Contra Mocianum Scholasticum

FACUNDUS'S BOOK AGAINST MOCIANUS THE SCHOLASTIC It would have been fitting, venerable sons, that whatever this work is which has been imposed upon you by me, I should dedicate it to you with your names, as is my custom. But fearing that, as men privy to our hiding places, you might fall into the calumnies of the persecutors whom we flee, I was unwilling to name you. Nor was it necessary to state this beforehand on your behalf, you who are not without experience of our distress; but for the sake of others who are ignorant, into whose hands this work may perhaps come. I wish you, however, to know that the messenger whom you sent found me laboring under a severe infirmity: so much so that on such days, as he himself will be able to report to your Sublimity, I am unable to defer the fast even until the hour [of its end]. He also indicated to me, by your command, that because of the merits of our age, Mocianus now dares to reproach the decrees of councils, and openly boasts that the bishops of Africa and of other provinces have unworthily decreed that communion should be avoided with those who, by a manifest and published decree, were not afraid to attack the Council of Chalcedon. But when do you allow us to cease, when do you permit us to rest, you who compel us to respond even to Mocianus?

But I also learned this, as the aforementioned messenger told me, that this same Mocianus, wishing to deflect the unwary into the unlawful communion of the transgressors, is circulating certain sayings of the blessed Augustine; and what that man fittingly spoke against the Donatists, he himself unfittingly tries to adapt to the present case for the snaring of the simple. Thus also once Faustus the Gaul, in the question of free will, by poorly understood and incongruously applied sayings of the same blessed Augustine, deceived the incautious and led them into assent to his error; yet he was exposed and convicted by Fulgentius of Ruspe, of holy memory. Why should I marvel at this? For Augustine could not speak better than the prophets, the apostles, and the evangelists; by whose words, similarly poorly understood and incongruously applied, so many heretics try to defend their errors. Yet I rejoice that you have reported that he now openly confesses that Theodore of Mopsuestia, a bishop who died in the peace of the Church, and his doctrine—whose praises were recited at the Council of Chalcedon with no one objecting—as well as the letter of Ibas, bishop of Edessa, which was judged orthodox there, and the writings of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, who was found there to be an upholder of the dogmatic letter of Pope Leo, have been condemned by the Church’s attackers to the prejudice of the Council of Chalcedon itself. For the holy brother Abba Felix, among many other evils which...

He wrote twice about him, and also reported this, that he had become a friend of Theodore of Cappadocia, and frequently presented him to the emperor, because he supplied him with certain chapters for condemning those who had died in the peace of the Church. But also at Carthage, as we have observed, he maintained that the aforementioned Theodore of Mopsuestia had been justly and regularly condemned after death. Now therefore, since you have indicated that he blames what he formerly defended as right and blameless, yet still asserts that the communion of those very assailants of the Church is to be borne, and for the confirmation of this assertion abuses the words of the blessed Augustine against the Donatists for other purposes: it has compelled me, as you wished, without regard to the strength of my health, and in whatever way, to respond to his inept assertions. For I now lack the codices for seeking necessary testimonies, as if I were put to flight and placed in hiding, because he is the one to whom no one is acceptable. But if it seems that we are like the Donatists, why does he not blush to be found like Tyconius, whom the blessed Augustine convicts of folly, because he, while reproaching the Donatists for their schism, communicated with them? Or is this man now doing something else, who affirms that Africa has made a schism and is separated from the Church, and yet communicates with it?

And when he alone seems wise to himself, he became one of those of whom the Apostle says: They have become vain in their thoughts, and their heart is darkened: for saying they are wise, they have become fools (Rom. 1:21). But why is it that only the Donatists, who from schism leaped into heresy, so that later they also thought wrongly about baptism and the divine Trinity, and not all heretics, either by the blessed Augustine himself or by other teachers of the Church, are reproached for having been unwilling to tolerate the wicked in the Church, unless because the Donatists, with no intervening decrees by which they might say that ancient decrees on the faith were attacked, separated themselves from the Church; while others, who were separated by the interposition of decrees, are not blamed for impatience in separation, but only for their own dogma, because they would have had a just and necessary cause for separating, unless they themselves were in error in dogma? The blessed Gelasius, bishop of Rome, wrote a great work against the Acephali; and neither he nor anyone else blamed them for impatience, saying that even if the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon were perverse, they ought to have tolerated the communion of the wicked and not separated themselves from the Church; but they are blamed only for this, that they were unwilling to receive sound doctrine. Why, I ask, except that these, with decrees intervening, were separated from the Church for other reasons, not like the Donatists?

Therefore, let this new teacher no longer abuse, to his own and others' ruin, the assertions and examples by which the Donatists were repelled; but let him rather attend to the fact that, according to the prophet's saying: "He was unwilling to understand, that he might do well" (Ps. 35:4), the cause of the Donatists is one thing, and the present case is another, in which we follow the examples of so many of our Fathers. For when Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, dared something against the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, it was not, as has now been done, by a decree with an anathema established, but merely by permitting communion with the enemies of that same synod: the Apostolic See foreseeing that, as the outcome taught, this leniency would lead to the destruction of the aforementioned council (for later the Emperor Zeno, who had ordered that communion be offered to them, leaping from lesser to greater things, spurned that same council by a promulgated edict), condemned the same Acacius, even with the aforementioned Zeno resisting. He, though dead, has been condemned to this day through the libelli of bishops being ordained. But after it happened that in their libelli the bishops being ordained condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia with his doctrines, and the letter of Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret, the aforementioned Acacius and other adversaries of the Council of Chalcedon were removed from condemnation.

Since the aforementioned Zeno, despising the decrees of the apostolic see, communicated with the aforesaid Acacius and compelled all the churches established within the boundaries of his realm to do the same, and then with Anastasius succeeding to the empire and to a similar presumption, the whole East, except for a very few who lay hidden in that multitude, remained removed from communion with the apostolic see for nearly the years up to the times of Justin. And when during that time certain bishops of that party sought communion with the apostolic see for themselves and their churches, they did not obtain it until, in the times of the emperor Justin, they subscribed to the condemnation of Acacius. Yet none of them said: "We are not the tares, but we tolerate the tares, lest we uproot the wheat along with them." But why would they not say this to the apostolic see, if that similitude were applicable to such cases? Indeed, "We act rightly, we abide by the mandates of the Gospel, we who tolerate the tares, rather than you, who for the sake of the tares have uprooted the wheat along with them, or have separated yourselves from the wheat." What then shall we say here, religious sons?

Was it really the case that throughout so many years, not a single person was found among the Roman priests—from Felix, the condemner of Acacius, up to Hormisdas, who reconciled the Eastern Churches, among whom was indeed the blessed Gelasius, proclaimed throughout the whole world with the glory of a more celebrated reputation for holiness of life and learning—nor was anyone found in the Roman clergy, the Christian people dwelling there, or in all the Western Churches, who was even as concerned for the unity of the Churches as this new teacher, sent in these most recent times, so that no one knew or taught that in that same cause the communion of evil men was to be tolerated, lest the wheat be uprooted along with the tares? If it is right to believe that the knowledge and discipline of preserving unity began with the blessed Augustine, whose writings against the Donatists are fittingly but inappropriately applied by this man to the present case. And therefore the illustrious teacher of the Churches, Hilary, and the other ancient Fathers with him whom we mentioned above, did not observe what pertains to the preservation of unity, so that before anything was decreed against the Council of Nicaea, they would withdraw from communion with those who were promoting these things.

Although, as we have said, we ourselves condemned the Donatists earlier, nevertheless the Apostolic See, when it later condemned Acacius for resisting the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon at the behest of Zeno, had not read these and similar writings of the blessed Augustine; even if it is thought to have been less able to understand through itself what pertains to the observance of unity, so that it condemned Acacius, whom the emperor would not allow to be expelled without much wheat? But neither should the Roman Church have reconciled the Eastern Churches and received them into communion under due satisfaction; rather, the Eastern Church, which had tolerated the tares, ought to have reconciled the Roman Church, which was separated from the wheat. Or is it for this reason that what he now teaches through the Catholic Church could not yet be taught? Or rather that he had not yet come to the Catholic Church who wishes to impose upon it this perverse and confused doctrine, and would that it were not colored by the name of Augustine? For he wishes the Apostolic See, which then forgave the fault of others, to be itself guilty, along with the rest who preserved its judgment against Acacius, as if for a schism that had occurred; and in his usual manner sparing no one, he also wishes those Easterners at whose request the fault was forgiven to appear to have been converted to the Western schismatics, whom they themselves ought to have converted to themselves.

And these things would indeed suffice for us to convict him, if the adversaries, whom he himself also blames—not for refusing to pronounce an anathema against the Council of Chalcedon, nor for acting against all of us, but for doing something against its authority—were themselves condemned by us under anathema. But as it is, since they act impiously and anathematize both us and our Fathers, and by this anathema separate themselves from the whole Church of Christ, we—who, with God guiding, persist in the paternal sentence and communion—we, I say, are established in the Church to which they have given anathema, according to the observance of the Christian religion, not to communicate with those separated from the Church. Therefore, I will not grant even this to him, that we have done what Hilarius did with his colleagues, who, when no decree had yet proceeded to the prejudice of the Council of Nicaea, and when the first attempts of the opponents had been undertaken, hastened to separate themselves from their communion. I will not grant to him that the African Church separated itself from the attackers of the Council of Chalcedon, but rather that it avoided communicating with those already separated. Hence, someone more diligent and more fervent in the zeal of God could, by the example of Hilarius, more acceptably blame us for slowness than Mocianus could accuse us of schism or of haste. Who, moreover, except a senseless and self-wise person, and, as the Apostle says, "vainly puffed up by the sense of his own flesh" (Coloss.

II, 18), contrary to the judgment of the whole Church, not considering even the outcome of events that followed, dares to reproach Hilarius, a prudent and moderate governor of the Church, who could not bear even to communicate by letter with the bishops of Gaul themselves, whom he believed to have kept silent in so great a cause, nor with the adversaries who had opposed them? Or who, not daring to reproach him, would reproach the African Church for levity or impatience, which, only after seeing the Council of Chalcedon already openly promulgated and anathematized, and all who hold its opinion, avoided communion with the condemnors of their own fathers and of themselves, not as if following a doctrine contrary to Augustine against the Donatists, but as following the observance of Hilarius against the impugners of the universal synod? But that you may know how, with the help of God who rules and directs us, we follow both Augustine and Hilarius in concord, and do not set them up as opposed to each other, so as to approve one and disapprove the other, but follow each according to the diversity of causes, receive what I pursued among other things in the judgment of Vigilius himself, as the acts of the third session, published by the office, declare.

I ask, I say, of your justice, that you investigate whether the letter of Ibas, which was condemned as Nestorian, was received by the Council of Chalcedon; and when it becomes clear that the adverse party’s proposal concerning the person of Theodore does not harm the synod, you permit the things they wish to bring forward to be read, lest what is being done seem to pertain to a retractation of the aforementioned synod. For I confess simply to your Beatitude that I did not separate myself from the communion of those who contradict me on account of the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia. For I consider that even if this is not to be approved, it is nevertheless to be borne, and I judge it not so great a cause for which we ought to be separated from the communion of the multitude. But because from the person of Theodore they have tried to prove the letter of Ibas Nestorian, and from the letter of Ibas to disapprove the synod by which it was received. In these my words, therefore, you recognize first that I was solicitous for the standing of the general synod, lest what the Acephali have always sought, being brought into retractation, should break its authority. Then see that we do not now learn from this man that for the unity of the Church the evil are to be borne, as Augustine taught.

For I said: "I confess simply to your Beatitude that I did not withdraw from communion with those who opposed me because of the condemnation of Theodorus of Mopsuestia; for even if this is not to be approved, I nevertheless consider it tolerable, and I judge it not so great a cause that we ought to be separated from the communion of the multitude." By this I showed that I was mindful of the teaching of Augustine. But since I ought not to be opposed to Hilarius and his colleagues, who, although they undoubtedly tolerated many evil men in the Churches and condemned schismatics, nevertheless did not judge that those prelates of the Churches should be tolerated who attempted to undermine the authority of the general synods, through which the Church is fortified, by their own decrees; therefore, following this, I added, saying that I avoided communion with those men because they tried to prove, from the person of Theodorus, that the letter of Ibas, in which his doctrine is praised, is Nestorian, and from the letter of Ibas to disprove the synod by which it was received. For what other cause is to be said to have been the reason that, one hundred and twenty years after his death, a bishop who died in the peace of the Church was condemned along with his doctrines, or a letter whose author is said to be uncertain? For they do not even admit that it is Ibas's, but that it is said to be his.

But why would the subscription of so many bishops be sought in this matter, unless because the consensus not of a few but of the multitude could prejudice the entire council? And since the judge pretended to be ignorant of this, I asked at the same time and said: "Therefore first command me to demonstrate, so that I may teach that it is falsely denied that [the letter] was received by the holy Synod of Chalcedon, and I will refute all the fabrications of those contradicting it, by which they condemned it as impious to the destruction of the Synod of Chalcedon." But because his secret promise before the judgment was held, in which he pledged to condemn the same chapters, and as if he could absolve himself through ignorance, he did not permit me to make the proof which I offered and which he himself ought to have urgently demanded. But with the acts removed from the middle, by which the case had begun to be opened, and with his own judgment interrupted, he demanded from the bishops sitting with him that each one, by a written response, should indicate what seemed to them about the case. And because those bishops had especially come to Constantinople for his arrival, and no subscription of theirs was held in this matter, and they were secure in their own integrity, through the occasion of this interrogation they too were separately compelled by the adversaries of the Church to respond as they dictated, to the prejudice of the great council.

And lest they should later withdraw, and not present to the court the responses they had given in writing, they were openly brought before him under their own prosecution and guard to deliver their profane and detestable responses. We saw these things with our own eyes. We beheld the Acephali, cheerful and exultant, before the judge himself, as they brought bishops to him carrying the same responses. And when these things so cling to the hearts of the hearers, can you detest and lament them as we do, in whose minds the image of those evils still lingers? But he, receiving those responses, after some days brought them to the palace and handed them over to the other party, to be preserved to the prejudice of the Council of Chalcedon, along with the subscriptions of others who had previously signed. However, lest he appear a traitor to his own, he deceived them with such words as to say: "Why do we keep these responses, contrary to the Council of Chalcedon, in our possession, so that they might someday be found in the archives of the Roman Church and believed to have been approved by us? But let us bring them to the palace, and let them deal with them; they themselves will know." As if he himself could not tear them up or burn them, or nullify them by his own sentence, or return them to those by whom they had been given—which he ought neither to have received from them nor extorted, if he truly wished to avoid prejudice to a general council. And by this customary pretense, feigning that he was guarding against prejudice to it, he did for the sake of the opposing party what would prejudice us if we dissemble it.

For how does it not prejudice, if it is shown that the bishops gathered with Homanus at Constantinople, to say nothing of those who had previously subscribed, condemned, along with its approvers, a letter approved by the Council of Chalcedon? And that they anathematized after death that bishop, whose praises of doctrine were recited at the aforementioned Council of Chalcedon with no one opposing, while the rest knew of it and remained in communion with them? For this reason, therefore, it was necessary not only to withdraw ourselves from their communion, but also, because those who first yielded to this prejudice at the emperor's command seemed to hold a higher place in the Church, so that their opinion might not appear more binding, to recall, as we have done elsewhere, how whether Menas of Constantinople, or Zoilus of Alexandria, or Ephemus of Antioch, and Peter of Jerusalem, before they either consented or yielded, testified that it ought not to be done. For this reason also, concerning the very chirographs of the Roman bishop, whether earlier from the impulse of ambition, when he dared to become bishop, or later from venality on behalf of the other party, we deemed it necessary not to remain silent, lest the true faith suffer prejudice from the authority of his name. But if this had not been the case, and he himself had not previously anathematized the whole Church, it would have been fitting for us to abide by his sentence, to follow the example of ancient integrity which he offered us.

For before he himself committed this, writing from the journey to the Constantinopolitan bishop, who first assented to the prejudice of the great synod, and whom he anticipated with his letters, saying: "Therefore we believed it should be indicated that our most element lord, the emperor, through the illustrious man Leo, has urged us with most serene exhortations that we preserve the peace which Christ the Lord God and our Savior loves above all sacrifices, with you and with all our brothers and fellow bishops, and keep it with stable firmness. We gladly embrace the exhortation of the most pious prince. But if you wisely attend to the good of peace, as befits the dignity of your priesthood, it is necessary for you to consider and proclaim what peace is to be held in the Church of God, since the Apostle, who declared that our Lord spoke in him, says: 'The peace of Christ, which surpasses all understanding, keep your hearts and your minds' (Phil. 4:7). Moreover, Christ our God, wishing to show the signs of perfect peace, says: 'I leave you my peace, I give you my peace: not as the world gives, I give to you' (John 14:27). For what kind of peace the world can give, he himself instructs us through the prophet who says: 'Saying, peace, peace, when there was no peace' (Jer. 6:14). And let us consider with similar reasoning that in the Acts of the Apostles it is declared concerning perfect peace about those believing in the Lord, that there was in them one heart and one soul (Acts

Therefore there are many things which we find written about distinguishing between earthly and heavenly peace. Since we do not believe you are ignorant of these, let it suffice to have excerpted a few from many, so that your fraternity may better be able to assess which peace ought rather to be maintained by priests. Is it not clear and evidently apparent from those things we have recalled, that even those who disagree with us in many things are nevertheless in agreement on this, that in such cases the communion of transgressors must be avoided? And that the peace which is to be maintained by God's priests in the Church is that which does not subvert the state of the Church itself? But it is subverted if the general decrees concerning faith are broken by the decisions of other priests on any occasion. For this reason, when he came to the imperial city, he suspended from communion those who had communicated with such persons.

Who again in his aforementioned letter says: "Since it is not unknown to us that the deacon Stephen, then our representative of the Church over which we preside by the grace of God, together with very many Christians, suspended himself from your communion as long as you lived; and, while established in the island of Sicily, we learned from the report of our brother and fellow bishop Datius that both he himself and our other fellow priests, and many sons of the Church who are Christians, likewise withdrew from your communion; and when we were seeking the causes of the arising scandal, our aforementioned brother and fellow bishop replied that this was done by the person of your fraternity, which had been committed by no reason in the times of any of your predecessors or our predecessors." Do you see that not only this judge and his deacon, but also Datius, bishop of Milan, together with other priests, considered that the communion of such transgressors should not be tolerated? Why, then, is a question still stirred up for us about this, where there is not even one contradiction among those contradicting each other, nor is there any disagreement among those who dissent in many things? For the judge asserts that he pronounced that judgment unwillingly. We respond on the contrary that he sinned further by making a promise out of ambition, and that he endured no torments to which he is believed to have yielded. And while he asserts that he did this unwillingly, he again says in the same place that he did it unknowingly.

We, however, prove that he could not have acted in ignorance, when he claims to have admitted something unwillingly. After this, he also wishes to appear to have done nothing to the prejudice of the Council of Chalcedon. To this we oppose his own excuses: because unless he had done something that would prejudice it, he would by no means strive to purge and absolve himself either by the violence of the princes or by his own ignorance. Since, therefore, much disagreement is found between us concerning these and other matters, yet it is agreed among the parties, and stands without any controversy before all, that in such cases the communion of transgressors is to be avoided. Finally, not even Sorcius, the chief ornament of that party, and who ought not to be except with such men, contradicts this opinion; indeed, he says something even more. For writing to the blessed elder Boethus, before he sailed, about to take up again what he had condemned, he pronounced an anathema, which the African councils did not make, against them, saying: I anathematize Eutyches with all his followers and his helpers, whoever attempts to infringe in any way the tome of the holy Council of Chalcedon; and whoever anathematizes the letter of Ibas which that holy Council of Chalcedon received, that anathema is anathema to me.

Therefore, if it displeases Modianus that in a similar case concerning the Council of Nicaea the practice of Hilarius and his other colleagues, through whom the orthodox faith was preserved in that storm and reached us unstained, was observed; if it also displeases him that the solicitude and caution of the holy and most learned orthodox man Jerome were shown; if it displeases him that in the case of the Council of Chalcedon as well the example long ago given to us in Acacius by such great bishops of the Apostolic See, confirmed by the consensus of the universal Church, was set; if it displeases him what the African councils decreed in the present attack upon that same council; if it displeases him what the bishops of other provinces, such as Illyricum and Dalmatia, saw must be done: let it at least please him what Vigilius himself thought, or what Sorcius himself thought, that in such cases communion with such transgressors is to be avoided. For this reason the blessed Stephen, bishop of the Apostolic See, when he learned that the blessed Cyprian and other African bishops had decreed that all heretics should be rebaptized, although, as has been said, they had pronounced such a sentence with no anathema interposed, nor against any older decrees of a general council or against those conniving with heretics, nevertheless immediately announced to him that if anyone should dare this, they would be expelled from the Church: and the Church holds to the sentence of Stephen rather than that of Cyprian, not only concerning the non-rebaptizing of heretics, but also concerning the non-tolerating of those who rebaptize.

But the most prudent man, Augustine, thought it sufficient, in order to confound the Donatists concerning their schism—who try to defend the sacrilege of rebaptism by the authority of the blessed Cyprian—to cite his example: because although he held a different opinion on baptism than many other bishops from other provinces, he nevertheless did not separate himself from the Church as the Donatists themselves did. He would have separated, however, if he had defined an anathema between himself and those who disagreed. Therefore, this example of the blessed Cyprian does not help this man’s assertion, as you see, but you ought to see how it rather helps us. We say, therefore, that just as, although we condemn the rebaptizing Donatists as separated from the Church, we do not condemn Cyprian and his associates, who did not divide themselves from the Church by the interposition of any anathema when they defined concerning baptism what now seems to have given occasion to the error of the Donatists, so also, although we condemn the Nestorians as separated from the Church, we do not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, who did not divide himself from the Church by the interposition of any anathema, even if he wrote something that perhaps now seems to have given occasion to the error of the Nestorians.

And just as it suffices for us to reject the opinions on baptism of Cyprian and his associates, without condemning them under anathema, so too, if perhaps Theodore, understanding less, wrote something badly, it suffices for us to reject it, without condemning him under anathema: because the Church has always shown this reverence, as a reward for its peace and in honor of the departed, that not only those who might have erred in such questions through ignorance of human weakness, but even their statements themselves, it would not condemn under anathema as it does those of heretics. For it is not ignorance of human weakness, but obstinacy, that makes a heretic. Hence the blessed Augustine, in his book *On Catechizing the Unlearned*, says: "Although," he says, "even those who, as Catholics, have departed from this life and have left some Christian writings to posterity, in certain places of their works, either not understood, or, as is human weakness, being less able to penetrate the more hidden truths with the keenness of the mind, and, straying from the truth through verisimilitude, have been an occasion for presumptuous and audacious men to contrive and beget some heresy." Thus Augustine calls those who have departed from this life as Catholics, who, while established in the Church, through human weakness were less able to penetrate the more hidden truths with the keenness of the mind, and strayed from the truth through verisimilitude: and he does not wish them to be called heretics, even though they were an occasion for presumptuous and audacious men to contrive and beget some heresy.

Therefore, we do not call heretics the blessed Cyprian and his colleagues, who through human weakness erred in the question of baptism, or Theodore of Mopsuestia, if perhaps he is shown to have deviated from the truth in some matter and to have departed this life while still in that error, since we do not deny that they remained in the Catholic Church until the end. In vain, then, does this man collect for himself some examples that have no bearing on the case, by which he tried to prove that the oft-mentioned Theodore of Mopsuestia was justly and regularly condemned. For it is not the same if some bishop to be condemned, when dying, made a heretic the heir of his property in his will, and was unable to penetrate the more hidden aspects of the mind to do this, or deviated from the truth through plausibility; rather, he committed a manifest crime not from the ignorance of weakness, but from the depravity of will. Hence it is that when Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us" (John 14:8), it went unpunished that he had not known Christ for so long. But for Ananias and Sapphira, who withheld part of the price of their land, the penalty of death immediately followed the crime committed shortly before. Therefore, the Lord judges simple ignorance of piety in one way, and duplicitous consciousness of depravity in another. And the Apostolic See, through the blessed Gelasius, judges it a sin to condemn anyone after death who died in the peace of the Church, when it says: "As far as our capacity allows, let us leave it to divine judgment.

But they will not be able to charge us with the offense of prevarication, if we remit to the living what is possible for the Church, with God granting it, since they demand that we give either pardon or condemnation even to the dead, which is manifestly impossible for us: because, since it has been said: "What you bind on earth will be bound also in heaven" (Matt. 18:18), He has reserved for His own judgment, not for human judgment, those who are no longer on earth. Nor does the Church dare to claim for itself what it sees was not granted even to the blessed apostles. For if it is permitted to bind the dead, it is also permitted to loose them; and if it is permitted to inflict condemnation on the dead, it is also permitted to grant pardon. But if perhaps it seems to anyone that the opinion is to be held by which some who died in the peace of the Church are believed to be condemned, and not rather this opinion of the apostolic see, which alone understands that these things are reserved for divine judgment, and if he grants that since it is permitted to bind the dead, it is also permitted to loose them, and if it is permitted to inflict condemnation on the dead, it is also permitted to grant pardon, it does not follow that he should therefore think that Theodore of Mopsuestia is also to be condemned. For that opinion does not attack those who, like the blessed Cyprian and his colleagues, through human weakness were less able to penetrate the more hidden recesses of the mind and, through plausibility, strayed from the truth, but rather those who are proven to have sinned knowingly and willingly.

Moreover, it is known that judgment was rendered in this case of Theodorus at the time when the Apollinarists, the progenitors of the Acephali, sought to have him condemned on the basis of certain of his chapters, and were repelled by John of Antioch and the Eastern Council, as well as by Cyril of Alexandria and Proclus of Constantinople. But now, to the prejudice of the great Council of Chalcedon, his case is revived, after having been concluded and consigned to oblivion one hundred and twenty years ago. To this prejudice, they listen to what was written, but do not inquire into the reason for which they were written.