Gelasius to his most beloved brother Honorius.
The Care Delegated to Peter by the Savior’s Own Voice; The Solicitude That Cannot Be Dissembled
Although we are entangled in the continual occupations of various difficulties of the times and can scarcely draw breath, nevertheless, exercising the governance of the Apostolic See and treating without ceasing the care of the whole flock of the Lord — which was delegated to blessed Peter by the voice of our Savior Himself: And you, when you have turned, confirm your brothers (Luke 22:32); and likewise: Peter, do you love me? Feed my sheep (John 21:17) — We cannot dissemble or neglect what the form of Our solicitude demands, feeling and speaking with the blessed Apostle Paul: Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is scandalized, and I am not on fire? (2 Cor. 11:29).
For so suddenly has a grievous, dreadful, and scarcely credible report struck us as to confound, wound, and afflict Our mind. It has been reported to us that in the regions of Dalmatia certain persons have been sowing the weeds of the recurring Pelagian pestilence, and that their blasphemy prevails there to such an extent that they deceive all the simple by the insinuation of their deadly fury. This error is indeed all the more dangerously insidious in its assault, the more craftily it employs the color of plausibility to deceive. But by the Lord’s help, the pure truth of the Catholic faith is at hand, drawn from the harmonious judgments of all the Fathers, which both exposes the subtle poison of this deadly depravity and provides from the composition of the Scriptures a remedy for the salvation of the human race.
Therefore let not the abundance of undiscerning hearts be disturbed, until both the hidden wound appears and the singular salvation shines forth — for by whatever art the spirit of perdition arms its deception, it is both uncovered and slain by the holy sword of the principal Spirit. Wherefore, through your charity, We admonish all the priests of the Lord there with fraternal affection: that, since with the Lord teaching you, you fight against novel errors, you must not receive a perversity long since condemned throughout the whole world, nor suppose that what is rashly thought should be done — that a heresy fitly extinguished by our forebears should dare to provoke us again and openly take the field with renewed forces.
What the Fathers Have Defined May Not Be Reopened; The Boundaries of the Fathers Must Not Be Transgressed
Is it permitted to us to dissolve what has been condemned by the venerable Fathers, and to reopen the wicked doctrines they cut away? What, then, is the great precaution we take, lest the destructiveness of any heresy once overthrown seek to come again to examination? If we strive to restore what was long ago known, discussed, and refuted by our forebears, do we not ourselves — God forbid, and may the Catholic Church never tolerate it — set before all the adversaries of truth the example of rising again against us? Where is what is written: Do not transgress the boundaries of your fathers (Prov. 22:28)? And: Ask your fathers, and they will tell you; your elders, and they will teach you (Deut. 32:7)? Why, then, do we reach beyond the definitions of our forebears, and why do they not suffice for us? If there is something we wish to learn in our ignorance, let us learn how each matter was judged by the orthodox Fathers and elders — what must be avoided and what must be adapted to Catholic truth. Why are their decrees not accepted as proof?
The Chain of Predecessors: Innocent, Zosimus, Boniface, Celestine, Sixtus, and Leo Condemned This Heresy by Continuous and Unceasing Sentences
Are we wiser than they, or can we stand with firm stability if we undermine what they established? Or do you perhaps not know that this heresy of which we speak was long ago struck down by the Apostolic See through Innocent of blessed memory, and then Zosimus, Boniface, Celestine, Sixtus, and Leo, by continuous and unceasing sentences — and not only by the laws of the Catholic Church, but also condemned by the Roman princes with such severity that its followers were not permitted to have a place to live anywhere in the world? All of this is taught both by the acts of the Church conducted in every region where their depravity spread, and by the sanctions of public law.
See how Catholic ears can hear their doctrine, receive their arguments, consider their snares, and patiently entertain their blasphemies! If only they would study the books and responses of our forebears written against them — there it would be seen by every means that there is absolutely nothing that was not already examined by them and crushed by the magnificent truth. And so all the faithful would be so instructed in refuting all their wickedness that nothing more would need to be sought. But if perhaps certain of their propositions should disturb untrained minds, the teachings of the venerable Fathers both expose all their madness and show by what remedies it may be cured — so that, with God’s help providing foresight, all that they have woven together may be seen to be both dangerous for those who follow them and foolish for those who examine them. So that even if anyone thinks resistance is necessary, he need not set himself up as an opponent of the judgments of the ancients, but would openly profess himself an enemy of human salvation and Catholic teaching.
The Shepherd Must Drive the Wolves from the Sacred Flocks
All the more attentively must the watchful care of pastors drive the savagery of wolves from the sacred flocks. For whatever harm befalls the holy sheep condemns — God forbid — the negligence of the bishops; just as the expulsion of harmful beasts from the regenerated flocks has procured perpetual increase as the reward of faithful guardians. Certainly, if — as we rather hope — these things have been reported on the basis of false rumors, we desire to learn of it as quickly as possible, so that we who tremble at the affliction of Christ’s members may rejoice all the more at their stability.
Given on the fifth day before the Kalends of August, in the consulship of Faustus, vir clarissimus.
Footnotes
- ↩ Honorius was Bishop of Salona (modern Solin, near Split, Croatia), the metropolitan see of Dalmatia. This letter and its companion (Letter VI) deal with reports that the Pelagian heresy was resurfacing in the Dalmatian regions. The subject is doctrinal rather than jurisdictional, but the framing is pure primacy: Gelasius grounds his intervention in the Petrine commission and names a chain of seven predecessors who condemned the same heresy before him.
- ↩ This is one of the fullest statements of the Petrine delegation in Gelasius’s corpus. Three elements converge: (1) the moderamen of the Apostolic See — its governance; (2) the cura totius ovilis dominici — the care of the whole flock of the Lord; (3) the delegation by Christ’s own voice (Salvatoris ipsius nostri voce delegata) with two scriptural commissions — Luke 22:32 (confirm your brothers) and John 21:17 (feed my sheep). The sollicitudo formula then follows: Gelasius “cannot dissemble or neglect” what the form of his solicitude demands. The structure is identical to Leo’s usage: the pope’s universal solicitude is the consequence of Peter’s universal commission, and no church is outside its scope.
- ↩ This chain of six predecessors is one of the most important continuity passages in the Gelasius corpus. The heresy was condemned not by one pope but by six successive occupants of the Apostolic See, each continuing what the previous one had established. The names span nearly a century: Innocent I (401-417), Zosimus (417-418), Boniface I (418-422), Celestine I (422-432), Sixtus III (432-440), and Leo I (440-461). After Leo, the chain continues implicitly through Hilarius, Simplicius, Felix III, and now Gelasius himself. The argument is not that each pope independently decided the heresy was wrong; it is that the Apostolic See maintained a continuous, unbroken condemnation across seven decades of successive pontificates. What the See condemns stays condemned.
- ↩ July 28, 493. The consular date names Faustus as vir clarissimus (V. C.) — the same Faustus who is the recipient of the Commonitorium (Letter IV). The PL editorial note observes that no consulship of Faustus is otherwise attested under Gelasius’s pontificate, and suggests the consular note may be corrupt, with some manuscripts reading “Albino” instead of “Fausto.” If “Albino” is correct, the date would be 493 under the consulship of Albinus.
Historical Commentary