The See of Peter

The Early Church and Peter's Primacy

Letter II, from Pope Leo to Septimus, Bishop of Altinum

Synopsis: Pelagians must be received into Catholic communion only after a clear and public renunciation of their error and of its authors; those who refuse must be excluded; and every cleric must remain in the church where he was ordained, with those under suspicion permitted even less freedom of movement than the innocent.

Leo, bishop of the Apostolic See, to Septimus, bishop of Altinum, greeting.

I. Pelagian Clergy Must Make a Full Public Profession Before Being Received Into Communion

Having read your letter, dearest brother, we recognize the strength of your faith — which we knew before — and we rejoice that you are exercising pastoral vigilance to protect Christ’s flock, lest wolves who have entered in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15) tear apart simple souls with their predatory savagery, correcting nothing in themselves while corrupting what is sound in others. To prevent this serpent-like cunning from prevailing, we have directed letters to the metropolitan bishop of Venetia, warning him that it falls upon his peril if anyone from the Pelagian or Cælestian sect is received into Catholic communion without first offering a profession of legitimate satisfaction.

It is most wholesome, and full of spiritual healing, that priests, deacons, or clergy of any rank who wish to appear corrected should clearly confess — without ambiguity of any kind — that they condemn their error and its authors, so that no opportunity is left for reviving their perverse doctrines once destroyed, and no member of the Church is harmed by their company. Their profession must fully stand opposed to those doctrines under the authority of the Apostolic See, which preserves the faith without error. For if any of them pretend to come over to our side while privately holding on to any part of their sect’s poison — whether cleric or layman — they must be separated from the Church’s fellowship, so that no one who destroys his own soul should be permitted to imperil the souls of others.

II. Every Cleric Must Remain in the Church Where He Was Ordained; Those Under Suspicion Are Entitled to Even Less Freedom of Movement

We also command that the rule of the canons be upheld by which clergy are forbidden to leave the churches to which they properly belong and to move wherever they please of their own accord. If this is rightly prohibited even for the innocent, it is far less permissible for those who are under suspicion. Therefore, beloved, whose devotion we rejoice in, align your care with our decrees and cooperate with the aforementioned metropolitan to ensure that what we have wholesomely and commendably ordained for the safety of the Church is implemented with all circumspection and promptness, under our apostolic oversight.

Source/Reference

PL 54:597

Notes / Historical Commentary

Letter II, written at approximately the same time as Letter I and almost certainly on the same occasion, is addressed to Septimus of Altinum — the bishop whose report to Rome had prompted Leo’s intervention in the first place. Where Letter I was directed to the responsible metropolitan (the Bishop of Aquileia) and took the form of a commanding rescript ordering a provincial synod, Letter II is directed to the informant himself, confirming that Leo has acted on his report and enlisting him as a cooperating agent in the implementation of the remedy.

The pairing of the two letters is itself instructive for the question of papal governance. Leo does not simply receive Septimus’s report and forward instructions to the metropolitan. He writes to both simultaneously: to the metropolitan, ordering specific action; to the informant, confirming what has been ordered and directing him to cooperate with the metropolitan in carrying it out. The Bishop of Altinum is thus both the source of the intelligence and a participant in the remedy — but always acting within a framework set and overseen by Rome. The final phrase of the letter — sub nostra apostolica sollicitudine, “under our apostolic oversight” — makes this explicit.

The most significant addition in this letter over Letter I is the explicit statement in Chapter II that those who are under suspicion are entitled to even less freedom of movement than those who are innocent. The prohibition on clerical wandering was a general canonical rule; Leo here applies it with additional stringency to the Pelagian clergy precisely because their movement had been the mechanism by which they spread their error covertly while appearing to be in good standing. By tightening the rule for the suspect, Leo closes the loophole that had allowed the problem to develop in the first place.

This letter, like Letter I, contains no dating information — the consulship is not given in either of the early letters. Both are generally placed in the period 440–444, before the cluster of letters dealing with the Illyrian vicariate and the Manichaean problems that occupy the mid-440s correspondence.