Translator’s note: The Latin of this synodal document is, even by Thiel’s standards, unusually compressed and difficult — particularly in sections 7 through 9, where the original passes through long periodic constructions and dense ablative absolutes. Readers consulting the document for technical theological or canonical purposes should compare it against the Latin in Thiel’s edition (pp. 657–670) where the precise wording matters. The synod’s date is given as 23 October 501 following Thiel’s edition and the Cardinals’ biographical record; some older Catholic encyclopedic sources give the date as 23 October 502, reflecting different chronologies for the four synods of the Symmachan schism.
The fourth synod held at Rome on the absolution of Pope Symmachus.
Chapter I: The Convocation, and the Bishops’ Recognition That the Pope’s Case Was Without Precedent
1. With Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus, the most distinguished man, consul, on the tenth day before the Kalends of November, the holy synod, gathered at the city of Rome from various regions by the precept of the most glorious King Theodoric, said in the name of Christ:
The most glorious king had ordered bishops to come together at Rome from various provinces, that the holy council might investigate the matters which the adversaries of the venerable Pope Symmachus, prelate of the Apostolic See, claimed could be charged against him. The bishops of Liguria, Aemilia, and the Venetian regions, whom the king had drawn into his presence on his journey, had to consult him — broken by age, weak in body, in poor health, and reluctant to be assembled. The most pious king responded with his characteristic goodwill: that many grave reports concerning Pope Symmachus’s conduct had been brought to him, and that, if the objections of his enemies were true, this needed to be made manifest by the synod’s judgment.
2. The bishops, on whom the burden of presenting the case now lay, observed that the one accused ought himself to convoke the synod — knowing that to his See belongs first the merit and primacy of the Apostle Peter, and then the authority of the venerable councils, following the Lord’s command, has handed down a singular power in the churches. They observed too that no precedent had ever been laid down in any similar form, by which the prelate of the said See should subject himself to the judgment of those of lesser rank. But the king most strongly indicated that the Pope himself had also expressed his will to convoke the synod by letters. The requests put forward in the king’s communication were answered by his clemency. He directed the bishops to act without delay, either to give a ruling in the matter or to do whatever the case required; and so the bishops gathered at Rome from various parts of lands and regions by God’s providential prosecution of the matter.
Chapter II: Symmachus Comes to the Synod and Asks Procedural Restoration Before Hearing
3. While the venerable assembly was discussing how to begin the case, Pope Symmachus entered the basilica of Julius, where the bishops were gathered in session. He gave thanks to the most clement king for the synodal convocation and testified that this matter — for which he had hoped — had now come to pass. The cause of the bishops’ uncertainty, which had kept the council unsettled, was now removed: he professed that he gave his presence to the gathering, in keeping with the order required by the ecclesiastical statutes, before all who had come together there. He hoped, on attending the synod, that whatever had been petitioned against him by certain clergy or laymen — contrary to the reverence owed to the older statutes, or contrary to the rules of the greater part — would be reviewed; and that all things which had been taken from him by the suggestions of his enemies would, by the honorable council’s ordination, be restored to his power. He asked that the prelate of so great a place might first be lawfully restored to his original estate, and only then come to the case and respond to the accusers’ propositions if the synod thought it proper.
Chapter III: The Royal Order Requiring Symmachus to Engage With Accusers Before Restoration
4. The matter seemed worthy to most of the bishops to be granted. But the synod did not presume to decree anything without the king’s notice. Owing to the legates’ negligence in delivering the request, the just suggestion did not receive the response it deserved. Pope Symmachus was instead ordered by royal commands to engage with his accusers concerning the patrimonial and ecclesiastical questions before having those things he had lost restored to him. Pope Symmachus had submitted the privileges of his power — for the satisfaction of conscience, as We justly estimate — and on this occasion he did not wish to take them up again.
Chapter IV: The Sessorian Synod Refuses Charges Brought Through the Pope’s Slaves
5. While the synod was meeting at the Sessorian basilica — known by the byname Hierusalem — certain bishops thought that the libellus prepared by the accusers — which they were daily pressing in seditious assemblies — should be received by the synod. But this libellus contained two things which were either inimical to truth or, as the proceedings showed, repugnant to the assembly’s ecclesiastical purpose. First, the accusers claimed that the charges against Pope Symmachus had previously come to royal notice. The Pope declared this false: he would not have committed the matter to a hearing as if it were a new cause, if he knew his own conscience to be convicted of error and were merely awaiting sentence. Second, the accusers were attempting to bring charges against him through his own slaves, claiming that they could convict him by their testimony, and demanding that he hand the slaves over to them, by whom they asserted he could be defeated in judgment. This was contrary both to the canons and to the public laws — for the statutes of the Fathers had laid down that those whom the laws of the world do not admit as accusers should be denied any license either of speaking or of pursuing in cognizance.
Chapter V: The Pope’s Procession to the Synod Is Attacked by Mob Violence
6. While these matters were being treated, the Pope arrived to plead his case. Coming through the hostile crowds of his violent rivals, he was so handled that the count Arigernus, an illustrious man, came near to losing his life in the attack — along with many of the presbyters who were going with him. The still-recent traces of the wounds of the most illustrious count Arigernus, and of the eminent men Gudila and Bedeulfus — the chief officers of the royal household — bore witness to where the Pope had set out from, when he made his way to the precincts of the blessed Apostle Peter.
Chapter VI: The Bishops Petition the King Again; Symmachus Reserves His Canonical Standing
7. With these things done and the proceedings in confusion, We turned again to the king’s justice — knowing that God’s own divine providence rules the lord whom He has provided for the very governance of Italy. We approached his clemency in the order required by the case, and conveyed also the answer of the often-named Pope. The Pope, after the violent assault to which he and his clergy had been subjected, had been admonished to come out again to the judgment if he had the will to do so. But through the bishops he sent with this mandate, he replied: that he had ceded to the canons; that, while seeking to humble himself in the culmination of his own purgation, by what great perils he had nearly been overwhelmed! The lord the king had the power to do whatever he wished; he himself, however, in the meantime — justice not refusing — could not be compelled by the canonical statutes themselves.
Chapter VII: The King Returns the Substantive Question to the Synod’s Judgment
8. To these things the most serene king responded, as God breathed upon him: that the synodal arbitrement was, in this great matter, to follow what was prescribed by ecclesiastical custom, and that nothing beyond reverence for ecclesiastical affairs pertained to him — committing also to the pontifical power that, whether the bishops wished to hear the matter or not, they should deliberate on what they thought more useful, provided only that, by the venerable provision of the council, peace in the Roman city should be restored to all Christians; for when this is justly offered, the mandates of God are fulfilled, and Italy is given her own rector.
Chapter VIII: The Synod Reserves the Pope’s Case to Divine Judgment
9. Recognizing that no further labor remained for Us — except to exhort the dissidents, in the humility of Our purpose, to concord — for the one thing remaining in this great matter, by which We might obey both God and the holy king’s will, was to invite the most ample senate by the assembled legation. We admonished and instructed the senate as was fitting: that the causes of God Himself are to be committed to His judgment — He who is able to slay the body and send the soul into Gehenna (Luke 12:5), He who says, Vengeance is Mine, and I will repay (Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30); before whom conscience is naked, from whom hidden things are not concealed. Prudent men should consider how inconveniently and prejudicially this matter had befallen Us at its outset — and that We were not, by what the accusers themselves were demanding, opening the remission of sins to the impugners but rather closing it; that We reserve what is being said for the greater judgment, instructing the senators that, since Christ has been made known to them through Us, foreseeing the snares of the wolf is the work of the shepherd, not of the sheep; especially in a matter in which, where many have alleged so much, the accusers were disdaining to acknowledge their fault and satisfy God, in whom error had involved them.
For the synod could not, on this occasion, drive further members from the Church, but had rather to sustain them through gentleness — as Paul instructed Us in good work, saying that many are to be sustained through patience and doctrine. Even those thought guilty and entangled in grave sins — and there is no one without fault, as John the apostle attests, If I shall say that I have no sin, I am a liar (1 John 1:8) — are rather to be sustained by human pressures and gravely admonished, with their offenses suspended for divine judgment. This is especially the case when, among the things We have premised, the principles concerning the See’s authority itself rule out any other course: because what its possessor once Blessed Peter merited has acceded to the See by the nobility of the possession, and Christ’s gift gives the ancient brightness to its rectors. This the prophet proclaims, speaking in God’s person: Will not my hand be upon them and consume those who have erred? (Isa. 50:2)
Chapter IX: The Synod’s Decree of Absolution
10. By these allegations protested before God, We decree — bound by these necessities and religious considerations, and all heavenly things weighed which were in the case, by the inspiration of the heavenly secret: Pope Symmachus, prelate of the Apostolic See, has been impugned by these accusations — but, to the extent the matter pertains to men, because all the obstructions designated above prevent any human determination, the case is established to have been dismissed by divine judgment. Let him be free and immune. Let him give the divine mysteries to the Christian people of all churches pertaining to his See’s right without any obligation of objection, and let him hand them on without obligation, since We have established that, on account of the petition of his impugners and for the reasons designated above, the case could not be sustained against him.
Therefore, by the principal precepts which empower Us to reform whatever ecclesiastical matters lie within the sacred city of Rome or beyond its jurisdiction, We do reform; and, the universal questions being reserved by Us to divine judgment, We exhort that the holy communion be received from him as the matter requires. Let the petitioners remember the Lord and the salvation of their souls — for He is also the lover of peace, and is Himself peace, who admonishes: My peace I give you, my peace I leave you (John 14:27); and who, affirming that peace must be confirmed in any city, says: Blessed are the peacemakers (Matt. 5:9). Let whoever, departing from Our instruction (which We do not estimate possible), either fails to admit it or thinks it can be retracted — let him see that, just as We trust in God, the contempt of his person will be returned to him in the divine judgment.
Chapter X: The Restoration of Schismatic Clergy under Their Bishop’s Mercy
11. Concerning the clergy of the said Pope, who departed from the rules against their bishop and made schism before time, We have decreed thus: that, when they have satisfied their bishop, their bishop’s mercy may follow, and that they may rejoice that the ecclesiastical offices are restored to them — because Our Lord and Redeemer rejoices when He finds sheep that had perished by error, and the heavenly Physician extends the Father’s liberality to the prodigal son. But whoever among the clergy, after the form set forth by Us, shall presume to celebrate masses anywhere in the Roman church without Pope Symmachus’s knowledge and consent during his lifetime — let him be struck by the canonical statutes as a schismatic. These things are sufficient for Us to have set forth with the sincere knowledge of God.
Subscriptions: Italian Bishops, with the Bishops of Milan and Ravenna at Their Head
12. Seventy-plus Italian bishops in attendance subscribed in succession. The order of subscription is editorially significant: Laurentius, bishop of the church of Milan, and Petrus, bishop of the church of Ravenna, subscribe first — each affirming the same formula: “To this our statute, in which we committed the whole case to God’s judgment, I have subscribed.” Following them subscribe the bishops of seventy-plus other Italian and suburbicarian sees — including those of Aquaeviva, Vercellae, Ticinum, Naples, Spoletum, Cremona, Bergomum, Ravenna’s Lombard suffragans, the Sicilian sees of Tauromenium, Tyndarium, and Lipara, and the central and southern Italian sees of Velletri, Tibur, Anteatum, Tudertum, Mevania, Reate, Ariminum, Ostia, and Portus, among others.
Footnotes
- ↩ This synod is traditionally known as the Synodus Palmaris from its meeting place ad palmaria (a site near St. Peter’s named for its palm trees), and the formal name of its acts is the Constitutum Synodale de papae Symmachi absolutione. It is the fourth of the Roman synods of 501 in the case of Symmachus, following the synod assembled at the Julian basilica on 1 September 501 and two synods at the Sessorian basilica (the second of which was disrupted by violence in which Symmachus’s clergy were attacked in the streets and the count Arigernus was wounded). The synod was convoked at the order of King Theodoric following the renewed accusations brought against Symmachus by the senators Festus and Probinus, who led the Laurentian faction.
- ↩ 23 October 501. The full consular dating preserves both the calendar of the Western Empire and the correspondence between the synod’s authority and the legitimate civil order under which it met.
- ↩ The Latin is scientes, quia ejus sedi primum Petri apostoli meritum vel principatus. The bishops are invoking the established self-understanding of the See of Rome, applying it to the procedural question of who has authority to convoke the synod that addresses the Pope’s case. Principatus is the same governing-political term that Leo I had used in writing to Dioscorus of Alexandria (Letter IX, 444/445), that Anastasius II had used in writing to the Emperor Anastasius (Letter I, 496), and that Gelasius’s Roman Synod of 495 had invoked. The argument: the Pope’s See has the Petrine principatus; this carries the authority to convoke its own synod; therefore the present synod, although called by royal precept, properly recognizes that its foundation lies in the See whose case is at issue.
- ↩ The principle articulated here — that the prelate of the Apostolic See does not subject himself to the judgment of those of lesser rank — is the foundational claim that the synod will develop fully in sections 8–10. The bishops are not yet asserting absolute immunity from synodal proceedings; they are observing the canonical novelty of even attempting such proceedings, and the absence of precedent for them. The procedural unease here finds its theological resolution later in the synod’s reservation of the case to divine judgment.
- ↩ The Latin is Sed potissimus princeps ipsum quoque papam in colligenda synodo voluntatem suam litteris demonstrasse significavit. Theodoric is reporting to the bishops that Symmachus himself, in his own letters, had requested the convocation of a synod. This matters editorially: it shows that Symmachus had not been a reluctant defendant compelled by royal will, but had himself requested the canonical hearing — a fact that the synod here registers as part of its account of the convocation. The Pope’s voluntary engagement with the synodal process is built into the very narrative of why the synod is meeting.
- ↩ Symmachus was making a procedural request: before any substantive hearing of the accusations, the synod should resolve the question of his standing — specifically, that any restrictions or interdicts placed on him during the previous synods, including the visitatorship of Peter of Altinum that Theodoric had imposed, should be lifted, and that he should be restored to the full exercise of his pontificate. Only then would he respond to the substantive accusations. The reader should observe what this presupposes: Symmachus is not refusing to engage with the synod; he is requesting that the synod first restore his pontifical standing, and then he will respond. He is treating the synod with respect while preserving the substance of his canonical position.
- ↩ The Latin is Qui potestatis suae privilegia, quae pro conscientiae, quantum juste aestimamus, emendatione submiserat, nec hac voluit vice resumere. Symmachus had voluntarily set aside (not been deprived of) the canonical privileges of his pontifical office for the emendatio conscientiae — the satisfaction of conscience. The phrase refers to demonstrating openness to scrutiny by setting aside the procedural protections he could otherwise have invoked, so that no one could claim he was hiding behind canonical privilege. Even when the royal order made his procedural position more difficult, he did not take those privileges back. The reader should observe how this self-restraint preserves both the canonical principle (the Pope cannot be compelled to answer accusers without proper standing) and the practical aim of demonstrating his innocence. He cooperates while leaving the canonical position intact for the synod to recognize when it eventually does so in section 10.
- ↩ The Sessorian basilica in Rome (today’s Santa Croce in Gerusalemme) was popularly called Hierusalem in late antique and medieval Latin sources because Helena, mother of Constantine, had deposited there relics of the True Cross brought from Jerusalem, along with soil from Calvary placed under the basilica’s foundations. The basilica was thus regarded as a kind of “Jerusalem in Rome.” The Latin in Hierusalem, basilica palatii Sessoriani is appositive: “at [the basilica called] Hierusalem, [namely] the basilica of the Sessorian palace.” The third synod of 501 met here, in Rome, not in Jerusalem itself.
- ↩ The Latin is non enim quasi novam causam audientiae commisisset, si ejus conscientiam convictam de errore solam sciret expectare sententiam. The Pope’s argument is that his very pursuit of a hearing demonstrates his confidence in his innocence: a guilty man whose conscience had been convicted of error would not be seeking a hearing but awaiting his punishment. By bringing the matter to the synod and the king, Symmachus is showing that he believes the accusations to be false.
- ↩ The canonical principle invoked here is that slaves are excluded from accusing their masters, by both ecclesiastical canon and civil law (cf. Justinian’s Codex 4.20, on the prohibition of domestic testimony against the master). The accusers had hoped to convict Symmachus by the testimony of slaves of his own household; the synod refused on the grounds that no canonical or civil legal system permitted such testimony. Carthage VII (canon 2) and other African councils had similarly excluded slaves from accusations against their masters. The reader should observe that the accusers’ procedural strategy was essentially fraudulent: they were attempting to manufacture testimony from sources canonically barred from giving it. The synod’s refusal to hear this testimony was not a procedural technicality but the recognition that the accusations had no canonically admissible foundation.
- ↩ The Latin is ita tractatus est, ut Arigernus, vir illustris, comes, invenire potuisset interitum cum multis presbyteris, qui cum eo pergebant. The construction invenire potuisset is a counterfactual: Arigernus could have died but did not. He was wounded but survived (the next clause notes the still-recent traces of his wounds). Several of the presbyters in the procession, however, did die in the attack — the historical record is clear that Symmachus’s clergy suffered fatalities, while the royal officers and the Pope himself survived. The English here preserves the counterfactual force of the Latin: Arigernus came near to death, was wounded, and lived to bear witness.
- ↩ The street violence around the third synod was severe. Symmachus’s procession from the Lateran toward the Sessorian basilica was attacked by Laurentian partisans; several of his accompanying clergy were killed; the count Arigernus (a senior royal official) and the household chiefs Gudila and Bedeulfus were wounded protecting the Pope; and Symmachus himself diverted to the precincts of St. Peter’s rather than complete the journey to the synod. The reader should observe what this episode shows about the political situation. The Laurentian faction, having failed to secure a synodal condemnation through procedural means, was now resorting to mob violence to prevent the Pope from appearing before the synod at all. The fourth synod, held at Palmaris, was convoked precisely because the third synod had been rendered impossible by the violence.
- ↩ The Latin is scientes, divinitate propria regere dominum, quem ad Italiae gubernacula ipsa providerit. The construction is theologically loaded: it is God’s own divinity (divinitas propria) that rules Theodoric, not Theodoric’s own divinity. The king is providential — placed by God for the governance of Italy — and is therefore subject to God’s rule even as he exercises civil authority. The reader should observe what this presupposes: the synod is recognizing legitimate civil authority while clearly subordinating it to divine providence. The two-powers framework is operating here: the civil authority is real and is to be honored, but it derives its legitimacy from God’s providence and remains subject to it.
- ↩ The Latin is post caedem, cui subjacuerat cum suis — “after the slaughter to which he had been subjected with his own [men].” The word caedem literally means “slaughter,” but in context it functions as Latin idiom for a violent attack with deaths and injuries. Symmachus himself survived; some of his accompanying clergy were killed; the royal officers were wounded. The English “violent assault” preserves the meaning without the literal-killing implication that “slaughter” would carry in modern English when applied to a man who is alive and giving the present statement.
- ↩ The substantive point is that, although Symmachus has the canonical power to refuse further proceedings (since the canons themselves do not authorize compelling a Pope to submit to synodal judgment), he is willing to cooperate with the synod for the sake of peace. The Pope distinguishes between the king’s potestas (power as civil authority) and the canonical authority over his case: the king may do as he wishes in his sphere, but in the canonical sphere the Pope cannot be compelled by the canons themselves to submit to synodal judgment over his cause. This is the procedural argument that prepares the substantive theological argument that follows in section 8.
- ↩ The Latin is Italiae suae dare rectorem. The phrase concludes Theodoric’s ruling: provided the synod restores peace to Rome, this very act gives Italy her own rector — meaning the legitimate Pope, Symmachus, who is recognized by the act of restoring peace to the Roman city. The reader should observe what Theodoric is doing here. The Arian Ostrogothic king, having convoked the synod by his own precept, now formally returns the substantive question to the synod’s own arbitrement. He insists that the bishops do whatever they judge most useful, provided only that peace be restored to the Roman city. The civil authority’s role, by Theodoric’s own framing, is to enable the proper conduct of the synod and to receive its decision — not to determine the substantive ecclesiastical question. This is the operative principle of the two-powers doctrine in action: the king provides the conditions for ecclesiastical deliberation; the synod determines the substance. The reader who has followed the corpus from Gelasius’s Duo Sunt through Anastasius II’s correspondence will recognize the structure: legitimate civil cooperation, not encroachment on the ecclesiastical sphere.
- ↩ This is the decisive theological move of the synod. The Latin is causas Dei ipsius esse judicio committendas, qui valet corpus occidere et animam mittere in gehennam. The synod’s argument is that the case of the Apostolic See is, properly speaking, God’s own case — because the See is itself God’s institution, established by Christ on Peter — and therefore is reserved to His judgment alone. The reader should observe what this presupposes about the See’s nature. The See is not merely an ecclesiastical institution that happens to enjoy the highest dignity; it is an institution whose proper judge is God Himself, because what the See is and does belongs to the divine economy in a structural way that the cases of other men do not. This is why no human tribunal — neither civil nor ecclesiastical — can pronounce on the See’s case. The principle would be invoked again at Symmachus’s later synods, would be developed by Ennodius in his Apologeticum pro Synodo Palmari, and would become canonical doctrine: that the First See is judged by no one. The principle has its locus classicus here.
- ↩ The Latin is non esse ovium lupi insidias praevidere, sed pastoris. The synod is invoking John 10’s distinction between the shepherd (who guards the flock) and the sheep (who follow): foreseeing the wolf’s snares is not what sheep do, but what the shepherd does. The synod is telling the senators that Symmachus and the assembled bishops are the shepherds whose office requires them to foresee and resist the wolves’ snares (the false accusations) — not to be deceived as sheep would be. The senators are being asked to recognize the shepherds’ proper function, not to expect the shepherds to behave as sheep.
- ↩ The Latin is hos tamen magis pressuris hominum sustentari et perterreri, has passiones judicio divino suspendi. The synod’s pastoral argument is that even those who are guilty (such as Symmachus’s accusers, whom the synod regards as schismatic) should not be cut off harshly from the Church but sustained by human pressures (the canonical penalties short of excommunication) and gravely admonished, with the question of their final state suspended for divine judgment. The reader should observe how the synod is applying the same principle of reservation-to-divine-judgment to two different cases simultaneously: the Pope’s case (which it formally reserves) and the accusers’ cases (which it pastorally suspends). In both, the synod refuses to pronounce on the substantive merits and leaves the question to God.
- ↩ The principle articulated here is structural to the See’s nature. The Latin is quod possessor ejus quondam beatus Petrus meruit, in nobilitate possessionis accessit, et claritatem veterem nobis dat de Christi dote rectoribus — “what its possessor once Blessed Peter merited has acceded by the nobility of the possession, and the gift of Christ gives the ancient brightness to its rectors.” The See’s dignity is not the dignity of the man who occupies it at any given moment; it is the dignity that Peter merited and that has, by the very nature of the office, accrued to all who succeed him in possession of it. The “ancient brightness” of the rectors of the Church is not earned by each rector individually; it is given by Christ’s gift to the See itself, which the rector inherits by occupation. This grounds the principle that the See cannot be tried by lower tribunals: the See’s authority is not the rector’s authority but Peter’s, and Peter’s authority is Christ’s gift, beyond human jurisdiction.
- ↩ This is the operative absolution. The reader should observe its precise canonical form. The synod does not pronounce on the substantive question — whether Symmachus committed the alleged offenses or not. The synod declares that, “to the extent it pertains to men” (quantum ad homines respicit), the case has been dismissed by divine judgment; that Symmachus is free and immune; and that he is restored to the full exercise of his See. The decision is procedural-canonical, not substantive: the synod recognizes that the case is not within human cognizance and therefore must be dismissed without prejudice from human authority. The actual question of innocence or guilt is what is reserved to divine judgment. This formulation is what allows the absolution to function: the See is restored to its rector not because the synod has found him innocent (which it had no power to do) but because the synod has recognized that the question lies beyond synodal competence.
- ↩ The Latin is quod paternam liberalitatem coelestis medicus filio prodigo accommodat. The metaphor draws on Luke 15: Christ as the heavenly Physician applies (extends, accommodates) the Father’s liberality — the mercy shown to the returning prodigal — to those clergy who, having departed in schism, return to their bishop. The synod is invoking the Lukan parable to frame the canonical restoration: schismatic clergy returning to communion are to be received as the prodigal son was received, with the Father’s full liberality restored through the Physician’s care.
- ↩ The placement of the bishops of Milan and Ravenna at the head of the subscription list, before the lesser sees, reflects the metropolitan dignity of these two great Italian sees. Milan was the See of Saint Ambrose; Ravenna was the new imperial residence of the Western Empire and the seat of Theodoric’s Ostrogothic court. Both bishops adopt the same formula in their subscriptions: huic statuto nostro, in quo totam causam Dei judicio commisimus, subscripsi — “to this our statute, in which we committed the whole case to God’s judgment, I have subscribed.” The phrase makes the synod’s substantive theological claim — that the case is committed to divine judgment — into a formal element of the subscription itself. Each bishop who subscribes thereby formally affirms not just the absolution but the principle on which the absolution rests.
- ↩ The geographical distribution of the subscribing bishops covers central, southern, and northern Italy comprehensively, with substantial concentrations in Latium, Campania, Tuscany, Umbria, Picenum, and the suburbicarian region. This is a broader geographic scope than Symmachus’s first synod (1 March 499), with notable additions including the Lombard sees subscribing under the metropolitan of Milan, and the inclusion of Sicilian sees. The breadth of the subscription matters editorially: the synod’s absolution is not a narrow Roman urban act but a council of substantial Italian metropolitan and provincial scope, with bishops from across the peninsula formally affirming both the substantive act and the underlying theological principle.
Historical Commentary