, 28. ↩︎
- Phil. i, 15. ↩︎
- 1 Cor. iii, 12 ff. ↩︎
- Ps. ciii, 35 (not the Vulgate text, which reads Deficiant peccatores a terra, et iniqui, ita ut non sint.) ↩︎
- Luc. v, 32. ↩︎
- 1 Tim. i, 14. ↩︎
- Rom. v, 8. ↩︎
- Matt. xii, 32. ↩︎
- 1 John v, 16. ↩︎
- Matt. xviii, 18. ↩︎
- Jer. xlvii, 4-5, and xliv, 12. ↩︎
- Is. vi, 10. ↩︎
- 2 Tim. ii, 4. ↩︎
- Gelasius continues the Roman practice of annulling the canons of Constantinople I (c. 3) and Chalcedon (c. 28) that rank the bishop of Constantinople second in dignity after the bishop of Rome. ↩︎