Leo, bishop of the Catholic Church of the city of Rome, to the most religious and pious emperor Theodosius.
The solicitude of Your Clemency, moved by the inspiration of God’s Spirit, shows how divine providence deigns to govern human affairs — desiring that nothing unpeaceful or divergent exist in the Catholic Church, since faith, being one, cannot differ from itself.
Though the episcopal acts make plain that Eutyches erred imprudently and ignorantly, and should have abandoned the persuasion justly condemned in him, your piety — which for God’s honor loves the Catholic truth with the most devoted zeal — has arranged for a synodal examination at Ephesus, in which the truth may be made manifest to this erring old man.
We have sent Our brothers, bishop Julius and the priest Renatus, and my son the deacon Hilarius, in Our stead — men sufficient for the nature of this business — bearing both justice and benevolence. Since the integrity of the Christian confession admits of no doubt, all the perversity of error must be condemned. Yet if he who has erred, coming to his senses, seeks pardon, priestly mercy may come to his aid: for in the libel he submitted to Us he held out the promise to correct whatever Our sentence should disapprove in his errors.
What the Catholic Church universally believes and teaches about the Lord’s Incarnation is contained more fully in Our letter to Our brother and fellow bishop Flavian.
Given on the Ides of June, in the consulship of Asturius and Protogenes, most illustrious men.
Footnotes
- ↩ The phrase nostra sententia…improbasset — “whatever Our sentence should disapprove” — is Eutyches’s own language from his appeal letter (Letter XXI), now cited back by Leo to Theodosius. Eutyches himself had promised to follow whatever Leo approved. Leo is pointing out to the emperor that even the appellant acknowledged Leo’s sentence as the standard — not the Constantinople synod’s, not a future general council’s, but Leo’s. The judicial authority is Rome’s by the appellant’s own acknowledgment.
- ↩ This reference to the Tome (Letter XXVIII) as the definitive statement of universal Catholic teaching is Leo presenting his own letter as the authoritative doctrinal position to which the emperor is to refer. Leo does not say “what the Council of Nicaea or Ephesus defined” — he says “what is contained in Our letter to Flavian.” The Tome is the standard, and Leo is the one who issued it. The emperor’s role is to support the application of what the Apostolic See has defined.
- ↩ June 13, 449 AD — three weeks and three days after the Tome (Letter XXVIII, May 21, 449), written to the same consuls. The gap between the two letters suggests Leo composed the Tome first and sent the accompanying imperial letter somewhat later, perhaps after his legates were fully briefed. The Council of Ephesus II would convene approximately eight weeks after this letter, on August 8, 449. Leo’s legates arrived at Ephesus with the Tome, but were refused the floor by Dioscorus. The synod condemned Flavian, reinstated Eutyches, and suppressed the Tome. Leo received the news and refused to accept the council’s acts, calling it a latrocinium — a robbers’ council.
Historical Commentary