Letter 97: Severus cites Cyril against Nestorius to reassure readers that a ban imposed for orthodox resistance does not bind them.

Our Christ-loving brothers, the lords Menas and Isidore, informed us that some readers, moved by divine zeal, withdrew from communion with that wicked man. He then imposed on them, as he imagined, a ban of excommunication, and they thought it needed to be removed by us. I was surprised that they considered a ban imposed by a man repudiated for his faith to be a ban at all. Holy Cyril says the same in writing to Nestorius: "Those who spoke against you because of the faith and were separated by you are in communion with us. It is not right that such people be harmed by your sentences." So if these readers received such a ban and separated from him only because of the orthodox faith, and not because of any other sin, they are free. How could people who, as I said before, were never truly placed under a ban in the first place be under a ban now?

Our Christ-loving brothers the lord Menas and Isidore informed us that some of the readers, moved by divine zeal, recoiled from communion with that wicked man, and he laid upon them, as he thought, a ban of excommunication; and that it is necessary for this to be removed by us. For my part I was surprised if they considered a ban laid upon them by a man repudiated for his faith to be a ban at all. Indeed the holy Cyril also in writing to Nestorius says this: "Those who spoke against you on account of the faith and have been separated by you are in communion with us. For it is not right that such men should be injured by your sentences." If therefore it is on account of the orthodox faith only, and not for any other sin, that these too have received such a ban and have seceded from him, they are released. How could men who, as we said before, were never even placed under a ban at the beginning be under a ban?