| |
BOOK II.
CHAPTER V.
GREGORY PATRIARCH OF THE WEST.
HIS RELATIONS WITH OTHER WESTERN CHURCHES
(g) The other Churches of Illyricum.
With the exception of Thrace, all the districts
comprehended in the two Illyricums, Eastern and
Western, were ecclesiastically subject to the control of the Patriarch of the
West. In this wide area there were several metropolitans and two Apostolic
Vicars. Of the latter, the oldest and highest in rank was the Bishop of
Thessalonica (Saloniki). The second was the Bishop of
Prima Justiniana (Scopia or Uskup), who was, perhaps, the most influential of the
bishops in Illyricum.He exercised metropolitan
jurisdiction over Dacia (Mediterranea and Ripensis), Upper Moesia, Dardania, Praevalitana, and Pannonia; he was ordained “by the
venerable council of his own metropolitans”; and in the provinces subject to
him he acted as the representative of the Western Patriarch, “according to the
constitution of the most holy Pope Vigilius”.
In the second year of Gregory’s pontificate, one John
was elected Archbishop of Prima Justiniana, by the
unanimous vote of all the bishops of the province and with the consent of the
Emperor. In conformity with precedent, the bishops consecrated him themselves,
and requested the Pope to ratify their choice and send the pallium to the new
metropolitan. With this petition Gregory was very glad to comply. “According to
your desire and request”, he wrote, “we confirm by the authority of our assent
our aforesaid brother and fellow-bishop in the episcopal rank in which he has
been placed, and we show that we consider his consecration valid by sending him
the pallium. We have also, according to custom, appointed him our Vicar”. At a
later time he wrote a sharp reproof to Felix bishop of Sophia, who was
disobedient to John, threatening him with canonical punishment if he continued
contumacious. “But it will be well”, he added, “if you allow your mature reflexion to make you what the canon law will force you to
become”.
Before long a case was brought on appeal to Rome, in
which John was rather discreditably concerned. As this affair throws a curious
light on the administration of ecclesiastical law in these dioceses, and on the
part sometimes played by the Emperor in ecclesiastical disputes, it will be
worthwhile to give the details.
Thebes was a city in Phthiotis,
of which district Larissa in Thessaly was the metropolis. Pope Pelagius the
Second, however, had expressly exempted Thebes from the jurisdiction of the
Archbishop of Larissa. Now, two deacons of Thebes, Cosmas and John (both of
whom had been deposed, one for carnal sin and the other for embezzlement),
accused Bishop Adrian of Thebes to the Emperor of embezzlement, of a criminal misdemeanour in retaining in office a deacon named Stephen,
whose evil life was known to him, and, lastly, of refusing baptism to certain
infants, in consequence of which they died in sin. The Emperor directed the
Archbishop of Larissa to take cognizance of the matter, ordering him to pass
sentence on the charges of embezzlement, and to make a report concerning the
others. The archbishop, accordingly, notwithstanding the exemption of Thebes
from his jurisdiction, tried Adrian on the pecuniary count and condemned him.
Thereupon the condemned bishop appealed to the Emperor, who then made a second
order that Gregory’s responsalis,
Honoratus, and the Chancellor Sebastian, should open an inquiry; and later,
having received from them a favorable report, he exempted Adrian from all
further proceedings, and sent a notification to that effect to the Metropolitan
of Achaia. Meanwhile the Archbishop of Larissa had shut up the unfortunate
Adrian in a stifling dungeon, where he kept him a close prisoner until he had
extorted from him a confession, frankly acknowledging his guilt in the
pecuniary question, and admitting the other charges in ambiguous and uncertain
terms. When this document was signed, Adrian was released. But in consequence
of the confession, the Emperor issued a third order that the whole affair
should be reopened, and that John of Prima Justiniana should conduct the examination.
In the trial which followed many illegalities were
committed, and amongst the rest, Demetrius, a deacon of Thebes, was degraded
from his rank and scourged. As the result of the trial, the sentence of the
Archbishop of Larissa was confirmed by John, and Adrian was degraded from the
episcopate. Then at last the Bishop of Thebes betook himself to Rome, and
appealed to the Pope for justice. Gregory sent a summons to his accusers, but
as none of them put in an appearance, he was obliged to be content with examining
the records of the former trials. The conclusions he reached were that Cosmas
and John were untruthful witnesses; that there was no evidence to show that
Adrian knew of Stephen's crime; that there was no evidence to prove that Adrian
had issued the order about the infants, or that the said infants had died
unbaptized; that the confession of Adrian had been extorted by violence, and
was not true; that the treatment of Demetrius in the last trial was grossly
uncanonical.
The Pope, therefore, declared the past proceedings
null and void, restored Adrian to his bishopric, and ordered all his property
to be returned to him. Moreover, he forbade the Archbishop of Larissa, on pain
of excommunication, ever in future to exercise metropolitan jurisdiction over
the bishops of Thebes. To John of Prima Justiniana he
sent a very stern reproof: “After first cancelling and utterly annulling the
sentence you passed, we, by the authority of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles,
decree that for the space of thirty days you remain deprived of the Holy
Communion, while, with the deepest penitence and tears, you win from Almighty
God by your prayers the pardon for so great a crime. If you do not carefully
comply with this sentence, you may rest assured that with God's help we shall
punish you with all the greater severity, since you will have shown yourself
not only unjust, but also contumacious”.
Adrian eventually was reconciled to his accusers. But
the story of his various trials is in many respects instructive. In the first
place, we may note that the appeal was first made to the Emperor, who took up
the matter without any reference to the Bishop of Rome. It was only in the last
resort that recourse was had to the Pope. Secondly, it is observable that, when
appealed to, Gregory claimed and exercised, as a matter of course, a supreme
jurisdiction over the Churches of Illyricum, and that his authority was
apparently not resisted by either the Emperor or the bishops. Lastly, we remark
the extraordinary unfairness and illegality with which ecclesiastical trials
were conducted. In the light of such cases as this we cannot wonder that clergy
frequently preferred to go before the secular judges rather than the bishops.
Although Gregory had no hesitation in rebuking the
Metropolitan of Prima Justiniana when his faults
required it, he was nevertheless his very good friend, and on one occasion he
even interfered to prevent his being unjustly treated by the Emperor. It was
reported that Maurice had determined to depose John on account of his bad
health. As soon as the news reached him, Gregory wrote as follows to Anatolius,
his responsalis at Constantinople:
“Your Affection has informed me that our Most Religious Sovereign is giving
orders for the appointment of a successor to our most reverend brother John,
bishop of Prima Justiniana, on the ground that the
said bishop is suffering from a disease of the head, and it is feared that if
his city be left without a bishop's authority it may be destroyed by the
enemy—which God forbid. Now, the canons nowhere direct that a bishop should be
superseded on account of ill health, and it is thoroughly unjust that a man
should be deprived of his rank because he has become ill. It is therefore
impossible for me to concur in his deposition, lest I should bring a sin upon
my soul by so doing. You must accordingly submit that if the bishop is ill he
should not be deposed, but a coadjutor should be appointed to manage his
affairs for him, and to fill his place both as ruler of the Church and as
guardian of the city. If, however, it should happen that he should himself
express a wish to resign his episcopal office on account of ill health, he
should be permitted to do so, on sending a written petition to that effect.
Otherwise we cannot, for fear of Almighty God, consent to what is proposed. If
the bishop will not ask for permission to resign, our Most Religious Sovereign
has the power of doing what he likes and carrying out whatever he orders. He
may make such arrangements as he thinks fit, only he must not expect us to take
part in the deposition of such a man. If what he does is in accordance with the
canons, we conform to it; if it is not, we submit to it, as far as we can do so
without sin”.
The last sentences in this letter are not a little
remarkable. They illustrate Gregory's sentiments respecting the right of the
Emperor to interfere in ecclesiastical concerns, and the obligation of all his
subjects to acquiesce in his decisions. Even the Pope, God-appointed guardian
of the canons as he is, has only a right of protest against decrees which
appear to be wrong; he is not at liberty to disobey. With this subject I shall
deal more fully in a later chapter. Here it is sufficient to call attention to
Gregory's view. His protest, in the present case, seems to have been effectual,
and John was permitted to retain his see.
In 595 Anastasius, bishop of Corinth and metropolitan
of Achaia, was accused of various crimes, and Gregory committed the
investigation and judgment of his case to a bishop named Secundinus. Anastasius
was condemned and degraded. After his successor was elected and consecrated,
the bishops of the province sent one of their number with letters, informing
Gregory of the fact, and begging him to send the pallium to their new
metropolitan according to custom. Gregory complied with their request. At the
same time, he wrote both to them and to the metropolitan, to urge them to make
an organized effort to crush out the "simoniacal heresy," which was sapping the vitality of the Churches in their regions.
“I have been informed that in your province no one is
admitted to Holy Orders without some payment. If this be the case, I say with
tears, I declare with groans, that when the order of the priesthood is
corrupted inwardly, it cannot long preserve its position outwardly. We know
from the Gospel what our Redeemer Himself did—how He went into the Temple and
overthrew the seats of them that sold doves. To sell doves is to receive any
temporal advantage from the gift of the Holy Ghost—that Holy Ghost consubstantial
with the Father, which God Almighty bestows on men by the laying on of hands.
The consequences of this, as I have already said, are clear. The seats of those
who sell doves in God's temple will fall by God's judgment. And this sin is
propagated and spread yet more widely among your inferiors. For he who pays for
his admission to Holy Orders, since the very root of his promotion is cankered,
is the more ready to sell to others what he has bought himself. And then what
becomes of that which is written: Freely ye have received, freely give.
And as simony was the first heresy which arose against the Holy Church, why do
not men consider, why do they not understand, that when a bishop receives money
for ordaining any one, he, by thus promoting him, causes him to become a
heretic? Since, then, this abominable wickedness is condemned by the whole
Church, I exhort you to remove at once, by all means in your power, such a
detestable, such a fearful sin from all the places under your care. For if we
hear of such things happening again, we shall no longer content ourselves with
words, but shall inflict canonical punishment, and shall begin to have an
opinion of you other than we ought to have”.
Simony seems, indeed, to have been very prevalent
throughout the whole of Illyricum, and Gregory in the same year took the
opportunity to write a denunciation of it, in almost identical terms, to the
bishops of Epirus, who had recently consecrated a metropolitan at Nicopolis.
Possibly the intercourse and intimate connection of the bishops of Illyricum
with the Imperial court at Constantinople, where every office and dignity was
put up to sale, tended to promote the spread of this evil. In the West, as will
be shown, simony was flagrant among the Franks, and Gregory was untiring in his
endeavors to check the scandal. But neither in the East nor in the West do the
Pope's efforts appear to have been very successful.
In 599 Gregory learned that the principal bishops of
Illyricum had been summoned to a synod at Constantinople, his own permission
not having previously been asked. He wrote, therefore, to warn them that
nothing done in the synod would have any force without the authority and
consent of the Apostolic See. He feared that the summons was merely preparatory
to persuading the bishops to sanction the Patriarch of Constantinople's
assumption of the title of “Ecumenical Bishop”, and he urgently charged the
bishops on no account to agree thereto. “Do not allow, through any cajolery, a
synod to be held on this subject: such a synod would not be legitimate, nor
could it rightfully be called a synod”. Even if it turned out that the assembly
was about some other matter, he still begged the bishops to exercise the
greatest caution, “lest anything be therein decreed against any place or
person, prejudicially or unlawfully, or in opposition to the canons”.
Finally, in the last year of his pontificate Gregory
was concerned in an affair which once again brought him into collision with the
Emperor. It seems that, on account of an incursion of the Slavs, the Bishop of
Euria in Epirus Vetus, had fled with his clergy and the body of their patron
saint Donatus to a place in the island of Corfu called Cassiopi Castrum. Here the bishop wished to bury the body of St. Donatus and to exercise
episcopal jurisdiction over the refugees; and he even obtained from Maurice a decree
separating the place from the diocese of Corfu, and in effect constituting it a
new see for the Bishop of Euria. This decree, however, according to Gregory,
was gained by misrepresentation, and was so flagrantly illegal that it was
never carried out. Later on, however, the Emperor directed Andrew, bishop of
Nicopolis and metropolitan of Epirus, to investigate the case and decide it in
accordance with the canons. Andrew then ruled that Cassiopi Castrum should remain under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Corfu, in whose
diocese it always was; and his decision was confirmed by Gregory, “with the
authority of the Apostolic See”. Before, however, the sentence was promulgated,
Andrew of Nicopolis died, Maurice was dethroned, and Phocas, the new Emperor, was
induced to renew his predecessor's first decree in favour of the Bishop of Euria.
Then Gregory wrote to Boniface, his responsalis at Constantinople : “I have thought
it right not to publish my decision, lest I should appear to be acting contrary
to the commands of my Most Gracious Lord the Emperor, or in contempt of
him—which God forbid! I beg your Affection to lay the whole case carefully
before his Piety, and to steadily assert that this arrangement is altogether
illegal, altogether wrong, altogether unjust, thoroughly at variance with the
sacred canons, and that therefore he should not allow such a wrong to be
committed in his reign to the prejudice of the Church. Tell him the contents of
the judgment delivered by the Bishop of Nicopolis, and inform him that the
sentence was confirmed by us. Try to arrange that our decree should be sent to
the place together with a decree from him, so that we may be seen both to have
shown due regard to his Serenity, and to have fitly corrected what was done
with evil presumption. And in this matter you must do your utmost that, if
possible, the Emperor himself may issue a decree that our decision is to be
maintained. For if this be done, no loophole will be left for further
misrepresentation”.
How far Gregory’s compliance would have gone, had the
Emperor persisted in maintaining his decree, it is impossible to say.
Fortunately, the affair was satisfactorily arranged. Before an answer came from
Constantinople, the Bishop of Euria made a written proposal, which the Pope
approved. He asked permission to bury the body of St. Donatus in the Basilica
of St. John at Cassiopi Castrum, on the understanding
that he should be at liberty to remove it again in case he was ever able to
return to Euria. On the other hand, he promised to give the Bishop of Corfu a
written engagement that he would neither exercise episcopal jurisdiction nor
claim any privilege in the place as though he were the regular bishop. With
this agreement all parties were satisfied.
It will be seen from the above account that, in his
dealings with the Churches of the West, Gregory acted invariably on the
assumption that all were subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Of the
rights claimed or exercised by his predecessors he would not abate one title;
on the contrary, he did everything in his power to maintain, strengthen, and
extend what he regarded as the just prerogatives of the Papacy. It is true that
he respected the privileges of the Western metropolitans, and disapproved of
unnecessary interference within the sphere of their jurisdiction canonically
exercised. It is also true that in his relations with certain Churches (with
that of Africa, for instance) he found it expedient to abstain from any
obtrusive assertion of the claims of the Roman See. But of his general
principle there can be no doubt whatever.
The consistency, the firmness—I may also say the tact
and adroitness—with which he upheld the pretensions of his predecessors, his
genuine belief in the Apostolic authority of the See of St. Peter, and his
outspoken assertion of it, undoubtedly contributed greatly to build up the
system of Papal absolutism.
“It would be most unjust to compare him to a Gregory
VII or Innocent III, to Martin V or to Pius IX; yet the line which he took was
preparing the way for such successors, and formed an element in the process by
which an indefinite precedency and a limited patriarchate were, in effect, to
be superseded by a claim to dominion at once ecumenic in its scope and
autocratic in its character”.
THE END
|
