Gelasius of Cyzicus

Sept. 29. [Grnxstus (10).]

(1) L, bishop of Rome after Felix III. (or Il.) from March 492 to November 496, during about four years and a half. At the time of his accession the schism between the Western and Eastern churches, which had begun under his predecessor, had lasted more than seven years. Its occasion had been the excommunication by pope Felix of Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople, for supporting and communicating with Peter Mongus, the once monophysite

patriarch of Alexandria, who had, however, satistied Acacius by subscribing the Henoticon, and afterwards the Nicene creed. There had been other grounds of complaint against <Acacius, notably his disregard of the authority of the Roman see; but the above had been the original cause of quarrel, (See Fenix IlI., Acactus.) Acacius being now dead, the subject of dispute was reduced to the retention of his name in the diptychs of the Eastern church. Felix had demanded its erasure as a condition of intercom- munion with his successors. But they had refused to comply. The patriarch of Constantinople was now Euphemius, the emperor was Anastasius. On his accession Gelasius wrote a respectful letter of salutation to the emperor, as appears from an allusion to it in an extant letter from Gelasius to one Faustus, of which hereafter. It appears also from this same letter that the emperor did not reply. To Euphemius the patriarch the new pope did not write, as was usual, to inform him of his accession. Euphemius, however, wrote twice to Gelasius, the second letter being sent, when no notice had been taken of the first, by a deacon called Sinclitius, to Rome. 'These facts, and the purport of what Euphemius wrote, are gathered from the extant letter which Gelasius now wrote in reply. Euphemius had complained, it seems, of having received no communication from the new pope ; he had expressed a strong desire of reconciliation between the churches, and a hope that Gelasius, whom he complimented as "not needing to be taught," and as "intending all things necessary for the unity of the ecclesiastical body," would through condescension and a spirit of - charity be able to restore concord. He had reminded him of the condescension of Christ. He had insisted that Acacius himself had been no heretic, and that before he communicated with Peter Mongus the latter had been purged of heresy. He had asked by what synodical authority Acacius had ever been condemned. He had further alleged that the people of Constantinople would never allow his name to be erased, but had suggested that the pope might send an embassy to Constantinople to treat with them on the subject. Gelasius, in his reply, couched in a tone of imperious humility, utterly refuses any compromise. He speaks of the custom of the bishops of the apostolic see notifying their elevation to inferior bishops as a condescension rather than an obli- gation, and one certainly not due to such as chose to cast in their lot with heretics. He treats with contempt the plea of the determined attitude of the people of Constantinople. The shepherd ought, he says, to lead the flock, not the flock control the shepherd. The idea of himself sending to treat with them was out of the question, as if they would listen to him, towards whom they shewed themselves but ill-disposed, when their own bishop confessed his inability to influence them. As to the original cause of dispute, Chalcedon had condemned the heresy held by Peter Mongus, and by implication him; he had not been absolved, and Acacius had communicated with him. Acacius had therefore been rightly excommunicated, and those who retained his name in their diptychs were associated in his condemnation. But the main gist of the letter is to assert in no measured terms the supremacy of the see of Rome, and