The Church Of Italy Under The Os


The schism between New and Old Rome lasted from 484 to 517, but attempts

were made on both sides to end the deplorable situation. The two

successors of Acacius were willing to resume communion with Rome and

restore the name of the bishop of Rome to the diptychs, but refused to

take the names of their predecessors from the same, as required by the

latter. Gelasius (492-496), Anastasius II (496-498), and Symmachus

(498-5
4) held firmly but unavailingly to the Roman contention that,

before any communion was possible, the name of Acacius must be struck from

the diptychs--in the case of the dead an act as condemnatory as

excommunication in the case of the living. Meanwhile the Roman see boldly

asserted the independence of the Church, and protested against the action

of the Emperor in setting aside the decree of Chalcedon as usurpation and

tyranny. This is most clearly set forth by Gelasius, in his epistle to the

Emperor Anastasius. The schism finally came to an end in 519, in

accordance with the ecclesiastical policy of Justinian, and at that time

the Formula of Hormisdas (514-523) was accepted by the heads of the

Eastern Church by an act constituting a complete surrender of the claims

of the Orientals.



While the schism was still existing and Rome was treating with the East

upon an independent footing, the situation in Italy was far less

brilliant. The Arian king, the Ostrogoth Theodoric (489, 493-526) ruled

Italy, and the attitude of the Roman see was far less authoritative toward

the local ruler. It was, however, a period of great importance for the

future of the Church; Boethius, Cassiodorus, Dionysius Exiguus, and

Benedict of Nursia (v. infra, §§ 104, 105) all belong to this period and

the decree of Gelasius, De Recipiendis Libris, was of permanent

influence upon the theological science of the West.





Additional source material: Cassiodorus, Varia, Eng. trans.

(condensed), by T. Hodgkin (The Letters of Cassiodorus), London,

1886.





(a) Gelasius, Ep. ad Imp. Anastasium. (MSL, 59:42.)





A definition of the relation between the secular and religious

authority.





The date of this epistle is 494. The period is not dealt with at

any length in English works on ecclesiastical history; see,

however. T. Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, II, pp. 41-84, the

chapter entitled "Papal Prerogative under Popes Gelasius and

Symmachus."





After Gelasius has alluded to the circumstances in which he is

writing and excused his not writing, he mentions his natural

devotion to the Roman Emperor--being himself by birth a Roman

citizen--his desire as a Christian to share with him the right

faith, and as vicar of the Apostolic See his constant anxiety to

maintain the true faith; he then proceeds:





I beseech your piety not to regard as arrogance duty in divine affairs.

Far be it from a Roman prince, I pray, to regard as injury truth that has

been intimated to him. For, indeed, there are, O Emperor Augustus, two by

whom principally this world is ruled: the sacred authority of the pontiffs

and the royal power. Of these the importance of the priests is so much the

greater, as even for kings of men they will have to give an account in the

divine judgment. Know, indeed, most clement son, that although you

worthily rule over the human race, yet as a man of devotion in divine

matters you submit your neck to the prelates, and also from them you await

the matters of your salvation, and in making use of the celestial

sacraments and in administering those things you know that you ought, as

is right, to be subjected to the order of religion rather than preside

over it; know likewise that in regard to these things you are dependent

upon their judgment and you should not bend them to your will. For if, so

far as it pertains to the order of public discipline, the priests of

religion, knowing that the imperial power has been bestowed upon you by

divine providence, obey your laws, lest in affairs of exclusively mundane

determination they might seem to resist, with how much more gladness, I

ask, does it become you to obey them who have been assigned to the duty of

performing the divine mysteries. Just as there is no light risk for the

pontiffs to be silent about those things which belong to the service of

the divinity, so there is no small peril (which God forbid) to those who,

when they ought to obey, refuse to do so. And if it is right that the

hearts of the faithful be submitted to all priests generally who treat

rightly divine things, how much more is obedience to be shown to the

prelate of that see which the highest divinity wished to be pre-eminent

over all priests and which the devotion of the whole Church continually

honors?





(b) Gelasius, Epist. de Recipiendis et non Recipiendis Libris. Mansi,

VIII, 153 ff.





This decretal is evidently made of matter of different dates, as

has been shown by Hefele, § 217, and probably contains matter

which may be later than Gelasius. In the first section of the

decretal is a list of the canonical books of the Bible, as in the

Vulgate; the decretal then sets forth the claims of the Roman see

(§ 2), the books to be received (§ 3), and the books which the

Roman Church rejects (§ 4). In respect to several there are

various comments added, but these have in several cases been

omitted for the sake of brevity, where they are of less

importance. Portions of the decretal in Denziger, nn. 162-164; the

full text of the decretal may be found in Mansi VIII, 153 ff.

Preuschen, Analecta, vol. II, pp. 52 ff.; Mirbt, n. 168.





II. Although the one dwelling of the universal Catholic Church spread

through the world is of Christ, the holy Roman Church, however, has been

placed before the other churches by no synodical decrees, but has obtained

the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour, saying, "Thou

art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," etc.(202) To it was

given the fellowship of the most blessed Apostle Paul, that chosen vessel

who not at a different time, as heretics prate, but at one time and on one

and the same day by a glorious death, was crowned together with Peter in

agony in the city of Rome under the Emperor Nero. And they equally

consecrated the said holy Roman Church to Christ and placed it over all

the others in the whole world by their presence and venerable triumph.



III. Therefore the first see of Peter the Apostle is the Roman Church, not

having any spot or wrinkle or any such thing. The second see was

consecrated at Alexandria in the name of the blessed Peter by Mark, his

disciple and the evangelist. He himself, having been directed by the

Apostle Peter to Egypt, preached the word of truth and consummated a

glorious martyrdom. But as the third see of the same most blessed Apostle

Peter is held the see of Antioch, since he held that before he came to

Rome, and there the name of the new people, the name of Christians, arose.



IV. 1. And although no other foundation can be laid than that which has

been laid, which is Christ Jesus, yet after the writings of the Old and

New Testaments,(203) which we receive regularly, the same holy Roman

Church does not prohibit these following writings to be received for the

purposes of edification:



2. The holy synod of Nicaea, according to the three hundred and eighteen

Fathers, under the Emperor Constantine.



3. The holy synod of Ephesus, in which Nestorius was condemned with the

consent of the most blessed Pope [papa] Celestine, held under Cyril, the

prelate of the see of Alexandria, and Acadius, a bishop sent from Italy.



4. The holy synod of Chalcedon, which was held under the Emperor Marcian

and Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, and in which Nestorius, Eutyches,

and Dioscurus were condemned.



V. 1. Likewise the works of the blessed Caecilius Cyprianus, martyr, and

bishop of Carthage; 2. of Gregory the bishop of Nazianzus; 3. of

Basil, bishop of Cappadocia; 4. of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria; 5.

of John [Chrysostom], bishop of Constantinople; 6. of Theophilus,

bishop of Alexandria; 7. of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria; 8. of Hilary,

bishop of Poitiers; 9. of Ambrose, bishop of Milan; 10. of Augustine,

bishop of Hippo; 11. of Jerome, the presbyter; 12. of Prosper; 13.

likewise the Epistle of the blessed Pope Leo to Flavian, bishop of

Constantinople, against Eutyches and other heretics; and if any one

dispute even so much as an iota of the text of the epistle, and will not

reverently receive it in all points, let him be anathema.



14. Likewise the works and treatises of the orthodox Fathers are to be

read, who in no respect have deviated from the union with the holy Roman

Church, nor have separated from its faith and teaching; but, by the grace

of God, have shared in communion with it even to the last days of their

life.



15. Likewise the decretal epistles which the most blessed Popes at

different times have given from the city of Rome, in reply to

consultations of various fathers, are to be reverently received.



16. Likewise the acts of the holy martyrs. But, according to an ancient

custom and singular caution, they are not to be read in the holy Roman

Church, because the names of those who wrote them are not known.



17. Likewise the lives of the fathers Paul, Antony, Hilarion, and all

hermits which the most blessed Jerome has described, we receive in honor.



18. Likewise the acts of the blessed Sylvester, prelate of the Apostolic

See, although the name of the writer is unknown; however, we know that it

is read by many Catholics in the city of Rome, and on account of its

ancient use many churches have copied it.



19. Likewise the writing concerning the discovery of the cross and another

concerning the discovery of the head of the blessed John the Baptist.



20. Rufinus, a most religious man, has published many books on

ecclesiastical affairs and has also translated several writings. But

because the venerable Jerome has criticised him in various points for his

freedom in judgment, we are of the same opinion as we know Jerome is, and

not only concerning Rufinus but all others whom, out of zeal toward God

and devotion to the faith, Jerome has condemned.



21. Likewise several works of Origen which the blessed Jerome does not

reject we receive as to be read; the remaining works along with their

author we declare are to be rejected.



22. Likewise the chronicles of Eusebius of Caesarea and the books of his

Ecclesiastical History, although in the first book of his narrative he

has been a little warm and afterward he wrote one book in praise and

defence of Origen, the schismatic, yet on account of the mention of

several things, which pertain to instruction, we say that they are to that

extent not to be rejected.



23. Likewise we approve Orosius; 24. the works of Sedulius; 25. the

works of Juvencus.



VI. Other works which have been written by heretics or schismatics the

Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in no respect receives, and these,

although they are not received and are to be avoided by Catholics, we

believe ought to be added below.





There follow a list of thirty-five apocryphal gospels, acts, and

similar documents. The epistle continues:





36. The book which is called The Canons of the Apostles; 37. the book

called Physiologus, written by heretics and ascribed to Ambrose; 38. the

history of Eusebius Pamphilius; 39. the works of Tertullian; 40. of

Lactantius or Firminianus; 41. of Africanus; 42. Postumianus and

Gallus; 43. of Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla; 44. all the works

of Faustus the Manichaean; 45. the works of Commodus; 46. the works of

another Clement of Alexandria; 47. the works of Thascius Cyprianus; 48. of

Arnobius; 49. of Tichonius; 50. of Cassianus a presbyter of Gaul; 51.

Victorinus of Pettau; 52. of Frumentius the blind; 53. of Faustus of Reiz;

54. the Epistle of Jesus to Abgar; 55. Passion of St. Cyricus and Julitta;

56. Passion of St. Georgius; 57. the writings which are called the "Curse

of Solomon"; 58. all phylacteries which have been written not with the

names of angels, as they pretend, but rather of demons; 59. these works

and all similar to them which Simon Magus [a list of heretics down to]

Peter [Fullo] and another Peter [Mongus], of whom one defiled Alexandria

and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his adherents, as

also all heretics or disciples of heretics or schismatics have taught or

written, whose names we do not remember are not only repudiated by the

entire Roman Catholic Church, but we declare are bound forever with an

indissoluble anathema together with their authors and followers of their

authors.





(c) Hormisdas, Formula. Mansi, VIII, 407. Cf. Denziger, nn. 171 f.





The formula which Hormisdas of Rome (514-523) proposed in 515, and

which was accepted Easter 519 by the patriarch John II of

Constantinople and many other Orientals, and which ended the

schism between Rome and Constantinople occasioned by Acacius. As

soon as this formula was accepted the leading Monophysites fled to

Egypt.





The beginning of salvation is to preserve the rule of a correct faith and

to deviate in no respect from the constitutions of the fathers. And

because the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be allowed to fail,

who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,"

etc. [Matt. 16:18], these things which were said are proved by the effects

of things, because in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved

without spot or blemish. Desiring in no respect to be separated from this

hope and faith, and following the constitutions of the Fathers, we

anathematize all heretics, and especially the heretic Nestorius, who was

once bishop of the city of Constantinople, and condemned in the Council of

Ephesus by Pope Celestine and by the holy Cyril, prelate of the city of

Alexandria. Likewise we anathematize Eutyches and Dioscurus of Alexandria,

condemned in the holy synod of Chalcedon which we follow and embrace;

adding to these Timotheus the parricide, known as AElurus, and also his

disciple and follower Peter [Mongus], also Acacius, who remained in the

society of their communion; because he mixed himself with their communion

he deserves the same sentence of condemnation as they; no less condemning

Peter [Fullo] of Antioch with his followers and the followers of all those

above named. We receive and approve, therefore, all the universal Epistles

of Pope Leo which he wrote concerning the Christian religion. And

therefore, as we have said, following in all things the Apostolic See and

approving all of its constitutions, I trust that I may be deemed worthy to

be in the communion with you, in which as the Apostolic See declares there

is, complete and true, the totality of the Christian religion.



More

;