Letters 17
17 To All the Bishops of Sicily PL 54, 585
(Forbidding the sale of church property except for the advantage of the church).
Leo, the pope, to all the bishops of Sicily.
The occasion of specific complaints claims our attention as having “the care of all the churches,” that we should make a perpetual decree precluding all bishops from adopting as a practice what in two churches of your province has been unscrupulously suggested and wrongfully carried out. Upon the clergy of the church in Tauromenium deploring the destitution they were in from the bishop having squandered all its estates by selling, giving away, and otherwise disposing of them, the clergy of Panormus, who have lately had a new bishop, raised a similar complaint about the misgovernment of the former bishop in the holy synod, at which we were presiding. Although, therefore, we have already given instructions as to what is for the advantage of both Churches, yet lest this vicious example of abominable plundering should hereafter be taken as a precedent, we wish to make this our formal command binding on you, beloved, for ever. We decree, therefore, that no bishop without exception shall dare to give away, or to exchange, or to sell any of the property of his church: unless he foresees an advantage likely to accrue from so doing, and after consultation with the whole of the clergy, and with their consent he decides upon what will undoubtedly profit that church. For presbyters, or deacons, or clerics of any rank who have connived at the churches losses, must know that they will be deprived of both rank and communion: because it is absolutely fair, beloved brethren, that not only the bishop, but also the whole of the clergy should advance the interests of their church and keep the gifts unimpaired of those who have contributed their own substance to the churches for the salvation of their souls. Dated 20 Oct., in the consulship of the illustrious Calepius (447).
Hanc sane disciplinam, ut qui reciperentur in suum gradum, ad altiorem non ascenderent, in Occidente, vel saltem in Italia et apud Romanam Ecclesiam viguisse, patet ex decreto quo S. Ambrosius in causa Dictinii, qui a Priscillianistis ad Catholicos redierat, statuit bono pacis locum tenere presbyterii, non accipere honoris augmentum: uti testantur Patres synodi Toletanae an. 400, qui proinde conquesti sunt eum nihilominus a Symposio ad episcopatum fuisse promotum; quod tamen ea excusatione purgatum fuit, quia id a multitudine plebis fuisset extortum. Idem Ambrosii judicium probatum fuisse a Siricio papa, qui in eadem causa epistolam scripsit, satis probabile est, cum iidem Patres in eodem contextu eam Siricii epistolam laudent. Eamdem disciplinam confirmare videtur Zosimus epist. 4, ad Aurelium et alios episcopos, ubi de Tuentio, qui perperam ordinatus fuerat episcopus, sermo est. Huic inter caetera vitio dat, n. 3, quod cum fuisset Priscillianista, eique apostolicae sedis diligentia curato, ejusdem sedis dudum humanitas et misericordia consuluisset, ita ut beneficium pene praeter exemplum eidem praestiterit; hoc beneficio non observato, id est eo non contentus, praecipiti impetu ad sacerdotium festinasset, nec in debito loco credidisset sustinendum. Haeretico resipiscenti et curato beneficium pene praeter exemplum dici non potuit eum in unitatem Ecclesiae recipere; sed suo gradui seu presbyterio restituere. Si autem culpandus fuit quod hoc beneficio et gradu non observato a loco sibi indebito non abstinuisset, procul dubio praesumitur receptis ab haeresi non licuisse ad ulteriorem gradum ascendere. Apertius vero noster Leo hanc disciplinam approbat in epist. 135. Hanc eo nomine opponit Antelmius, quia ibidem S. pontifex Andream et Eufratam olim Eutychis fautores, ad presbyteratum promoveri jussit. Id autem ex peculiari causa et dispensatione quadam indultum fuisse, ex contextu manifestum est. Leonem pupugerat archidiaconatum Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae, amoto per speciem promotionis Aetio Flaviani defensore, Andreae Eutychianae haeresi quondam addicto et S. Flaviani accusatori fuisse delatum; indignum enim videbatur tanti officii ministerium ab eo auferri qui semper catholice senserat, ut illi crederetur qui haeretica labe aliquando fuerat aspersus. Hinc de ipsius promotione vehementer conquestus, conversionem ejus ab haeresi et satisfactionem, quam Antelmius aliegat, hanc unam indulgentiam promereri potuisse affirmat epist. 112, ut in diaconatus gradum reciperetur, non vero ut anteferretur caeteris: Qui etiamsi, inquit, magna satisfactione potuisset indulgentiam promereri, nequaquam debuit his qui in fide permanserunt anteferri; et similiter ep. 111, c. 3: Qui etiamsi magna fuisset satisfactione purgatus, post dubium tamen reversus errorem, catholicis diaconibus postponi debuit, non praeponi. Cum porro Anatolius Leoni satisfacturus Andream ab archidiaconatu removisset, quidque de eo agendum esset pontificio reservasset arbitrio, id Leoni tantum placuit, ut ipsum Andream ac socium ejus Eufratam, qui pariter Flaviani fuerat accusator, dum sese ab errore correctos apertis professionibus probassent, ad presbyteratum promoveri jusserit, eo forte consilio, ne ad archidiaconatum subrepere umquam possent. Peculiari autem dispensatione id fuisse concessum suadet mox subjectum decretum de caeteris, quos par reatus involverat. Hos enim si veniam simili professione cum satisfactione deposcant, non promoveri, sed suis solum ordinibus reformari decernit, hac praeterea conditione servata, ut illi tantum ad officiorum primatum admittantur, quos ab omni errore liberos esse constiterit. Hoc interdictum, ne intra eumdem ordinem quispiam ab haeresi receptus ad ejusdem ordinis primatum provehatur , nonne certam praesumit constitutionem expressam in epistola 18 ad Januarium, ne ejusdem generis clerici suis ordinibus reformati ad altiorem ordinem sinantur ascendere? Specialis vero dispensatio, ubi peculiaris incidit causa, generali constitutioni non derogat. Si quae alia similia exempla proferrentur, ad dispensationem similiter revocanda essent. Quae vero Antelmius producit, sunt de receptis in eodem ordine, non autem de promotis ad altiorem; uti illa duo de Maximo et Donato episcopis, quorum est mentio apud Leonem epist. 12, num 12, cap. 6, nec non alterum de Donatistis apud Augustinum epist. 43, n. 16. Quod autem de Meletianis ingerit ex epistola synodi Nicaenae apud Theodoretum lib. I c. 8 et 9, id solum probat, clericos a Meletio ordinatos, qui in suum gradum ita fuerant recepti, ut post clericos ordinatos a legitimo episcopo, omni auctoritate his reservata, infimum locum tenerent, post illorum mortem in ipsorum locum et auctoritatem subrogari potuisse, si quaedam circumstantiae id flagitarent: quae promotio eumdem ordinem auctoritate praeditum respicit, non autem altiorem. Sed quidquid in hoc ipso videatur, neque hic, neque alius peculiaris casus, qui dispensationi tribui debet, constitutionem ac disciplinam vocare potest in dubium, quam et Ambrosii, et Zosimi, et ipsius Leonis testimoniis satis certam ostendimus. Unde nihil est cur ex hoc capite epistolam ad Januarium repudiemus, ac si disciplinam eo tempore ignotam praeferat.