Leo, bishop, to Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, through Marianus the presbyter and Olympius the deacon.
Chapter I: The Catholic Faith Holds the Middle Path Between Nestorianism and Eutychianism
Your letters — delivered by our sons Marianus the presbyter and Olympius the deacon — show how the sacred unity of the common faith and the tranquil concord of ecclesiastical peace please your charity; and they grow dearer as we mingle mutual words, disclosing God’s grace that the world rejoices in the manifested light of Catholic truth. Yet, as the words of the messengers indicate, some still love their darkness — delighting in blindness’s shadow even with the day’s splendor rising everywhere — remaining Christian in name only with faith lost, unable to discern error from error or to distinguish the blasphemy of Nestorius from the impiety of Eutyches. Neither falsehood is excusable, though they are contrary in their perversity — since Nestorius’s disciples detest Eutyches, and the followers of Eutyches anathematize Nestorius. Catholic judgment condemns both, cutting both heresies from the body of the Church — since neither can agree with us. It matters not by which sacrilege they diverge from the truth of the Lord’s Incarnation, since their perverse opinions neither the authority of the Gospel nor the reason of the mystery accepts.
Chapter II: Peter Founded Antioch and Rome With Special Teaching; Maximus Must Guard the Eastern Churches Assigned to Antioch’s See
Therefore, dearest brother, your charity must discern with your whole heart which Church’s governance the Lord has willed you to preside over — recalling that the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, founded the entire world with the uniform preaching of doctrine, but with special teaching in Antioch and in Rome. You understand that in His glorified dwelling He demands the institutes He delivered — received from the truth He confessed. Do not permit impious heretics to oppose the Gospel in the Eastern churches, especially those which the canons of the Nicene Fathers assigned to the see of Antioch; nor let the doctrine of Nestorius or of Eutyches be defended. The rock of the Catholic faith, named Peter by the Lord, bears not the slightest trace of either impiety — anathematizing Nestorius, who, by separating the nature of the Word from the flesh in the Virgin’s conception, divided one Christ into two, willing distinct persons for the divinity and the humanity, though one and the same is born timelessly from the Father in eternal divinity and in time from the mother in true flesh; and cursing Eutyches, who, denying true human flesh in Jesus Christ, claims the Word was transformed into flesh — ascribing birth, growth, suffering, death, burial, and resurrection to divinity alone, as though it had received not the true servile form but its mere figure.
Chapter III: Antioch’s Privileges Are Unshaken; It Befits Maximus to Share the Apostolic See’s Solicitude
You must guard with utmost vigilance against heretical perversity claiming rights — resisting with priestly authority and frequently informing us through your reports. It befits you to share the Apostolic See’s solicitude, and to recognize — with the confidence to act and to report to us — the privileges of the third see, unshaken by any ambition. My reverence for the Nicene canons ensures that I neither permit nor tolerate their violation by novelty. Even though the merits of individual bishops may differ, the rights of their sees endure — unweakened by the disturbances of rivals — preserving the privileges of the Church of Antioch. When your charity judges that action on any of these is needed, explain it in your letters, so We may respond fully and fittingly.
Chapter IV: Anything Attempted Against the Nicene Canons in Any Synod Is Void; Cyril Reported Juvenal’s Attempt at Ephesus I to Leo
And generally: if anyone attempts anything against the Nicene canons in any synod — or appears to extort agreement — it can cause no prejudice to the inviolable decrees. Any pacts of agreement are more easily dissolved than the canons of the Fathers corrupted. Ambition seizes on subversive opportunities — and when bishops assemble for one cause, the greed of the wicked often seeks to go beyond proper measure. As for example in the Ephesine synod: Juvenal, who struck at Nestorius’s impiety, thought he might obtain the primacy of Palestine through false writings — claiming for himself not only the first and second provinces of Palestine, but also those of Arabia and Phoenicia. Cyril of holy memory — rightly abhorring this — reported his ambition to me and earnestly requested that no assent be given to illicit attempts. The letter of Cyril of which you sent copies We have found authentic in our own archives.
Chapter V: Whatever Leo’s Legates Approved Beyond the Cause of Faith Has No Force; the Apostolic See Cannot Consent to What Is Contrary to the Nicene Rules
If anything was done by those brothers whom We sent to the holy synod in My stead — beyond what pertained to the cause of the faith — it can have no force at all: since the Apostolic See sent them solely to defend the Catholic faith by cutting out heresies. Whatever is beyond the special causes of the synod and is brought before the judgment of bishops can be given some consideration — if it has not been defined by the Nicene Fathers — but what is contrary to their rules can never obtain the Apostolic See’s agreement. How much diligence I bring to this, my letters to the bishop of Constantinople — restraining his ambition — will show you; and these you will share with all our brothers and fellow bishops, so that they may know that ecclesiastical peace must be preserved through a concord pleasing to God.
Chapter VI: Preaching Belongs Only to Bishops; No Monk or Layman May Claim the Preacher’s Role
Your charity must also take care that none except the Lord’s bishops dare to claim the right of teaching or preaching — whether monk or layman who boasts of any knowledge. For although it is desirable that all the Church’s sons hold right and sound wisdom, none who is outside the priestly order may assume the role of preacher. In the Church of God, all things must be ordered so that in the one body of Christ the higher members fulfill their own office and the lower do not oppose their superiors.
Dated the third day before the Ides of June, in the consulship of Opilio, most illustrious man.
Footnotes
- ↩ Antioch — ancient Antiocheia on the Orontes, modern Antakya in southern Turkey near the Syrian border. Together with Rome and Alexandria, it was one of the three original apostolic sees — the three great churches founded by the apostles whose authority the Council of Nicaea recognized and whose canonical prerogatives it codified. Jerusalem received a special honor at Nicaea (Canon 7) as the holy city, and was subsequently elevated to patriarchal rank at the Council of Chalcedon itself (Canon 7 of Chalcedon). Constantinople was a later addition entirely, its ecclesiastical standing deriving not from apostolic foundation but from its status as the imperial capital — precisely the argument at the heart of the Canon 28 dispute this letter addresses. In Leo’s time Antioch held jurisdiction over the entire Eastern diocese, an arrangement Anatolius’s Canon 28 sought to overturn. Maximus had been elected bishop of Antioch at the Council of Chalcedon itself.
- ↩ This is among the most significant passages in the entire corpus for Antioch’s relationship to Rome. Leo identifies Peter as the founder of both sees — Rome and Antioch — through a “special teaching” in each. The formulation simultaneously honors Antioch’s Petrine heritage and defines its proper relationship to Rome: Antioch owes its apostolic dignity to Peter, and the living custodian of Peter’s tradition is Rome. The bishop of Antioch must therefore ensure that what Peter taught there accords with what the Roman Church — which “abides in his institutions” (Letter IX) — continues to hold. Leo’s point is precise: Maximus’s authority in the Eastern churches assigned to Antioch derives from Peter; Peter is now kept in his fullness by Rome; therefore Maximus must be in harmony with Rome and resist what Rome resists. The “special teaching” at Antioch is the ground of Maximus’s responsibility, not a charter for independence from Rome’s solicitude.
- ↩ The phrase dignum est te apostolicae sedis in hac sollicitudine esse consortem — “it befits you to share the Apostolic See’s solicitude” — enrolls the bishop of Antioch in Leo’s universal pastoral responsibility, in the same mode as the Illyrian vicariate letters (V, VI) enroll Anastasius of Thessalonica. Maximus is not being asked to act independently; he is being invited to participate in the Apostolic See’s solicitude as a consortium member. His authority in the East derives from and is ordered toward that solicitude.
- ↩ This restates the Nicene priority principle from Letter CVI and Letter CV. No synodal act, however large, can override the Nicene constitutions; and any consent given under pressure or coercion is more easily dissolved than the Fathers’ canons can be corrupted. The principle is here extended from the specific Canon 28 case to a general rule applicable to any future synodal attempt against the Nicene settlement. Leo is equipping Maximus with the canonical argument he needs to resist any Constantinopolitan pressure in his own province.
- ↩ At the Council of Ephesus I (431), Juvenal of Jerusalem attempted to claim patriarchal jurisdiction over all three Palestinian provinces plus Arabia and Phoenicia — a claim that would have made Jerusalem a fifth major patriarchate rivaling Antioch’s jurisdiction over the East. The PL apparatus confirms this is documented in the acts of Ephesus I and was subsequently blocked by conciliar action and Roman intervention. Cyril of Alexandria recognized the threat to Antioch’s canonical prerogatives and reported Juvenal’s attempt directly to Leo — an acknowledgment that the Roman bishop was the appropriate authority to restrain such encroachments.
- ↩ This is the formal statement of the scope of the legates’ authority: they were sent for the cause of the faith, not for the revision of canonical arrangements. Whatever they approved beyond the faith cause — meaning their presence at the Canon 28 vote, which the synod’s letter had described as reluctant opposition — carries no force as far as the Apostolic See is concerned. The sentence simultaneously validates any canonical approval the legates may have given and limits the scope of that approval to matters not contradicting the Nicene Fathers. It is a precise legal instrument for the post-Chalcedon situation.
- ↩ June 11, 453 — two months after the March 21 quadruple dispatch. Letter CXIX is a stand-alone letter to Maximus of Antioch, addressing the Eastern situation from the perspective of the third see — which Anatolius’s Canon 28 had targeted alongside Alexandria. By writing directly to Antioch with the canonical and historical arguments (the Nicene canons, the Juvenal precedent, the legates’ limited scope), Leo is ensuring that the bishop most affected by Canon 28’s potential consequences has the full framework for resisting any renewed attempt.
Historical Commentary