Pope Gelasius narrates what assistance he has received from Rusticus, bishop of Lyon, and how great the persecutions are which he sustains from Acacius. From the papers of the Reverend Father Hieronymus Vignerius.
To his most beloved brother Rusticus, Gelasius.
Amid the whirlwinds of impending evils and the afflictions of various trials by which we are nearly submerged, your charity, most beloved brother, has supplied us with great consolation. For what could be more consoling than to see most dear brothers compassionate to one another in turn and bearing part of the burden — to whom no small portion of the blessing has been imparted? Blessed be God, who has so disposed your heart toward us, that not only with your mind do you sense what we suffer, but you make this manifest in showing mercy in our holy tribulation, and you join to the sweetest words of consolation those things which are the principal helps among friends.
But we will not weary your beloved person by writing of how greatly we have been straitened. Our brother and fellow bishop Aeonius of Arles knows how useful both what he sent and what you have sent to us has been as a subsidy. As for our brother Epiphanius of Pavia, who is destined for your regions to lift up his people and to redeem captives, [he] will inform your brotherhood how great a persecution we sustain on account of the most impious Acacius. But we do not fail; and amid so many pressures neither does our spirit yield, nor does our zeal slacken, nor does fear overturn us. Yet, although we are anxious and straitened, we trust in him who will give the outcome with the temptation; and if he allows us to be cast down for a time, he will not allow us to be utterly oppressed.
See to it, dearest brother, that the affection of you and yours toward us — or rather, toward the Apostolic See — does not cease. For those who shall be made firm on the rock shall be exalted together with the rock.
Help our brother Epiphanius, and let him perceive that you love me; and when he returns to his own [region], let your beloved person write both what may seem [right] to himself and what may seem [right] to our brothers and fellow bishops established throughout the Gauls concerning the cause of the most impious Acacius. May God preserve you safe, dearest brother.
Given on the eighth day before the Kalends of February, in the consulship of the most distinguished men Asterius and Praesidius (in the year of Christ 494).
Footnotes
- ↩ The introductory rubric is the editor’s, taken from the schedules of Hieronymus Vignerius — the Jesuit Hieronymus Vignerius (1606–1661), whose collection preserved several Gelasian letters not present in the principal medieval manuscripts. The letter as preserved is short and personal, but it gives a precious window onto the texture of the Acacian Schism: Rome under sustained persecution, dependent on the loyal Gallic and Italian sees for material support, and confident that the persecution will not prevail against the rock.
- ↩ Rusticus, bishop of Lyon, held that see from approximately 494 to 501. Lyon (Lugdunum) was one of the principal sees of Gaul and an important communications hub for Roman correspondence with the Gallic churches; it was also the metropolitan see of the province of Lugdunensis Prima. The reader will note the warmth of the address — dilectissimo fratri, “to his most beloved brother” — appropriate to a personal letter of thanks. This is a different Rusticus from the Rusticus of Narbonne who corresponded with Leo I (cf. Leo’s Letter CLXVII).
- ↩ Aeonius, bishop of Arles (Arelate) from approximately 485 to 502, was a strong supporter of Rome during the Acacian Schism. As bishop of Arles he held the Roman vicariate over the southern Gallic churches — the same vicariate established by Leo I in his correspondence with Anastasius of Thessalonica’s Illyrian counterparts (cf. Letters V and VI), and extended to Arles for Gaul. The reader will note the structural pattern: Rome’s communication with the Gallic churches passes through the metropolitan of Arles in his vicarial capacity, and material support comes back through the same channel. The arrangement is the practical institutional expression of the Roman bishop’s sollicitudo for all the Churches.
- ↩ Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia (Ticinum) from 466 to 496, was one of the most celebrated diplomatic figures of late fifth-century Italy. His Vita, composed by his successor Ennodius (later bishop of Pavia and a key figure in the Symmachian schism), records his extensive missions on behalf of captives — including a famous embassy to the Burgundian king Gundobad to ransom the captives of northern Italy taken during the Burgundian incursions of the late 480s and early 490s. The mission referenced here, “to lift up his people and to redeem captives,” is consistent with that pattern: Epiphanius had a recognized vocation for the redemption of captives and traveled widely on such missions. He would die in 496, only two years after this letter — possibly on yet another such mission. The reader will note the multiple roles Epiphanius plays here: bishop, redeemer of captives, and now also Gelasius’s chosen legate to communicate with the Gallic churches concerning the Acacian Schism.
- ↩ Quantam ob impiissimi Acacii causam persecutionem sustinemus. The phrase impiissimi Acacii (“the most impious Acacius”) is Gelasius’s standard descriptor for the deceased patriarch of Constantinople (in office 472–489, excommunicated by Pope Felix III in 484, died still under sentence in 489). The “persecution” Gelasius is undergoing on Acacius’s account refers to the diplomatic, political, and ecclesiastical pressures the Eastern court and its sympathizers were applying to Rome during the Acacian Schism — including direct pressure to relax the excommunication, attempts to win over Italian and Gallic bishops to neutrality or sympathy with Constantinople, financial and material restrictions, and a sustained campaign to delegitimize the Roman position. Gelasius is here writing in the active middle of that pressure, which would not be relieved until the Formula of Hormisdas in 519. The letter is therefore one of the most intimate documents of the schism: a Roman pope under sustained pressure, asking continued material support from the Gallic churches and presenting that support as participation in the Roman tribulation.
- ↩ Fac, carissime frater, ut tuus tuorumque in nos, vel potius in sedem apostolicam non cesset affectus. The corrective phrase vel potius in sedem apostolicam — “or rather, toward the Apostolic See” — is the structural heart of the letter. Gelasius is making explicit that the Gallic churches’ affection and support are not directed to him personally but to the See of Peter. This is a precise theological statement of the office: the Roman bishop is not a private recipient of fraternal charity but the embodiment, in his person and in his current trials, of the Apostolic See itself. To stand with Gelasius is to stand with the See of Peter; the personal pope is the visible form under which the perennial see is presently encountered. The reader will note the structural coherence with the broader Petrine theology of the Roman corpus: the see, not the individual occupant, is the bearer of the permanent prerogative; the individual occupant exercises that prerogative as its current bearer. Leo I had said the same in his own way (in Sermo 3, on the anniversary of his consecration: nostrum est officium, sed Petri auctoritas — “ours is the office, but the authority is Peter’s”); Gelasius here applies the same distinction to the question of fraternal support.
- ↩ Qui enim in petra solidabuntur cum petra exaltabuntur. One of the most striking Petrine formulations in the Gelasian corpus. The phrase is not a direct Scriptural citation but is structured around Matt. 16:18 (super hanc petram — “upon this rock”) and the patristic identification of Peter as the rock through whom the Roman see partakes of the firmness of Christ. The doctrine compressed into the sentence is this: those who stand with Rome (the rock) in the present persecutions of the Acacian Schism will be exalted together with Rome when the rock is exalted. Suffering with the Apostolic See in this life is participation in the eschatological exaltation of the see itself. The verb solidabuntur (“shall be made firm, made solid”) is precisely the Gelasian word for adherence to the rock — the same image of solidification that runs through the Petrine theology of the period. The verb exaltabuntur (“shall be exalted”) names the eschatological promise: the rock itself is exalted in the consummation, and those joined to it in this life share that exaltation. The reader will note the implicit ecclesiology: the Roman see is not merely one church among others but the rock on which the Church is built; to be joined to that rock is to share in its perpetual standing; to suffer with it is to participate in its glory. The principle, applied here in a personal letter of thanks, is the same Petrine doctrine that runs through the entire Gelasian corpus and that the Formula of Hormisdas would receive in 519.
- ↩ The closing request is structurally important. Gelasius is asking Rusticus not only to support Epiphanius personally but, after Epiphanius’s return, to gather the views of the Gallic episcopate on the Acacian cause and report them back to Rome. This is the standard pattern of Roman governance through the schism: Rome maintains constant communication with the local episcopates, gathers their views, and confirms or corrects them as the doctrinal and disciplinary unity requires. The Gallic churches, through their bishops, are being enlisted as a coordinated body in support of the Roman position — and Rusticus, as bishop of Lyon, is being asked to function as the coordinating figure for that gathering of views.
- ↩ The 8th day before the Kalends of February is January 25, 494. The consulship of Flavius Turcius Rufius Apronianus Asterius and Praesidius is well-attested for 494 in the consular fasti. The dating places the letter precisely in the active middle of Gelasius’s pontificate (492–496) and in the active middle of the Acacian Schism, which had been in formal effect since 484 and would not be resolved until 519. The reader will note the connection to the date: Gelasius was elected in March 492, less than two years before this letter was written, and this is therefore one of the early documents of his pontificate — yet the matters discussed (the persecutions, the dependence on material support, the firm Roman stand against any relaxation of the Acacian condemnation) are those which would occupy him throughout his four years as Roman bishop.
Historical Commentary