The Judgment of

Pope Saint Symmachus

Canon Law, volume 7, pages 11-12, Charles Augustine: Canon 1556 Primae
Sedes a nemine judicatur. The first or primatial see is subject to no one’s judgment. This
proposition must be take in the fullest extent, not only with regard to the of infallibility.
For in matters of faith and morals it was always customary to receive the final sentence
from the Apostolic See, whose judgment no one dared to dispute, as the tradition of the
Fathers demonstrates. Neither was it ever allowed to reconsider questions or
controversies once settled by the Holy See. But even the person of the Supreme Pontiff
was ever considered as unamenable to human judgment, he being responsible and
answerable to God alone, even though accused of personal misdeeds and crimes. A
remarkable instance is that of Pope Symmachus (498-514). He, indeed, submitted to the
convocation of a council (the Synodus Palmaris, 502), because he deemed it his duty to
see to it that no stain was inflicted upon his character, but that synod itself is a splendid
vindication of our canon. The synod adopted the Apology of Ennodius of Padua, in
which occurs the noteworthy sentence: “God wishes the causes of other men tobe decided
by men; but He has reserved to His own tribunal, without question, the ruler of this see.”
No further argument for the traditional view is required. A general council could not
judge the Pope, because, unless convoked or ratified by him, it could not render a valid
sentence. Hence nothing it left but an appeal to God, who will take care of His church
and its head.

Saint Avitus, commenting on the attempted judgment of Pope

Symmachus: For it is not easy to apprehend how the superior can be judged by his
inferiors, especially the head of the Church.
While we were anxious and fearful for the cause of the Roman Church,
feeling that our State tottered when its head was attacked, . . . . there was brought to us a
copy of a sacerdotal decree, which the bishops of Italy, assembled in the City, had issued
concerning Pope Symmachus. Although the assent of a large and reverend Synod
rendered this Constitution worthy of observation, we nevertheless knew that Pope
Symmachus, if he had been accused in the world, ought to have received consolation
from his fellow-priests, rather than judgment we cannot easily understand with what
reason or law a superior is judged by his inferiors the same venerable Synod reserved for
Divine examination the cause which, saving the reverence due to it, it had rashly
undertaken . . . . Which being shown, as myself a Roman senator and a Christian bishop,
I solemnly call upon you that you do not less respect the See of Peter in your Church,
than you do the height of power in the City. If anything weakens in other priests, it may
be strengthened, but if the Pope of Rome is called into question, not merely a bishop, but
the episcopate, seems to totter. . . . He who governs the fold of the Lord will give an
account of his care of the lambs entrusted to him; again, it is the province of the Judge,
not of the flock, to correct the shepherd.

1
 From Parson’s Church History

CHAPTER XXX.
THE Palmaris SYNOD, AND THE CAUSE OF POPE SYMMACHUS.
Pope Symmachus, a Sardinian by birth, and, at the time of his election,
archdeacon of Sumana, ascended the Papal chair on Nov. 22, 498. Italy was at that time
dominated by Theodoric the Goth, who having been sent in 488 by the emperor Zeno to
crush Odoacer, had founded the line of Gothic kings which was to rule the peninsula until
553, when Narses would restore it to the empire. On the very day that Symmachus
undertook the government of the Church, a grievous schism was inaugurated in Rome by
the consecration of an anti-Pope, Laurence, of the title of St. Praxedes, whose election by
a faction of malcontents had been procured by the money of Festus, a creature of the
emperor Anastasius. Blood was shed in the streets, and Theodoric interfered, declaring
that he should be regarded as Pontiff, who was first elected by a majority of votes. But
the schism was not easily healed. Festus, aided by the senator Probinus, accused the
Pontiff of various heavy crimes, and aided openly with the Laurentians. The schismatics
went so far as to urge Theodoric to appoint a Visitor to Rome, whose province it should
be to investigate the charges against Symmachus. Peter, bishop of Altino, was
accordingly sent to exercise the ungracious office of inspector into the doings of the Holy
See, to the indignation of the Pontiff and the disgust of the faithful. A Synod was
convoked by Peter in 501, but the Pope refused to attend it, or in any way countenance it.
Theodoric, at this time, was devoting all his energies to the consolidation of his power,
and, although an Arian, was desirous of conciliating the Romans. He therefore
endeavored to put an end to the schism which his officious representatives had originated.
He desired that another Synod should be held, and the Pontiff willingly co-operated. The
first session was celebrated (502) in the Julian Basilica; the second in that of the Holy
Cross; and the third in the vestibule of St. Peter's, the entrance to which, being designated
as palmaris (excellent), has given its name to the whole Synod. Immediately upon
entering the Council, Symmachus gave thanks to Theodoric for having furthered the
meeting, and openly declared that it had been called by the Pontiff's own desire. In the
first session, it was shown that the schismatics had been guilty of violence towards
Symmachus, and had wounded many of his attendant clergy. When the Synod referred
this crime to the cognizance of Theodoric, that Arian monarch gave an example to
Catholic sovereigns as to their duty in treating ecclesiastical causes: " It was for the
discretion of the Synod to prescribe what should be done in an affair of such moment;
and for the sake of reverence to it, the king had nothing to do with ecclesiastical affairs.
He committed to the will of the bishops, to decide what was the more useful, whether to
attend to the affair in question, or not; provided that the venerable Council arranged that
peace should be enjoyed by all Christians in the Roman city." The Synod then decreed
that the cause of Symmachus should be referred to the divine judgment; that he should be
regarded as pure of crime, and innocent of the charges brought against him; that he
should enjoy all the rights of the Supreme Pontificate, in and outside of the city. As to the
schismatic clergy, it was resolved that they should, in mercy, be allowed to retain their
benefices, if they gave satisfaction to the Pontiff; if any of them should presume to
officiate, without the Papal sanction, they should abide by the canonical penalties. The
schismatics did not submit to the decrees of the Palmaris Synod; they sought to bring it

2
into contempt by distributing among the people copies of an inflammatory circular
entitled "Against the Synod of Unbefitting Absolution." To counteract this document,
Ennodius, a deacon of Ticino, wrote an "Apology" for the Synod; and in another council,
held in 503, the fathers decreed that the said writing should be regarded as possessing
Synodical authority.
Launoy adduces the history of this Palmaris Synod to prove that a Roman Pontiff
may be cited for judgment in an episcopal Council. The fathers of this Synod, however,
were of a different opinion. In the Acts, we read that the bishops of Venice, AEmilia, and
Tuscany, met Theodoric at Ravenna, on their way to Rome, and asked why they should
be compelled, in their old age, to make such a journey. " The aforesaid most pious king
answered that many horrid reports had reached him concerning the actions of Pope
Symmachus, and that a Synod ought to judge as to the truth of the hostile accusations.
The aforesaid bishops suggested that he who was accused ought to convoke the Synod,
knowing that the merit and principality of the Apostle Peter had first given him a singular
power over the churches, and that afterwards, following the commands of the Lord, the
authority of venerable Councils had recognized it; nor was it in any way shown that the
bishop of the aforesaid See was subject to the judgment of his inferiors. But the most
powerful prince signified that the Pope himself had shown, by his letters, his consent to a
convocation of the Synod. His Gentleness was then requested to furnish the letters sent
by the Pontiff, and he ordered that they should be given without delay." To escape the
force of this testimony, Launoy replies that by the term "inferiors " in the cited Acts, we
are not obliged to understand the bishops of the Church. Symmachus himself, as well as
his predecessors, designated the bishops as his brethren, colleagues, co-ministers, fellow-
priests, and brother-bishops. Symmachus, insists Launoy, was so far from thinking that
the bishops were his inferiors, that he wrote (1): "As in the Trinity there is a one and
individual power, so, among the various bishops, there is but one priesthood." Again, the
bishops of the Roman Synod did not say to Symmachus: "We are not your judges; judge
you yourself. Like the Prophet, you can say to God: 'To Thee alone have I sinned.'" On
the contrary, these prelates heard the accusations, and pronounced judgment according to
the evidence before their tribunal. But Launoy neglects to observe that the bishops of the
Roman Synod show, in their remark to Theodoric, that they applied the term "inferiors"
to themselves, and not merely to the clerics, senators, and people. Passing by the fact that
they called "inferiors " those whom the king wished to judge the Pontiff's cause, who
were certainly themselves, and no others, we note that they assign as a reason for their
assertion, the sublime dignity of Peter and the power over the churches given him by the
Lord. But this power was over the bishops as well as over the priests and people, over the
sheep as well as the lambs. Were it otherwise, the Lord, on account of "the merit and
principality of the Apostle Peter," would not have "given him a singular power over the
churches," but only one common to the other bishops, and merely equal to their own. Nor
do the words of Symmachus, which Launoy cites from the letter to the bishop of Arles,
prove anything for the Gallican theory. The priesthood certainly is one, but there are in it,
by the institution of Christ, certain grades of dignity and power, the chief of which is the
Supreme Pontificate. The conduct of Pope Symmachus in reference to the bishops of
Arles and Vienne shows that he regarded them as "inferior" to himself; when a
controversy arose as to the relative position and privilege of these churches, he cited both
prelates before his tribunal, judged the cause, and ordered both to observe the decrees of

3
Pope St. Leo (1). Cresarius of Arles regarded himself as "inferior" to Symmachus, when
he wrote to him: "Just as the episcopacy takes its source in the person of Blessed Peter
the Apostle, so it is needful that your Holiness should clearly indicate, by appropriate
regulations, what each church should observe." The Oriental schismatics regarded
themselves as "inferior" to the Pontiff, when, begging him to dissolve the
excommunication which, as followers of Acacius, they had incurred, they declared: "Not
only the power of binding is given you, but also, that you may imitate the Master, the
power of loosing wherefore, we beseech you to cancel our later sentence, as Christ our
Saviour and Leader cancelled the old one on the cross." Nor is the equality of the bishops
with the Pontiff demonstrated by the judgment on Symmachus pronounced in the Roman
Synod. For it is clearly shown in the Acts that the prelates did not judge until they were
convinced of the consent of the Pope to such action. The mind of the bishops is fully
illustrated in the Apology of Ennodius of Ticino, to which they gave Synodical authority:
"God wished the causes of other men to be decided by men; but He reserved to His own
tribunal, without question, the Ruler of this See To one only was it said ‘Thou art Peter,'
&c. By the voice of the holy Pontiffs the dignity of this See is made venerable throughout
the world; for wherever there are any faithful, there submission to it is practised, and it is
called the Head of the whole body. It seems to me that to this (dignity) refers the saying
of the Prophet: If this is humbled, to what help can you recur?'" That the mind of the
bishops, in this matter, was the same as that of Ennodius, is shown by the Acts of the
Fifth Synod, in which action was taken against those who contemned the Palmaris Synod.
The prelates decreed: "'Let the book be brought before us, and in our presence read and
approved, which was written with Synodal authority by Ennodius, against those who
presumed to mutter against the 4th Synod.' Which having been read, and unanimously
approved, the Holy Synod said: 'Let these be preserved for future times, and let them be
observed by every one, and in every point. Let this book be regarded by all as entirely
Synodical, and let it be placed between the Actions of our Fourth and those of our Fifth
Synod; and let it be held the same as the Decrees of these Synods, because it has been
written and approved by the Synodical authority.' To which things the thrice Blessed
Pope replied: Let it be done according to the will of you all, and as you judge let the book
have Apostolic authority, and let it be placed, as you say, among the Apostolic Decrees,
and let it be held by all as are held the other Apostolic Decrees.'"
That the bishops of those days were fully persuaded that the Supreme Pontiff was
not amenable to their tribunal, is also indicated by the manner in which the prelates of
Gaulreceived the news of the celebration of the Palmaris Synod. Perhaps they did not
know that Symmachus had given his consent to the holding of the assembly, but, at any
rate, the following complaining letter was sent, in their name, by Avitus of Vienne, to the
senators Faust and Symmachus: " While we were anxious and fearful for the cause of the
Roman Church, feeling that our State tottered when its Head was attacked, . . . . there was
brought to us a copy of a sacerdotal decree, which the bishops of Italy, assembled in the
City, had issued concerning Pope Symmachus. Although the assent of a large and
reverend Synod rendered this constitution worthy of observation, we nevertheless knew
that Pope Symmachus, if he had been accused in the world, ought to have received
consolation from his fellow-priests, rather than judgment we cannot easily understand
with what reason or law a superior is judged by his inferiors the same venerable Synod
reserved for divine examination the cause which, saving the reverence due to it, it had

4
rashly undertaken. Which being known, I, a Roman senator and a Christian bishop, do
solemnly call upon you that you do not less respect the See of Peter in your Church, than
you do the height of power in the City. If anything weakens in other priests, it may be
strengthened. But if the Pope of Rome is called into question, not merely a bishop, but
the episcopate, seems to totter. He who governs the fold of the Lord will give an account
of his care of the lambs entrusted to him; for the rest, it is not the province of the flock to
terrify the shepherd, but of the Judge."
But why, it may be asked, did Pope Symmachus allow his case to be submitted to
the Palmaris Synod, if he did not recognize its authority in the premises? Simply because,
in certain circumstances, it may become the duty of a person high in authority to see that
no stain is inflicted upon his character; to guard against any loss of reputation which
would render his rule less efficacious; to provide, in fine, against any scandalizing of the
weak. Thus, more than once have Roman Pontiffs wished even the emperors to attest
their innocence of crimes imputed to them. St. Sylvester, accused of sacrilege, referred
his cause to the tribunal of Constantine. St. Damasus, in similar circumstances, laid his
case before Gratian. We read in the Book of Lives f the Pontiffs that Pelagius I. wished to
vindicate himself, before the people, of the charge of having conspired against the life of
Pope Vigilius. Anastasius tells us, in the Life of Leo III., that the Pontiff brought together
a large number of bishops and abbots, both Romans and Gauls, in the church of St. Peter,
to certify to his innocence of certain crimes laid at his door; that the prelates declared:
"We do not dare to judge the Apostolic See, which is the head of all the churches of God.
For by it, and by its Vicar, we are all judged; it, however, is judged by no one. Such has
been the ancient custom." The spirit which animated the Roman Pontiffs, when they
sometimes permitted their actions to be discussed by their inferiors, was well illustrated
by St. Gregory the Great: Certainly Peter had received the power of the heavenly
kingdom, that whatever he should bind on earth, &c . . . . And because he had entered
unto the Gentile Cornelius, having been impelled by the Spirit to do so, the faithful took
issue with him. Nevertheless, this same prince of the Apostles did not answer the
complaints of the faithful by appealing to his power, but by reason; he explained the thing
in detail. If, when he was accused by the faithful, he had thought only of the power which
he had received over the Church, he could have replied that the pastor should not be
reproved by the flock committed to his care. But had he alleged anything as to his power,
when the faithful complained, he certainly would not have been a teacher of meekness."
1

5
6