Gelasius to his most beloved brother Euphemius.1

The First See Is Not Required to Report to Those Over Whom It Has Been Delegated to Preside

What we fully desire, and wish to be established by a sincere restoration of faith and Catholic communion, your charity asserts — namely, that hearing alone does not suffice for the other party, unless through letters he has received a communication concerning those things which the divine dispensation accomplishes regarding us, so that I might thus render the duty of a greeting in favorable circumstances. We do not think that either your charity, or anyone, could have hoped to suppose that we, or anyone of greater rank, in reporting what has been done, ought to have earned a response in return — because it would be judged excessively arrogant if anyone had so thought concerning the first see.2 But if, as we rather suppose, you have said that the Apostolic See ought to have announced its newly established priest to its associates — over whom it has been delegated by Christ’s gift to preside3 — by a preceding letter: this was once the ancient ecclesiastical rule among our fathers, among whom one Catholic and apostolic communion, free from all contamination of transgressors, stood firm.

The Lord’s Song Cannot Be Sung in a Foreign Land; Return to Peter’s Pure Communion

But now, since you prefer an alien fellowship to returning to the pure and undefiled communion of blessed Peter: How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land (Ps. 136:4)? How shall we extend the ancient covenant of apostolic governance to men of an alien communion? How shall the See announce an ordination to you, when by your own testimony you set condemned heretics before it? Perhaps your charity will say that Acacius and Peter are called condemned heretics. But if it is not permitted to meet, let us at least converse by the present letters. For we address the sharers of the Lord’s table differently from those who disagree with us in fellowship with it — because the Lord Himself spoke in one way to those separated from His preaching, and in another way revealed the secrets of the heavenly kingdom to His disciples. The apostles likewise did not speak to those separated from their company in the same way as to those of the household of faith and their companions.

What God Has Bestowed, Follow; What Christ Has Established, Obey

But your charity says that you have had so much love toward me that you were not content merely to write, but wished also to hear me speak. You have read the saying: Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of God (Rom. 10:17) — that word, namely, which promised to the confession of the blessed Apostle Peter that the gates of hell would never prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). And therefore you have reasonably judged that, since God is faithful in His words, He would not have promised to establish such a thing unless He were to fulfill the true promise of His pledge. Your charity says, finally, that by the grace of divine providence — which He has shown — we do not forsake the care of the holy churches, because He has placed me in the pontifical see as one who, as you say, does not need to be taught, but who attends to all things necessary for the unity of the ecclesiastical body. I indeed am the least of all men, quite unworthy for the office of so great a see, except that heavenly grace always works great things from small ones. For what shall I think of myself, when the teacher of the Gentiles himself testifies this about himself — he who declares himself the last and not worthy to be called an apostle (1 Cor. 15:9)?

Nevertheless, to return to your charity’s words: if you have truly understood that these things have been divinely bestowed upon me — and indeed whatever things are good are gifts of God — then follow the exhortations of one who does not need to be taught, and of one who, according to the heavenly dispensation, examines all things pertaining to the unity of the Churches, and, as you assert, strongly resists the devil, the disturber of true peace and harmony. If therefore you pronounce these things about me, then either you must follow what has been established by Christ, as you maintain; or you openly declare yourself — God forbid — to be opposing Christ’s ordinances; or you cast these things about merely to obtain a license for laxity from the things that are to be learned from me.

Rome Does Not Descend to the Fallen; It Calls the Fallen to Ascend

But in what follows you add that I am disposed to condescend and that by the best arrangement I can restore concord. Therefore, since you use this word frequently, let me examine what it means. For the best arrangement of the Catholic and apostolic Church is to condescend by advancing toward better things, not to fail by descending to inferior ones. But when you say that we ought to condescend with you, you show in the meantime that you yourselves have already descended. Whence, I ask, and to where is this descent? Surely from some higher place to inferior things — you see, you recognize, you do not deny that you have fallen from Catholic and apostolic communion to heretical and condemned communion. And not only does it delight you to lie in the depths, but you wish to push down those who remain in the higher position. You invite us to condescend with you from the heights to the depths; we ask you to ascend with us from the depths to the heights. Now therefore, under the gaze of that exalted justice, let the human race judge which of us ought to obey the other.

Or do you say — to omit other things for now — that the Lord Himself descended from heaven? He descended indeed, but to free man from error, not to share in his error. Did He not Himself warn that those who were on the rooftop should not come down, and that none of the things that seemed to be in the house should be taken (Matt. 24:17)? Does not the Apostle cry out for all — one man, who labored more than all the rest — when the custody of truth was at stake: To whom we did not yield in subjection even for an hour, so that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you (Gal. 2:5)? You see the heavenly Teacher refusing to condescend to harmful things? Finally, let us suppose that someone has fallen, and that another wishes to bend down most kindly to raise him up. The purpose of bending down is to lift up the one who lies fallen — not to be cast down with him into the same pit.

Therefore, concerning the letters you sent through Sinclitius the deacon, about those whom Acacius baptized and ordained, we provide without difficulty the remedy established by the tradition of our forebears and fitting above all for religious solicitude. Where do you wish us to descend further? Why are you silent? Why are you ashamed to express in words what you carry in your heart? Let your very shame — as sometimes happens — instruct you. Or is it perhaps that you wish us to consent that the names of condemned heretics and of those who communicated with them or their successors be admitted? This is not to condescend for the purpose of helping, but manifestly to be plunged into the depths. Spare us, I beg — spare both us and yourselves. If you care so little for yourselves, grant us pardon. We can weep and mourn, but into these precipitous places we cannot and must not be led — we who, by the help of our God, desire to preserve the sincere and pure faith and communion of our fathers’ tradition, separate from all contamination of transgressors, even under the threat of death, choosing — if God wills — to suffer whatever may come rather than to fall into the causes of eternal damnation. Grant us pardon, I say, if while you willingly run into these things out of love or fear of any man, we refuse such things out of love of God and fear of hell.

Whoever Communicates with the Successors of Heretics Shares Their Condemnation; Chalcedon Condemns Acacius

Do not suppose that by concealing the causes and the persons you can creep in under any friendship. You are not so subtle that you cannot be understood, and we, by the help of our God, are not found so incautious. Have you not indicated in letters sent here many times that you reject Eutyches along with the other heretics? If this is true, then either remove equally those who communicated with the successors of Eutyches, or else admit those who communicate with the successors of the other heretics as well. But Acacius, you say, is not recorded as having said anything against the faith, as Eutyches and his successor did — as though it were not worse to have known the truth and yet to have communicated with the enemies of truth. For if, when anyone who rightly holds the Catholic faith communicates with those heretics — among whom you have placed Eutyches — or with their successors, it is not permitted to name them among the altars of Catholics, then is not one who communicated with the successors of that same Eutyches held liable to the same lot? Of such persons it is fittingly said: Let them descend alive into hell (Ps. 54:16) — those who, while they are thought to live by that life by which the just man lives (Rom. 1:17), the true and Catholic life, suddenly plunge into the depths of depravity or of heretical communion. See what sort of persons you say must be preferred to Christ, when He does not command us to set even our own souls before Him. Still you ask when Acacius was condemned — as though, even if no one had condemned him before, he ought not to have been excluded from participation in orthodox and apostolic communion, of which he proved himself a transgressor and a deserter. Just as anyone who was previously Catholic, by communicating with any heresy, is rightly judged to be removed from our fellowship — or, if he dies in such a state, is in no way to be counted among the names of Catholics.

We marvel, however, at how you put forward these things — that is, that you profess to accept the Council of Chalcedon for the Catholic faith, and yet you do not consider those who communicated with the followers whom it condemned to have been condemned, both particularly and generally. Show us, then, which synod in each heresy has not condemned, together with the errors, the successors and all who communicated with them and were their accomplices. Therefore your Acacius, who by detestable communion became a partaker with the Eutychian heretics, was without doubt condemned by that same synod which struck down Eutyches and Dioscorus, together with their successors and those who communicated with them, by its synodal decree. So too it cast down their followers, Timothy and Peter, by the same sentence.

A Tree Is Known by Its Fruits; Catholic Profession Cannot Coexist with Heretical Communion

Therefore, if you truly and certainly follow what was defined in the Council of Chalcedon for the faith and for Catholic and apostolic communion, as your repeated profession attests, then either reject the successors of those condemned by that synod and those who communicated with them, or, if you admit these, you demonstrate that you not only falsely claim to hold what was accomplished in that synod for the faith and for Catholic and apostolic communion, but that you seek moreover to undermine it, and you fall back into the Eutychian heresy without recanting, and you are rightly judged by Catholics to be avoided — because, in order to escape such a pestilence forever, the decrees salutarily enacted against it by that congregation of the holy Fathers are not to be mutilated in any way, as not only the bishops of the Apostolic See but also the Catholic bishops of the Eastern regions have judged.

Or do you say that Peter was purged — Peter, with whom Acacius communicated? Teach us with true proofs, demonstrate this, prove it: by what means, by what rules was he cleansed from the Eutychian profession or communion? So that when this too has been refuted by the clear demonstration of the facts, you may openly and plainly see that either you must yield to the truth, or you must openly take up arms against it. Do not flatter yourselves because you profess to hold the Catholic faith, because you have removed the name of Eutyches, because you seem to preach what orthodox antiquity preached. For that evangelical saying cries out to us: Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit (Matt. 12:33) — that is, if in voice, in faith, in Catholic and apostolic profession you truly and faithfully glory, then receive its communion as well. But if the communion of heretics — namely, of the condemned — and of those who communicated with them or their successors pleases you, why do you hesitate? Why do you look around? Openly and plainly, with every obstacle removed, defend their doctrine as well. For what good does it do? Indeed, it does great harm to promise in words what is denied in deeds — so that you may recognize not only how destructive to the Christian mystery the Eutychian heresy is in itself, but how great and grave are the things that this heresy continues in its own definition. See to what precipices you provoke us to descend, and to what perils of eternal life you desire us to bend. Is it by this descent that you save the sick — or is it to be consumed along with the ailing?

Will this be the best arrangement for restoring the concord you mention — or rather that other one, in which, once the contagion of the faithless has been rejected, with faith intact and communion sincere, Catholic and apostolic communion may enjoy its own purity; and, with the stain of heretics driven out, it may strive to build up the undefiled confession of its faith; and the unity of a mutually harmonious orthodox profession and communion may prevail? This is what I too, as your charity’s letters exhort, desire to be preserved in my own time, by whatever prayer avails — what has been kept for so many years by those glorious Fathers, intact and inviolate.

The Care Entrusted by God Cannot Be Diminished; The Talent Must Be Returned with Increase

For this is, as you yourself say, what our God — knowing well the future of all things and governing according to His own truth and rule — both foreordained and fitted to each age by His own dispensation. This is the will of God, of which you make mention, which I too, according to the measure the Lord deigns to grant me, desire wholly to fulfill — that I may not be found guilty of diminishing this heavenly talent, but may seek through Christ’s grace to gain increase on this talent, as He Himself admonishes us, and to suffer no loss whatever. This is why, as your own letter indicated, I felt grief at your earlier letters, for the sake of your salvation — when I found what was harmful to you and contrary to true peace. For the Apostle is grieved at the error of those who stray, and receives joy from those corrected by his preaching (2 Cor. 7:8–9).

But if your charity, as you say, is constrained by the pressure of certain persons — which, with your leave, a priest ought neither to do nor to say when truth must be proclaimed — let him pardon us, the most timid of men, if, constrained as we are by the terrible and weighty necessity of divine judgment, as befits whatever manner of ministers of Christ we may be, we choose to lay down our lives for the truth and save them, rather than to lose them by diminishing the truth — not to mention abandoning them against the faith at anyone’s pleasure. These are — as your charity commends — the certain bonds of perpetual faith and friendship with whoever wills it, in the heart of Christ. Here we do not seek to be preferred to others, as you claim, but to have with all the faithful a fellowship that is holy and pleasing to God. This is — as your charity commands — the solid, unshaken, and enduring peace; this is the one saving bond — as you yourself desire — by which the whole Church can be united. This is what those to whom it has been entrusted — as you yourself pray — may divine protection accomplish. This is the charity which is God (1 John 4:8), which you seek from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith (1 Tim. 1:5). How then from a pure heart, if it has been polluted by participation with heretics? How a good conscience, if it has been mixed with the confusion of evil men? How an unfeigned faith, if it has been mingled with the faithless?

The Apostolic See Will Not Be Moved; The Shepherd Does Not Follow the Flock into Error

If your prudence — as we pray it may — carefully considers these things, it will perceive that the Apostolic See is not to follow the footsteps of condemned heretics,4 and, looking at the matter rationally, you believe that the people of Constantinople should be admonished, not permitted to be led astray by the name of those who are perishing. Who in God’s Church, I ask you, could hear such a thing — when surely the flock ought to follow the shepherd who calls it back to saving pastures, and the shepherd should not follow the flock that wanders astray? Tell me, I ask: is the flock to render account for you, or you for the flock? Surely, if this arrangement pleases you, the cause is far more just for us, who have gladly heard that the Roman people will not be turned aside from the faith received from the praiseworthy tradition of their forefathers — if you do not wish to offend the Constantinopolitan people, who refuse to depart from heretical communion.

But you say that we ought to send someone who can pacify them. How will they hear me — whom they appear to hold suspect — if they despise their own bishops when they admonish them? Was it not commanded to the apostles themselves not to preach the word in certain regions — to those, indeed, who would not have listened? We shall come, brother Euphemius — without doubt, we shall come to that fearful tribunal of Christ — to say nothing of the punishment to be feared from this — with those standing around from whom the faith itself proceeds.

Before Christ’s Tribunal, Peter’s Glorious Confession Will Judge All Whom It Received to Govern

There, nothing will be accomplished by denials, by delays, by evasions; but it must be demonstrated most clearly whether the glorious confession of blessed Peter has withheld anything for salvation from any of those whom it received to govern,5 or whether an obstinate destructiveness, refusing to listen to it, has proved rebellious even at its own peril. There it will certainly be made clear whether I — as you think — am harsh, and too severe, and too difficult for you, I who labor in reason for your salvation, who cry out: Even if the antidote seems bitter, accept it, I beg you — drink it, live! I do not wish you to die. Or whether it is you, who — forbidden from harmful things — consider your physicians detestable; indeed, who would rather your physicians be sick with you than that you receive health.

And in another hand: The Lord keep you safe.