The See of Peter

The Early Church and Peter's Primacy

Letter XXV, from Peter Chrysologus to Eutyches

Synopsis: Peter Chrysologus, bishop of Ravenna, writes to Eutyches in response to his letters — urging him not to debate the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation, which has been established against all errors by the ancient faith — and commanding him to submit obediently to the writings of the most blessed pope of the Roman city, because the blessed Peter, who both lives and presides in his own see, provides to those who seek it the truth of faith, and Chrysologus himself cannot hear matters of faith outside the consent of the bishop of Rome.

Peter, bishop, to the most beloved and deservedly honorable son Eutyches, presbyter.

Chapter I: The Truth of the Incarnation Was Long Settled Against All Errors; It Must Be Received with Honor and Fear, Not Debated

I read your sorrowful letters with sadness and reviewed your mournful writings with appropriate grief — for just as the peace of the churches, the concord of priests, and the tranquility of the people gladden us with heavenly joy, so fraternal dissension, especially from such causes, afflicts and casts us down.

Human laws, after thirty years, bring an end to disputes. Yet the generation of Christ — which the divine voice itself declares ineffable (His generation, who shall declare?, Isa. 53:8) — is rashly debated after so many centuries. Your prudence knows what Origen, the investigator of first principles, incurred for his speculations, and how Nestorius fell by disputing the natures. The Magi confessed Jesus as God in His cradle through their mystical gifts (Matt. 2:11), and yet priests lamentably dispute who it was that was born of a Virgin by the Holy Spirit. When Jesus cried in His cradle, the heavenly host proclaimed: Glory to God in the highest (Luke 2:14) — and now, when at the name of Jesus every knee bends in heaven, on earth, and below (Phil. 2:10), His origin is called into question?

With the Apostle we say: Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we know Him so no longer (2 Cor. 5:16). We cannot dispute injuriously Him whom we are commanded to honor, to fear, and to await, confessing Him as judge — not debating His nature.

Chapter II: Eutyches Must Submit to the Roman Pontiff; The Blessed Peter Both Lives and Presides in His Own See

I respond briefly to your letters, brother, and would write more fully if our brother and fellow bishop Flavian had sent me any writings on this matter. Since you, having written, are displeased with the judgment he made — how can we pass judgment on those whom we neither see, due to their absence, nor understand, due to their silence? A just mediator does not hear one party while keeping nothing in reserve for the other.

In all things, honorable brother, we exhort you to heed obediently the writings of the most blessed pope of the Roman city: for the blessed Peter, who both lives and presides in his own see, provides to those who seek it the truth of faith. For we, for the sake of peace and faith, cannot hear matters of faith outside the consent of the bishop of the Roman city. May the Lord deign to preserve your beloved in safety for a long time, most dear and honorable son.

Source/Reference

Notes / Historical Commentary

Letter XXV is not a letter of Leo but a letter from Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop of Ravenna, written to Eutyches in response to a direct appeal Eutyches had made to him. By the time Chrysologus wrote — around February 449, the same period as Letters XXIII and XXIV — Eutyches was reaching out to every major Western bishop he could find, hoping to build a network of support against the Constantinople condemnation. Chrysologus was a natural target: Ravenna was the seat of the Western imperial court, Chrysologus was a bishop of great prestige and influence, and any letter from him in support of Eutyches would have carried considerable weight. His response is therefore all the more significant for what it does and does not say.

What Chrysologus does not do is offer Eutyches any comfort about the merits of his case. He does not evaluate the Constantinopolitan condemnation, does not take sides between Eutyches and Flavian, and does not engage with the theological substance of the dispute. What he does instead is redirect Eutyches to Rome — firmly, clearly, and on explicitly Petrine grounds. The exhortation to “heed obediently the writings of the most blessed pope of the Roman city” is not diplomatic hedging; it is a statement of where the governing authority over matters of faith resides, and why.

The closing passage of Chapter II is one of the most direct acknowledgments of Roman primacy from a non-Roman bishop to appear in the patristic literature. Its ground is entirely Petrine: the blessed Peter both lives and presides in his own see, and therefore provides to those who seek it the truth of faith. This is not the language of conciliar privilege or jurisdictional arrangement. It is the language of apostolic presence — Peter is not merely honored in the Roman see but active in it, the living source of doctrinal authority that flows through the bishop who occupies his place. Chrysologus cannot adjudicate matters of faith, he says, without the Roman bishop’s consent — and the reason he gives is not the canons of any council but Peter himself. The reader who encounters the Sardica argument — that Rome’s role in faith-disputes derives from a local Western council of 343 — should note that Chrysologus, writing in 449 and entirely familiar with the canonical tradition of the West, does not mention Sardica at all. He mentions Peter.

The letter also carries historical significance for the project through what it reveals about how the Eutychian crisis was unfolding. Eutyches, condemned at Constantinople, was simultaneously appealing to Leo (Letter XXI), writing to Chrysologus, and presumably contacting other major figures. Every avenue of appeal led to the same answer: go to Rome. Chrysologus said it directly; Flavian had already written to Leo (Letter XXII); Leo himself was demanding information from Flavian (Letter XXIII) and reporting to Theodosius (Letter XXIV). The entire network of ecclesiastical authority in the West was converging on the Apostolic See as the arbiter — not because any one of these figures had been instructed to do so, but because that is how the system worked.