CRISTO RAUL. READING HALL THE DOORS OF WISDOM

THE HISTORY OF THE POPES

THE LIFE AND TIMES OF POPE GREGORY I THE GREAT. A.D. 540 – 604

CHAPTER V

GREGORY PATRIARCH OF THE WEST.

HIS RELATIONS WITH OTHER WESTERN CHURCHES

(f) The Church in Dalmatia.

The Church of Dalmatia was the occasion of considerable annoyance and anxiety to Gregory throughout the greater part of his pontificate. The difficulty of communicating with Rome had naturally loosened the ties which bound the clergy of this region to the Pope, and had diminished the authority of the Western Patriarch, always somewhat weak in these parts. The events which have now to be related are important as showing to what lengths resistance to the Pope might be carried with impunity, and to what extent even so vigorous a Papal autocrat as Gregory was compelled to make concessions. These events have also a political significance, inasmuch as they brought Gregory into more or less of conflict with the Imperial authorities, and even with the Emperor himself. For this reason I have here devoted a separate section to the Church of Dalmatia, instead of referring to its affairs in the course of a general review of the Churches of Illyricum. Gregory’s relations with these other Churches will be considered apart, in the final section of this chapter.

The metropolis of Dalmatia at this time was Salona, a city which once occupied a site near the modern Spalatro. The metropolitan bishop of Salona was one Natalis, a merry, freehanded bon-vivant, whose good dinners were notorious. At these convivial gatherings, it was rumored, the guests were not wearied with recitations from the Scriptures, customary at episcopal repasts, but secular scandal was discussed, and racy stories told of absentees. The archbishop himself preferred a jest to a sermon. He found reading irksome, and gave it up. His episcopal duties he light-heartedly neglected. He even wished to distribute the property of his Church among his own relations. Yet he was shrewd enough to conciliate the favor of the influential persons in his diocese, and his easy good nature and lavish hospitality made him extremely popular.

It was the misfortune of this gay prelate to be associated with an archdeacon of a character diametrically opposite to his own. Honoratus was a rigid moralist, a stern, unbending, and thoroughly disagreeable kind of man, who looked with extreme disapproval on the frivolities of his superior, continually made protests, and, when these produced no effect, sent long complaints about him to the Pope in Rome. Natalis very naturally resented this surveillance, and for a time there was considerable unpleasantness at Salona. At length the archbishop devised a scheme for removing his mentor. At the close of the year 590 he summoned a synod, got Honoratus condemned and deposed from his archdeaconry, and, to disqualify him forever from regaining his office, forcibly ordained him to the priesthood.

This cunning device of degrading a man from a position of power by raising him to a higher rank in the ministry, filled Gregory with indignation. He wrote at once to Natalis, peremptorily insisting that Honoratus should be at once restored. If after this their differences remained unsettled, Natalis was at liberty to send a proctor to Rome to meet Honoratus, and the Pope promised that he would, in the presence of both, “decide what justice approves, without respect of persons”. But this communication was ignored by the archbishop. Accordingly, in March 592, Gregory addressed to him a sterner letter, pointing out that the disregard he was showing for the laws of the Church and the commands of the Pope lent a color to the charges brought against him by the party of Honoratus. If, therefore, after this second admonition, he neglected to restore the archdeacon and to send a representative to Rome, he would be deprived of the use of the pallium; if he still persisted in his disobedience, he would be excommunicated; and if after that, he yet continued obdurate, he would be deposed. This epistle, which was accompanied by an address of similar purport to the suffragan bishops of Dalmatia, and by an appeal to Jobinus the Pretorian Prefect of Illyricum, urging him not to interfere with the course of justice, produced the desired effect. Honoratus was restored to his office of archdeacon, and the archbishop wrote a reply to the accusations brought against himself.

This letter has not been preserved, but its general contents, which we gather from the Pope's answer, well illustrate the mind and character of this eccentric man. As an apology it was, to say the least, extraordinary. In defense of his banquets the archbishop reminded the Pope that Abraham had feasted the angels, and that Isaac had blessed his son when he had eaten and drunk. He added that he rejoiced to share the title of “gluttonous man” with the world's Creator. Then, somewhat inconsistently, he pleaded that his dinners were given with a view to bestowing charity, and ended by quoting the words of St. Paul: Let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth. As regards reading, Natalis asserted that the pressure of tribulation prevented him from studying, and cited Matt. x. 19 to prove that this was not, after all, a necessary part of a bishop's duties. He was, however, so he said, giving attention to exhortation, and, though he could not claim to be a great preacher like Gregory, yet he had met with success in bringing heretics back to the Faith. In conclusion, he asserted that he was perfectly aware of the degrees of ecclesiastical rank, and trusted that the Pope, on his side, would respect the privileges of the Church of Salona, which had been handed down and preserved by his predecessors. The letter ended with an expostulation concerning the threat of excommunication.

The author of this singular document could not be taken too seriously. So Gregory sent him a rather sarcastic, yet friendly answer, accepting his excuses, but urging him to greater diligence in the discharge of his episcopal duties. At the same time, he expressed in the clearest terms his opinion of the archbishop's disobedience to the Apostolic See. “After you had received my letters, and those of my predecessor, you despised our decrees and deprived Honoratus of his proper rank. If any of the four Patriarchs had done such a thing, his contumacy could not have been passed over without the gravest scandal. Nevertheless, now that you have learned again to know your place, I no longer remember the wrong you have done to my predecessor and myself”.

While acquitting Natalis, Gregory was careful to accord a like favour to Honoratus. However, the old disputes had still to be investigated. The archdeacon came to Rome in person, and the archbishop's proctors were expected daily. While, however, the affair hung thus in abeyance, in March 593 the news arrived that Archbishop Natalis was dead.

It needed not Gregory’s penetration to foresee the probability of a hotly contested election. He wrote at once to Antoninus the Sub-deacon, who was manager of the little patrimony in Dalmatia, charging him to see that a fit person was canonically elected without bribery or patronage, and that his name was sent to Rome for approval before he was consecrated. Accordingly, by the efforts of Antoninus a section of the electors were persuaded to nominate Honoratus, and to petition Gregory to confirm their choice. The Pope, however, knew that this nomination proceeded only from a section, and was by no means in accordance with the wishes of the majority. He dared not, therefore, give his confirmation until he should have learnt more. He wrote, nevertheless, to express his warm approval of the candidate. “We exhort you to persevere in maintaining the election of Honoratus without any vacillation. Nothing ought to turn you from him. For as this election is now acknowledged to be praiseworthy, so, if any one unhappily induces you to abandon it, a heavy weight will be laid upon your souls, and the stain of faithlessness upon your reputation”.

These forebodings, as the event showed, were justified. There was in Salona and Dalmatia a strong party bitterly hostile to Honoratus. In the first place, there were the friends of Natalis, and all those who had condemned the archdeacon's conduct or had reason to dread his justice or his vengeance. The suffragan bishops, again, were opposed to his elevation; and, what was of great consequence, the officials and chief laymen of the province were all against him. An archbishop, of course, was a personage of too much influence for the Imperial Government to regard his election with indifference. It was of the highest importance for the Proconsul of Dalmatia that the Bishop of Salona should be a man with whom he could live in harmony. The genial Natalis had got on well with the officials, and had enjoyed their support, as is evident from the fact that by his own authority, and without legal trial or synodical decree, he had banished one of his suffragans and confiscated his property. And now that Natalis was dead, the Government was naturally unwilling that any one should be elected whose appointment would certainly be followed, not only by a reversal of his predecessor's policy, but also by a rigid investigation of old charges of malpractices, by law-suits, excommunications, complaints and appeals to Rome, and general disturbance and confusion.

So strong was the feeling against Honoratus, that Gregory felt himself obliged to yield, though not without addressing an indignant warning and reproof to the bishops of the province. “As your characters are so perverted by worldly business that, entirely forgetting the nature of your sacerdotal dignity and all considerations of heavenly fear, you endeavor to do, not what will please God, but what pleases yourselves, we have thought it necessary to write you a special and severe letter, in which, by the authority of St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles, we charge you to lay hands on no man for episcopal consecration in the city of Salona without our consent and permission. If, either of your own free will or by compulsion, you presume or attempt to act in any way contrary to these directions, we sentence you to be deprived of the communion of the Lord’s Body and Blood, and in consequence of your machinations and your willful disobedience to our orders, you will be excluded from the Divine Mysteries. Nor will he whom you ordain be recognized as a bishop, for we will have no one inconsiderately ordained whose life is open to censure”. However, the Pope promised to agree to the ordination of any fit person who was elected unanimously. One candidate alone was absolutely excluded—a certain Maximus, an ambitious man of loose morals, who was reported to be in high favor with the electors. Him Gregory unconditionally refused to accept. “I have heard much that is bad of him”, he wrote. “If he does not give up his attempt to gain this higher rank, he must, I think, after full inquiry, be deprived even of the office which he now holds”.

Maximus, however, was not to be lightly suppressed. While the party of Honoratus appealed to the Pope, Maximus and his adherents applied to the Emperor, and a rescript was obtained from Constantinople, commanding his appointment to the vacant see. The officials of the province and the suffragan bishops were heavily bribed; and at the close of 593 or the beginning of 594 the bishop-elect was enthroned by an armed force. Priests, deacons, and other ecclesiastics who ventured to resist were injuriously treated, and Antoninus, who had the courage to protest in the name of the Pope, only saved his life by a precipitate flight. Such, at least, were the reports that reached Rome—rumors which had doubtless lost nothing in the process of transmission.

Gregory’s indignation was intense. In Maximus he refused to recognize a bishop—“for the consecration was performed by men who were excommunicate”: he was simply “the usurper at Salona”. Nevertheless, even in the heat of his anger, Gregory did not forget his habitual caution. He affected to believe that the Emperor had not issued any rescript at all, or that, if he had really done so, he had been misled by false representations. “We are not ignorant of the Emperor’s feelings”, wrote the Pope to Maximus. “We know that he is not in the habit of meddling with matters which concern the priesthood, lest he should in any way be burdened with our sins”. Hence, until definite information on this point was forthcoming, Maximus and those who ordained him were forbidden to discharge any episcopal function or to minister at the altar. “If you presume to disobey these commands, anathema on you from God and from St. Peter the chief of the Apostles”.

Maximus, however, strong in the support of the official party, ventured to set at defiance the Pope’s authority. He cleverly contrived that Gregory’s letter should not be delivered to him personally, and when it was posted up in the city he caused it to be publicly torn in pieces. Moreover, though well aware of his excommunication, he did not hesitate to say mass as usual. Indeed, he even assumed the offensive, and spread abroad a scandalous story about Gregory which practically amounted to a charge of murder. It was affirmed that a certain bishop named Malthus, who had managed the Papal Patrimony in Dalmatia, and had also been a prominent supporter of Maximus, was urgently summoned to Rome, where he was thrown into prison and died suddenly under suspicious circumstances. Of course, no one acquainted with Gregory's character could believe him capable of being a party to assassination. As he himself explained the matter, Malchus was brought to trial for maladministration of the Church property, and condemned; he was taken, after sentence had been pronounced, to the house of the notary Bonifacius, where he was treated with respect, but in the night he died suddenly. There can be no doubt that this explanation accurately represented the facts. Nevertheless, the death of the bishop at this critical juncture was extremely unfortunate, and the coincidence excited no slight alarm and suspicion among the Pope's opponents at Salona.

Meanwhile the embittered relations between Gregory and Maximus were causing some anxiety to the Imperial officials. It is true they still sided with “the usurper”. To them he was the lawful Bishop of Salona, elected by the majority of the clergy and people, and consecrated by the bishops of the province with the consent of the Imperial Government. Nevertheless, they clearly saw that a dispute with the Pope could not fail to be productive of great discord and disunion throughout the province, and this they were anxious at any cost to avoid. Efforts were accordingly made to bring about a reconciliation. Distinguished persons wrote to Gregory to intercede for the archbishop. Marcellus, the judicial assessor, and afterwards Proconsul of Dalmatia, one of the chief supporters of Maximus, begged the Pope to pass over his conduct. Julian, the Scribo, sent a testimonial to his popularity "both with the palace and the people." And Maurice himself, while charging Maximus to go to Rome and make his peace, commanded Gregory to overlook the irregularity of his consecration, and to receive him with respect as the lawful Metropolitan of Dalmatia.

Gregory was placed in a very difficult position by this mandate of the Emperor, but he acted with adroitness and spirit. He professed himself perfectly willing to forgive, at Maurice’s request, any slight or insult which had been put upon himself, but he declared that he had no power to condone any sin which had been committed against God. “In obedience to the injunction of my Most Religious Lord, I have forgiven Maximus his presumption in setting at naught myself and my representative at his ordination. I have forgiven him as completely as though he had been ordained by my authority. But his other transgressions, to wit, the bodily sins of which I have been informed, his election by bribery, his presumption in celebrating mass when excommunicated, I cannot, for God's sake, pass over without inquiry. It is my wish and my prayer to God that he may be found to have committed none of these sins, and that so the matter may be concluded without danger to my soul. But before the investigation has taken place, my Most Serene Sovereign has expressly charged me to receive him, when he comes, with honor. It is indeed a grievous thing that honor should be paid to a man charged with so many great crimes, before his case has been examined and discussed. And if the affairs of bishops committed to my charge are to be settled by patronage at the court of my Most Religious Sovereign, woe is me! Of what use am I in the Church? Yet that my bishops despise me and appeal from me to secular judges, I render thanks to Almighty God, and consider their doing so a punishment for my sins. This, however, I say briefly—I will wait a little longer, and then, if he still delays coming to me, I will not fail to exercise canonical severity against him”. Thus Gregory refused, even at the Emperor’s command, to surrender any of the rights of the Apostolic See. “I am ready to die”, he had written to his responsalis at Constantinople, “rather than allow the Church of the Apostle St. Peter to degenerate in my days. You know my character. I am long-suffering, but when I have once made up my mind to submit no longer, I face every danger with joy”.

In September 595 the Pope sent a peremptory order to Maximus to present himself in Rome, and stand his trial on the counts above mentioned. But “the usurper”, whether from timidity or from consciousness of guilt, was determined not to quit Dalmatia. Another rescript, therefore, was obtained from the Emperor, directing that the charges should be investigated at Salona. Here, however, as everybody knew, it was impossible to procure an impartial trial; and so Gregory, in January 596, once again summoned the archbishop to present himself in Rome at the expiration of thirty days, urging him to arrange that no difficulties should be placed in the way of his journey by the civil or military authorities of the province, and giving him a guarantee that the charges should be fairly investigated in accordance with the canons of the Church, by the help of St. Peter, chief of the Apostles, and under the guidance of God. At the same time, in a separate letter, Gregory assured the clergy and people of Salona that he bore no personal grudge against Maximus, but only desired to act canonically, and he begged them to use their influence to compel the archbishop to come to Rome. He could not refrain, however, from expressing his indignation that only two of the clergy—Honoratus and a bishop Paulinus—had had the strength of mind to abstain from communion with Maximus, though he admitted that he had heard that some had been compelled by force to communicate against their will. “You ought to have had respect to your Orders”, he writes, “and to have considered him whom the Apostolic See rejected, as rejected indeed”. A similar letter was dispatched a few months later to the inhabitants of Jadera, who had communicated with the pretender. “With my whole heart earnestly and entirely I pity you”, writes the Pope. “With the love of a father I adjure and exhort you to abstain every one of you from this unlawful communion, and altogether avoid those whom the Apostolic See does not receive, lest the very thing which might bring you salvation should lead to your condemnation in the presence of the Eternal Judge”.

Gregory’s persistence soon began to take effect. Whatever may have been thought of the fitness of Maximus for the episcopal office, no religious person at Salona could fail to feel the scandal and the peril of the schism in which he was involved. Many, no doubt, may have been originally inclined to maintain their right of electing their bishop without interference from Rome. But this liberty Gregory was now perfectly willing to concede. All that he claimed was the right to see that in the election the laws of God and the Church were not disregarded. And the reasonableness of such a claim could not be denied. Hence public feeling began to veer round to the Pope’s side. First, in the beginning of 597, Sabinian bishop of Jadera (Zara), braving the intrigues of the archbishop against him both in Dalmatia and at Constantinople, made his submission to Gregory, abstained from communicating with Maximus or mentioning his name at mass, and retired temporally into a monastery to do penance for his fault. A considerable number of bishops seem to have followed his example. Then again, in the same year, the Exarch Romanus, who was ill disposed towards the Pope, died, and was succeeded by Callinicus, who was on friendly terms with the Holy See. But most important of all was the conversion of Marcellus, now become Proconsul of Dalmatia, and his anxiety to be readmitted to the Pope's favour. “We have received the letter of your Greatness”, Gregory wrote to him, “in which you say that you have incurred our displeasure, and are therefore anxious to make satisfaction and regain our favor. And, indeed, things are reported of your Greatness which certainly ought never to have been done by a believer. All men say that you are the cause of all the mischief in the affair of Maximus. The spoliation of the Church, the loss of many souls, the audacity of his unheard-of presumption, had their beginning in you. As you seek our favor, therefore, you must make a fitting satisfaction for these sins to our Redeemer, with all earnestness of mind and with tears. For if satisfaction is not made to Him, what can our forgiveness and favour possibly avail? While you are still involved in the ruin of the presumptuous and the defense of the transgressors, we do not see what atonement you can make to God or man. Then, and then only, may your Greatness feel certain that you are making such atonement, when you bring back the wandering to the right way and the proud to the law of humility. If that is done, you may feel sure that you will receive the favor both of God and of man”.

From this time, while Callinicus kept pressing the Pope to soften the terms of the submission, Marcellus exerted all his influence to induce Maximus to submit. “The usurper’s” position, indeed, had become serious, and his friends began to take alarm. Anxious letters from them poured into Rome, testimonials in the archbishop’s favor, assurances of his sincere desire for forgiveness, and his dread of the Pope's displeasure. It seems that Maximus was now thoroughly frightened and quite inclined to yield. On one point, however, he stood firm— nothing would induce him to take his trial at Rome. At last a compromise was agreed upon. Maximus was to be tried on the charges of having committed sins disqualifying him for the episcopate, of having procured his election by bribery, and of having celebrated mass when excommunicate. The trial, however, was to be held, not at Rome, but at Ravenna; and it was to be conducted, not by Gregory, but by Archbishop Marinianus, whose sentence the Pope agreed to confirm. Further, if the accused distrusted the Metropolitan of Ravenna as too much under the influence of Rome, Constantius of Milan was to be invited to act as his assessor.

But in the end the trial was never held. Perhaps Marinianus thought better of Maximus than Gregory had done, perhaps he allowed himself to be persuaded by the Exarch. At any rate, on his suggestion, the Pope agreed to a milder course. Maximus was ordered to do penance for having celebrated mass when excommunicate, and to purge himself on oath of the other charges. So in July 599 the Metropolitan of Dalmatia lay for three hours on the bare stones in the streets of Ravenna, crying out, “Peccavi Deo et beatissimo Papae Gregorio!”. Then the Exarch Callinicus, Castorius a chartulary of the Roman Church, and Archbishop Marinianus raised him from the ground, and led him to the tomb of the blessed Apollinaris, where he took oath that he was guiltless of the crimes laid to his charge. After this there was handed to him a letter from Pope Gregory, readmitting him to communion, and bidding him send a messenger to receive the pallium according to custom.

Thus ended the affair of Maximus with the triumph of the Holy See. Gregory had no further trouble with the Church in Dalmatia. The archbishop himself seems to have reformed his ways. But he evidently found that his coveted bishopric was not, after all, a bed of roses. The last of the Salona letters was written by Gregory in July 600, to comfort his old opponent, who had asked for his advice and sympathy in his troubles.

“When our common son, the presbyter Veteranus, arrived in Rome, he found me so ill with the gout that I was quite unable myself to reply to your letter. With regard to the Slaves, who threaten to invade your province, I am greatly grieved and disquieted. I am grieved because I suffer when you suffer; and I am disquieted because they have already begun to pass through Istria into Italy. With regard to Julian the Scribo, I know not what to say, since I see on all sides that our sins are so visited upon us, that at the same time we are harassed by the Gentiles without and by the Governors within. Do not, however, grieve too much at this; for those who come after us will see yet worse times, and will think our age happy in comparison with theirs. But so far as you can, my brother, you must resist, these men on behalf of the poor and oppressed. Even if you fail in your effort, Almighty God is satisfied with the intention, which He Himself has put into the mind. For it is written: Rescue them that are drawn unto death, and forbear not to deliver them that are ready to be slain. And if you say, I have not strength enough, He knows who looks into the heart. In everything you do strive to appease Him who looks into the heart. Fail not to do everything that can win His favor. For human wrath and human favor are as smoke, which a puff of wind bears away and disperses. Feel assured that no one can please both God and evil men. In proportion as you find that you have displeased evil men, in the same proportion you may consider that you have pleased God. At the same time, you should be temperate in your defense of the poor, lest, if you act too rigidly, men should think that you are puffed up with a young man's pride. In protecting the oppressed, we ought rather to act in such a manner that, while the weak feel that they are protected by us, the oppressors, though evilly inclined towards us, may have difficulty in finding anything in our conduct to blame. With respect to the Frontinianists, I trust you will be very careful, and will continue your exertions to recall them to the bosom of the Holy Church. If any of them wish to come to me to be reasoned with, let them first swear that after such reasoning they will not allow their people to continue in their errors. Then your Holiness may promise them that they shall suffer no ill treatment from me, and that I will reason with them. If they recognize the truth, let them receive it; if they do not, I will send them away unharmed. If, however, any of them wish to come to me to complain of you, do nothing to detain them. If they come to me they will either receive satisfaction, or else you may feel sure that they will never see their country again”.

Evidently Rome was a dangerous place for schismatics and malcontents to visit, unless protected by a safe conduct. Perhaps, after all, Maximus was well-advised when he refused so obstinately to stand his trial there.