Leo, bishop, to Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople.
Chapter I: Anatolius’s Own Silence Separated Him From Leo’s Fellowship; Marcian Pressed the Matter to Its Fulfillment
Had your charity held firm and unwavering in the care of our common grace, nothing would have arisen to cause you any anxiety. Reason did not permit me to spurn the charity of one whom I had aided from the very beginnings of his episcopate out of love of peace and zeal for restoring the Catholic faith — desiring to have such a partner in ecclesiastical cares that I might not feel wanting in your predecessors: not the spiritual and abundant doctrine of John, nor the authority of Atticus, nor the industry of Proclus, nor the faith of the blessed Flavian — and to profit so fully by your labors that no one would dare either to resist the Catholic faith or to oppose the venerable rules of the Nicene Fathers. But since — as you well know — things were attempted against the injury of the canons that would generate the greatest scandal for all the churches, what course more fitting and modest could I take than first to admonish you by fraternal letters, urging you to withdraw from this intention? When you did not reply to those letters, you yourself separated yourself from the fellowship of my colloquy. I then fell silent toward him — but through frequent petition in my letters I urged the most clement prince, the guardian of the faith, that for the peace of the churches — which you know is of the greatest benefit to yourself — the things now done by your charity might be fulfilled. And I render him ineffable thanks for this: that in accordance with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, of whose virtue he is most full, he deigns to strive for priestly concord — knowing that the prayers of supplicants will profit him more abundantly if the servants of one Lord are in no way divided from the unity of true peace.
Chapter II: Leo Formally Approves the Compliance; Sets Additional Conditions for Andrew and Eufrates
That certain things in the clerical offices of the Church of Constantinople have been corrected — as you report: that you have recalled Aetius the presbyter to your grace and affection, and removed Andrew from the archdeaconry — I write back to confirm that this has pleased Us: for it greatly raises and commends your reputation, as I had hoped. And rightly, after the correction, what had appeared to deserve rebuke is consigned to oblivion — since you had been burdened with the advancement of heretics and the injury of Flavian’s disciples, which have now simultaneously ceased from all offense, together with praise of you as I wished: because what had been thrown into disorder has returned to its proper order.
As for Andrew, who has been justly deprived of the archdeaconry, and Eufrates, who was — as I have learned — a reckless accuser of Flavian of holy memory: if in the fullest written professions they condemn the Eutychian heresy no less than the execrable Nestorian dogma, you will consecrate them as presbyters — pardon and restoration being owed to those who are corrected — so that they may perceive that the remedy of the Catholic faith has profited them. The archdeaconry is to be filled by one first chosen and tested — one whom no rumor of the aforesaid impieties has ever touched. The others whom an equal guilt had involved — if they seek pardon through a similar profession and satisfaction — are to be restored to their orders: with only those admitted to the first place in offices who are established to have been free from all error.
Chapter III: Leo Points the Finger at Anatolius’s Own Consent; Grants the Return to Communion; Charges Him to Guard the Nicene Canons
That fault, however, which you contracted regarding the augmentation of power through the exhortation of others — as you claim — your charity would have expiated more effectively and more sincerely if you had not attributed what could not have been attempted without your own will entirely to the counsels of the clergy. For just as one sins through evil persuasion, so also one sins through evil consent.
But it is gratifying to me, most beloved brother, that your charity professes its displeasure at what should not have pleased you even then. The profession of your charity and the attestation of the Christian prince are sufficient for the return to our common grace. The correction does not appear tardy, for which so venerable a guarantor has intervened. Let the desire for what was not granted — which had caused the dissension — be utterly and entirely cast aside. Let the limits suffice which the most provident decrees of the holy Fathers have established: so that the dignity of all priests may rest undisturbed in its own merits and ancient privileges. Let the affection of Dominical charity be renewed and remain in you — to which I have so often called your charity — together with our brother and fellow bishop Julian, who has always sought the common grace: by whose industry your solicitudes will be lightened and the Catholic faith strengthened. Above all, with fraternal charity I exhort and admonish you: guard the decrees of the Nicene canons that pertain to the glory and protection of the priestly office and preserve the peace of the universal Church. For the inviolate charity among the Lord’s priests will endure if what has been established by the holy Fathers is observed with equal zeal by all.
Dated the fourth day before the Kalends of June, in the consulship of the most illustrious Aetius and Studius.
Footnotes
- ↩ The four predecessors Leo names are the bishops of Constantinople immediately before Anatolius: John Chrysostom (398–404), exiled by Empress Eudoxia and later vindicated; Atticus (406–425); Proclus (434–446); and Flavian (446–449), killed as a result of the Latrocinium. Leo is telling Anatolius he had hoped to find in him an equal to these men — and notably includes Flavian, whose memory Anatolius had been compromising through the Andrew appointment. The list functions simultaneously as a standard held up and a rebuke delivered.
- ↩ The Latin is ipse te a colloquii mei consortio separasti — “you yourself separated yourself from the fellowship of my colloquy.” The direction is deliberate: Leo did not break off the correspondence; Anatolius broke it by his own silence. His failure to reply to Leo’s fraternal letters was itself the act of separation. This is the same structure Leo had described in Letter CXI: peace letters withheld while a bishop remains a stranger to the Apostolic See’s communion. Here Anatolius’s silence accomplished the same result — and Leo names it explicitly as Anatolius’s own act, before explaining his own subsequent conduct.
- ↩ The phrase nobis placuisse rescribo — “I write back to confirm that this has pleased Us” — is Leo’s formal ratification of what Anatolius has reported. The papal “Us” makes clear this is an institutional act, not a personal expression of satisfaction. The head formally approves what the subordinate has done; without this approval, the compliance would remain in suspension. Note that Leo’s approbation does not end his authority to set further terms — the following sentences immediately establish additional conditions on specific cases.
- ↩ Leo is here directing the internal clerical arrangements of the Church of Constantinople — specifying by name which individuals may or may not be ordained, under what conditions, and to what rank. Andrew and Eufrates are not merely to be pardoned; they must produce full written professions condemning both heresies before Leo will permit their ordination as presbyters. The conditions are Leo’s; the ordination awaits his terms. This is the same pattern of administrative authority over Constantinople’s internal affairs visible in Letters CXI, CXII, and CXXXII — a superior specifying the conditions of his subordinate’s personnel decisions, not a peer offering collegial advice.
- ↩ The reading consensione — “consent” — is restored from the manuscripts against Quesnellus’s confessione. The distinction matters: Anatolius had attributed Canon 28 in Letter CXXXII entirely to the clergy’s initiative. Leo accepts that the clergy pressed it — but will not allow the deflection to stand in full. Whatever the clergy urged, it could not have been attempted without Anatolius’s own will — and he consented to the counsel. That consent is itself a sin. This is Leo’s formal refusal to absolve Anatolius of personal responsibility for Canon 28, even as he closes the case.
- ↩ The phrase sufficit in gratiam communis regressum professio dilectionis tuae, et attestatio principis Christiani — “sufficient for the return to common grace is the profession of your charity and the attestation of the Christian prince” — is Leo’s formal grant of restoration to communion. Two elements suffice: Anatolius’s own written profession (CXXXII) and Marcian’s attestation as surety. Both have been received; the return to communion is therefore granted. It is Leo’s to grant; he grants it here. The restoration of Anatolius to communion is the closing act of an arc that began with Leo withholding letters of peace in Letter CXI.
- ↩ May 29, 454. The PL apparatus confirms this against manuscripts reading “fourth day before the Nones of July” — the correct reading, established by the Regensburg codex and confirmed by Letter CXXXVI to Marcian being written and transmitted on the same day. The two letters are companion pieces: CXXXV restores communion with Anatolius directly; CXXXVI reports the restoration to Marcian and continues the practical agenda.
Historical Commentary