From: Pope Symmachus, Bishop of Rome
To: Aeonius, Archbishop of Arles
Date: ~500 AD
Context: A second letter to Aeonius of Arles dealing with specific ecclesiastical disputes in Gaul.
Symmachus, bishop, to our brother Aeonius.
We write again on the matters that were the subject of our previous letter, since the reports we are receiving suggest that the situation has become more complex rather than less.
On the question of the disputed see: the canonical process must be followed. We are aware that following the canonical process in current conditions is genuinely difficult — that the civil authorities are not consistently cooperative, that the parties in the dispute have found ways to delay and obstruct, and that the longer the situation remains unresolved the more entrenched the various positions become. We are nonetheless insisting on the process because the alternative — resolution by sheer power, by whoever has the most force available at the moment — is worse in every dimension.
On the Visigothic clergy: we have thought further about this and our position remains as stated before. Those who administered the sacraments under Arian authority but who themselves were ordained in the Catholic tradition, and who now seek to return to full Catholic standing, should be received. A period of examination is appropriate; permanent exclusion is not.
On the organization of the provincial synod: it should meet before winter if at all possible. The backlog of matters requiring synodal adjudication is becoming unmanageable.
Symmachus
Symmaelil papae ad Aeonium Arelatensem episcopum. a. 500 d.
28 Sept.
w^istis iUf quae Aruutasius papa in Viennensi eontroversia innovarat, antiqua
sedis apostolicae decreta observari jubet,
Dilectissimo fratri Aeonio Symmachus.
Dilectionis tuae litteras mandataque filio nostro Crescentino ^)
ilytero intemuntio deferente suscepimus, quibus constat inter
Latensem et Yiennensem ecclesiam aliquod de ordinandis episcopis
^icinis civitatibus oriri luctamen: illa re videlicet faciente, quod
^ssor noster sanctae recordationis Anastasius, tractans confusionem
rinciae, aliqua contra veterem^) consuetudinem jusserit observari,
^ssorum suorum videlicet ordinationem, quod non oportebat sub
libet necessitate, transgrediens. Nam dum ad Trinitatis instar,.
is una est atque individua potestas, unum sit per diversos an-
ites sacerdotium, quemadmodum priorum statuta a sequentibus
venit violari? Huc accedit, quod^) haec si eveniat sententiarum
letas, ad ipsam sacrosauctam catholicam religionem creaimus
binere: cujus omnis potestas infringitur, nisi universa, quae^) a
aini sacerdotibus semel statuuntur, perpetua sint. * Quod *) alias
fcingere poterit, si successor decessoris actibus non tribuerit fir-
^tem, et roborando quae gesta sunt, faciat rata esse quae gesserit.
•nta enim vicariis beatissimi Petri apostoli judicabitur esse reve-
') b Crescentio ... innuntio. Etiam L* L' in nuntio, sicut mox L* in Arela'
wi.
Bubreptionem a se impetratum fuerat, irritum esse voluit: ut nihilf inquit,
^9um venerandos canoneSj nihil contra sanctae memoriae decessoris mei Judicium
(<> quidquid nobis obreptum esse constiterit, Nolumus namque, fratres carissimi,
9ianan privHegia, quae semper sunt servanda, confundi, Quod igitur tum fecit
rus, fecisset postea haud dubie Anastasius instructior factus, nisi morte
iVentuB fuisset. Hic autem commendatur quum postrema illa Hilari consti-
\ tum quae praecesserat dccessoris ejus Leonis.
a. 500. rentia; si quae in'^) sacerdotio praecipiunt, eisdem transetmtibTiB
dissolvantur? Relegentes ergo veterum antistitum super hac auffia
ordinationes, quibus ecclesiastieum gravatur scrinium^ dilection«ii
tuam enixissime commonemuS; ut in ordinandis per singulas ufbes
sacerdotibus cana') ac reverenda servetur antiquitas, nec noYeB&
constitutio vctustae sanctionis robur imminuat^ quia non aliter intet
V08 poterit servari concordia, nisi novis cupiditatibus antiqmiatis
reverentia modus prudentiori adhibeatur consilio. Dominus te in-
columem custoiliat , frater"*) carissime ! Data III Calendas Octobris,
iterum post consulatum Pauliiii junions viri clarissimi. — Domini-
cum^) Pascha VIII Calendas Aprilis.
◆
From:Pope Symmachus, Bishop of Rome
To:Aeonius, Archbishop of Arles
Date:~500 AD
Context:A second letter to Aeonius of Arles dealing with specific ecclesiastical disputes in Gaul.
Symmachus, bishop, to our brother Aeonius.
We write again on the matters that were the subject of our previous letter, since the reports we are receiving suggest that the situation has become more complex rather than less.
On the question of the disputed see: the canonical process must be followed. We are aware that following the canonical process in current conditions is genuinely difficult — that the civil authorities are not consistently cooperative, that the parties in the dispute have found ways to delay and obstruct, and that the longer the situation remains unresolved the more entrenched the various positions become. We are nonetheless insisting on the process because the alternative — resolution by sheer power, by whoever has the most force available at the moment — is worse in every dimension.
On the Visigothic clergy: we have thought further about this and our position remains as stated before. Those who administered the sacraments under Arian authority but who themselves were ordained in the Catholic tradition, and who now seek to return to full Catholic standing, should be received. A period of examination is appropriate; permanent exclusion is not.
On the organization of the provincial synod: it should meet before winter if at all possible. The backlog of matters requiring synodal adjudication is becoming unmanageable.
Symmachus
Modern English rendering for readability. See the 19th-century translation or original Latin/Greek for scholarly use.