Leo, bishop, to the most religious Emperor Theodosius.
The Unity of Faith Must Be Preserved; Leo Sends Those Who Fulfill His Presence’s Role, for the Matter Admits No Doubt
Having received Your Clemency’s letters, I perceive great cause for the universal Church to rejoice — that you wish the Christian faith, by which the divine Trinity is honored and worshipped, to be in no respect dissimilar or discordant. For what more effectively pleads for God’s mercy in human affairs than a single act of thanksgiving and the sacrifice of one unified confession offered by all to His majesty? The full devotion of priests and all the faithful will only be realized if, regarding the deeds performed for our redemption by the only-begotten Son of God, the Word, nothing is believed or proclaimed but what He himself commanded to be preached and believed.
Accordingly, though your piety has rightly convened an episcopal council — which no reason permits me to attend, since no prior examples exist for this and present necessity prevents me from leaving the city, especially since the faith’s cause is so clear that it would have been more reasonable to have refrained from convoking a synod altogether — I have devoted my zeal, insofar as the Lord deigns to assist, to complying with Your Clemency’s decrees. I have appointed from here the brothers who are sufficient for removing scandals appropriate to the nature of the cause, and who are to fulfill the role of my presence — since this is not the kind of question that could or should be doubted.
Given on the twelfth day before the Kalends of July, in the consulship of Asturius and Protogenes, most illustrious men.
Footnotes
- ↩ The Latin is praesertim cum tam evidens fidei causa sit, ut rationabilius in indicanda synodo fuisset abstinendum — “especially since the faith’s cause is so clear that it would have been more reasonable to have refrained from convoking a synod altogether.” This is Leo telling the emperor directly that the council was unnecessary: the doctrinal question is already answered. The same point appears in Letter XXXVI to Flavian, dispatched the same day. Together the two letters signal to both the patriarch and the court that the Tome constitutes the doctrinal settlement — the council can confirm it but cannot reopen it.
- ↩ Quique praesentiae meae impleant vicem — “who are to fulfill the role of my presence.” This is the vice mea / praesentiae meae delegation formula, closely parallel to the in nostris partibus language of Letter XXXI and the vice mea of Letter XXXIII. The legates are not Leo’s substitutes in an ordinary sense; they carry Leo’s presence and authority with them. The council is not a gathering Leo regrettably cannot attend; it is a gathering in which Leo is present through his delegates.
- ↩ Quia non talis quaestio orta est de qua aut possit, aut debeat dubitari — “for this is not the kind of question that could or should be doubted.” This sentence explains why the praesentiae meae formula is sufficient: a question that admits no doubt does not require Leo’s physical presence to resolve it. The Tome has stated the answer; the legates carry it; the council need only receive it. The sentence functions as the theological premise of the entire letter: Leo’s absence is not a liability because his judgment, embodied in the Tome and in the legates, is already present and sufficient.
- ↩ June 20, 449 — the same day as Letter XXXVI to Flavian. That both letters were dispatched on the same day is confirmed by PL footnote (a), which notes that the letter to Theodosius was written on the occasion that prompted Leo to write simultaneously to Flavian. The date is twelve days before the Kalends of July, seven days after the June 13 cluster.
Historical Commentary