To Constantius, Bishop of Milan, on the Bishops of Brescia and the Fifth Council

Gregory to Constantius, bishop of Milan. Having read your holiness’s letter, we find that you are in serious distress, chiefly because of the bishops and citizens of Brescia, who ask you to send them a letter in which you swear that you have not condemned the Three Chapters. Now if your fraternity’s predecessor Laurentius did not do this, it ought not to be required of you. But if he did it, he was not with the universal church, and he contradicted what he had sworn to in his written pledge. But since we believe that he kept his oath and remained in the unity of the catholic church, there is no doubt that he did not swear to any of his bishops that he had not condemned the Three Chapters. From this your holiness may conclude that you ought not to be forced to do what your predecessor never did at all. But so that those who have written to you in this way are not offended, send them a letter declaring, under pain of anathema, that you neither take away anything from the faith of the Synod of Chalcedon nor have received those who do, and that you condemn whomever it condemned and acquit whomever it acquitted. In this way I believe they may very soon be satisfied. [a]

Further, you write that many of them are offended because you name our brother and fellow bishop John of the church of Ravenna during the solemn rites of the mass. You should look into the ancient custom. If it has been the custom, foolish men ought not to find fault with it now. But if it has not been the custom, nothing should be done at which some may possibly take offense. Yet I have taken pains to inquire carefully whether this same John, our brother and fellow bishop, names you at the altar, and they say that he does not. And if he makes no mention of your name, I do not know what need obliges you to mention his. If indeed it can be done without anyone taking offense, it is very praiseworthy for you to do something of this kind, since you show the love you have toward your brothers. [c]

Further, you write that you were unwilling to pass on my letter to Queen Theodelinda because the fifth synod was named in it. If you believed she might be offended by it, you did right not to pass it on. So we are now doing as you advise, that is, expressing approval of the four synods only. Yet as to the synod that was held afterward in Constantinople, which many call the fifth, I want you to know that it neither decreed nor held anything against the four most holy synods. For nothing was done in it concerning the faith, but only concerning persons; and persons, too, about whom nothing is contained in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Rather, after the canons had been published, a discussion arose, and the matter of those persons was finally dealt with. Still, we have done as you wished and made no mention of this synod. But we have also written to our daughter the queen what you wrote to us about the bishops. As for Ursicinus, who wrote something to you against our brother and fellow bishop John, you ought to hold him back from his purpose by letters addressed to him, with kindness and reason. Further, concerning Fortunatus, we want your fraternity to be careful not to be influenced in any way by wicked men working behind your back. For I hear that he ate at the church’s table with your predecessor Laurentius for many years up to now, that he sat among the nobles and added his signature, and that he served in the army with our brother’s knowledge. And now, after so many years, your fraternity thinks he should be driven from the position he now holds. This seems to me altogether out of place. So I have given you this instruction through him, but privately. Still, if anything reasonable can be alleged against him, it ought to be laid before our judgment. And if it pleases Almighty God, we will send letters through your man to our son, the lord Dynamius. [d]