Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| To John, Bishop. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Epistle VI.
To John, Bishop.
Gregory to John, bishop of Prima
Justiniana1472
1472 As to the
See of Prima Justiniana, the Metropolitan jurisdiction assigned to it
by the Emperor Justinian, and the vicariate jurisdiction that had been
transferred to it from Thessalonica by the popes, see note on
Lib. II., Ep. 22. The circumstances referred to in
this and the following letter are interesting as shewing, among other
things, the relations of the See of Rome to the Church in Illyricum,
and the action of the Emperors with regard to it. They may be
epitomized as follows. Thebæ Phthioticæ was a See in
the province of Thessalia, of which Larissa was the Metropolis.
But, as appears from what Gregory says in Epistle VII., Thebæ had
been for some reason exempted from the metropolitan jurisdiction of the
bishop of Larissa by pope Pelagius II. John and Cosmas, two
deposed deacons of the Church of Thebæ, had sent a representation
to the Emperor, accusing their bishop, Adrian, of defalcations in money
matters, and also of certain misdemeanours; the latter being that he
had retained in office one of his deacons, Stephen, whose shameful life
was notorious, and that he had ordered baptism to be refused to certain
infants, who had consequently died unbaptized. The Emperor
(Mauricius) referred the matter to John, bishop of Larissa, as
Metropolitan of Thessalia, who, notwithstanding the exemption of
Thebæ from his jurisdiction by pope Pelagius II., took it up, and
decided against Adrian, at any rate with respect to his alleged
pecuniary defalcations. Adrian appealed against this decision to
the Emperor, who thereupon deputed certain persons (not bishops) to
enquire and report, and, on receiving their report, exempted Adrian
from further proceedings, sending an order to that effect to the Bishop
of Corinth, who was Metropolitan of the adjoining province of
Achaia. Meanwhile John of Larissa had imprisoned Adrian, and
elicited from him (under compulsion, it was said) an ambiguous
confession of his guilt, and also obtained from the Emperor a second
order committing the reinvestigation and final adjudication of the case
to John, bishop of Prima Justiniana, who confirmed the sentence of John
of Larissa, and deposed Adrian from his See. Adrian now at last
appealed to the pope, and went himself to Rome to seek aid from
Gregory, who took up the case at once and strenuously declared the past
proceedings unfair, uncanonical, and void, ordered the immediate
restoration of Adrian to his See, excommunicated John of Prima
Justiniana, and forbade John of Larissa, under pain of excommunication,
to assume hereafter any metropolitan jurisdiction over the church of
Thebæ. Now it is plain that, till Adrian’s final
appeal, no recourse was had by any of the parties concerned to the See
of Rome, and that the Emperor, who alone was at first appealed to, took
the matter up on his own authority without reference to Rome: nor
was it till he had failed of redress from Constantinople that Adrian
himself appealed to Gregory. But it is equally evident that
Gregory, when appealed to, asserted his own plenary jurisdiction as
matter of course and without hesitation: nor is there any
evidence to shew that his assertion of authority was resisted either by
the Illyrican prelates or the Emperor. It was probably a case in
which the Emperor himself took little interest; and he might be glad
that the pope should take it out of his hands and settle it. It
was otherwise, however, in a subsequent case (though occurring not in
Eastern, but in Western Illyricum), in which Gregory was at issue with
the Emperor with respect to the appointment of a bishop to the See of
Salona, as will be seen hereafter. See III. 47, note
2. | .
After the long
afflictions which Adrian, bishop of the city of Thebæ, has endured
from his fellow-priests, as though they had been his enemies, he has
fled for refuge to the Roman city. And though his first
representation had been against John, bishop of Larissa, to wit that in
pecuniary causes he had given judgment without regard to the laws, yet
after this he complained most grievously rather against the person of
thy Fraternity, accusing thee of having deposed him unjustly from the
degree of priesthood. But we, giving no credence to petitions
that have not been enquired into, perused the acts of the proceedings,
whether before our brother and fellow-bishop John, or before thy
Fraternity. And indeed concerning the judgment of the above-named
John, bishop of Larissa, which was suspended on appeal, both the most
pious emperors, in their orders sent to the bishop of Corinth, have
sufficiently decreed, and we have decreed also, Christ helping us, in
our letters directed through the bearers of these presents to the
aforesaid John of Larissa. But having ventilated the conflicting
judgments, the examination of which the imperial commands had committed
to thee, and inspected the series of proceedings held before the bishop
John concerning the incriminated persons, we find that thou hast
investigated almost nothing pertaining to the questions named and
assigned to thee for decision, but by certain machinations hast
produced witnesses against the deacon Demetrius, who were to allege
with a view to the condemnation of this same bishop, that they had
heard this Demetrius bearing testimony concerning the said
bishop;—a thing not even lawful to be heard of. And when
Demetrius in person denied having done so, it appears that, contrary to
the custom of the priesthood and canonical discipline, thou gavest him
into the hands of the prætor of the province as a deacon deposed
from his dignity1473
1473 Otherwise he
could not have been examined by scourging, as it appears he was.
For clerics were by law exempt from the question. | . And
when, mangled by many stripes, he might perchance have said some things
falsely against his bishop under the pressure of torment, we find that
to the very end of the business he confessed absolutely nothing of the
things about which he was interrogated. Neither do we find
anything else in the proceedings themselves, whether in the depositions
of witnesses or in the declaration of Adrian, to his
disadvantage. But it is only that thy Fraternity, I know not with
what motive, in contempt of law, human and divine, has pronounced an
abrupt sentence against him; which, even though it had not been
suspended on appeal, being pronounced in contravention of the laws and
canons, could not rightly in itself have stood. Further, after,
as is abundantly evident, the appeal had been handed to thee, we wonder
why thou hast not sent thy people to us to render an account of thy
judgment according to the undertaking delivered to our deacon Honoratus
by the representatives of thy church. This omission convicts thee
either of contumacy or of trepidation of conscience. If, then,
these things which have been brought before us have the rampart of
truth, inasmuch as we consider that, taking advantage of your vicariate
jurisdiction under us, you are presuming unjustly, we will, with the
help of Christ, decree further concerning these things, according to
the result of our deliberations.
But as regards the present, by the authority of
the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, we decree that, the decrees
of thy judgment being first annulled and made of none effect, thou be
deprived of holy communion for the space of thirty days, so as to
implore pardon of our God for so great
transgression with the utmost penitence and tears. But, if we
should come to know that thou hast been remiss in carrying out this our
sentence, know thou that not the injustice only, but also the
contumacy, of thy Fraternity will
have to be more severely punished. But, as to our aforesaid
brother and fellow-bishop Adrian, condemned by thy sentence, which, as
we have said, was consistent with neither canons nor laws, we order
that he be restored, Christ being with him, to his place and rank; so
that neither may he be injured by the sentence of thy Fraternity
pronounced in deviation from the path of justice, nor may thy Charity
remain uncorrected; that so we may appease the indignation of the
future judge. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|