Letters 88
88 To Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybæum PL 54, 926
I. He sends a copy of the Tome and still further explains the heterodoxy of Eutyches.
Although I doubt not all the sources of scandal are fully known to you, brother, which have arisen in the churches of the East about the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet, lest anything might have chanced to escape your care, I have despatched for your attentive perusal and study our letter, which deals with this matter in the fullest way, which we sent to Flavian of holy memory, and which the universal Church has accepted; in order that, understanding how completely this whole blasphemous error has with God’s aid been destroyed, you yourself also in your love towards God may show the same spirit, and know that they are utterly to be abhorred, who, following the blasphemy and madness of Eutyches, have dared to say there are not two natures, i.e. perfect Godhead and perfect manhood, in our Lord, the only-begotten Son of God, who took upon Himself to restore mankind; and think they can deceive our wariness by saying they believe the one nature of the Word to be Incarnate, whereas the Word of God in the Godhead of the Father, and of Himself, and of the Holy Spirit has indeed one nature; but when He took on Him the reality of our flesh, our nature also was united to His unchangeable substance: for even Incarnation could not be spoken of, unless the Word took on Him the flesh. And this taking on of flesh forms so complete a union, that not only in the blessed Virgin’s child-bearing, but also in her conception, no division must be imagined between the Godhead and the life-endowed flesh, since in the unity of person the Godhead and the manhood came together both in the conception and in the childbearing of the Virgin.
II. Eutyches might have been warned by the fate of former heretics.
A like blasphemy, therefore, is to be abhorred in Eutyches, as was once condemned and overthrown by the Fathers in former heretics: and their example ought to have benefited this foolish fellow, in putting him on his guard against that which he could not grasp by his own sense, lest he should render void the peerless mystery of our salvation by denying the reality of human flesh in our Lord Jesus Christ. For, if there is not in Him true and perfect human nature, there is no taking of us upon Him, and the whole of our belief and teaching according to his heresy is emptiness and lying. But because the Truth does not lie and the Godhead is not passible, there abides in God the Word both substances in one Person, and the Church confesses her Saviour in such a way as to acknowledge Him both impassible in Godhead and passible in flesh, as says the Apostle, “although He was crucified through (our) weakness, yet He lives by the power of God.”
III. He sends quotations from the Fathers, and announces that the churches of the East have accepted the Tome.
And in order that you may be the fuller instructed in all things, beloved, I have sent you certain quotations from our holy Fathers, that you may clearly gather what they felt and what they preached to the churches about the mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation, which quotations our deputies produced at Constantinople also together with our epistle. And you must understand that the whole church of Constantinople, with all the monasteries and many bishops, have given their assent to it, and by their subscription have anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches with their dogmas. You must also understand that I have recently received the bishop of Constantinople’s letter, which states that the bishop of Antioch has sent instructions to all the bishops throughout his provinces, and gained their assent to my epistle, and their condemnation of Nestorius and Eutyches in like manner.
IV. He asks him to settle the discrepancy between the Alexandrine and the Roman calculation of Easter for 455, by consulting the proper authority.
This also we think necessary to enjoin upon your care that you should diligently inquire in those quarters where you are sure of information concerning that point in the reckoning of Easter, which we have found in the table of Theophilus, and which greatly exercises us, and that you should discuss with those who are learned in such calculations, as to the date, when the day of the Lord’s resurrection should be held four years hence. For, whereas the next Easter is to be held by God’s goodness on March 23rd, the year after on April 12th, the year after that on April 4th, Theophilus of holy memory has fixed April 24th to be observed in 455, which we find to be quite contrary to the rule of the Church; but in our Easter cycles as you know very well, Easter that year is set down to be kept on April 17th. And therefore, that all our doubts may be removed, we beg you carefully to discuss this point with the best authorities, that for the future we may avoid this kind of mistake. Dated June 24th in the consulship of the illustrious Adelfius (451).
Mittit ad Paschasinum celebrem suam ad Flavianum CP. epistolam, qua legatus in synodo futurus instrueretur. --II. Duplicem in Christo asserit naturam adversus Eutychen. --III. Testimonia SS. Patrum de incarnatione Domini mittit, nuntiatque Orientalis dioecesis episcopos subscripsisse eidem epistolae ad Flavianum.--De Paschate anno 455 diligentius inquiri postulat.
LEO episcopus PASCHASINO episcopo Lylibaetano.
Quamvis non dubitem fraternitati tuae omnem originem scandalorum, quae de incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Orientalibus Ecclesiis commota sunt, ad plenum esse comperta, tamen ne quid forte sollicitudinem tuam latere potuisset, epistolam nostram, quam ad sanctae memoriae Flavianum de hac re plenissimam misimus, quamque Ecclesia universalis amplectitur, diligentius tibi recensendam cognoscendamque direxi: ut intelligens qua 1058 plenitudine totius hujus erroris impietas, Deo adjuvante, destructa sit, ipse quoque eumdem spiritum pro tuo in Deum amore suscipias, sciasque penitus detestandos Qui secundum Eutychis impietatem atque dementiam in Domino nostro unigenito Filio Dei suscipientis in se reparationem salutis humanae, dicere ausi sunt duas non esse naturas, hoc est perfectae Divinitatis et perfectae humanitatis; et putant quod possint nostram diligentiam fallere, cum aiunt se unam Verbi naturam credere incarnatam; cum utique Verbo Dei in Divinitate Patris, et sua, et Spiritus sancti, una natura sit; suscepta autem veritate carnis nostrae illi inconvertibili substantiae nostram quoque unitam esse naturam: nam nec incarnatio dici posset, nisi caro susciperetur a Verbo. Quae susceptio tanta et talis unitio est, ut a carne animata, non solum in partu beatae Virginis, sed etiam in conceptu nulla Divinitatis sit credenda divisio: quoniam in unitate personae Divinitas atque humanitas et conceptu Virginis convenit et partu.
Abominanda ergo est in Eutyche impietas, quae olim a Patribus in praecedentibus haereticis damnata atque destructa est; quod huic stultissimo homini prodesse debuerat: ut quod non poterat sensu apprehendere, vel praecedenti caveret exemplo, ne salutis nostrae singulare sacramentum veritatem carnis humanae in Christo Domino nostro negando vacuaret. Quoniam 1059 si vera et perfecta in illo humanitatis natura non est, nulla est nostra susceptio; et totum quod credimus, quod docemus, secundum ipsius impietatem vanitas est atque mendacium. Sed quia nec mentitur veritas, nec passibilis est Divinitas, manet in Deo Verbo utraque substantia in una persona, et ita Salvatorem suum Ecclesia confitetur, ut eum et Divinitate impassibilem, et carne passibilem fateatur, dicente Apostolo: Etsi crucifixus est ex infirmitate nostra, sed vivit ex virtute Dei .
Ut autem in omnibus plenius tua sit instructa dilectio, sanctorum Patrum nostrorum, de sacramento incarnationis Domini quid senserint, et quid Ecclesiis praedicaverint, ut evidenter agnosceres, aliqua ad dilectionem tuam scripta transmisi, quae nostri quoque apud Constantinopolim cum mea epistola allegarunt. Et totam Constantinopolitanam Ecclesiam cum monasteriis omnibus et multis episcopis noveris praebuisse consensum, et subscriptionibus suis Nestorium atque Eutychen cum suis anathematizasse dogmatibus. Noveris etiam proxime me epistolam Constantinopolitani episcopi accepisse, quae refert Antiochenum episcopum missis per provincias suas tractoriis universos episcopos et epistolae meae praebuisse consensum, et Nestorium et Eutychen pari subscriptione damnasse.
Illud quoque curae tuae credimus injungendum, ut quia ratio paschalis festi experientiam tuam non latet, de eo quod in Theophili annotatione invenimus, quodque nos permovet, diligentius inquiras illic, atque pertractes cum his qui possunt supputationis et regulae istius habere peritiam: qualiter quarti anni futuri Dominicae resurrectionis dies sit tenendus. Nam cum venturum Pascha propitio Deo, decimo kalendarum aprilium die sit tenendum, 1060 sequenti autem pridie idus April. Tertio pridie nonas Aprilis; quarto sanctae memoriae Theophilus kalendas Maii constituit observandum: quod regula ecclesiastica penitus invenimus alienum; in nostris autem paschalibus cyclis, quod bene nosse dignaris, decimo quinto kalend. Maii ejusdem anni Pascha celebrandum esse sit scriptum. Et ideo, ut nobis omnibus ambiguitas auferatur, cum peritis quibusque diligentius hoc tua sollicitudo pertractet, ut in futurum hujusmodi caveamus errorem. Data octavo kalend. Julii, Adelfio viro clarissimo consule.