Letter 5

From: Ambrose and the bishops of Italy To: Emperor Theodosius Date: ~382 AD Context: A sharply worded complaint about Eastern church politics — the bishops protest the irregular appointment of a new bishop at Antioch while the legitimate bishop Paulinus was still alive, and challenge the ordination of Nectarius at Constantinople. To the most blessed Emperor and most merciful prince Theodosius — Ambrose and the other bishops of Italy. We knew your holy mind was devoted to Almighty God in pure and sincere faith. But you have added fresh kindnesses: you have restored Catholics to their churches, most august Emperor. If only you had restored the Catholics themselves to their former traditions, so that they would innovate nothing against the prescriptions of the fathers, and would not rashly either preserve what should be abolished or abolish what should be preserved. We groan — perhaps more in sorrow than in prudence — that it proved easier to expel the heretics than to bring the Catholics themselves into agreement. The confusion that has recently occurred defies description. We had written previously that since the city of Antioch had two bishops — Paulinus and Meletius [rival bishops of Antioch representing the long Western and Eastern schism] — whom we believed to be in agreement on the faith, either they should make peace between themselves while preserving proper ecclesiastical order, or, if one died while the other survived, no one should be appointed in the dead man's place. Instead, when Meletius died and Paulinus was still alive — Paulinus, who had remained in communion with us, as the unbroken succession from the fathers attests — someone has been not so much appointed as imposed in Meletius's place, in violation of all propriety and ecclesiastical order. And this was done, we are told, with the approval and counsel of Nectarius [the new bishop of Constantinople], whose own ordination we cannot consider regular. For at the recent council, when Maximus presented letters from the sainted Peter [of Alexandria] demonstrating that he was the legitimate bishop of Constantinople, ordained by authorized bishops in a private house because the Arians still held the church buildings — we saw no reason to doubt his claim. We ask your Clemency: let a council be convened at Rome, where these disputed ordinations can be examined properly. We do not seek to insult anyone. We seek only to uphold the traditions of the fathers, which must not bend to the convenience of the moment.

EPISTOLA XIII. Actis Theodosio gratiis de restitutis in basilicas orthodoxis, et dolore suo propter Ecclesiae turbas significato, episcopum Antiochiae mortuo Meletio subrogatum queritur: et ut Nectarius Constantinopoli post Maximum ordinatus loco cedat, vel de utriusque ordinatione in synodo Romae pronuntietur, petit. Beatissimo Imperatori, et clementissimo principi THEODOSIO, AMBROSIUS et caeteri episcopi Italiae. 1. Sanctum animum tuum Deo omnipotenti pura et sincera fide deditum sciebamus: sed recentibus cumulasti beneficiis, quod catholicos Ecclesiis reddidisti, Imperator Auguste. Atque utinam catholicos ipsos reverentiae veteri reddidisses, ut nihil novarent contra praescripta majorum, nec temere vel servanda rescinderent, vel rescindenda servarent. Itaque dolentius forte quam inconsultius ingemiscimus, Imperator, facilius expelli potuisse haereticos, quam inter catholicos convenire. Quanta enim nuper confusio facta sit, explicari non potest. 2. Scripseramus dudum, ut quoniam Antiochena civitas duos haberet episcopos, Paulinum atque Meletium, quos fidei concinere 815 putabamus, aut inter ipsos pax et concordia salvo ordine ecclesiastico conveniret: aut certe, si quis eorum. altero superstite, decessisset, nulla subrogatio in defuncti locum, superstite altero, gigneretur. At nunc Meletio defuncto, Paulino superstite, quem in communione nostra mansisse consortia, quae a majoribus inoffense ducta, testantur, contra fas atque ecclesiasticum ordinem in locum Meletii, non tam subrogatus, quam superpositus asseritur. 3. Atque hoc factum allegatur consensione et consilio Nectarii, cujus ordinatio quem ordinem habuerit, non videmus. Namque in concilio nuper, cum Maximus episcopus Alexandrinae Ecclesiae communionem manere secum, lectis Petri sanctae memoriae viri litteris, prodidisset; ejusque intra privatas aedes, quia Ariani Ecclesiae basilicas adhuc tenebant, secretum esse, mandatoribus episcopis ordinantibus, dilucida testificatione docuisset, nihil habuimus, beatissime principum, in quo de episcopatu ejus dubitare possemus; cum vim sibi repugnanti a plerisque etiam de populo et clero testatus esset illatam. 4. Tamen ne, absentibus partibus, praesumpte aliquid definisse videremur, clementiam tuam, datis litteris, putavimus instruendam; ut ei consuleretur ex usu publicae pacis atque concordiae; quia revera advertebamus Gregorium nequaquam secundum traditionem patrum, Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae sibi sacerdotium vindicare. Nos igitur in synodo ea, quae totius orbis 816 episcopis videbatur esse praescripta, nihil temere statuendum esse censuimus. Adeo ipso tempore qui generale concilium declinaverunt, Constantinopolique gessisse dicuntur; nam cum cognovissent ad hoc partium venisse Maximum ut causam in synodo ageret suam (quod etiamsi indictum concilium non fuisset, jure et more majorum, sicut et sanctae memoriae Athanasius, et dudum Petrus, Alexandrinae Ecclesiae episcopi, et Orientalium plerique fecerunt; ut ad Ecclesiae Romanae, Italiae, et totius Occidentis confugisse judicium viderentur); cum eum, sicut diximus, experiri velle adversum eos, qui episcopatum ejus abnuerant, comperissent; praestolari utique etiam nostram super eo sententiam debuerunt. Non praerogativam vindicamus examinis, sed consortium tamen debuit esse communis arbitrii. 5. Postremo prius constare oportuit, utrum huic abrogandum, quam alii conferendum sacerdotium videretur; ab his praesertim, a quibus se Maximus vel destitutum, vel appetitum injuria querebatur. Itaque cum Maximum episcopum receperunt in communionem nostra consortia, quoniam eum a catholicis constitit episcopis ordinatum, nec ab episcopatus Constantinopolitani putavimus petitione removendum. Cujus allegationem praesentibus partibus aestimavimus esse pendendam. Nectarium autem cum nuper nostra mediocritas Constantinopoli cognoverit ordinatum, cohaerere communionem nostram cum Orientalibus partibus 817 non videmus; praesertim cum ab iisdem Nectarius dicitur illico sine communionis consortio destitutus, a quibus fuerat ordinatus. 6. Non mediocris igitur hic scrupulus. Nec quaedam nos angit de domestico studio et ambitione contentio, sed communio soluta et dissociata perturbat. Nec videmus eam posse aliter convenire; nisi aut is reddatur Constantinopoli, qui prior est ordinatus: aut certe super duorum ordinatione sit in urbe Roma nostrum Orientaliumque concilium. 7. Neque enim indignum videtur, Auguste, ut Romanae Ecclesiae antistitis, finitimorumque et Italorum episcoporum debeant subire tractatum, qui unius Acholii episcopi ita exspectandum esse putaverunt judicium, ut de Occidentalibus partibus Constantinopolim evocandum putarent. Si quid uni huic reservatum est, quanto magis pluribus reservandum est! 8. Nos autem a beatissimo principe fratre tuae pietatis admoniti, ut tuae clementiae scriberemus imperio; postulamus ut ubi una communio est, commune velit esse judicium, concordantemque consensum.