2 A. Under the Emperor Theodosius the Great, the see of Constantinople having been increased in honor by one hundred and fifty bishops in the second synod, at which not even legates of Rome were present, dissension and disturbance were stirred up.
3 A. Under Marcian, when Pope Leo had been reminded that the bishop of Constantinople was gradually seizing alien sees and attaching them to his own primacy, the Pope wrote letters also to Anatolius regarding this matter, but they availed nothing; for from that time the prelates of Constantinople did not cease to multiply rapine of this kind; a schism arose.
4 B. Under Zeno, Felix, the pontiff of Rome, was severed on account of the heretical patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, whom he even struck with an anathema; and those of Constantinople did the same, namely, by abolishing communion with and the name of Rome.
5 B. Under the Emperor Anastasius, after the death of the heretical Acacius and the promotion of Euphemius, or Euthymius, who did not delete the name of Acacius from the sacred diptychs, Pope Anastasius, who succeeded Felix and Gelasius, seceded.
6 C. Under the same Emperor Anastasius, while the schism persisted, Theodoric, who ruled at Rome—a man both a barbarian and an Arian—sent to the Emperor a Roman man of senatorial rank named Festus. To this Festus, therefore, the bishop of Constantinople, Macedonius, was a suppliant, that he might intercede for the union of the Churches.
7 C. Further, under the same Emperor Anastasius, Silvanus, an Eastern deacon, who had labored much for the sake of the right dogmas, went to Rome for the purpose of procuring this union, and that Pope Symmachus might consent to the union. However, not being admitted, he returned with his business unfinished.
8 D. Under the same Emperor Anastasius, Vitalianus, out of zeal, rose up for the Churches against Anastasius. And Anastasius yielding so that a synod might be held, the Romans also then gathered at Heraclea; and although there was an assembly of two hundred bishops in all, they nevertheless departed with their business unfinished. The Pope at that time was Hormisdas.
9 D. Under the same Emperor Anastasius, forty bishops from Illyricum and Greece, having separated, joined themselves to the Roman pontiff, Timothy.
10 D. After the death of the Emperor Justin, the Roman Church appears to have cultivated concord with us; for in the provincial synod that was celebrated against Severus and Anthimus, there were present also bishops from Italy with Pope Agapetus in the city of Constantinople.
Various Readings
The codices have "concord" [or "union"]. Codex has "Pope Timothy." Therefore let it be written "Theodore." The codices have "under." Codex has "separated." [index: entries preserved]Notes
(1) Inquiry regarding this synod of Heraclea.A And Vigilius consented to the fifth ecumenical synod.
11. Under Constantine Pogonatus, the Romans were subject; for he abducted Pope Martin and relegated him to Cherson. Afterwards, under his son, the sixth synod being celebrated, Agatho consented through his legates. At that time, indeed, no canons were established; but a little later, the Romans being already absent, those canons which are called the sixth synod’s were written, in the reign of Rhinotmetus. And from that time those accusations began to be made against the Romans which canons 13, 36, and 55 represent; which canons, moreover, do not appear to have been received by the Romans afterwards, nor weighed in the balance.
12. B Under Leo the Iconoclast, the Romans again separated themselves from the empire of the Constantinopolitans and from its Church, having cast off subjection and union, and having entered into a league with the Franks, while at the same time all of Italy fell away. They also forbade [the payment of] taxes, and Saint Gregory subjected the pseudo-patriarch Anastasius to anathema.
13. Again, under Constantine and Irene, the seventh synod being convened, Pope Adrian consented.
14. Under Photius of Constantinople, there was a great schism, and many were the accusations against the Romans, as his encyclical letter shows. But the union of the Churches having been brought about, as the synod celebrated by the same Photius demonstrates; and John, the pontiff of Rome, having been joined with us, and having recovered his most ancient privileges by canonical right, the accusations against the Romans—which the sixth synod, as we have said, and Photius himself had hurled—were entirely omitted without any examination. C Now, from the sixth synod to the seventh, one hundred and eight years elapsed; and the Churches were united, and no discourse took place concerning the errors of the Romans, except that the Iconoclast heresy supervened, for which cause they again made a schism. But from the seventh synod and onward, even until Photius, there was likewise no discourse stirred up concerning the errors of the Romans, which Photius and the sixth synod had mentioned. Moreover, Photius, after such clamor and perturbation, having been easily reconciled to the Romans, the union of the Churches likewise persisted. D
15. Nevertheless, under Sergius, who was patriarch under [Basil II] the Bulgar-slayer, it is said that a schism again occurred; but for what cause, I do not know. For it seems that it was a contention over the sees. But if indeed the errors of the Romans were unknown, perhaps no one would have blamed that communion; but since, from the sixth synod, the discernment...