The See of Peter

The Early Church and Peter's Primacy

Letter III, from Pope Gelasius to the Bishops of Dardania

Synopsis: Gelasius writes to all the bishops throughout Dardania announcing his election to the Apostolic See, transmitting a summary of the Catholic faith against the Eutychian heresy, warning that those who communicated with the condemned have themselves been condemned by the Apostolic See according to the decree of Chalcedon, and directing the bishops to maintain inviolate communion with the see of blessed Peter as received from their fathers and to report any attempts at subversion to Rome with pastoral solicitude.

Gelasius, bishop, to his most beloved brothers, all the bishops established throughout Dardania.

Announcement of Election; The Commission of the Apostolic See Cannot Be Delayed

Now that it is at last possible to draw breath from the storms of continual wars which have ceaselessly afflicted those provinces and these times, We have thought it right to address all the priests of the Lord throughout Dardania with the charity of fraternal solicitude. First, because having received the governance of the Apostolic See, as has been said, prevented by the tumult of public affairs, We were unable to indicate by personal letters, as was the custom, the office of the sacred dispensation committed to Us, so that your brotherhood might rejoice with Us in the gift of the Lord’s communion. Then, so that after so many harsh worldly troubles we might learn by mutual exchange how we fare. And finally, if anything needs to be reported concerning ecclesiastical affairs — which on account of the snares of the perpetual enemy must always be watched over with pastoral vigilance — we might share information with one another.

Moved by these considerations, therefore, We have taken care to send the present letter through our brother and fellow bishop Ursicinus, with the grace of greeting leading the way, praying that by bearing with magnanimity the devastation of passing things through the Lord’s help, we may be more attentive lest — God forbid — we suffer the loss of eternal life. And therefore, since the interest of Catholic truth requires precaution, let your charity take note for a moment.

The Eutychian Heresy: One Who Denies the Truth of Christ’s Assumed Flesh Destroys the Whole Mystery of Our Salvation

Among the Greeks, in whom it is well known that many heresies abound, the controversy concerning the Incarnation of our Lord and Savior arose some forty-five years ago, when Eutyches, once a presbyter of Constantinople, burst forth into blasphemies by which he declared that we must believe in only one nature — that is, solely the divine nature or substance — in the Lord Jesus Christ, the truth of the assumed flesh being wholly abolished. This wicked invention, joined to Marcionists and Manichaeans, would without doubt dissolve the entire mystery of our salvation. For as both the authority of venerable Scripture declares and the teaching of our elders attests, the Redeemer of the world was God — wholly God and wholly man — born of the Virgin Mary. And it is certain that He appeared to this world, that He suffered and rose again from the dead. That He spent forty days with His disciples after the Resurrection and ascended into heaven is fully established, and that He will come in the same manner to judgment, as the angel testified, so that the Son of Man — whom the blessed Stephen the martyr saw standing at the right hand of the power of God — may be made manifest, and that His persecutors may look upon Him whom they pierced. And this assuredly cannot stand without the substance of human flesh, whose assumption was glorified by deity, not consumed. Whence the blessed Apostle John says: Whoever denies that Christ has come in the flesh, he is the antichrist (1 John 2:22; 4:3). And the glorious Apostle Paul has plainly professed what manner of Lord Jesus Christ we must believe in today, saying: In whom the whole fullness of divinity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9) — which in one brief statement simultaneously overthrows both the Arian pestilence and this Eutychian heresy we have described, because there is indeed a man in whom all divinity is said to dwell, and by the word “bodily” the reality of our body’s persistence is confirmed.

Those Condemned by the Apostolic See According to the Decree of Chalcedon; Communion with the See of Blessed Peter Must Be Preserved Inviolate

Moreover, it is established that on this matter the Greeks have been frequently convicted by the Apostolic See — both through Saint Leo of blessed memory and through his successors — as their own documents which we hold in our possession show without ambiguity. Now, however, although they do not dare to profess the pestilence itself, they nevertheless defend with ruinous fury those who communicated with such persons — who have been rightly condemned by the Apostolic See according to the decree of the Council of Chalcedon — and who died obstinate in the same condemnation, and they seek to introduce their recitation into the Catholic Church. If this were accepted — God forbid — the contagion of the depravity with which they joined themselves in communion would consequently be incurred, just as — may the Lord avert it — if the name of Arius or any heretic were admitted to ecclesiastical recitation, the fellowship of his detestable error would be assumed as well. Since, therefore, they confess the error but think that Catholic communion should be relaxed for them on the condition that the names of those who transgressed be permitted to be recited in the church — and they strive not so much to correct themselves as to infect Catholic integrity with the contagion of the faithless — We do not cease to admonish your charity with the affection of fraternal love: that if any who sow such things happen to reach your regions, they be excluded by every means, and that your communion with the see of the blessed Apostle Peter, as it was handed down to us by our fathers, may endure inviolate and unshaken in every respect.

Certainly, if anyone supposes he may assail your ears with such an intrusion, hasten to report it to Us with pastoral solicitude as quickly as possible, so that with common effort and Catholic deliberation, all Catholic priests may confer together for the house of the one Lord — that those things which belong to the orthodox definition may be preserved inviolate, and that by what means the erring may be helped may be determined by reasonable counsel.

Let your charity see to it that these things reach prudently to all the neighboring provinces and bishops as well, so that the bishops of the Churches, having received instruction in the whole truth, may be able to turn aside deadly falsehood.

And the subscription: May God keep you safe, dearest brothers.

Source/Reference

PL 59:22

Notes / Historical Commentary

Letter III is Gelasius’s announcement of his election to the Dardanian bishops, and it serves a double purpose: it notifies them that a new pope holds the Apostolic See, and it binds them to the anti-Acacian policy that Felix III had already established. The reader should note that Gelasius frames his delay in writing not as a matter of courtesy deferred but as a duty of office unfulfilled: the governance of the Apostolic See (regimen apostolicae sedis) had been received, and the office of sacred dispensation committed to him required announcement. The language is not that of a bishop informing colleagues; it is that of a governor informing those under his care.

The letter’s most significant passage for the primacy question is the statement that the Greeks have been “frequently convicted by the Apostolic See — both through Saint Leo of blessed memory and through his successors.” Gelasius here names a chain of papal authority operating across multiple pontificates: Leo, then Leo’s successors (Hilarius, Simplicius, Felix III), and now Gelasius himself. The Acacian schism is not a crisis that each pope addresses independently; it is a single ongoing exercise of the Apostolic See’s authority, maintained across a sequence of popes. This is the continuity principle in explicit operation.

The Chalcedonian argument that appeared at length in Letter I is here compressed into a single powerful sentence: those who communicated with the condemned have been “rightly condemned by the Apostolic See according to the decree of the Council of Chalcedon.” The reader should note the careful construction. The authority that condemns is the Apostolic See; the basis for the condemnation is Chalcedon’s decree. The synod provides the rule; Rome applies it. This is the same relationship between papal and conciliar authority that Leo expressed throughout his corpus: councils define; Rome enforces and applies the definitions.

The closing directive is a compact illustration of how Rome exercised authority through the Illyrian vicariate. The bishops are told to report any intrusion to Rome “with pastoral solicitude as quickly as possible,” so that Rome can coordinate a collective response. The phrase sollicitudine pastorali ad nos quam citius referre properetis describes a reporting relationship: the Dardanian bishops report upward to Rome, and Rome directs the response. This is the same structure visible in Leo’s Illyrian letters and in the Dardanian bishops’ own Rescript, where they asked Gelasius to send a representative to oversee affairs. The system is not improvised; it is institutional, and it operates the same way under Gelasius as it did under Leo.