Letter 2019: Gregory to all the bishops constituted throughout Dalmatia. Though desiring to visit your Fraternity frequently through the intercourse of letters, yet, when some special case demands our attention, we wish to take the opportunity of fulfilling two duties at once, so as both to refresh our brotherly souls in the way of visitation and to explain ...

Book II, Letter 19 To all the Bishops of Dalmatia [the Roman province along the eastern Adriatic coast]. Gregory to all the bishops throughout Dalmatia. Though I would like to visit Your Fraternity often through letters, when a particular case demands attention, I take the opportunity to fulfill two duties at once -- both to greet you as brothers and to explain a matter clearly so that ignorance does not cause confusion. When our brother Natalis, bishop of Salona, wished to promote Archdeacon Honoratus to the priesthood, Honoratus refused the promotion. He petitioned my predecessor of holy memory [Pope Pelagius II], arguing that the promotion was being attempted not to honor him but as retaliation. My predecessor therefore wrote to Natalis forbidding him from promoting Honoratus against his will or harboring resentment toward him. When I repeated the same prohibition, Natalis -- disregarding God's commands and our letters alike -- reportedly attempted to demote the archdeacon through a trick, disguising the demotion as a promotion to a higher office. The plan was to remove him from the archdeaconry so that a replacement could be installed. We believe Honoratus may have angered his bishop by preventing him from giving sacred vessels to his relatives. Both my predecessor and I have wanted to investigate thoroughly, but Natalis, aware of what he has done, has avoided sending a representative for trial so the truth would not emerge. Since he has now been warned by letter so many times and has remained stubbornly defiant, we have arranged through the bearer of this letter for him to be warned one more time. He must immediately upon the bearer's arrival restore Archdeacon Honoratus to his former position. If, with heart still hardened, he defiantly delays the restoration, we order that for his repeated defiance he be stripped of the use of the pallium [the vestment symbolizing his authority] granted by this See. If even after losing the pallium he perseveres in the same stubbornness, we order him barred from receiving the body and blood of the Lord. It is right that he should find severity in justice from those whom he scorned when they approached him in charity. We do not deviate from the path of justice which this bishop has despised. Once Honoratus -- whose guilt has by no means been proven to us -- has been restored to his position, we direct Bishop Natalis to send us a representative who can argue his case. We have also summoned the archdeacon to come to us, so that after hearing both sides, we may decide whatever is just and pleasing to Almighty God. We defend no one out of personal favoritism, but with God's help, we uphold the rule of justice without respect to any person.

Book II, Letter 19 To all the Bishops of Dalmatia. Gregory to all the bishops constituted throughout Dalmatia. Though desiring to visit your Fraternity frequently through the intercourse of letters, yet, when some special case demands our attention, we wish to take the opportunity of fulfilling two duties at once, so as both to refresh our brotherly souls in the way of visitation and to explain accurately matters that come up for notice, lest ignorance of them should leave the mind confused. Now when our brother Natalis, bishop of the city of Salona, wished to advance the archdeacon Honoratus to the order of the priesthood, who thereupon declined being advanced to a higher order, the latter demanded my predecessor of holy memory, in a petition that he sent, that he should not be so advanced against his will. For he alleged that the thing was attempted, not for the sake of promoting him, but in consequence of displeasure against him. Thereupon our predecessor of holy memory addressed letters to Natalis, our brother and fellow bishop, interdicting him from promoting the archdeacon Honoratus against his will, or retaining in his heart the soreness of the displeasure which he had conceived against him. And when we too had laid the same interdiction on the said Natalis, he, not only disregarding the commands of God, but also setting at naught our letters, attempted, it is said, craftily to degrade the aforesaid archdeacon, in a way contrary to custom, under color of promoting him to a higher dignity. Thus it was contrived that, having removed him from the archdeaconry, he might call in another person to minister in the place of the deposed archdeacon. Now we think that this Honoratus may have fallen under the displeasure of his bishop on account of having prevented him from giving sacred vessels to his relations: and both my predecessor of holy memory formerly and I now have wished to investigate the case accurately; but he, conscious of what he had done, has put off sending a representative with a view to its trial, lest the truth with respect to his doings might appear. We therefore, now that he has been already so often admonished by letter, and has so far been pertinaciously obstinate, have taken order for his being admonished once more in letters sent to him through the bearer of these presents, to the end that he may, immediately on the arrival of the bearer of these presents, receive the archdeacon Honoratus into his former place. And if, with heart still hardened, he should contumaciously defer restoring him to the said position, we order that for his contumacy so many times exhibited he be deprived of the use of the pallium granted to him by this See. But if, even after loss of the pallium, he should persevere in the same pertinacity, we order him to be debarred from participation in the body and blood of the Lord. For it is right that he should find those severe in justice whom he set at naught when they approached him in charity. Wherefore neither do we now deviate from the path of justice, which the aforesaid bishop has despised; but, when he whose guilt has by no means been made apparent to us has been restored to his place, we enjoin the bishop Natalis to send to us a person with instructions, who may be able by his allegations to prove to us the right intentions of the said bishop. For we have caused also the said archdeacon to come to us, that, having heard the assertions of both parties, we may decide whatever may be just, whatever may be well pleasing to Almighty God. For we defend no one on the ground of personal love, but, God helping us, keep the rule of justice without respect to any man's person. About this page Source. Translated by James Barmby. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 12. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1895.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360202019.htm>. Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.