- When time passed and there was neither a sign of
them nor a message from them, Julius decided to open the
Council sessions anyway.
The case of Athanasius did not drag: the
abstention of the Eusebians; the presence of Athanasius
with his modest but firm assurance, and the radiance of
his glorious deeds; the testimony – written and verbal – of
the Egyptian clergy; the examination of the reports sent to
serve as a basis for the accusations against him-all these
facts called for the justification of the Alexandrian Pope,
and proclaimed his innocence. The council of Rome
unanimously confirmed him in his rights and maintained
him in the communion of the Church.
During this procedure, the envoys of Julius arrived
from the East. Their crestfallen mien declared only too
plainly that they carried bad news. The Arians, with their
Eusebian allies refused to attend. Instead of giving a
direct refusal, their reply was subtle. Its purport was that
the Christian Church never acknowledged the rule of the
individual, hence an invitation to a council, signed by one
person, is to be discredited even if that person was the
bishop of Rome. For, though Rome was the Imperial
Capital, yet it was out of the Orient that the Gospel had
been proclaimed. Why, then, did Julius write to them in
his own name? Why did he not accept as valid the verdict
of the council of Tyre whereby Athanasius was deposed?
Are not the decrees of a council immutable until another
council rescinds them? Besides, the Emperor of the East
was waging war on Persia and it was not appropriate that
they should leave their Sees during such a crisis.^28
Thereupon the Fathers of the council of Rome
decided to answer. They sent the acts of their assembly in
a letter which Julius was charged to transmit to the
Eusebians. The letter is exceedingly interesting both as a
elle
(Elle)
#1