HOME CHAT NAB PRAYERS FORUMS COMMUNITY RCIA MAGAZINE CATECHISM LINKS CONTACT
 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 CATHOLIC SAINTS INDEX  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 CATHOLIC DICTIONARY  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Home
 
Bible
 
Catechism
 
Chat
 
Catholic Encyclopedia
 
Church Fathers
 
Classics Library
 
Church Documents
 
Discussion
 
Mysticism
 
Prayer
 
Prayer Requests
 
RCIA
 
Vocations
 
Ray of Hope
 
Saints
 
Social Doctrine
 
Links
 
Contact
 







A History Of The Church In Six Books by Evagrius

THIS stir was further increased by Simeon, an Acoemet, who had been dispatched to Rome by Cyril. He expressly charged Misenus and Vitalis with holding communion with the heretics, by distinctly uttering the name of Peter in the reading of the sacred diptychs; and affirmed that many simple persons had, on this ground, been beguiled by the heretics, who said that Peter was admitted to the communion even of the Roman see: and, further, in reply to various interrogatories, Simeon said that Misenus and his party had declined to have communication with any orthodox person, either in person or by letter, or to sift any of the presumptuous attempts upon the right faith. There was also brought forward Silvanus, a presbyter, who had been in company with Misenus and Vitalis at Constantinople, and he confirmed the statement of the monks. There was read, too, a letter from Acacius to Simplicins, to the effect that Peter had been long ago deposed and had become a child of night. On these grounds Misenus and vitalis were removed from the priesthood and severed from the holy communion, when a unanimous vote was passed by the synod, in the following terms: “The church of the Romans does not admit Peter, the heretic, who has also been long ago condemned by the holy see, excommunicated, and anathematised. To whom, if there were no other objection, this is sufficient, namely, that having been ordained by heretics, he could not have authority over the orthodox.” The decree also contains what follows: “The mere circumstance shews Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, to have incurred very great responsibility, because, writing to Simplicius and having termed Peter a heretic, he has nevertheless made no such declaration to the emperor: which was his duty, if he were loyal to him. He is, however, more partial to the emperor than to the faith.”

Let me now return to the order of events. There is extant an epistle from Acacius to the Egyptian bishops, the clergy, monks, and the people in general, by which he endeavours to heal the existing schism: on which subject he also wrote to Peter, bishop of Alexandria.








Copyright ©1999-2018 e-Catholic2000.com