Gelasius to Faustus, Master of Offices, serving as legate at Constantinople.1

The Greeks Will Persist in Obstinacy; The Emperor Was Not Condemned in Religion

I too have perceived in my mind that the Greeks will persist in their obstinacy, and that there is no one to whom the unexpected hostility of the Emperor Anastasius against the Roman Pontiff can be attributed, who has spread it abroad among the people that the Emperor Anastasius was received neither by the bishop of the city of Rome nor by the Roman Senate, and has thereby stirred up the emperor against the City and its bishop. Lest, therefore, on account of these matters, the Roman Church be brought into danger — and they seek, not now for the sake of religion, to obstruct public affairs, but rather use the occasion of the royal embassy to overthrow the Catholic faith, and strive by such a device to achieve what they have hoped for.

But what does the emperor mean when he says that he has been condemned by us in religion, when on this matter my predecessor not only never touched his name, but even when he first assumed the beginnings of royal power, wrote back rejoicing at the promotion of his reign — and I too, never receiving any writings from him, took care to greet him with honorific letters, as you know? My predecessors removed from apostolic communion the priests who confessed in their own words that they had communicated with transgressors. If these men choose to mingle with the condemned, it cannot be imputed to us; if he wishes to withdraw from them, so much the more he cannot be condemned by us, but rather admitted to the grace of sincere communion. As for the Roman Senate, let it remember the faith which it recalls having received from its parents, and let it avoid the contagion of foreign communion, lest it be rendered a stranger — God forbid — from the communion of this Apostolic See.

No Pardon Has Ever Been Granted to Those Who Refuse to Correct Themselves

They propose that pardon should be granted to them. Let the record be searched, from the time the Christian religion began, or let an example be given of pardon ever being granted in the Church of God — by any bishops, by the apostles themselves, by the Savior Himself — except to those who corrected themselves. But this has never been heard of under heaven, nor is it read anywhere, nor is it spoken — though it is expressed in their own words: “Grant us pardon, provided we remain in our error.” Let those who attempt to oppose us with the canons likewise show by what canons, by what rules, by what reading, by what precedent — whether from our forebears or from the apostles themselves (who were undoubtedly superior in merit) or from the Lord and Savior Himself, who is believed to be the judge of the living and the dead — this has ever been done or commanded to be done.

We read that Christ raised the dead; that He absolved the dead who died in error, we do not read. And He who alone certainly had the power to do this gave the command principally to the blessed Apostle Peter: Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven (Matt. 16:19). On earth, He said; for He never said that one who died in this binding should be absolved.2 What therefore has never been done, we are afraid even to conceive in our minds, knowing that it cannot be excused in the divine judgment.

If, moreover, they claim they will separate from the Roman Church, they are shown to have done this long ago. I marvel at Euphemius, if he does not perceive his own ignorance, who says that Acacius could not have been condemned by one man. Does he not know the form of the Council of Chalcedon — or does he pretend not to know it — in which the authors of this error were assuredly condemned by the numerous sentence of the priests? Just as in every heresy from the beginning of the Christian religion it is shown to have been done, and the clear reason of facts demonstrates that my predecessor was the executor of an ancient constitution, not the author of a new one? This is permitted not only to the apostolic bishop but to any bishop: to distinguish any persons in any place from Catholic communion according to the rule of the heresy already condemned. For Acacius was not the inventor of a new or original error, requiring new decrees against him, but he mingled his own communion with the crime of another. Therefore it was necessary that he fall by the just balance of that sentence which the author of the error had received, together with his successors, through the agreement of the synod.

The Canons Direct All Appeals to This See, from Which There Is No Appeal and Whose Judgment May Not Be Judged

They oppose the canons to us, not knowing what they say. By this very fact they show that they act against the canons: that they refuse to obey the first see when it counsels what is sound and right. It is the canons themselves which directed that the appeals of the whole Church be referred to the examination of this see. They decreed that there should be absolutely no appeal from it; and thereby they determined that it should judge concerning the whole Church, that it should pass to the judgment of no one, that no one should ever pronounce judgment upon its judgment, and that its sentence should not be dissolved, but rather they commanded that its decrees should be followed.3

In this very case, Timothy of Alexandria, and Peter of Antioch, Peter, Paul, John, and others — not one alone, but many bearing the name of the priesthood — were deposed by the sole authority of the Apostolic See, of which fact even Acacius himself is found to be a witness, for he served as the executor of this see’s decree. And just as it is clear that the Apostolic See acted according to the synodal form, so it is most certain that no one was able to resist. Therefore, falling in this manner into the fellowship of the condemned, Acacius was condemned — he who had himself executed their condemnation before he became a transgressor.

They have dared to make mention of the canons against us — they who are shown to have always acted against them with illicit ambitions. By what synod, or according to what synodal form, did they expel John of Alexandria from the church to which he had been ordained — who could neither be convicted beforehand on any evident grounds nor afterward, even when he appealed, be accused in a competent judgment? And if they say the emperor did this: by what canons, by what rules is this prescribed? Why did Acacius consent to so wicked a deed, when the divine authority says: Not only those who do wrong are guilty, but also those who consent to those who do it (Rom. 1:32)? By what canons and by what rules was Calendio excluded, or the chief Catholic priests of various cities? By what tradition of our forebears do they summon the Apostolic See to judgment?

The Apostolic See Cannot Be Summoned to Judgment; Constantinople Has No Canonical Standing Among the Sees

Were the bishops of the second see, and the third, and the others — men well aware of their own innocence — to be expelled, while the one who proved himself an enemy of religion was not to be expelled? Let them see, then, if they have other canons by which to carry out their follies. For these canons — the sacred, the ecclesiastical, the legitimately celebrated — cannot summon the Apostolic See to judgment; and the bishop of the city of Constantinople, which received no name whatsoever among the sees according to the canons,4 having fallen into communion with the faithless, ought he not to have been removed?

Or should one who is said to have lied to the emperor, and those who are said to have injured the emperor, have been expelled — but Acacius, who sinned against God, who is the supreme and true Emperor, and who sought to mingle the sincere communion of the divine mystery with the faithless according to the synod by which this faithlessness was condemned — should he not have been excluded? But let them come: by that same judgment the ancient constitutions of the canons will be confirmed.

O Masters and Guardians of the Canons! They Seek to Strip the Apostolic See of Its Power

But these devout and accomplished men strive by the canons to strip the Apostolic See of the power granted to it, and attempt to claim those canons for themselves. O masters and guardians of the canons! It is not permitted to us to enter into any contest with men of an alien communion, as the divine Scripture proclaims: A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid, knowing that such a one is condemned by his own judgment (Titus 3:10-11). Let them recognize that a heretic is condemned not only by another but by himself.

It is utterly shameless, moreover, that they fabricate the claim that Acacius sought pardon and that we proved difficult. Your brother, my son the illustrious Andromachus, is a witness — he who was abundantly instructed by us to urge Acacius to lay aside his obstinacy and return to the fellowship of the Apostolic See, and who testifies under oath that he labored with great efforts alongside him, and that he could not be turned to what was right, as the outcome of events proves. Let them produce the record of when he sent, when he requested pardon, when he promised to exhibit his correction to us — unless perhaps he had the same disposition that we see his successors have: that even if he were to request pardon, he would want it granted while persisting in his error — in which case he would not so much be received by us as rather draw us into his own depravity.

The Supreme Judgment Belongs to the Apostolic See Alone; The Gates of Hell Will Never Prevail Against Peter’s Confession

It is not surprising if those who presume to blaspheme the see of the blessed Apostle Peter — who bear such monstrosities in their hearts and pour them from their mouths, and who moreover pronounce us proud — when the first see, whatever belongs to piety, does not cease to offer them, they trust that they can subjugate it by their own insolent spirit. But it is not surprising that those captured in mind do such things. So the delirious are accustomed to regard and even strike their healers as enemies.

I ask them, however, where the judgment they claim could be conducted — before themselves, so that they would be at once the enemies, the witnesses, and the judges? But to such a judgment not even human affairs ought to be entrusted, much less the integrity of the divine law. Insofar as it pertains to religion, according to the canons the supreme judgment of all is owed to the Apostolic See alone; insofar as it pertains to the power of the age, that power must be recognized by the bishops, and especially by the vicar of blessed Peter, in matters that are divine — not that it should itself judge those matters.5 Nor may anyone, however powerful in the world — who is yet a Christian — presume to claim this for himself, unless perhaps one who persecutes religion.

What, however, would they say, if they were not defeated by their own documents in all things? Let them keep their follies to themselves then, unless they repent — rather considering that the voice of Christ is not vain, which declared to the confession of the blessed Apostle Peter that the gates of hell would never prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). Therefore we do not fear that the apostolic sentence can be dissolved, which both the voice of Christ, and the tradition of our forebears, and the authority of the canons support — so that it should always judge the whole Church rather than be judged by it. But let them rather consider, if any sense of religion remains in them, that by never laying aside their depravity they will be condemned by the perpetual constitution of the Apostolic See before God and men.

It is said that it was determined that nothing further should be said about this matter — as though even now, as you know, I had thought to address them specially by my own name. There is certainly no engagement to be entered into with these men who do not correct themselves, just as a contest with the followers of other heresies also must be refused. But we pray with continual petitions to the Divinity that you return safe and sound to us as quickly as possible.