Pope Saint Symmachus (498-514)

The pope of a crisis of legitimacy

Symmachus matters first because his election lays bare an institutional problem: what is to be done when two Roman groups elect two bishops on the same day? On 22 November 498, the majority of the clergy elects Symmachus at the Lateran; a minority, backed by part of the Senate and by the current favourable to Constantinople, elects Laurentius at Saint Mary Major.^[7][8]

The crisis is aggravated by the Eastern context. Since 484, the Acacian schism has separated Rome and Constantinople over the Henotikon, an imperial text which seeks to pacify the East by leaving Chalcedon in the shadows.^[9] Chalcedon is the council of 451 which confesses Jesus Christ true God and true man; the Acacian schism is the rupture between Rome and Constantinople, open since 484, over this council. The partisans of Laurentius hope for a more conciliatory line towards Emperor Anastasius I; the partisans of Symmachus defend a firmer line, inherited from Felix III and Gelasius I.

The pope facing the power of Theodoric

The Ostrogothic king Theodoric, an Arian but the political master of Italy, is called upon to decide. New Advent reports that he pronounces in favour of Symmachus because the latter was elected first and by the majority of the clergy.^[10] Treccani adds a nuance: the sources favourable to Symmachus invoke these criteria, while the Laurentians speak of gold and pressure; but the practical result remains the same — Symmachus is recognised.^[11]

This intervention is ambiguous. It puts an end to the first phase of the double election, but it brings the king into an ecclesiastical dossier. The whole pontificate will therefore have to hold a difficult line: accepting the civil order when it protects public peace, but refusing to let temporal power become a doctrinal judge or the judge of the pontiff.

The pope whom the forgeries must not discredit

The Symmachian dossier often has a bad reputation because of the Symmachian forgeries. These apocryphal pieces claim to show, through ancient examples, that popes cannot be judged by bishops or ordinary tribunals.^[12] They belong to the polemical struggle of the early sixth century and must not be used as historical sources.

But the existence of forgeries is not enough to invalidate the whole cause. Crises often produce bad documents around genuine questions. Here the genuine question is grave: how to protect the apostolic see against instrumentalised accusations, without denying that the pope will have to render an account before God? Catholicism needs no forgeries to confess that the Church of Rome holds a unique place; on the contrary, it must distinguish the forged document from the doctrine which will legitimately mature in the canonical tradition, that is, in the rules of the Church handed down and gradually gathered into its law.

The Holy See and the chronological markers

The official file of the Holy See gives the basis: Symmachus, 51st pope, beginning of the pontificate on 22 November 498, end on 19 July 514, Sardinian origin.^[13] These markers correct the fluctuations of certain older notices which give above all the length of the pontificate.

The Liber Pontificalis adds the father's name, Fortunatus, and presents Symmachus as a Sardinian. Treccani notes that his family was probably of pagan origin and that Symmachus himself states he was baptised after his arrival in Rome.^[14] This detail is remarkable: a man from Sardinia, converted and integrated into the Roman clergy, becomes in 498 the bishop of the apostolic capital.

New Advent and Treccani

The notice by Johann Peter Kirsch in the Catholic Encyclopedia remains useful for its narrative richness: double election, arbitration of Theodoric, synods of 499 and 502, Roman violence, role of Laurentius, support of Avitus of Vienne, defence of Eastern orthodoxy, charitable action and buildings.^[15] It gives a continuous account, but one still marked by a reading very favourable to Symmachus.

Treccani, more recent, insists more on the plurality of the ancient biographies. Andrea Antonio Verardi recalls that four biographies of Symmachus have come down to us, written between 514 and 535: three favourable ones, linked to the tradition of the Liber Pontificalis, and one favourable to Laurentius, the Veronese or Laurentian fragment (an ancient account written by the partisans of Laurentius, his rival).^[16] This plurality obliges us not to write history as if only one side had spoken.

The Liber Pontificalis

The Liber Pontificalis is precious for the Roman work of Symmachus: churches, oratories, works around Saint Peter's, lodgings for the poor near the great basilicas, aid to exiled bishops, ransom of captives.^[17][18][19] But the source is favourable to the pope and must be read with a filter, especially where it touches on the schism.

Its principal interest is to show that Symmachus is not only the pope of a trial. He is also a builder and a social pastor. The last years of his pontificate, more peaceful under Theodoric, allow a visible work in Christian Rome.

Lateran against Saint Mary Major

On the very day of the death of Anastasius II, or immediately after, two Roman poles organise. The majority elects Symmachus at the Lateran; the minority elects the archpriest Laurentius at Saint Mary Major.^[20] The places are not neutral. The Lateran is the episcopal centre of Rome; Saint Mary Major is a great urban basilica, linked to powerful senatorial networks.

Treccani sums up the issue: the double election results from opposing sentiments and different ways of thinking about the Church and Rome, in the lived present and the future to be built.^[21] The formula is strong: this is not only about two ambitions. It is a conflict over the orientation of Rome between the Gothic West, the senatorial aristocracy and the Eastern Empire.

Festus, Probinus and the Eastern party

The sources name above all Festus and Probinus, influential senators, as leaders of the party hostile to Symmachus.^[22] Theodore the Lector, quoted by New Advent, states that Festus hoped to obtain from Laurentius a subscription to the Henotikon.^[23] This information is not on its own sufficient to explain the whole crisis, but it fits the political line of the Laurentian party.

The conflict is therefore an unstable mixture: electoral discipline, rivalries of clerics, senatorial politics, imperial pressures, memory of Anastasius II and the Acacian schism. A Catholic encyclopaedia must refuse to flatten it into "good pope against bad ambitious man". Laurentius is not a mere extra; he represents a real Roman option. But this option, too closely tied to Constantinople and to the Acacian compromise, ends up fracturing the Church of Rome.

The judgement of Theodoric

Both parties turn to Theodoric at Ravenna. The king decides in favour of Symmachus. New Advent gives two criteria: priority of the election and majority of the clergy.^[24] This choice allows the immediate recognition of the pope and the provisional submission of Laurentius.

Pacifying the pontifical election

On 1 March 499, Symmachus gathers a synod at Rome. Laurentius is then recognised as bishop of Nocera in Campania, a solution which removes him from Rome while sparing him a definitive humiliation.^[25] The synod also settles an explosive question: electoral manoeuvring during the pope's lifetime.

New Advent reports that any Roman cleric seeking to obtain votes for a successor during the pope's lifetime, or holding consultations to that end, was to be deposed.^[26] Treccani adds that the synod clarifies the succession: if the pope has not designated a successor, the decision falls to the majority of the clergy, and no longer to unanimity.^[27]

A self-interested reform, but a necessary one

Treccani notes that the resolutions were steered by Symmachus to his own advantage.^[28] This must be said. A pope who emerged from a double election frames future elections in a way that secures his own camp. But the immediate self-interest does not make the reform useless: the election of 498 showed that an impossible unanimity could deliver Rome to the factions.

The majority rule is not a perfect solution; it nevertheless reduces the capacity of an organised minority to create a second bishop. In a city where clergy, people and aristocracy no longer speak with a single voice, this disciplinary change matters.

The goods of the Church

Another dossier concerns ecclesiastical goods. New Advent reports that a session of 6 November 502 invalidates the edict of Prefect Basilius of 483 and that Symmachus issues a new rule on the administration and sale of the Church's goods.^[29] Treccani stresses the substance of the problem: the senatorial families which had founded or endowed Roman titles could exercise an economic influence over these churches.^[30]

The Laurentian schism is therefore not only doctrinal. It touches money, buildings, titles, aristocratic foundations and the concrete control of the Christian patrimony of Rome.

The Easter affair

In 501, the adversaries of Symmachus find an angle of attack: he celebrates Easter on 25 March according to the old Roman cycle, while others, notably in the Byzantine orbit, celebrate it on 22 April according to a different computation.^[31] The paschal quarrel becomes the pretext for graver accusations.

The adversaries seize Theodoric. Symmachus sets out towards the king, then learns at Rimini the content of the accusation. Refusing to recognise the king as judge of his pontificate, he returns to Rome.^[32] This refusal is central: Symmachus does not deny the civil role of the king, but he does not recognise in an Arian sovereign the power to judge the bishop of Rome.

The visitator Peter of Altinum

The adversaries then ask for the convocation of a synod and the appointment of a visitator to administer the Roman Church during the inquiry. Theodoric sends Peter of Altinum. Symmachus accepts the idea of a synod, but contests the presence of an administrator substituted for him.^[33]

The decision is politically dangerous. Appointing a visitator amounts in practice to suspending pontifical authority before judgement. Peter of Altinum, according to New Advent, lets himself be won over by the partisans of Laurentius, which reinforces the distrust of Symmachus.^[34]

Violence against the pope

During a session of the synod of 502, Symmachus attempts to go from Saint Peter's towards the Sessorian basilica, but he is attacked by his adversaries. New Advent reports that he is mistreated, escapes with difficulty, and that several priests accompanying him are killed or gravely wounded.^[35]

This detail changes the tone of the dossier. This is no longer merely a juridical dispute. Rome is in open violence. The pope withdraws near Saint Peter's, while the Lateran and several churches pass under Laurentian influence.

23 October 502

The decisive session is held on 23 October 502 and bears the name of Synodus Palmaris. New Advent explains that the name may come from the place, ad Palmata, or from the principal, "palmary", character of the session.^[36] The bishops finally refuse to judge Symmachus as an ordinary accused man.

The decision is prudent and theological: the accusations are not received as established; Symmachus is reputed free of the imputed crimes; the full exercise of his charge must return to him; those who return to his obedience will not be punished, but to exercise ecclesiastical functions at Rome without pontifical permission will be held as schismatic.^[37]

Reserving judgement to God

The most famous formula is that the ultimate decision must be left to the judgement of God.^[38] It does not mean that the pope would be unaccountable. It means that, in this precise case, a synod of Italian bishops convened under royal and factional pressure cannot set itself up as the superior tribunal of the Roman see.

Avitus of Vienne understands it thus. In his letter to the Roman senators, he writes that the synod more surely reserved the affair to the divine judgement, while noting that neither he nor Theodoric had found any substance in the accusations.^[39]

"The venerable synod more surely reserved this case to the divine examination, while indicating that neither it nor the most glorious king Theodoric had discovered what was laid against the pope." — Saint Avitus of Vienne, letter to the senators Faustus and Symmachus (translation)^[40]

A principle to be purified

The partisans of Symmachus go further with the Symmachian forgeries. They fabricate precedents to support the thesis that the pope cannot be judged by a tribunal of bishops.^[41] These texts must be set aside. But the crisis did contribute to formulating a principle which would become central in canon law: the first see is judged by no one.

The correct Catholic formulation is therefore twofold. Historically: the forgeries are forgeries. Theologically: the Roman primacy does not rest on them; it unfolds from the Gospel, from the Petrine succession, from ancient Roman practice and from later canonical reception. Symmachus is a moment of crystallisation, not an apocryphal proof to be used without examination.

Laurentius at the Lateran, Symmachus near Saint Peter's

After 502, Theodoric does not immediately enforce the decisions of the synod. Laurentius returns to Rome, occupies the Lateran and several churches, while Symmachus keeps the episcopium near Saint Peter's.^[42] This geography speaks volumes: the recognised pope is as it were pushed back towards the Vatican, outside the traditional urban centre, while the rival controls part of the ecclesiastical city.

The schism lasts about four years. New Advent speaks of a violent quarrel, with churches occupied and even the portrait of Laurentius added to the series of popes of Saint Paul Outside the Walls.^[43] This iconographic gesture is very strong: the Laurentian party does not merely want a compromise, it wants to write Laurentius into the succession.

Avitus of Vienne and Gaul

The bishops of Gaul intervene in favour of Symmachus. Avitus of Vienne writes to the Roman senators to defend the restoration of unity. His letter shows that the Roman crisis is not perceived as a local affair. If the head is struck, the balance of the whole episcopate seems threatened.^[44]

"Love the see of Peter in your Church as much as, in the city, you love the summit of the world." — Saint Avitus of Vienne, letter to the Roman senators (translation)^[45]

This saying is spiritually precious. Avitus does not ask the senators to despise civil Rome. He asks them to understand that the Christian greatness of Rome is deeper than its political prestige.

Dioscorus of Alexandria and the practical end of the schism

The practical healing of the schism also comes through the deacon Dioscorus of Alexandria. New Advent reports that Symmachus sends him to Theodoric; Dioscorus obtains a favourable decision from the king, who orders Festus to restore all the Roman churches to Symmachus.^[46]

Laurentius then loses his supporters, leaves Rome and withdraws to an estate of Festus. A small minority remains attached to him, but it will finally be reconciled under Hormisdas.^[47] Peace is therefore gradual: Symmachus recovers the churches, but the wound lasts beyond his death.

Continuity with Felix III and Gelasius I

Symmachus inherits the Acacian schism. Felix III condemned Acacius in 484; Gelasius I defended the distinction of the two powers; Anastasius II attempted a prudent diplomatic opening. Symmachus returns to a firm line, without renouncing charity towards the orthodox of the East.

New Advent reports that he defends the adversaries of the Henotikon in a letter to Emperor Anastasius I, without success.^[48] Eastern bishops under persecution then address a confession of faith to him.^[49] The pope is therefore not only turned towards the Roman crisis: his pontificate remains set within the struggle for Chalcedon.

The reply to Emperor Anastasius

Around 506, Emperor Anastasius sends Symmachus an insulting letter; the pope replies firmly, defending the rights and the freedom of the Church.^[50] The letter stands in continuity with Gelasius: the emperor has a real political charge, but he does not own the faith as an administrative domain.

This line is capital for Catholic history. The pope, accused at Rome by his adversaries, holds at the same time before the Eastern emperor a position of ecclesial freedom. The interior crisis does not prevent him from defending orthodoxy.

Illyricum and communion

According to Kirsch (1912), on 8 October 512 Symmachus writes to the bishops of Illyricum to warn them not to hold communion with heretics.^[51] This intervention is a sign of jurisdiction and vigilance. Illyricum is a hinge zone, between the Latin West and the imperial East; communion there carries strategic weight.

The lesson is simple: for Symmachus, peace is not indifference. Catholic unity is not rebuilt by letting everyone commune with contradictory positions on Christ.

Arles against Vienne

Symmachus also intervenes in the quarrel between the archbishops of Arles and Vienne over their metropolitan rights. New Advent reports that he first annuls the edict of Anastasius II favourable to Vienne, then confirms on 6 November 513 the rights of Caesarius of Arles as they had been fixed by Leo I.^[52]

This intervention shows that the Roman primacy is not limited to dogmatic crises. It also arbitrates regional jurisdictional conflicts, when these touch the ecclesial order.

The first known pallium outside Italy

Symmachus grants Caesarius the privilege of wearing the pallium. New Advent stresses that this is the first known case of such a grant by the Holy See to a bishop outside Italy, a grant confirmed by recent research.^[53] This detail matters for the history of institutions: a liturgical sign also becomes a sign of communion and delegation.

According to Kirsch (1912), on 11 June 514 Symmachus charges Caesarius with representing the interests of the Church in Gaul and Spain, holding synods in certain cases, giving letters of recommendation to clerics travelling to Rome, and referring the more important affairs to the Holy See.^[54]

Saint Peter's as refuge and centre

The Laurentian crisis displaced Symmachus towards Saint Peter's. The Liber Pontificalis reports that he built episcopal houses to the right and left of the forecourt of the basilica.^[55] New Advent sees in them buildings linked to his residence near Saint Peter's during the troubles.^[56]

This displacement has a symbolic value. Rejected from the Lateran by the factions, the pope takes root beside the tomb of Peter. The Vatican becomes then not only an apostolic sanctuary, but a place of government and institutional survival.

Churches, oratories and memory of the martyrs

The Liber Pontificalis attributes several works to Symmachus: basilica of Saint Andrew near Saint Peter's, basilica of Saint Agatha on the Aurelian Way and enrichments of Saint Peter's^[57], reconstruction or restoration of Saints Sylvester and Martin and oratory of Saints Cosmas and Damian^[58], fitting-out of the cemetery of the Jordani for Saint Alexander^[59].

Not all the topographical identifications are simple. But the whole shows a Christian Rome in consolidation. After the violence of the schism, Symmachus repairs, builds, adorns and organises. His pontificate is not reducible to litigation; it also leaves a geography of prayer.

Poor, exiles and captives

The Liber Pontificalis reports that Symmachus has lodgings built for the poor near Saint Peter's, Saint Paul's and Saint Lawrence.^[60] Every year he sends money and clothing to the exiled bishops of Africa and Sardinia, victims of the Arian Vandals, and ransoms captives in Liguria, at Milan and in various provinces.^[61]

These details are essential. In an article on pontifical quarrels, charity could be forgotten. Yet Symmachus acts as a concrete pope: he supports the expelled orthodox bishops, relieves the poor at the doors of the great basilicas and ransoms prisoners.

"Every year he sent money and garments as relief to the bishops driven into exile throughout Africa and Sardinia." — Liber Pontificalis, notice on Symmachus^[62]

What they are

The Symmachian forgeries are four apocryphal writings composed during the crisis: the Gesta synodi Sinuessanae de Marcellino, the Constitutum Silvestri, the Gesta Liberii and the Gesta de purgatione Xysti et Polychronii accusatione.^[63] Their aim is clear: to supply supposedly ancient precedents in support of the procedure favourable to Symmachus.

The best known is the false council of Sinuessa, already met in the article on Saint Marcellinus. It stages an ancient pope whom no one could judge. Historically, the account does not hold. It belongs to the polemical workshop of the sixth century.

Why they are dangerous

These forgeries are dangerous because they offer too easy a defence. A hasty Catholic might use them to prove the Roman primacy; an adversary might then show that they are forged and claim that the whole primacy is false. Both approaches are wrong.

The Catholic method is more demanding: recognising the fabrications, dating them, explaining their function, then rebuilding the doctrine on authentic bases. The Symmachian forgeries testify to a crisis of authority; they are not the authority.

What they reveal nonetheless

A forgery can be historically false and sociologically instructive. The Symmachian forgeries reveal that, at the beginning of the sixth century, the question of the pope's justice, of episcopal judgement and of the freedom of the Roman see had become burning. They show that the partisans of Symmachus seek to give an ancient depth to a principle they deem vital.

Their place is that of a symptom: the Roman primacy is important enough for its clumsy defenders to have wanted to over-protect it with bad dossiers.

19 July 514

Symmachus dies on 19 July 514. The Holy See gives this date as the end of the pontificate; the Liber Pontificalis reports that he was buried in the basilica of blessed Peter and that he "slept in peace as a confessor".^[64][65]

The see remains vacant seven days according to the Liber Pontificalis.^[66] His successor Hormisdas will still inherit the remnants of the Laurentian schism and, above all, will complete in 519 the reconciliation with Constantinople through the formula which bears his name.

A controversial but fruitful saint

Symmachus is not a smooth-image saint. His pontificate knew violence, accusations, manipulations and forgeries. But the Church does not venerate a fiction of administrative purity; she honours a pastor who held firm in a terrible crisis, defended the freedom of the Church, supported Chalcedon, relieved the exiles and maintained the Roman succession.

His legacy can be read in three directions: electoral discipline, Roman primacy, institutional charity. He wanted to prevent pontifical elections from being captured by factions; he refused to let the pope be delivered to political judgement; he made Rome a centre of aid for the poor, the captives and the persecuted bishops.

What to retain

Saint Symmachus is the pope of a torn Rome. His pontificate begins with a double election, goes through a war of factions, undergoes the intervention of Theodoric, sees the birth of embarrassing forgeries, then ends with a gradual restoration of unity. But the essential is not the polemic. Symmachus defends a lasting Catholic conviction: the Church cannot be governed as a mere department of the civil order or of imperial diplomacy.

His greatness lies in this fidelity in a confused time. He did not master everything; his partisans did not always serve his cause with pure means. But he maintained the Roman line in the Acacian schism, supported the orthodox bishops, consolidated the discipline of elections, gave Gaul a more structured Roman link through Caesarius of Arles, and inscribed charity in stone around the apostolic basilicas.

• Pope Anastasius II — immediate predecessor of Symmachus, at the threshold of the fracture between the Roman party and the pro-Eastern party.
• Pope Saint Gelasius I — defender of the distinction between priestly authority and royal power.
• Pope Saint Hormisdas — successor of Symmachus, artisan of the end of the Acacian schism in 519.
• Pope Saint Marcellinus — dossier of the false council of Sinuessa, reused in the Symmachian forgeries.
• Pope Saint Sylvester I — another figure used by the disciplinary fabrications of the time of Symmachus.
• Council of Chalcedon — doctrinal background of the Acacian schism.