Leo, bishop, and the holy synod convened in the city of Rome, to Emperor Theodosius.
Chapter I: The Ephesine Pseudo-Synod Favored Private Enmities and Disrupted the Church; Apostolic Letters Were Rejected; Actions Were Coerced; Hilarius Barely Escaped; The Synod Is Never to Be Accepted by the Apostolic See
From your clemency’s letters, sent to the See of the Blessed Apostle Peter for love of the Catholic faith, we have taken such confidence in defending truth and peace through you that, in so simple and fortified a cause, we thought nothing harmful could arise. Especially since those sent to the episcopal council you ordered at Ephesus were so instructed that, had the Alexandrian bishop permitted our letters to the holy synod or Bishop Flavian to be published to the bishops’ ears, the purest faith’s manifestation, divinely inspired and held by us, would have silenced all strife, leaving no room for ignorance’s folly or rivalry’s harm.
But while private causes were pursued under religion’s guise, the impiety of a few wounded the universal Church. We know, not from uncertain report but from our most faithful deacon Hilarius, narrator of the acts, who barely escaped being forced to subscribe, that many priests convened at the synod. Their number would have aided consultation and judgment had the one claiming the chief place wished to uphold priestly moderation.
As is customary, with all freely expressing their views, a calm and just examination would have established what suited the faith and aided the erring. Yet we know not all convened were present; some were rejected, others admitted who, by the aforementioned priest’s judgment, gave captive hands to impious subscriptions, knowing it would harm their status unless they obeyed, issuing a sentence that injured all churches.
Our representatives, sent from the Apostolic See, saw this as so impious and contrary to the Catholic faith that no oppression could compel their consent. They steadfastly declared in the synod, as fitting, that the Apostolic See would never accept what was established — for the entire mystery of the Christian faith, God forbid in your piety’s time, is uprooted unless this most wicked crime, surpassing all sacrileges, is abolished.
Chapter II: Leo Requests Theodosius and the Westerners to Maintain the Status Quo Until a Greater Synod
Since diabolical deceit subtly misleads the unwary, deluding some through feigned piety to promote harm as wholesome, we beseech you to remove the peril to religion and faith from your piety’s conscience. What your laws’ equity grants in secular matters, grant in divine affairs, lest human presumption violate Christ’s Gospel.
Behold, I, most Christian and venerable emperor, with my fellow priests, fulfilling sincere love’s duty toward your clemency’s reverence — desiring you to please God above all, prayed for by the Church for you — beseech before the indivisible Trinity’s one Deity, injured by such deeds yet guardian and author of your empire, and before Christ’s holy angels: that you order all to remain as before any judgment, until a greater number of priests from the whole world convene.
Do not bear another’s sin’s burden, for we fear, as we must say, that the indignation of Him whose religion is scattered be provoked. Keep before your eyes, reverently beholding with full mental focus, the glory of blessed Peter, the shared crowns of all apostles, and the martyrs’ palms, whose sole cause of suffering was confessing the true divinity and humanity in Christ.
Chapter III: Leo Seeks a General Synod in Italy
As this mystery is now impiously opposed by a few imprudent ones, all our region’s churches and priests supplicate your clemency with groans and tears. Since our representatives faithfully protested and Bishop Flavian gave an appeal’s libel, order a general synod in Italy to repel or mitigate all offenses, so nothing remains doubtful in faith or divided in charity.
With bishops of the Eastern provinces convened, those led astray by threats and injuries from truth’s path may be restored by salutary remedies. Those with harsher cause, if they accept better counsels, may not fall from the Church’s unity. This is necessarily required post-appeal, as the Nicene canons’ decrees, established by the world’s priests and annexed below, attest.
Favor the Catholics, per your and your parents’ custom, granting freedom to defend the faith, which, with your clemency’s reverence preserved, no force or worldly terror can remove. As we pursue the Church’s and your kingdom’s cause and salvation, that your provinces enjoy just peace, defend the Church’s unshaken state against heretics, so Christ’s right hand may defend your empire.
Dated the third day before the Ides of October, in the consulship of Asturius and Protogenes, most illustrious men.
Footnotes
- ↩ The joint salutation — Leo episcopus et sancta synodus quae in urbe Romae convenit, Theodosio Augusto — is itself a primacy expression. Leo is not writing alone but with the assembled body of Italian bishops gathered in synod at Rome. By mobilizing the collective episcopal voice of the Western church, Leo demonstrates that his rejection of Ephesus II is not a personal protest but the judgment of the Church assembled at the Apostolic See. This is the sollicitudo for all the churches expressed institutionally: Rome’s bishop draws the Western episcopate into participation with his universal responsibility.
- ↩ The emperor himself, in Leo’s account, had written “to the See of the Blessed Apostle Peter” — ad sedem beati Petri apostoli. Leo records this framing with precision because it matters institutionally: Theodosius did not merely write to a bishop for advice; he addressed the structural institution of Peter’s see, acknowledging it as the proper place for doctrinal guidance. Leo receives this communication as the bishop of that see and draws his confidence directly from it. Everything that follows — including the rejection of Ephesus II’s acts — is the response of an institution the emperor himself had acknowledged as authoritative.
- ↩ Apostolicam sedem numquam recepturam esse quod constitutum est — “the Apostolic See would never receive what had been established.” This is Leo’s legates speaking with the authority of the institution that sent them. The declaration is not personal refusal but institutional rejection: what the Apostolic See will not receive is not validly established. A council whose acts Rome will not receive is not a valid council, regardless of the number of bishops who signed its decrees. This sentence is the theological core of the post-Latrocinium letters: the Roman See’s reception is the criterion of a council’s validity.
- ↩ October 13, 449 — the same date as Letter XLIII. The two letters are parallel appeals to the same emperor on the same matter, sent the same day: Letter XLIII from Leo alone and Letter XLIV from Leo and the assembled Roman Synod. The Chalcedonian manuscript tradition preserves the title of this letter as “Epistola sanctissimi archiepiscopi Romae Leonis ad imperatorem Theodosium, qua rogavit speciale concilium in partibus Italiae fieri” — “Letter of Leo, most holy Archbishop of Rome, to Emperor Theodosius, by which he requested a special council to be held in the regions of Italy.” The consulship of Asturius and Protogenes confirms 449.