Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| To the Clergy of the Church of Salona. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Epistle XLVII.
To the Clergy of the Church of Salona1495
1495 For notice of the
Metropolitan See of Salona, and Gregory’s dealings with its
former bishop Natalis, see II. 18, note 3. The appointment of a
successor to Natalis engaged Gregory in a long struggle for maintenance
of his authority over the Illyrican churches, which on this occasion
seems to have been, for some time at least, slightly regarded.
What took place, as gathered from his extant letters, may be thus
summarised. Immediately on hearing of the death of Natalis he
wrote to Antoninus, the rector patrimonii in Dalmatia,
charging him to see to the canonical election of a successor and to its
notification, when made, to himself, that it might be approved, as was
customary, by the See of Rome (III. 22). This was in the 11th
Indiction, i.e. between Sept. a.d. 592 and
Sept. a.d. 593. Subsequently. having
been informed that the clergy of Salona had elected their archdeacon
Honoratus, he wrote to them in the letter before us approving their
choice, and exhorting them to stick to it, being evidently aware of a
party opposed to it. This Honoratus was the man whom he had
previously supported against Bishop Natalis, who had attempted to
deprive him of his archdeaconry. See II. 18, 19, 20; III.
32. Hence it was not improbable that the election of Honoratus
would be opposed by the partizans of the late bishop who, as appears
from his correspondence with Gregory, had been a convivial man, with a
pleasant vein of wit, and thus likely to be popular with many.
But, whatever the cause, Gregory before long received the startling
intelligence that not only had the election of Honoratus, confirmed by
himself, been set aside, but that another candidate, one Maximus, had
been actually ordained under the alleged authority of an order from the
Emperor. This defiance of his authority was the more offensive as
he had already, having apparently got wind of the candidature of
Maximus, prohibited his ordination under pain of excommunication of
both him and his ordainers (IV. 10). He accordingly wrote a
strongly-worded letter (IV. 20), dated May, a.d. 594, prohibiting Maximus from undertaking any
episcopal functions, and from officiating at the altar, till it should
be ascertained whether the emperor had really ordered his
consecration. But Maximus treated this prohibition with contempt
and appealed against the Pope to the Emperor, who thereupon wrote to
Gregory, requesting him to condone the fact of the ordination having
taken place without his assent, and bidding him receive Maximus with
honour if he should resort to Rome, as he was apparently desired to
do. This was at the time when John Jejunator, the patriarch of
Constantinople, had recently incensed Gregory by his assumption of the
title of Universal Bishop, and when the latter was urging the Emperor
to disallow the title. Writing on this subject to the Empress
Constantina, he alludes also to the case of Maximus, hoping through her
whose religious reverence for St. Peter he appeals to, to move the
Emperor. In his letter to her (V. 72), written in the 13th
Indiction (594–5), he consents, in deference to the
Emperor’s wish, to look over the fact of Maximus having been
ordained without his leave; but he insists on his appearing at Rome to
answer to other charges, including especially that of simony, and his
having disregarded the excommunication pronounced against him. He
also protests strongly against his bishops being allowed to appeal to
the secular power in ecclesiastical causes. But he did not thus
move the Emperor, who appears from one of Gregory’s letters to
Maximus (VI. 25) to have directed any charges against the latter to be
entertained in his own locality rather than at Rome. Meanwhile
Maximus continued to disregard Gregory’s repeated letters
summoning him to Rome, being apparently supported by a majority of his
own people and of his suffragan bishops. For in a letter to the
Salonitans (VI. 26), written in the 14th Indiction (395–6),
Gregory expresses his surprise that Honoratus alone among the clergy of
Salona, and one only of the suffragan bishops, had refused to
communicate with Maximus, notwithstanding his excommunication.
However, as time went on, Gregory’s persistence seems to have had
some effect. In the 15th Indiction (596–7) one of the
suffragan bishops, Sabinianus of Jadera, who had previously
communicated with Maximus, deserts him, and is invited by Gregory to
come to Rome to be absolved, and to bring with him any other whom he
could persuade to come (VII. 15). Sabinianus did not go, but
retired for a time to a monastery by way of expressing penitence, after
which Gregory in the following year granted him full absolution (VIII.
10, 24). Perhaps about a year later, in the 2nd Indiction (IX.
5), we find Gregory writing to Marcellus, the proconsul of Dalmatia, in
reply to a letter from him in which he had expressed his regret for
being apparently out of favour with the pope, and his wish to be
reconciled. This Marcellus had been, according to what Gregory
says in his reply, the prime and original abettor of Maximus; and it
would seem that he had now become desirous of coming to terms with the
pope. In the same year we find a letter to one Julianus,
described as Scribo, at Salona, who had addressed Gregory
with a view to peace, asserting that Maximus enjoyed both the affection
of his people and the favour of the court (IX. 41).
In replying to both these correspondents
Gregory shews no signs of giving way: but in the same Indiction
(588–9) he did give way to an extent that seems at first sight
surprising, considering the resolute tone of his previous
correspondence. He may have been partly moved to make some
concession by such letters as those from Marcellus and Julianus,
testifying to the character of Maximus and to the support he continued
to receive; but the intercessor who really prevailed with him at last
appears evidently to have been Callinicus, Exarch of Italy, resident at
Ravenna, to whom Maximus had applied after failing to induce the
Emperor himself to interfere. In one of his letters (IX. 67),
Gregory says that Maximus, having failed to influence “the
greater powers of the world” in his behalf, had betaken himself
to the lesser ones, and implies that it was to their intercession that
the concession he was prepared to make was due. It may be
supposed that by “the greater power” are meant the imperial
family, and that among “the lesser” Callinicus was at any
rate the most influential: for in writing to the latter (IX. 9)
he says, “In the cause of Maximus we can no longer resist the
importunity of thy Sweetness;” and again to Marinianus, bishop of
Ravenna, “I have received repeated and pressing letters from my
most excellent son the lord exarch Callinicus in behalf of
Maximus. Overcome by his importunity, &c.” (IX.
10). Nor is the reason far to seek why the intercession of
Callinicus should at that particular time prevail. For Gregory
was in correspondence with him, and most anxious to secure his
co-operation, in the reconciliation to the Roman Church of the Istrian
bishops, who had so far been out of communion with Rome in the matter
of “the Three Chapters” and was therefore likely to wish to
oblige him. However induced, he now consented that Maximus should
appear not before himself at Rome as he had before so resolutely
insisted, but before Marinianus, bishop of Ravenna, and promised to
accede to whatever the latter might determine (IX. 10). Nay, he
even accepted the proposal of Marinianus that the charges against
Maximus should not be investigated at all, but that a declaration on
oath by the accused of his own innocence should be accepted as a
sufficient purgation; requiring only that he should do such penance as
the bishop of Ravenna might impose for having disregarded the
excommunication pronounced at Rome (IX. 79, 80). He wrote also to
Constantius, bishop of Milan, requesting him to proceed to Ravenna in
order to act in concert with Marinianus in case of Maximus not having
confidence in the latter (IX. 67). But the bishop of Ravenna
appears to have acted alone: and the result was that Maximus was
acquitted of simony and all other charges, and, after doing the penance
assigned by Marinianus at Ravenna, was, seven years after his
ordination, cordially received by Gregory into communion, and had the
pallium sent him (IX. 81, 82, 125). The epistles to be consulted
for a view of the whole proceedings are III. 22, 47; IV. 10, 20, 47; V.
21; VI. 3, 25, 26, 27; VII. 17; VIII. 10, 24; IX. 5, 10, 41, 67, 79,
80, 81, 82, 125. | .
Gregory to the clergy, &c.
Having read your letter, beloved, we learn
that you have made choice of Honoratus
your archdeacon; and know ye that it is altogether pleasing to us that
you have chosen for the order of episcopacy a man tried of old and of
grave manner of life. We too join with you in approbation of his
personal character, inasmuch as it is already known to us; and it has
been our own wish also that he should be ordained as your priest
according to your desire. For which cause we exhort you to
persist in his election without any ambiguity. Nor ought any
circumstances to disincline you from his person, since, as this
laudable choice is now approved, so it will impose both a burden on
your souls and a stain of unfaithfulness on your reputation, if any one
should seduce you (which God forbid) to turn
aside your love from him. But as to those who are not at one with
you in this desired election, we have caused them to be admonished by
Antoninus our subdeacon, that they may be able to agree with you.
To him also we have already given our injunctions as to what ought to
be done with respect to the person of our brother and fellow-bishop
Malchus1496 . But,
inasmuch as we have ourselves also written to him, we believe that he
will without delay keep himself quiet from disquieting you. If by
any chance he should in any way whatever neglect to obey, his contumacy
will in every way be mulcted with the utmost rigour of canonical
punishment.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|