To His Most Beloved Brothers, All the Eastern Bishops, Gelasius.1

Chapter I: The Eastern Bishops Should Have Recognized Petrus the Antiochene as Heretic and Refused His Communion

What then about these wise men, with their sharp minds searching out the inner workings of all religion, established in the parts of the East — if they recognized that such a person had been set up in the Church of Antioch, why by communicating with such did they offer their consent? Why did they not at once cry out against it? Why did they not remove themselves from such contagion, when they so evidently perceived that Calendio had been driven out (in 483) for the very purpose that an entrance might be opened to the heretics?2 Why here did they treat nothing of the matter, nothing of the Christian faith, nothing of the examination of persons? But if they have voluntarily subjected themselves to the communion of those men, they are certainly separated from the Apostolic See; for with such men and among such men, even if it were necessary that one should occur, no synod could possibly be held.

Or if they shall say that they did not know what kind of bishop had succeeded at Antioch after Calendio — what wonder, if those who, placed in the East, could not know the things that befell in their own region, should be ignorant of what had been done at the Apostolic See? Why nevertheless, after it came to their notice what kind of priest had been established at Antioch, did they not at once spurn his fellowship? With what color of ignorance do they put forward an excuse, when even today they follow contagions of the perfidious that are manifest and that have been many times rebuked by Us? Whence it appears clearly enough that even then they would not have refused those persons even if they had known, since now also they do not refuse them when they are publicly known. Truly, into whatever direction or excuse they turn themselves, they are so suffocated by the snares of manifest truth that they can be confuted by their own words and acts, and have nothing left to advance except the sole ruin of obstinate perfidy.

What has been said about the venerable Calendio fits also, by the same reasoning, the case of Joannes the Alexandrian. Indeed, if the same cause is examined more broadly, so great are the tragedies, so many the errors found there, that if those who perpetrated them be themselves the judges — when they have been clearly confuted — they would not refrain from condemning themselves. For there it is openly and plainly shown that nothing else was sought except a contrived occasion, by which, with the Catholic bishop driven out — whoever he was — access might be opened to the heretic Peter. And then no one was discussing this; no one was demanding a synod; everywhere whatever pleased anyone seemed permitted to be done by anyone whatever; no examination of things, no inquiry of the Church was required. But just as it occurred to anyone concerning anyone else, so the Catholic bishop was driven from his city — not only the metropolitan, but even the holder of the Third and the Second See.3 In these things, no investigation of facts was sought, no councils to be held were proposed. Heretics were substituted; no one resisted: but as dumb cattle led to the slaughter, with their wills surrendered, they followed the perfidy.

Chapter II: The Eastern Bishops Cannot Now Demand a Synod for Acacius They Did Not Demand for the Catholics They Allowed to Be Cast Down

It is no wonder, then, that they now contrive to defend those whose unexamined utility their blind minds had followed. But We marvel that they are not ashamed to complain, in the case of these men’s condemnation, that no synod was held — when they know that so many and such great bishops were driven out without any synod. If in the rejection of these they complain that no council was held, let them know that they are accused, because they did not seek the same in the rejection of the others. But if in the rejection of the others councils were not necessary, let them recognize that in the case of these too they were not necessary. Was there no need [for a synod] in the casting down of the Catholics, but a great need to gather one in the condemnation of a confessed prevaricator?

What, then, remains, but that they say that those men were not heretics? Therefore let them not complain about a synod — they who openly profess themselves followers of an external [or: heretical] communion. For why should a synod seem necessary to those who recognize that they themselves come against the Synod of Chalcedon — by which the Eutychian error, with its authors, was condemned by the general voice of the Church? Nor is it doubtful that, just as in each heresy — which point must be insisted on without ceasing, since no Christian doubts that it is firm — all accomplices, followers, and communicators with a once-condemned depravity are reckoned by the same lot. And so it follows: just as Timothy [Aelurus] and [Petrus Mongus], being followers of such men, were condemned according to the tenor of that synod, with no recent gathering of bishops being held, so also Acacius, who communicated with [Petrus Mongus], has been made both a partaker of the crime and a partner of the penalty.

Chapter III: Acacius Confessed His Offense by His Own Letter; No Examination Was Needed

Why, then, do they wrap these matters in ambiguities and clouds, contending rather to veil their impudence and frenzied mind with empty fables — fatally — than, by laying them open, to seek a healing remedy? For We have nothing in common with men of an external communion. Surely a person is called to judgment for this — that he may either confess what is laid against him, or be convicted of what is laid against him. After the confession further was drawn forth in the tenor of his letter, why should Acacius be called to judgment — he who confessed himself to have joined in communion with Peter, whom he had condemned by the requested precept of the Apostolic See? Nor could he now be trusted, having become an instrument of external communion — neither for his own defense, nor for the defense of those others, nor for the defense of Peter, with whom he had earlier mingled himself in unlawful fellowship, and had made himself, without doubt, a sharer in his cause. If an examination had been first held, and Peter had been received by lawful purgation if it had been so, then Acacius might regularly have mixed himself with him. But with Peter not yet lawfully discussed and purged, having been joined in communion with him — in which he had once involved himself — he equally lacked any confidence to speak on his behalf.

Chapter IV: Acacius Lacked Any Authority to Judge or to Receive the Holder of the Second See — He Could Do Neither Without the Authority of the First See

For since Acacius was supported by no privilege by which he could pronounce judgment concerning the Second [Alexandrian] See, he could not by right condemn anyone there.4 In like manner, except by the authority of the First [Roman] See having been received, he had neither the right of examining Peter, nor any power at all of receiving him. This being regularly established — and Peter having in no way been absolved by Us, whom We know to have condemned him, while We know nothing of any examination or absolution — it remains for Us to demonstrate that this same Peter, whom Acacius pretends to have received in communion as one purged, never ceased from contagion with heretical communion: not only at that very time when Acacius communicated with him, but also after the communion of the prevaricator Acacius, [Petrus] the Alexandrian remained always in the company of heretics. And thus, both through this man Acacius received the contagion of perfidious communion, and through that same channel was joined in the same plague with those heretics with whom Peter was communicating.

Acacius, who presumed to receive Peter without keeping the order, is not recognized to have received him either as examined or as purged: and therefore, apart from the notice of the Apostolic See, he wished to usurp for himself an unlawful reception of him — so that he might pretend, according to his own will, an examination and purgation of him; and not receive him examined at all, nor purged at all. If he truly wished to receive him examined and purged, he would have kept the order rather in his examination and reception, lest he should rather appear than truly be able by right to purge him. As, therefore, before he did not condemn him until he both reported and asked of the Apostolic power that he be condemned, so also in receiving he ought to have kept the form: that, before he should mingle himself with him in communion, he should ask through the Apostolic See that he be examined, and purged by lawful procedure — since he himself had no right of examining or receiving him, and could not accomplish this except through the authority and consent of that See without whose authority he himself had not been able to condemn him; by whose principal diligence he could be both discussed and purged, and admitted to communion in fitting manner.5

For since it is established that always either by the authority of the Apostolic See such persons either are discussed or purged, or are absolved by other bishops to whom it pertained — yet so that the absolution of them depends upon the consent of the Apostolic See — where each is lacking, neither lawful discussion nor firm purgation, nor through these a proper reception, has been shown.

Chapter V: Will You Acquiesce? You Are Mine. Will You Not Acquiesce? You Are Not Mine

If you have judged Peter to be Catholic without My communion, and have received him by your own right with Me despised — what do you complain of, if I have refused him from My communion (which you have wished to be despised), as though without your knowledge or consultation? Will you acquiesce? You are Mine. Will you not acquiesce? You are not Mine. For he who is not with Me is against Me; and he who gathers not with Me, scatters (Matt. 12:30).6

I ask of you: do you reckon Peter to have been a heretic, or a Catholic, or to have been corrected from heresy afterward? If a heretic, you ought in no way to have communicated with him; and by communicating with him, it is manifest that you have been made a partaker of the heretic, and consequently bound by the condemnation that comes by the tenor of the synod. If a Catholic, you are openly the defender of his whole doctrine, which you proclaim to be Catholic — and you are nonetheless reckoned in his error, if you define him to have been a heretic but pretend he later corrected himself, and pronounce that you communicated with him as one purged. Meanwhile, in whose person you believed I should be neglected, you cannot complain that in the same person I have neglected you. Furthermore, since you had no right without Me either to absolve or to receive a person of this kind by rite, neither lawfully purged nor regularly received, he is shown to have been. As his reception was not regular, so neither is his purgation lawfully shown; and therefore not by right purged, because not lawfully received. For while My sentence remained against him, you not having a privilege without Me to dissolve My sentence — by what power was he discussed, or by what authority is he asserted to have been received? See: in these matters meanwhile your case wavers and slips; and if this alone were the issue, it would be entirely overthrown.

Chapter VI: The Chain of Communion Convicts Acacius and the Eastern Bishops

But there is yet another matter that adds to the heap of your conviction. For what if it should be shown — not only before you came into his communion, nor only when you came into his communion, but even afterwards — that he nonetheless remained in the communion of the heretics? Was not heretical communion either coming through him to you, or were you not, by his commerce, passing into a heretical communion? Show, then, that [Petrus] the Alexandrian ever ceased from communion with [Petrus] the Antiochene; and that, until the day when [Petrus] the Antiochene was in this light, the inseparable fellowship between the two was not maintained. Will you say that even [Petrus] the Antiochene was corrected — with whom Acacius boasted to have not communicated until the end? But what good was it, that he was unwilling to communicate with him directly, when he reckoned himself to be communicating with him through [Petrus] the Alexandrian without any reproach?

What do We make of so many and such great cities from which the Catholic bishops have been driven out? If Catholics have been substituted, why have Catholics been rejected? But it appears clearly: since Catholics were rejected, those substituted are not Catholics. It remains that to the Catholics whatever heretics succeeded. Why then did you rashly communicate with them? Why did you not act, since this new face of things and so great a tragedy concerning the succession of living bishops, that the matter be examined by a synod? Or does Acacius alone grieve, that he was not refuted by a special synod — when he disclosed his proper crime by his own letter, and ought not to be heard, having of his own accord confessed it; and is there no grief over so many Catholic bishops dismissed without any examination? Such men, if indeed they had known those whose communion they had avoided to be Catholics, would have preferred to communicate with these — rather than, by not communicating, be driven into harsh persecution.

Chapter VII: So Many Catholic Bishops Have Themselves Shown What the Apostolic See Has Decreed and What Should Be Held

Behold, so many Catholic bishops indicate by this very fact that they recognized what the Apostolic See had decreed, and have proven steadfastly that what is to be held is the Catholic communion preserved — and that they choose as companions those who communicate with the Apostolic See; and that, even unto the incursions of persecution, they refuse the company of those whom the Apostolic See had decreed should not be communicated with.

Surely it is alleged that what the Apostolic See had decreed was not made known to the Eastern bishops. Whence then have so many and such great bishops, of one and the same mind with the Apostolic See, and approving that it had decreed things fitting to sacred religion and true — which they not only judged should be followed by themselves, but should also even be manfully maintained unto persecution? Behold, you have had those who would urge the notice of the Apostolic constitution upon you, and minister steadfastness for retaining it — when, if the Apostolic See itself had sent emissaries, it could scarcely have directed two or three. Behold, so many bishops, following the determinations of the Apostolic See, urge upon you the notice and present examples of the truth to be preserved.7 You who have closed your eyes against so many established in that very place, how could you hear two or three? By this very fact, without doubt, you have known that those men were pleasing to the Apostolic See, by the very fact that you could see them displeasing yourselves. Either, therefore, follow those through whom you might understand the will of the Apostolic See; or there is nothing of ignorance you can put forward, when, abusing such great and such evidences, you preferred to spurn the constitutions of the Apostolic See — preached by so many testimonies — rather than to receive them.

Chapter VIII: The Cast-Down Catholic Bishops — Why Did You Not Plead Their Case Before the Emperor?

Did all these bishops whom We have named lie to the emperor? Did all of them remove the emperor’s name from the diptychs? When, therefore, they were being driven out, and successors as heretics were being created over the Catholic bishops while they yet lived — and these not in any inferior cities, but the metropolitan bishops, persevering all the while in Catholic communion — why did you not show compassion to so many of your brothers? Why did you not approach the emperor? Why did you not bewail the cause of the Church and the wretched defacement of the priesthood with continuous voices?

Alleging that the Church has never judged concerning bishops except [the Church]: that it does not belong to human laws to bear sentence concerning such persons apart from the bishops principally constituted in the Church; that Christian princes are accustomed to obey the decrees of the Church, not to put their power above them; that the prince is accustomed to subject his head to bishops, not to judge concerning their heads.8

By what councils of the Church, by what synod were they driven out? What, finally, had they committed, that — without any examination of the matters — the bishops of so many churches should be driven out at human caprice and at the discretion of secular power? The unheard, the undiscussed, the unconvicted ought not to be cast down.9 Especially when the cause was new and the face of the matter was new — that these rulers of the people, by sudden incursions, by the will of worldly power, should be deprived of their sacred dignities. From no old cause, from no association of guilt, nor partaker of any error already condemned, were they to be held; nor could they be convicted, as if from a previous definition, to be bound. And therefore, since by no preceding causes were they held, why they were ejected — let what their charges were be shown, and let it be made clear by ecclesiastical laws, as always.

At the very least, for your own sake, you should have judged that their miseries should be considered, fearing in yourselves what you saw in others to be admitted by violence beyond all custom. If they had been touched by any crime, it ought to have been recognized by ecclesiastical examination. I pass over and the [matter] should have been referred to the Apostolic See by custom, lest We seem to be looking out for Our own privileges. Let it be enough to show what according to the rules and the canons of the Fathers you ought to have done. Especially since even the public laws themselves, deferring to ecclesiastical rules, have decreed that such persons must be judged only by bishops. But if of any heresy they had been impeached, it would have befitted these to recognize them — those who could discuss such things according to the tenor of religion, and who held the ancient prerogative of judging since Christianity began.

For either they were Catholics or heretics, of whom such mockeries were everywhere being made and detestable robberies were raging. If heretics, they ought by all means to have been brought forth, examined, and lawfully convicted, either confuted by their own confessions or by the voices of others. I pass over that the matter should have been referred to Us by paternal custom, and only mention what according to ecclesiastical right ought to have been done. But if they were proven Catholics, you, who not only consented in their dejection, but also chose to communicate with the substitutes — you are without doubt heretics. You, who did not fail to know — when the Catholics were being driven out and were withdrawing — that the cause of the Catholic faith and communion was being made plain by so many bishops throughout the whole world; but, knowing and willing it, without any examination of facts, without any synodal investigation, without any reverence for the Apostolic See, you consented to the heretics; willingly accepting and patiently allowing the Catholic bishops to be cast down by an unheard-of and pitiable lot.

Chapter IX: You Should Have Referred These Cases to the Apostolic See, As Acacius Himself Did Earlier

Whom, if you considered to be erring from the integrity of the faith and from Catholic communion, you ought to have referred to the Apostolic See — according to the determinations of our forefathers, and as has always been done — just as is shown that Acacius did concerning [Petrus Mongus] the Alexandrian, or concerning [Petrus the Fuller] the Antiochene, [or] concerning Joannes [Talaia] and Paul.10 But because you knew them to be of one mind with the Apostolic See, and what the Apostolic See by its own definition decreed — through those so many and such great bishops it is established that the Eastern hierarchs were in no way ignorant — you have shown yourselves opposed to the Catholic and Apostolic communion, and to have departed from the same; not joining yourselves with those in their suffering, but rather conjoining yourselves in society with their persecutors.

Here a synod did not come into your minds — and certainly concerning persons, as has been said, bound by no old law. There no plan, [no concern] for the church not of one city or of one bishop, but of the whole East, entered your minds: that it ought to be cared for by the holding of a sacerdotal council. But, as men who had departed in your whole purpose and your whole affection to the contrary part, you avoided the necessary councils even with eagerness — lest by them anything should be decreed by which you would not be permitted, with things evidently shown and lawfully refuted, to come into the company of heretics.

What then do you put forward of ignorance, when through the whole East you saw so many bishops not only to have known the Catholic faith and the sincere communion agreeing with the Apostolic See, but even to have most steadfastly defended it to the very end? If you would not hear Us [as to] what We had decreed concerning the Catholic and Apostolic faith and communion, you ought to have looked to those men, and either followed [them], if you believed them to be Catholics, or accused them rather before the Apostolic See, if you believed them to have erred. What does it profit them either to have held that judgment of their own purpose, or to have known what the Apostolic See defined? Either, therefore, you ought to have followed your colleagues and brothers, present in your sight, as Catholics; or to have impeached them, if you believed them to be erring; and not to give consent to those by whom they were being harassed without any just cause, until the truth made plain from all sides was established, and the regular form of ecclesiastical judgment proceeded against them.

But if, following the rule of the Apostolic See, you perceived them to hold this same constancy — consequently through them what Our definition contained you had no uncertainty about; and consenting to their persecutors, you have withdrawn yourselves from the company of the Apostolic See, not being ignorant of its sentence. And do you still say that you did not know what the Apostolic See had decreed — when from these priests, flourishing in Catholic faith and communion, not by words or letters, but by present persons, you have learned the whole? — and you appear, by your own judgment, to have separated yourselves from the same.

Chapter X: You Demanded a Synod for One Man, While Refusing It for the Many Catholic Bishops You Allowed to Be Cast Down

You say also that a synod ought to have been held in the case of one man, when in the condemning of so many Catholic bishops you did not seek one. To whom do you wish that We should believe concerning the report of such matters? — to Catholics or to heretics? — to those discrete from all heretical contagion, or to those polluted by the communion of heretics? Who would not see that those are Catholic and entirely alien from every heretical pestilence, who, driven from their proper cities, were driven into exile? — and that those who dared to be made successors over surviving Catholics are by no means Catholics, but either manifest Eutychians or communicators with their followers?

This pestilence still rages today among them. For both with [Petrus] the Alexandrian and with [Petrus] the Antiochene, those who succeeded the Catholics indifferently are mingled in communion, and to this day are mingled with the successors of both Peters. Add to these also those who, even though they did not succeed Catholics — but while Catholic bishops were yet held in office — busied themselves with the communion of such men. This is that mixture, this is that confusion, by which through the whole East, between the Catholic and the heretical communion, there is no discrimination: indeed, whoever has tried to discriminate is rather counted a heretic, struck down by persecution, punished with exiles and afflictions.

Chapter XI: Acacius’s Refusal of Direct Communion with Petrus the Antiochene Did Not Save Him; Communion is Transitive

It remains, therefore, that in this cesspool of all things, just as anyone who has been separated from it is approved as of sincere communion and therefore Catholic: so anyone who is found a partaker of that detestable commerce — as far as he is from sincere communion, so far from the Catholic and Apostolic [communion] — is removed.11 Nor let anyone put forward, that to someone perhaps more evidently he did not communicate, or does not appear to communicate with the heretic. For what does it profit, if he does not communicate with him, and yet is joined in communion with these men, who are not divided from his communion?

For if he communicated with none of them, or does not communicate at all, he will be of sincere Catholic and Apostolic communion and faith; otherwise, he will be in no way able to avoid the unsincere contagion of that promiscuous mixture. In this manner that good man Acacius is found, by means of others, without ambiguity to have communicated with [Petrus] the Antiochene — with whom he openly boasted not to communicate. For Acacius did not suspend himself from the communion of all those who communicated with [Petrus] the Antiochene. And by this, what did it profit, that he wished to seem not to communicate openly with him — to whom through his accomplices he was bound by an ancillary [or: covert] communion?

Acacius communicated with [Petrus] the Alexandrian. But as long as [Petrus] the Antiochene lived — who, indeed, after the Acacian compact entered into with [Petrus] the Alexandrian, is shown to have died — [Petrus] the Alexandrian never ceased communicating with [Petrus] the Antiochene. This the report of Catholic priests contains, and the conscience of those continuing in Catholic [communion] cannot fail to be aware. And to omit that through Emperor Zeno himself — who certainly was without doubt mingled in communion with [Petrus] the Antiochene, whom he had introduced and whose priesthood he had approved — Acacius communicated, We can show very many bishops of various cities communicating with [Petrus] the Antiochene, with whom Acacius was nevertheless communicating; and through them with the Antiochene, and consequently with [Petrus the Alexandrian]. But this is reckoned among the Greeks an easy and blameless mixture — a people among whom there is no distinction of true and false — and, while they wish to be in common with all the reprobate, they are shown to stand in no probity.

Chapter XII: Conclusion — The Charge Against Acacius Stands; the Eastern Bishops Are Bound by the Same Condemnation

This is, moreover, that very [Petrus] the Antiochene whom Acacius did not even ask to be received by penance into Catholic communion by the Apostolic See. And yet they complain that Acacius has been condemned by Us; when by this profession set forth, and by communion received through those infected by [Petrus] the Antiochene, he is shown to have condemned himself. Whereas Acacius is held guilty not only [in his own person], but all the Eastern bishops are equally bound by like condemnation, who in like manner have fallen into these contagions, and are deservedly held by similar condemnation; nor can they in any way be released from it, except by abstaining from such men while they yet survive.12

Nor is it fitting for Us in such causes to believe any except those who either know themselves entirely, by divine kindness, to be preserved discrete from the bonds of this perfidy, or those who have withdrawn from the company of the perfidious. For in those established in the contagion of the perfidious, what faith can We supply by way of testimony of sincere communion, who are themselves polluted in sincere communion? Nor by their testimonies will We be able to rest for the truth — those who do not fear to assail the truth with falsehoods. It remains that We should believe none except those who are free from all contagion.