Letter of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius
Augustus
(494)
Trans. John S.
Ott,
Portland State
University, from Andreas Thiel, ed., Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae et
quae
ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II., vol. 1 (Brunsberg: Eduard Peter,
1867),
Letter no. 12, pp. 349-358. A translation of c. 2 is given by J.
H.
Robinson, Readings in European
History (Boston: Ginn, 1905),
72-73, which is reproduced
(with typos) in the Medieval Internet Sourcebook. Other
translations
of the same section of the letter are widely available. An
English
translation of the first half of the letter has been furnished by Hugo
Rahner,
Church and
State
in Early Christianity, trans.
Leo
Donald Davis (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992 [orig. pub. 1960]),
173-76.
A complete translation of the letter was subsequently published by
Bronwen
Neil and Pauline Allen in The
Letters of
Gelasius I (492-496): Pastor and Micro-Manager of the Church of Rome
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), 73-80.
The abridged
translation
below, made with reference to Rahner's, is my own. Notes and
translation
are (c) John S. Ott, Portland State University. Full permission is
freely
granted for classroom use. Last revised 22 July 2024.
Notes to the text:
Gelasius I was briefly pope from 492 until 496;
the
letter below thus falls at the mid-point of his pontificacy. Despite the brevity of his rule, Gelasius was quite
active. He wrote and introduced new prayers into
the Latin liturgy
(the cycle of prayers recited in the church throughout the year);
expelled
Manicheans from Rome and banned their books; sought to impose
uniformity
of sacramental practice in the Latin churches; and tried -- less
successfully
-- to eliminate the pagan Roman ceremony of the Lupercalia. He was also posthumously praised for having seen the
city
of Rome
through
a particularly harsh famine.
Gelasius ascended the Roman see at a moment when
papal relations with the eastern Christian (Greek) churches and the
Roman (Byzantine) emperor were greatly strained by the outcome of a
long and violent theological schism that had rent the churches of the
eastern Mediterranean for decades. In 482, Acacius, the Patriarch of Constantinople
(471-489), succeeded in brokering an agreement between the orthodox
eastern
churches and the schismatic Monophysite churches of Syria and Egypt. The
accord was called the Henotikon and it was given
legitimacy
by the backing of the emperor, who was motivated by a desire to restore
union among the Christian churches of the empire. Acacius
implemented the Henotikon's theological compromises without papal support,
however,
and this omission led Pope Felix III (483-492, Gelasius' predecessor)
to
excommunicate both Acacius and the then-emperor Zeno (r. 476-491) in
484. The break between the Constantinopolitan
and Roman churches persisted past the lifetimes of the principal
adversaries, enduring from
484 until 518. During this time, the Emperor
Anastasius
I came to power (r. 491-519). Anastasius was
tolerant
toward the formerly schismatic churches and supportive of the Henotikon; Pope Gelasius was not.
More broadly, the thirty-four years of schism saw
renewed papal energy in asserting Rome's religious supremacy. During this time, Gelasius wrote
Anastasius the letter outlining the respective qualities of the papal
authority
and the imperial power. The letter is referred
to as
Duo sunt ("There are two"), after the Latin words of
the passage
containing the distinction. In later centuries,
it
achieved foundational status as a claim of papal authority
vis-à-vis
imperial authority in the Latin church, and was incorporated into the Decretum (c. 1139) of the canonist
Gratian.
At the time he wrote, Gelasius probably did not envision the letter as
a
clear statement of political ideology, but as a pastoral exhortation to
cooperation
between Rome and Byzantium in the face of schism. Other scholars have
seen
in this letter a sign of Gelasius' political weakness rather than an
assertion
of strength (Neil and Allen, Letters
of
Gelasius, 70).
For an important consideration of the letter in
its
fifth-century context, see Alan Cottrell, "Auctoritas and Potestas: A Reevaluation of the
Correspondence
of Gelasius I on Papal-Imperial Relations," Mediaeval Studies 55 (1993): 95-109.
Letter of Pope Gelasius
to
Anastasius Augustus
1. The servants of
Your
Piety, my sons Master Faustus and Ireneus, distinguished men both,
along with their colleagues conducting the public legation, said on
returning to the
city [Rome]
that Your Clemency had inquired why I had not sent to you a letter of
greeting. This was not, I confess, by my
arrangement! Rather, when, a short time ago,
those who were directed [here] from eastern lands spread
word through the whole city that they had been denied permission to see
me
by your commands, I believed, lest I should appear burdensome rather
than courteous, that I should refrain from writing. So
you see, this situation came about not because of my
dissimulation, but out of due caution that I should not inflict
annoyances on those already hostile to me. But when I learned from
earlier letters that the benevolence of Your Serenity had, with
customary mildness, desired a word with
my smallness, I considered that I would not undeservedly be reckoned
[an annoyance] if I were to remain silent. And because, O Glorious Son,
like a native Roman I
love, revere, and esteem the Roman emperor [1]; and because, like him,
I
am a God-loving Christian, I wish to hold [that zeal] according to the
knowledge of truth.
And whatever sort of vicar of the apostolic see [I may be], I will
ascertain what is lacking of a full cahtolic faith wheresoever [it may
be], and will strive to complete it with suitable proposals in my
own little way. For I am compelled by the dispensation of the divine
saying,
"Woe is me, were I not to spread the Word!" [2] For if that
chosen vessel
the blessed apostle Paul was afraid and yet raised his voice [in
preaching], how much more should my smallness tremble ub fear were I to
withhold from the ministry of preaching what has been sent
by divine inspiration and fatherly devotion.
2. I
beseech Your Piety that you not judge as arrogance the duty of divine
reason. Far be it, I ask, from the Roman
emperor, that he should perceive as injury the truth made known to his
judgment. Indeed, there are two means, August
Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled: the sacred authority (auctoritas
sacrata) of the priests and the royal power (regalis
potestas). Of these, how much greater is the responsibility of the
priests, in that they even have to render an account
for the kings of men at the divine judgment. You
also know, most merciful son, that though you preside over a human
office, as a devout man you nevertheless bend your neck to the rectors
of divine things and await from them the reasons of your salvation. And in their taking up the heavenly
sacraments and distributing them, as is appropriate, you recognize that
you should be subordinate
to the priestly order rather than rule over it, and so in these things
you depend on their judgment and do not wish to bend them to your will. For if, to the degree that it pertains to the order
of public discipline, the ministers of religion also obey your laws,
recognizing the power of command attributed to you by divine
disposition -- lest their own judgments, which are excluded from worldy
affairs, are seen to stand in the way [of them] --
with what fitting readiness, I beseech you, should you not yield
obedience to to those who are assigned
those venerable religious rites? Accordingly, just as no slight
danger falls upon bishops if they should keep silent concerning the
divine cult (which is appropriate); given these things, there is no
little risk for those who scorn -- God forbid! -- when they ought to
obey. And
if, generally speaking, it is fitting that the hearts of the faithful
should submit to all priests who properly administer divine affairs,
how much more agreement is
due to the bishop of that diocese [Rome] whom the Most High wished to
excel above all others, and [whom] universal piety of the church
perpetually praises?
3. Wheresoever your
piety clearly looks, never has it been possible by any means for anyone
to be able to raise himself, either by human counsel or to
acknowledgment by his privilege, over him whom the voice of Christ put
above all others, whom the
church has always held ought to be revered and whom [the church] holds
as foremost in devotion. What is established by
divine judgment can be attacked
by human presumptions but cannot be vanquished by any human power. [3] Would that the audacity against those striving in
this way were not so ruinous, as what was established by the very
author of holy religion cannot be toppled by any force whatsoever! "Firm stands the foundation of God!" [4]
For is it not the
case that when religion was assaulted by others, and could be overcome
by any sort of novelty, yet it emerges that much stronger than what
was once thought would overcome it? And so I
beseech
you: may those people desist, who in your day and age run about
headlong seeking an opportunity
to disrupt the church -- which they ought not to do -- lest [these
same men] should in any way lay their hands upon what they are wickedly
striving
after, and not keep to their measure before God and men. [5]
4. For this reason, I simply and sincerely beseech, adjure, and
exhort Your Piety in the sight of God that you receive my petition
without disdain. I say again: I ask that you hear me as one beseeching
you in this life rather than -- God forbid! -- you suppose that I am
accusing you before the divine tribunal. Nor is the zeal
of your piety in private life hidden from me, O August Emperor. You
have
always chosen to be a participant in the eternal promise. For that
reason
do not, I pray, be angry with me, if I love you so much that I wish you
to hold in perpetuity the
empire (
regnum) that you have
attained temporarily, and that you, who rules the world, shall be able
to reign
with Christ. Certainly, O Emperor, you would permit by your laws
nothing of the Roman name to perish, nor allow anything to happen to
its detriment.
Is it not therefore the case, Distinguished Prince, that you, who so
desire not
only the present but future blessings of Christ, will not in your time
suffer
any loss to befall either religion, truth, or the sincerity and faith
of
the catholic communion? With what confidence, I ask you, will you
strive there for [Christ's] rewards, when you do not prevent his injury
here?
5. I beseech you, may those things which are said with your
eternal salvation
in mind not be burdensome. You have read what is written: "A friend's
blows are better than
an enemy's embraces." [6] I beseech Your Piety that you hear what I am
saying
as it is intended. Let no one deceive Your Piety. What Scripture says
figuratively
through the prophet is true, "There is only one dove, my perfect one."
[7] There is only one faith, and that is the universal (
catholica)
faith
. The Catholic faith is
truthfully that which
is set apart from communion with all evil-doers and their successors by
a sincere, pure, and spotless companionship. Were this not the case, a
wretched confusion would take
the place of divinely mandated separation. Nor would any reason now
remain, if
we wished to let in any kind of contagion, thus opening the entryway
and door to all sorts of heresies. "For he who offends in one [element
of the law],
does so for all of it," and "He who scorns the little things will
himself fall, little by little." [8]
6. This is because the apostolic see takes special care that,
since
its pristine foundation is the apostle's glorious confession, it should
in
no way be tainted by contagion or cracks of depravity. . . .
Accordingly,
if Your Piety refuses to allow the people of a city to gather together,
what
shall we do about the peoples of the entire globe if (may it not
happen!)
they are confused by our prevarication? If the whole world was
corrected
from the contemptible, profane tradition of its fathers, how can the
population
of a single city not be corrected if authentic preaching follows?
Therefore, Glorious Emperor, how can I not want the peace of churches,
which I
embrace, even if it comes about at the cost of my blood? But, I beseech
you, this
peace ought not to be of just any sort, but authentically Christian.
For
how may there be a true peace for him who lacks unstinting charity? . .
.
. . . .
12. It is often the quality of the weak that they find fault with
the physicians restoring them to health with suitable prescriptions,
rather
than that they should consent to abandon or reject their own noxious
appetites.
If we who administer the fitting remedy of souls are prideful, what
should
those who resist be called? If we who say that the institutes of
the fathers should be obeyed are proud, what shall we call those who
question them? If we who desire the divine cult to be carried out
in a pure
and unimpaired matter are conceited, what shall we call those who speak
and
act against Divinity? So we consider the others who are in error,
because
we do not consent to their insanities. Thus, truth itself shines
wherever
the spirit of pride truthfully stands firm and fights on.
Endnotes:
1. The Latin reads, "Roman prince" (Romanum principem).
2. 1 Cor. 9:16.
3. The Latin is quorumlibet potestate (by the power of anyone whatsoever); the use of the potestas echoes the distinction between sacral authority
and
temporal power in c. 2, above.
4. 2 Tim. 2:19.
5. A reference to the clergy who supported the Henotikon,
presumably, and a less-than-direct way of asserting that they should be
removed
from power.
6. Prov. 27:6.
7. Song of Songs 6:9.
8. James 2:10 and Ecclesiasticus 19:1, respectively.