Codex Theodosianus XVI.i.2

[JJR1453]

Hello all!

Greetings in Christ!

The subject of Codex Theodosianus has become a main theme, of sorts, in the ‘Eastern Catholic & Orthodox’ thread, as some of you may have observed. I feel that this thread may have been, regrettably, derailed by such specific arguements. So, having said this, I have taken extra measures to more clearly highlight this specific subject, in creating this thread. Now, some of you also may have observed that Isa and I have been going back and forth with two very different claims to what exactly Theodosius is refering to when he states ‘Romans’. I have asked Isa to provide scholarship that would attest to his claims, for which he has failed to do. Nevertheless, I would rather apply this to Isa not quite understanding me, or maybe having slipped his mind, so I would offer again my same request. Now, I do not wish to be dictatorial in my creation of this thread but I have grown tiresome of rationalizations that would offer no concrete support. All are welcome to join!

Note to Isa: Hello dear friend, I feel we may more confine our discussion here in this thread so I would ask you not to bring up arguements or quick one-liners that are from the periphery. I will certainly engage you, when I can, in other East-West relations in other relevant threads, but as for here, we will only be discussing: Codex Theodosianus XVI.i.2.

Thank you.

Also, this is the translation to the subject in question:

“We desire that all the people under the rule of our clemency should live by that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans, and which it is evident that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, followed; that is that we should believe in the one deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according to the apostolic teaching and the authority of the gospel. Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius Augusti.”

Taken from: fordham.edu/halsall/source/codex-theod1.html

Again, I would like to reiterate: Isa, I will not be responding to your posts UNLESS you provide some type of scholarship that would lead us to believe that Theodosius in saying “Romans” means the “Roman World”, as you have argued.

God bless,

JJR

edit: Also, I will go to extra measures here. For every one piece of scholarship you may provide, I will provide two. From there we may discuss the sources and thus delve into the subject more rationally, rather than going about it in the way we have.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello all!

Greetings in Christ!

The subject of Codex Theodosianus has become a main theme, of sorts, in the ‘Eastern Catholic & Orthodox’ thread, as some of you may have observed. I feel that this thread may have been, regrettably, derailed by such specific arguements. So, having said this, I have taken extra measures to more clearly highlight this specific subject, in creating this thread. Now, some of you also may have observed that Isa and I have been going back and forth with two very different claims to what exactly Theodosius is refering to when he states ‘Romans’. I have asked Isa to provide scholarship that would attest to his claims, for which he has failed to do.

Au contraire, I provided references to the works of Treadgold, Meyendorff and others (I don’t have my copies handy, and there not online, to give specifics), all of which show that the term Roman had taken on the meaning of the people of the Empire.

fourthcentury.com/old/Theodosian/CTH16.htm

The colletion of Meyendorff on the Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church, and Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions touches on these questions. A case in point, a few centuries later St. Cyril is making the argument that “render unto Caesar” means not the state but specifically the emperor of the Romans, and hence all nations much bow to the emperor at New Rome. The hymns of Nativity also making the point that Augstus called the census so the whole world could be enrolled into the Church, making the connection between empire and Church.

I also pointed out that your “authority” Fortescue the ultramontanist, by his own statements raises questions on whether he has read the Code, besides picking this cherry, which he embellishes.

Simple. Once Saved, Always Saved is another inovation and heresy.

He does claim (rightly so) that St. Peter gave the true faith to the Romans, which by this time means the subjects of the empire. Just like he claims that he is the emperor of the Romans, although he was not in Rome, was not from Rome (he was from Spain), was not made emperor in Rome (that was a big thing centuries past, hence the year of three emperors). The abbreviations show he was Roman consul at the time, though not in Rome. Btw, but this time Old Rome had ceased to be the capital, but just a symbol.

Btw Treadgold’s “A History of Byzantine State and Society” deals with the change of Roman into somewhat how Yankee has gone from New Englander to “American” (except perhaps for some pockets of the South), or English has become synomous to British (much to the consternation of the Scott and Welsh, not to mention the Irish). He also attributes a lot of the substance of the change to the universal adoption of Christianity, in whatever variety. It also obtained the connotation of Catholic/Orthodox, and was used in that sense to set off the Arian Germans in the empire, who were seen as aliens in every sense of the word. In Armenian, Aramaic and Arabic it had already become the word for Greek.

The title pontiff is pagan, and at the contemporaries were quite aware of that: Gratian gave up the title because he said it did not befit a Christian.

The Theodosian Code has lots to say about pagans and hertics besides the Catholics. That’s the context of the edict.

No, it is directed at the Roman citizens, and telling them if they are real citzens, get with the program. Much like the claim at the founding of the Anglican Church: if you are English, the king is the head of your church.

As Alexandria was also promoted as a Petrine See by the popes of Rome, and the city of Rome is nowhere mentioned (just implied by the pagan title pontiff) the “Romans” of course being the point of contention here, is begging the question. Again, other edicts speak of other sees. And Romans.

check the text above: Fortescue is embellishing with words that are not there. That not translation, it’s spin.

Yes, very interesting eisogesis, of which Fortescue is the master. He is particularly good for projecting his ultramontanism on the Greeks (admittedly, the Greeks give him a lot to work with). If his argument could hold, he wouldn’t have needed the embellishments.

From the quote you can’t tell if he’s read the Code, as it contains lots about the Church (one edict a few years earlier by Gratian and Valerinius makes the pope of Rome the supreme bishop in the West; an edict a few years later orders all clergy not in communion with a list of bishops, starting with St. Nectaris of Constantinople who was NOT in communion with Rome (who is not mentioned) to hand over their Churches to the Catholic bishops in communion with Nectarius et alia; another makes the pope of Alexandria supreme in Egypt, etc.) For a summary in English:
fourthcentury.com/old/Theodosian/CTH16.htm

Once again, one quote seemingly on Rome is wretched out of the context where other sees (indeed, the quote in question mentions Alexandria, which has to be downplayed and explained away) are also dealt with. Btw, it also has an edict about the Second Council, which was promulgated in both halves of the empire as a litmus test of Christianity.

Btw, the Code only starts with the edicts of Constantine, the first official Christian emperor (Philip the Arab was a crypto-Christian).

Check above.

Nevertheless, I would rather apply this to Isa not quite understanding me, or maybe having slipped his mind, so I would offer again my same request. Now, I do not wish to be dictatorial in my creation of this thread but I have grown tiresome of rationalizations that would offer no concrete support. All are welcome to join!

Note to Isa: Hello dear friend, I feel we may more confine our discussion here in this thread so I would ask you not to bring up arguements or quick one-liners that are from the periphery. I will certainly engage you, when I can, in other East-West relations in other relevant threads, but as for here, we will only be discussing: Codex Theodosianus XVI.i.2.

Thank you.

Are you asking for something that specifically deals with what Roman means in the edict. Most scholars are aware of the meaning of the word by that time, but I’ll see if any has specifcially dealt with this very edict (I do think Meyendorff mentions it, but the context is only on the effect of the establishment of a state church). Others deal with the title pontiff. Roman doesn’t seem to have attracted any attention.

Also, this is the translation to the subject in question:

“We desire that all the people under the rule of our clemency should live by that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans, and which it is evident that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, followed; that is that we should believe in the one deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according to the apostolic teaching and the authority of the gospel. Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius Augusti.”

Taken from: fordham.edu/halsall/source/codex-theod1.html

For the Latin minded, here is the original.

CTh.16.1.2pr.

Imppp. Gratianus, Valentinianus et Theodosius aaa. edictum ad populum urbis Constantinopolitanae. Cunctos populos, quos clementiae nostrae regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriae episcopum virum apostolicae sanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam patris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub parili maiestate et sub pia trinitate credamus. (380 febr. 27).

CTh.16.1.2.1

Hanc legem sequentes christianorum catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes vesanosque iudicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere nec conciliabula eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex caelesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos. Dat. III kal. mar. Thessalonicae Gratiano a. V et Theodosio a. I conss. (380 febr. 27).

Again, I would like to reiterate: Isa, I will not be responding to your posts UNLESS you provide some type of scholarship that would lead us to believe that Theodosius in saying “Romans” means the “Roman World”, as you have argued.

Again, see above.

God bless,

JJR

edit: Also, I will go to extra measures here. For every one piece of scholarship you may provide, I will provide two. From there we may discuss the sources and thus delve into the subject more rationally, rather than going about it in the way we have.

Please do do better than Fortescue. His ultarmonanism only has facts sprinkled on top of it, without sinking in.

 

[JJR1453]

Are you asking for something that specifically deals with what Roman means in the edict. Most scholars are aware of the meaning of the word by that time, but I’ll see if any has specifcially dealt with this very edict (I do think Meyendorff mentions it, but the context is only on the effect of the establishment of a state church). Others deal with the title pontiff. Roman doesn’t seem to have attracted any attention.

Please do do better than Fortescue. His ultarmonanism only has facts sprinkled on top of it, without sinking in.

Sorry for taking so long to respond, crazy day at work! Can you believe it? They actually made me do some work at work!!

DING DING DING!! Bingo! That is exactly what Im looking for! I am also puzzled by your attack on the word ‘Pontiff’. Theodosius uses it to distinguish Damasus from ‘Bishop’ Peter of Alexandria. Eventhough you may wish to stamp Fortescue ‘uncredible’, he speaks with the advantage of knowing the truth behind this edict. Neverthless, lets throw him out. The scholarship, fortunately, regarding ‘Codex Theodosianus XVI.i.2’ is not wanting. However, If you wish to delve into it with me you will find that all scholarship, to my knowledge, will run counter to your postualtions. Let me first post here what I have posted on the “EC & EO” thread, for which you have gave no rebuttal:

“The mind of the East was not so clearly settled. But in the East as well the experience of the Arian controversy and its outcome had established a way of thinking that became quite clear in the imperial laws of 380 by which Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the state religion and at the same time used his power to put an end to controversies over matters of belief. He decreed that the faith preached to the Romans by St. Peter and now proclaimed by Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria should be the accepted rule of faith for the entire empire. On the one hand, Rome alone did not establish the norm, but rather Rome and Alexandria, the primary sees in West and East. On the other hand we should note that the source of that faith was St. Peter and his preaching in Rome. There was, then, a certain difference in rank: Rome is the original cource.” (Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present, Schatz)

Also:

“What could be better calculated to reduce to unity the scattered forces of religion than to recall the Easterns to the true centre of teaching? He therefore ordered that the religion delivered to the Church of Rome by the Apostle Peter, as expounded by the Pontiff Damasus and by the present Bishop of Alexandria, should be preached by all Catholics. ’ We will that all people who are governed by our clemency should practise the same religion as the divine Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans, as the religion proclaimed by him up to this time declares it ; and which it is clear the Pontiff Damasus follows, and Peter, the Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity — that is, &c. Those who follow this law we order to take the name of Catholic Christians.’
Now, nowhere do we discover a single note of surprise at the East being thus called upon to practise ’ the religion of the Romans.’ In fact the evidence afforded by the incidental notice of the Apostle Peter is of the most irrefragable nature, to the effect that the Christian world, East and West, had learnt to look to the See of Peter as the central authority on matters of faith… It is clear that Theodosius draws a distinction between Damasus and Peter of Alexandria of a vital character. Damasus is the pontiff, Peter the bishop ; Damasus is mentioned simply as the pontiff, Peter as a man of apostolic sanctity, as though some reason needed to be given for tacking on his name to that of the pontiff. His adherence to the religion delivered to the Romans by the Apostle Peter was worth mentioning ; it suggested what Theodosius required of his own East, viz. a similar adherence. Rome, then, is indicated as the centre ; Rome in its connection with the Apostle Peter, and Rome as the seat of the Pontiff of the Christian religion.” (Primitive Church, Rivington) --Empahsis not mine–

Here, I believe Theodosius’ edict is very well expounded. Have I provided a good example of what I am asking of you? I *am not *interested in your sources that explain how Theodosius is the Emperor of a ‘Roman World’, these are historical truisms. I am looking for you to provide any sources that will back your claim that Theodosius in his edict --Codex Theodosianus XVI.i.2-- is refering to the ‘Roman World’, which is the arguement that you now posit.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Sorry for taking so long to respond, crazy day at work! Can you believe it? They actually made me do some work at work!!

I just spent a good amount of time writing a response. Then when I pushed enter, it disappeared instead. I’ll have to summarize as I have to go to bed.

DING DING DING!! Bingo! That is exactly what Im looking for!

As I said, I don’t think the term Roman has been an issue, outside of ultramontanist tracks who cherry pick it.

I am also puzzled by your attack on the word ‘Pontiff’.

That is a term which has been analyzed. It was a pagan term of some importance and had just been transferrred to the pope of Rome.

Theodosius uses it to distinguish Damasus from ‘Bishop’ Peter of Alexandria.

Oh, is that the reason?

Eventhough you may wish to stamp Fortescue ‘uncredible’, he speaks with the advantage of knowing the truth behind this edict.

His statement that you should not expect anything on the hierarchy of the Church betrays an ignorance of the Code, which deals with this topic often.

Neverthless, lets throw him out. The scholarship, fortunately, regarding ‘Codex Theodosianus XVI.i.2’ is not wanting. However, If you wish to delve into it with me you will find that all scholarship, to my knowledge, will run counter to your postualtions.

Something on the Codex that deals with the edict in question, and not just ultramontanist tracks cherry picking.

Btw, the text survives in Sozomen Church History. The term Roman is used in the sense that I am speaking of throughout, including the section (Book VII chapter 4) in question, where in the background he talks about Theodosios: the English mistranslates “sue for peace” where what it actually says “sought to have the Romans as friends.” The context makes quite clear it has nothing to do with the city on the Tiber. Migne seems to see this too, for in the phrase “bishop of Rome” (Sozomen doesn’t say pontiff) Migne adds “city” (urbis). Sozomen was a near contemporary and worked at the court of Theodosius II, the grandson of the issuer of the edict and the one who published the Code.

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/02g/0350-0450,_Hermias_Sozomenos,Ecclesiastica_Historia(MPG_0067_0843_1724),_GM.pdf

Let me first post here what I have posted on the “EC & EO” thread, for which you have gave no rebuttal:

"The mind of the East was not so clearly settled.

In your citation, the sentences before is talking about that the Churches of the West had taken Rome as the center of communion, which is what the "mind of the East was not so clearly settled.

But in the East as well the experience of the Arian controversy and its outcome had established a way of thinking that became quite clear in the imperial laws of 380 by which Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the state religion and at the same time used his power to put an end to controversies over matters of belief. He decreed that the faith preached to the Romans by St. Peter and now proclaimed by Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria should be the accepted rule of faith for the entire empire. On the one hand, Rome alone did not establish the norm, but rather Rome and Alexandria, the primary sees in West and East. On the other hand we should note that the source of that faith was St. Peter and his preaching in Rome. There was, then, a certain difference in rank: Rome is the original cource." (Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present, Schatz)

Schatz says a number of interesting things, among them that the author of Matthew had no awareness of the Petrine office continuing at Rome, and on page 50 quotes the Fathers as saying that the “emperor appointed by God” state dogma “the gates of Hell will not prevail against your Orthodox empire.” Sound familiar?

He also notes that at the time Rome was less a Christian city than Constantinople or Alexandria, and a bastion of paganism.

Also:

“What could be better calculated to reduce to unity the scattered forces of religion than to recall the Easterns to the true centre of teaching? He therefore ordered that the religion delivered to the Church of Rome by the Apostle Peter, as expounded by the Pontiff Damasus and by the present Bishop of Alexandria, should be preached by all Catholics. ’ We will that all people who are governed by our clemency should practise the same religion as the divine Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans, as the religion proclaimed by him up to this time declares it ; and which it is clear the Pontiff Damasus follows, and Peter, the Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity — that is, &c. Those who follow this law we order to take the name of Catholic Christians.’
Now, nowhere do we discover a single note of surprise at the East being thus called upon to practise ’ the religion of the Romans.’ In fact the evidence afforded by the incidental notice of the Apostle Peter is of the most irrefragable nature, to the effect that the Christian world, East and West, had learnt to look to the See of Peter as the central authority on matters of faith… It is clear that Theodosius draws a distinction between Damasus and Peter of Alexandria of a vital character. Damasus is the pontiff, Peter the bishop ; Damasus is mentioned simply as the pontiff, Peter as a man of apostolic sanctity, as though some reason needed to be given for tacking on his name to that of the pontiff. His adherence to the religion delivered to the Romans by the Apostle Peter was worth mentioning ; it suggested what Theodosius required of his own East, viz. a similar adherence. Rome, then, is indicated as the centre ; Rome in its connection with the Apostle Peter, and Rome as the seat of the Pontiff of the Christian religion.” (Primitive Church, Rivington) --Empahsis not mine–

Here, I believe Theodosius’ edict is very well expounded. Have I provided a good example of what I am asking of you? I *am not *interested in your sources that explain how Theodosius is the Emperor of a ‘Roman World’, these are historical truisms. I am looking for you to provide any sources that will back your claim that Theodosius in his edict --Codex Theodosianus XVI.i.2-- is refering to the ‘Roman World’, which is the arguement that you now posit.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The people who lived in the “Byzantine Empire” never knew nor used the word “Byzantine.” They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely nothing less. By transferring the Imperial capital from Rome on the Tiber to the New Rome on Bosphorus, dubbed Constantinople, the Emperor Constantine I had transferred the actual identity of Rome to the new location. **Long before Constantine I, the idea of “Rome” had become dissociated from the Eternal City on the Tiber. For a Roman meant a Roman citizen, whereever he lived. **Before the Imperial period, in 89 BC, a Roman law had granted Roman citizenship to people throughout Italy. Afterwards, citizenship became extended to an increasing number of people in different parts of the Empire. In 212, Emperor Caracalla declared all free persons in the Empire to be Roman citizens, entitled to call themselves Roman, not merely subject to the Romans. Within a few decades, people begin to refer to the entire Empire less often [in Latin] as “Imperium Romanorum” [Domain of the Romans] and more often as “Romania” [Romanland]

In the provinces close to Constantinople, where the Greek language predominated over the Latin of Old Rome, the idea of Roman citizenship and identity appealed to a broad segment of the population. Greek speaking citizens were proud to be Romans: in Latin, “Romani,” or, in Greek, “Romaioi.” The word “Romaioi” became descriptive of the Greek speaking population of the Empire. The old ethnic name applied to Greeks, “Hellene”,fell into disuse. In ancient times, of course, “Hellene” had meant Greek. Hellene meant Greek from the seventh century BC onward, if not earlier. Although Homer called Greeks by other names, Herodotus, Pericles, Plato and Alexander were all “Hellenes,” as were Greek speaking inhabitants of the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries AD. In the fourth century AD, as the Empire became Christianized, the term “Hellene” became redefined by common convention to include people who still worshipped the old gods and studied philosophy in hopes of resisting the new faith of Christianity. Emperor Julian II [361-363], an Emperor who tried to stop the Christian tide, described himself as a “Hellene.” By “Hellene,” Julian signified his combination of Neo-Platonic philosophy and worship of the Olympians.

In the final years of the fourth century AD, Emperor Theodosius I [379-395] made Christianity the sole state religion after subduing the rebellion of an “Hellene” usurper, a westerner named Eugenius. After Theodosius’ critical decision, fewer and fewer people were willing to call themselves “Hellenes.” For centuries more, the word “Hellene” remained in bad repute, associated with outlawed religious ideas and disloyalty to the state. Greek speakers found the identity of "Romaioi" in place of “Hellene” to be a safe refuge in changing times. Greek speaking “Romaioi” inhabited the Empire until the its demise in the fifteenth century.

romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm

 

[mardukm]

Can you two possibly explain to me what you are debating about?

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Can you two possibly explain to me what you are debating about?

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

The use, in support of ultramontanism, of the edict that made Orthodox Catholic Christianity the state Creed of the Roman empire. Specifically, the use of the word “Romans” in it, and what it means. Was Rome being designated as Vatican I did, or was the Christian empire being promulgated?

 

[mardukm]

The use, in support of ultramontanism, of the edict that made Orthodox Catholic Christianity the state Creed of the Roman empire. Specifically, the use of the word “Romans” in it, and what it means. Was Rome being designated as Vatican I did, or was the Christian empire being promulgated?

Without having read the entire debate or the arguments, I would tend to side with your position. If I have time to read through your arguments (I guess it is an offshoot from another thread), perhaps I will change my mind. As it is, I’m on your side on this.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JJR1453]

Can you two possibly explain to me what you are debating about?

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

The focus of our discussion is the title of the thread. Isa’s arguement is that the word “Romans”, when used by Theodosius in the edict, is refering to the entire empire. Mine is that Theodosius is refering here to the city of Rome, when he states “Romans”.

There are a couple of holes in Isa’s arguement. One, at the time Theodosius delivers this edict the empire is torn in schism. Constantinoiple is infested with Arianism, again, even to the point where St. Gregory has to convert a relatives house to a church for the few orthodox christians who are left in the city. Secondly, it is common sense to anyone who knows even a moderate amount of history that the Byzantine empire viewed themselves, justly, as the continuation of the Roman empire. They viewed themselves as Romans right up until 1453. However, this has nothing to do with this specific edict.

Consider, how can Theodosius, a Nicene, give an edict to the Eastern part of the empire, which is largely heretical, to obey “that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans”, if he was refering to the ‘Roman empire’ when he states ‘Romans’?? Theodosius gives a command to the Empire to follow the true religion which was delivered to the same Empire which is embracing heretical doctrines?? Its contradictory. Notice how Isa has provided, once again, no scholarship to back his claims.

In short, Isa posits that Theodosius edict is stating that St. Peter delivered the true faith to the Roman Empire. As if St. Peter never preached, and was never martyred at Rome, that is the city of Rome.

Its simple, do you think Theodosius, when he states ‘Romans’, is refering to ‘the Roman Empire’, for which is embracing Arianism and who is the recipient of the edict in question? Or do you think when Theodosius is directing the Eastern part of the empire to hold to that true faith that St. Peter was said to have delivered to the Romans, that is, the christians of the city of Rome?

God bless,

JJR

 

[Badaliyyah]

The focus of our discussion is the title of the thread. Isa’s arguement is that the word “Romans”, when used by Theodosius in the edict, is refering to the entire empire. Mine is that Theodosius is refering here to the city of Rome, when he states “Romans”.

There are a couple of holes in Isa’s arguement. One, at the time Theodosius delivers this edict the empire is torn in schism. Constantinoiple is infested with Arianism, again, even to the point where St. Gregory has to convert a relatives house to a church for the few orthodox christians who are left in the city. Secondly, it is common sense to anyone who knows even a moderate amount of history that the Byzantine empire viewed themselves, justly, as the continuation of the Roman empire. They viewed themselves as Romans right up until 1453. However, this has nothing to do with this specific edict.

Consider, how can Theodosius, a Nicene, give an edict to the Eastern part of the empire, which is largely heretical, to obey “that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans”, if he was refering to the ‘Roman empire’ when he states ‘Romans’?? Theodosius gives a command to the Empire to follow the true religion which was delivered to the same Empire which is embracing heretical doctrines?? Its contradictory. Notice how Isa has provided, once again, no scholarship to back his claims.

In short, Isa posits that Theodosius edict is stating that St. Peter delivered the true faith to the Roman Empire. As if St. Peter never preached, and was never martyred at Rome, that is the city of Rome.

Its simple, do you think Theodosius, when he states ‘Romans’, is refering to ‘the Roman Empire’, for which is embracing Arianism and who is the recipient of the edict in question? Or do you think when Theodosius is directing the Eastern part of the empire to hold to that true faith that St. Peter was said to have delivered to the Romans, that is, the christians of the city of Rome?

God bless,

JJR

Isa is certainly correct about how the term “Romans” is often used in the Greek speaking Empire. They are the heirs of Rome. That doesn’t entirely settle the issue between the two of you and one would probably have to do some sort of more in depth study to see how the term is used by the Emperor in various contexts to conclusively prove the point. But I have to agree that the most natural reading to my mind is Isa’s.

As I read the passage in question the implication is that those who do not accept the teaching in question are not true Romans/members of the Church. The Arians are at once undermining the Church and the Empire.

salaam.

 

[JJR1453]

(1)As I said, I don’t think the term Roman has been an issue, outside of ultramontanist tracks who cherry pick it.

(2)Oh, is that the reason?

(3)Btw, the text survives in Sozomen Church History. The term Roman is used in the sense that I am speaking of throughout, including the section (Book VII chapter 4) in question, where in the background he talks about Theodosios: the English mistranslates “sue for peace” where what it actually says “sought to have the Romans as friends.” The context makes quite clear it has nothing to do with the city on the Tiber. Migne seems to see this too, for in the phrase “bishop of Rome” (Sozomen doesn’t say pontiff) Migne adds “city” (urbis). Sozomen was a near contemporary and worked at the court of Theodosius II, the grandson of the issuer of the edict and the one who published the Code.

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/02g/0350-0450,_Hermias_Sozomenos,Ecclesiastica_Historia(MPG_0067_0843_1724),_GM.pdf

(4)In your citation, the sentences before is talking about that the Churches of the West had taken Rome as the center of communion, which is what the "mind of the East was not so clearly settled.

(5)Schatz says a number of interesting things, among them that the author of Matthew had no awareness of the Petrine office continuing at Rome, and on page 50 quotes the Fathers as saying that the “emperor appointed by God” state dogma “the gates of Hell will not prevail against your Orthodox empire.” Sound familiar?

(6)He also notes that at the time Rome was less a Christian city than Constantinople or Alexandria, and a bastion of paganism.

JJR

(1) So, in other words, you have no scholarship to provide to the discussion? What single issue regarding the Primacy of Rome has not been discussed in detail by BOTH Catholic and Orthodox? Is there not a rebuttal to the sources I have cited? Can you please deliver some source that says Theodosius was not refering to Rome when he states Romans? I have offered you at least 3, I would only consideer it fair that you also provide outside sources, other than your rationalizations, to back your arguement. One would think that the scholarship of the Orthodox would not be lacking on this issue, or it may be, that no one really disagrees with the fact that Theodosius is refering to the living tradition that has always lived within the church that St. Peter preached and was martyred at Rome.

(2) Please see the source that I have cite --Primitive church, Rivington–

(3) “As Gaul was about this period infested by the incursions of the Alemanni, Gratian returned to his paternal dominions, which he had reserved for himself and his brother, when he bestowed the government of Illyria and of the Eastern provinces upon Theodosius. He effected his purpose with regard to the barbarians; and Theodosius was equally successful against the tribes from the banks of the Ister; he defeated them, compelled them to sue for peace, and, after accepting hostages from them, proceeded to Thessalonica. He fell ill while in this city, and after receiving instruction from Ascholius, the bishop, he was initiated, and was soon after restored to health. The parents of Theodosius were Christians, and were attached to the Nicene doctrines; he was pleased with Ascholius, who maintained the same doctrines, and was, in a word, endowed with every virtue of the priesthood. He also rejoiced at finding that the Arian heresy had not been participated in by Illyria. He inquired concerning the religious sentiments which were prevalent in the other provinces, and ascertained that, as far as Macedonia, all the churches were like minded, and all held that equal homage ought to be rendered to God the Word, and to the Holy Ghost, as to God the Father; but that towards the East, and particularly at Constantinople, the people were divided into many different heresies. Reflecting that it would be better to propound his own religious views to his subjects, so as not to appear to be using force by commanding the unwilling subject to worship contrary to his judgment, Theodosius enacted a law at Thessalonica, which he caused to be published at Constantinople, well knowing that the rescript would speedily become public to all the other cities, if issued from that city, which is as a citadel of the whole empire. He made known by this law his intention of leading all his subjects to the reception of that faith which Peter, the chief of the apostles, had, from the beginning, preached to the Romans, and which was professed by Damasus, bishop of Rome, and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria. He enacted that the title of Catholic Church should be exclusively confined to those who rendered equal homage to the Three Persons of the Trinity, and that those individuals who entertained opposite opinions should be treated as heretics, regarded with contempt, and delivered over to punishment.”
newadvent.org/fathers/26027.htm

So from the beginning, as your arguement goes, St. Peter preached the true faith to the pagan Roman Empire of his day? Your arguement completely falls apart and makes less than zero sense. In stating ‘Romans’ he is refering to St. Peter’s preaching and delivering of the true faith at Rome.

(4) Exactly! Which is precisely why Theodosius delivers this specific edict. The Empire is not practising that “religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans”.

(5) Oh, its a wonderful book. He is very objective in his observations. Also, the primacy of Rome is something that was to manifest itself out about a century after our Lord’s passion. In regards to this please see Cardinal Newman’s ‘Development of Doctrine’. He expounds the history wonderfully. You may also notice in the 6th Ecumenical council that the council Father proclaim:

“The supreme prince of the apostles struggled with us; his emulator and successor to his chair is on our side and has explained to us through a letter the mystery of the divine incarnation. The ancient city of Rome has brought forth a confession written by God and has caused day to dawn in the West for this dogma. It appeared in paper and ink, and Peter spoke through Agatho.”

The high speech of the Emperor surprises me none, as the East subsisted in a sate of Church and Empire. Which is clealry something that Orthodoxy has not sufficiently dealt with.

(6) I only know of him stating that Constantinople was a city that had not known pagansim or had any of it temples, because the Christian Emperor Constatine founded the city. Of course he could not be speaking of Byzantium, which was a Greek colony and the exact place where Constatinople was to rise.

–Again I please ask that you directly quote from a source that says Theodosius is speaking of the Empire when he states ‘Romans’. I have provided you with a couple and I imagine if others hold the same arguement as you do, of which I know none, then It wont be difficult to dig something up that deals specifically with ‘Codex Theodosianus XVI.i.2’ and your contention.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

“What could be better calculated to reduce to unity the scattered forces of religion than to recall the Easterns to the true centre of teaching? He therefore ordered that the religion delivered to the Church of Rome by the Apostle Peter, as expounded by the Pontiff Damasus and by the present Bishop of Alexandria, should be preached by all Catholics. ’ We will that all people who are governed by our clemency should practise the same religion as the divine Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans, as the religion proclaimed by him up to this time declares it ; and which it is clear the Pontiff Damasus follows, and Peter, the Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity — that is, &c. Those who follow this law we order to take the name of Catholic Christians.’
Now, nowhere do we discover a single note of surprise at the East being thus called upon to practise ’ the religion of the Romans.’ In fact the evidence afforded by the incidental notice of the Apostle Peter is of the most irrefragable nature, to the effect that the Christian world, East and West, had learnt to look to the See of Peter as the central authority on matters of faith… It is clear that Theodosius draws a distinction between Damasus and Peter of Alexandria of a vital character. Damasus is the pontiff, Peter the bishop ; Damasus is mentioned simply as the pontiff, Peter as a man of apostolic sanctity, as though some reason needed to be given for tacking on his name to that of the pontiff. His adherence to the religion delivered to the Romans by the Apostle Peter was worth mentioning ; it suggested what Theodosius required of his own East, viz. a similar adherence. Rome, then, is indicated as the centre ; Rome in its connection with the Apostle Peter, and Rome as the seat of the Pontiff of the Christian religion.” (Primitive Church, Rivington) --Empahsis not mine–

Can you please address this source that I have cited? Or maybe offer a rebuttal citation?

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

Isa is certainly correct about how the term “Romans” is often used in the Greek speaking Empire. They are the heirs of Rome. That doesn’t entirely settle the issue between the two of you and one would probably have to do some sort of more in depth study to see how the term is used by the Emperor in various contexts to conclusively prove the point. But I have to agree that the most natural reading to my mind is Isa’s.

As I read the passage in question the implication is that those who do not accept the teaching in question are not true Romans/members of the Church. The Arians are at once undermining the Church and the Empire.

salaam.

Hello Badaliyyah!

You may be misunderstanding the specific subject matter in question. I fully agree with the fact that ‘Romans’ means the entire Empire, but Theodosius’ edict is given to the the same Roman Empire to acknowledge that true faith that was delivered by St. Peter to the Romans, meaning here specifically his tradition of preaching at Rome, which at the time was preached by the Pontiff Damasus and Bishop Peter of Alexandria. **Theodosius is refering here to Rome as the source of the that true faith that was delivered by St. Peter in Rome. ** How could he be refering to St. Peter delivering the true faith to a pagan Rome Empire? which it was in St. Peter’s day.

“that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans”

So, if we are to believe that ‘Romans’ means ‘the entire Roman Empire’, and not the tradition of Peter living and preaching at Rome, then the edict would translate:

“that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the 'Roman Empire’”?

An Empire that was pagan when St. Peter supposedly given them the true faith?

I am fully aware that ‘Romans’ was used to symbolize the entire Roman Empire, but it is not used in this context for which Theodosius writes. Please see the source that I have provided above.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The focus of our discussion is the title of the thread. Isa’s arguement is that the word “Romans”, when used by Theodosius in the edict, is refering to the entire empire. Mine is that Theodosius is refering here to the city of Rome, when he states “Romans”.

There are a couple of holes in Isa’s arguement. One, at the time Theodosius delivers this edict the empire is torn in schism. Constantinoiple is infested with Arianism, again,

technically still. But we’ll get to that.

even to the point where St. Gregory has to convert a relatives house to a church for the few orthodox christians who are left in the city.

Actually the real problem was the Arians had the keys the church, having been given them.

Btw, I took a look at your other authority, Rivington (another ultramontanist priest, shocking the conclusions he comes to ). Amusing to say the least. Does a lot of denial of the fact that St. Gregory (and St. Meletius, and St. Flavian after him) were not in communion with Rome.

Secondly, it is common sense to anyone who knows even a moderate amount of history that the Byzantine empire viewed themselves, justly, as the continuation of the Roman empire. They viewed themselves as Romans right up until 1453. However, this has nothing to do with this specific edict.

Consider, how can Theodosius, a Nicene, give an edict to the Eastern part of the empire, which is largely heretical, to obey “that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans”, if he was refering to the ‘Roman empire’ when he states ‘Romans’?? Theodosius gives a command to the Empire to follow the true religion which was delivered to the same Empire which is embracing heretical doctrines?? Its contradictory.

Only if you believe “Once saved always saved,” and are reading Vatican I into it. Again the situation of England’s Act of Supremacy is instructive. Note Theodosius referes to all the peoples (populos) that he rules. Henry’s acts made it treason not to recognize his rule over the church in England. Theodosius is making it treason, and serving notice, to hold heretical views. Henry made English and Anglican synomous, Theodosius made Roman and Catholic synomous.

Notice how Isa has provided, once again, no scholarship to back his claims.

I have provided plenty of scholarship with no ax to grind. A picked cherry imbedded in a track does not scholarship make. I also quoted some of the interesting things your authority Schatz says, to which I’ll add that he notes the icon of SS Peter and Paul in Roman senatorial togas at the end of the century in question as the time Rome went from being the whore of Babylon (he conjures up this Biblical image, which was the image of the city of Rome in the NT) to the Christian city of God it would later become.

As I showed above, Roman had already long been disassociated from the city, and had become indentified with the empire, and then the Church.

In short, Isa posits that Theodosius edict is stating that St. Peter delivered the true faith to the Roman Empire. As if St. Peter never preached, and was never martyred at Rome, that is the city of Rome.

Its simple, do you think Theodosius, when he states ‘Romans’, is refering to ‘the Roman Empire’, for which is embracing Arianism and who is the recipient of the edict in question? Or do you think when Theodosius is directing the Eastern part of the empire to hold to that true faith that St. Peter was said to have delivered to the Romans, that is, the christians of the city of Rome?

God bless,

JJR

Now that I have a little more time, I’ll try to replay the lost reply a bit.

In the section of Sozomen that I quoted.
documentacatholicaomnia.e…_1724),_GM.pdf,_GM.pdf)
(I now see that this link doesn’t take you to the page: it’s page 291 of the pdf file, 1422 of the printed version of Migne).
(the Etheral Christian library has a copy in English, but is down at the moment, and as I pointed out, the translation is not accurate. When it is back up, it is Book VII, Chapter IV).

he states that Gratian returned to “his paternal dominions,” was fighting the Germans in France (Gaul), was in Rome, and kept the West for himself and his brother. Theodosius, on the other hand was on the Danube, outside the Prefecture of Italy, was moving East which he had been given everything East of Illyria, the Easternmost part of the Patriarchate of Rome at the time. He was not from the city of Rome, was not in the city of Rome, was not speaking to the city of Rome. He was baptized in Thessalonica, where according to the report, there were no Arians. Theodosis defeats the tribesman on the Danube, who sue to “have the Romans as friends” (the English translation is lose, and misses this: its at the bottom of Migne’s page). Again, Sozomen used “Roman” throughout the work in the meaning I state, and Migne inserts “urbis” “the city” in the phrase “Damsus bishop of” while leaving the phrase “to the Romans” alone. Again it is quite clear that those Romans on the Danube that the tribesmen wanted as friends were not on the Tiber, nor did they or Theodosius have anything to do with the Old Capital.

A work, "Hellenism in Byzantium, that claims to be the first sytematic work on the Greeks as Romans states the Lucian (d. 180) from the Euphrates (i.e. far further East than Constantinople) is the first Greek writer to talk of Romans in the first person plural. And Aelius Aristides, of the same time of Lucian, speaks of how Rome has ended the distinction of barbarian and Greek to non-Roman and Roman, and “and made the word Roman not apply to a city, but to a people,” noting that the soldiers were embarrassed to use their national labels, “now that they were Romans.” (pp. 57-8, 86) The author Kandellis further uses Julian as an example: the first emperor born in New Rome (a year after its founding), never visiting Old Rome (whose decline, Kandellis notes, inversely reflected the Romanization of the provinces), whose mother tongue was Greek (though he also spoke Latin), and consciously called himself a Hellene, meaning pagan (and thereby dooming the term to oblion), nonetheless wrote to the Antochenes as being Romans, and stated that any who attatched himself to his government was Roman.(pp. 58-9).
books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=iWs0Lh57NvwC&dq=Hellenism+in+Byzantium+The+Transformations+of+Greek+Identity+and+the+Reception+of+the+Classical+Tradition&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=zLSlFm–WD&sig=5ZvkKkCT_l1CUB5CoTCwnl2uOgc&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Btw, Sozomen statest that the reason why Theodosius sent the edict to Constantinople. NOT because, as you are implying, that somehow New Rome had to follow Old Rome blindly but because"he knew that it would go from that city, that Acropolis of the whole Empire, to all the other cities." Old Rome was a backwater. Theodosius knew what was the center of the empire: all roads led to and from Constantinople.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.iii.xii.iv.html

 

[Badaliyyah]

Hello Badaliyyah!

You may be misunderstanding the specific subject matter in question. I fully agree with the fact that ‘Romans’ means the entire Empire, but Theodosius’ edict is given to the the same Roman Empire to acknowledge that true faith that was delivered by St. Peter to the Romans, meaning here specifically his tradition of preaching at Rome, which at the time was preached by the Pontiff Damasus and Bishop Peter of Alexandria. **Theodosius is refering here to Rome as the source of the that true faith that was delivered by St. Peter in Rome. ** How could he be refering to St. Peter delivering the true faith to a pagan Rome Empire? which it was in St. Peter’s day.

“that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans”

So, if we are to believe that ‘Romans’ means ‘the entire Roman Empire’, and not the tradition of Peter living and preaching at Rome, then the edict would translate:

“that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the 'Roman Empire’”?

An Empire that was pagan when St. Peter supposedly given them the true faith?

I am fully aware that ‘Romans’ was used to symbolize the entire Roman Empire, but it is not used in this context for which Theodosius writes. Please see the source that I have provided above.

God bless,

JJR

I apologize for stepping into the middle of a conversation that has been going on, and I encourage the two of you to continue on. I am going to make this last comment, and step back to the sidelines and watch…

If I were paraphrasing and commenting on the passage, I would, at first blush, stick with Isa’s reading, though I can be talked out of it if there are comparable passages where Theodosius clarifies that he means Rome (the city, in the singular)…

“We desire that all the people under the rule of our clemency should live by that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans, and which it is evident that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, followed; that is that we should believe in the one deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according to the apostolic teaching and the authority of the gospel. Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius Augusti.”

paraphrase thus:
“I, Theodosius, Emperor of the Romans, remind everyone who is a citizen of the Roman Empire and who lives by that faith which St.Peter gave to us, and which it is evident blah, blah…yours truly, the Emperors of Rome.”

I think Peter is being invoked here as the foundation of Christianity in the Empire, but it seems to me it is being done as the one who gave the gift of Christianity to the Empire: Antioch is right up the road, Alexandria is mentioned, Rome is mentioned, Constantinople is itself the new Rome…the name Peter covers a lot of ground.

As I said, I can be convinced otherwise and can see how your reading could make sense. And now I am going to watch and see for a bit.

salaam.

 

[JJR1453]

paraphrase thus:
“I, Theodosius, Emperor of the Romans, remind everyone who is a citizen of the Roman Empire and who lives by that faith which St.Peter gave to us, and which it is evident blah, blah…yours truly, the Emperors of Rome.”

Hello again Badaliyyah!

When Theodosius refers to ‘Romans’ he uses the past tense, “Peter the apostle ***is said to have given ***to the Romans”. He is speaking of in Peter’s day, more specifically Peter’s tradition of preaching at Rome. Consider this, Constantinople and much of the East is consumed by Ariansim, so therefore they are not adhereing to that true faith. The East is just as much a part of that ‘Roman Empire’ as the West is, so, how can Theodosius claim that the Empire has been given the true faith when the Empire itself is torn between heretical doctrine and true doctrines? The Empire is not conducive, or does not relate directly, to the true faith, as there were many heresies that spread throughout the Empire. As, Theodosius sees currently, half of the Empire is embracing heresy. That source of the true faith comes from Peter’s preaching at Rome, that faith which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and the Bishop Peter of Alexandria. Is an Arian Patriarch not just as much a part of that ‘Roman Empire’ as a Nicene Patriarch? Yes, but then they would be at odds, no? So how then is the Empire professing that true “religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans”? If we are to attach this meaning of “Empire” to this specific edict we automatically find that it makes no sense. The Empire is torn, thus if his command to that Empire to embrace the faith which was given to that same Empire by Peter, wouldnt the Arians in Constantinople proclaim, “We already are! We are in the Empire”. No, the criterion he sets is for that which Peter has preached in Rome.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

In other words, if we are to attach this meaning of ‘Empire" to Theodosius’ words then we could paraphrase thus:

“Hey Romans of the Empire, you are to adhere to that faith that St. Peter had given to the Romans of the Empire”

Certainly the Arians didnt think so, or they would have rejoiced.
This rationale makes no complete sense.

God bless,

JJR

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JJR,

When Theodosius refers to ‘Romans’ he uses the past tense, “Peter the apostle ***is said to have given ***to the Romans”. He is speaking of in Peter’s day, more specifically Peter’s tradition of preaching at Rome.

This makes a lot of sense. The clause “is said” is what really got me thinking. Theodosius is obviously referring to some Tradition that was passed down to him. I think the rest of the sentence after that clause IS the Tradition - of St. Peter giving the faith to the Romans.

I’m starting to lean towards your position some more, but I’ll have to think about it more because right now I still don’t see why “Romans” must necessarily refer to the city of Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

(1) So, in other words, you have no scholarship to provide to the discussion?

I’ve said further. I don’t know if I’ve seen the topic covered in the scholarship (by that, I am not including polemics on the primacy of Rome, pro or con). The edict is covered in several works, and although the fact that Damasus is cited by name, and the title pontiff is used, I do not recall any importance being given to the term Romans in it. It is, from the rest of the literature, a given understanding that the term had ceased to have a particular reference to the city (not even a capital by that time) but to Romania, the empire.

For instance, a work “Pagan City and Christian Capital,” Curran, dealing with Damasus pontificate and the transformation of Rome into a Christian city, has failed to turn up a single reference to the edict, though it uses the Code, with the warning that (p 161) "the function of the Code must be understood before any evidence gained from it can be appreciated. Hunt, "Christianizing the Roman Empire, the evidence of the Code, in Harries and Woods, “The Theodosian Code,” I hope will turn up something, but I don’t have my hands on a copy and it’s been years since I read it. Other titles have shown nothing except a passing reference to it establishing a state Church, and it being Catholic, but nothing on the source of that Catholicism (except the Popes Damasus and Peter of Alexandria), or Peter and the Romans.

What single issue regarding the Primacy of Rome has not been discussed in detail by BOTH Catholic and Orthodox?

I’m arguing from history, not dogma. Theodosius had no authority over the Church, btw, or to set doctrine or dogma. He was bound as a Nicene Christian (Sozomen puts it in context, the emperor had just been baptized) to use his power as emperor to further the true faith (pro-abortion politicians, TAKE NOTE).

Is there not a rebuttal to the sources I have cited?

I’ve already pointed out flaws in your literature (they’re not sources. You haven’t cited any sources, just secondary literature. The only sources have come from my end).

Can you please deliver some source that says Theodosius was not refering to Rome when he states Romans?

Look over what I have posted from the SOURCE Sozomen.

I have offered you at least 3, I would only consideer it fair that you also provide outside sources, other than your rationalizations, to back your arguement.

I’ve provided sources and literature, including a close and contemporary source Sozomen, attached to the court the put the edict in the Code.

One would think that the scholarship of the Orthodox would not be lacking on this issue, or it may be, that no one really disagrees with the fact that Theodosius is refering to the living tradition that has always lived within the church that St. Peter preached and was martyred at Rome.

Or, since we are familiar with Roman meaing the empire, even after the fall of Old Rome, and we of course don’t have the Romocentric view (though we honor St. Peter, and the See of Rome as being a Petrine see, even the chief Petrine see), the idea hasn’t caught anyone’s notice, assuming there is something to notice.

Btw, it is the insistence of the term “Byzantine” and “Byzantium” that has probably blinded your “scholars” to how the emperor issuing the edict, the chancellory publishing it and the subjects obeying it, understood the wording.

(

1. Please see the source that I have cite --Primitive church, Rivington–

I have, and briefly commentated above.

(3) “As Gaul was about this period infested by the incursions of the Alemanni, Gratian returned to his paternal dominions, which he had reserved for himself and his brother, when he bestowed the government of Illyria and of the Eastern provinces upon Theodosius. He effected his purpose with regard to the barbarians; and Theodosius was equally successful against the tribes from the banks of the Ister; he defeated them, compelled them to sue for peace, and, after accepting hostages from them, proceeded to Thessalonica. He fell ill while in this city, and after receiving instruction from Ascholius, the bishop, he was initiated, and was soon after restored to health. The parents of Theodosius were Christians, and were attached to the Nicene doctrines; he was pleased with Ascholius, who maintained the same doctrines, and was, in a word, endowed with every virtue of the priesthood. He also rejoiced at finding that the Arian heresy had not been participated in by Illyria. He inquired concerning the religious sentiments which were prevalent in the other provinces, and ascertained that, as far as Macedonia, all the churches were like minded, and all held that equal homage ought to be rendered to God the Word, and to the Holy Ghost, as to God the Father; but that towards the East, and particularly at Constantinople, the people were divided into many different heresies. Reflecting that it would be better to propound his own religious views to his subjects, so as not to appear to be using force by commanding the unwilling subject to worship contrary to his judgment, Theodosius enacted a law at Thessalonica, which he caused to be published at Constantinople, well knowing that the rescript would speedily become public to all the other cities, if issued from that city, which is as a citadel of the whole empire. He made known by this law his intention of leading all his subjects to the reception of that faith which Peter, the chief of the apostles, had, from the beginning, preached to the Romans, and which was professed by Damasus, bishop of Rome, and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria. He enacted that the title of Catholic Church should be exclusively confined to those who rendered equal homage to the Three Persons of the Trinity, and that those individuals who entertained opposite opinions should be treated as heretics, regarded with contempt, and delivered over to punishment.”
newadvent.org/fathers/26027.htm

So from the beginning, as your arguement goes, St. Peter preached the true faith to the pagan Roman Empire of his day? Your arguement completely falls apart and makes less than zero sense. In stating ‘Romans’ he is refering to St. Peter’s preaching and delivering of the true faith at Rome.

As I stated, the term Romans appears in the beginning of the section quoted, and they are on the Danube, not the Tiber. Btw, there is patristic talk of the bishop of Rome being there to witness to the emperor. Not without effect, Pope Victor was in tight with the emperor Commodus (he was the one who introduced Latin into the Liturgy at Rome, it had been all Greek up to then).

(4) Exactly! Which is precisely why Theodosius delivers this specific edict. The Empire is not practising that “religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans”.

In, for instance, Pope Gregory condemns the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” and appeals to EP John’s predecessor. As does Iraenus when the Church rebukes Pope Victor, he appeals to the practice of the previous Popes. Theodosius appeal, well order, is the same. He is telling them to go back to their roots (ironically Alexandria, the only see mentioned, is basically the only in the East that does owe something to Rome to their existence), not telling them to adopt some external standard.

(5) Oh, its a wonderful book. He is very objective in his observations. Also, the primacy of Rome is something that was to manifest itself out about a century after our Lord’s passion. In regards to this please see Cardinal Newman’s ‘Development of Doctrine’. He expounds the history wonderfully.

We don’t need to bring another bone of contention into this. If it’s not a “development” that had “developed” by the end of the 4th century, it’s not relevant.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You may also notice in the 6th Ecumenical council that the council Father proclaim:

“The supreme prince of the apostles struggled with us; his emulator and successor to his chair is on our side and has explained to us through a letter the mystery of the divine incarnation. The ancient city of Rome has brought forth a confession written by God and has caused day to dawn in the West for this dogma. It appeared in paper and ink, and Peter spoke through Agatho.”

Yes, the same counsel that said “and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up, having been urged to making a decree by Constantine who divinely reigns, and wields a most clement sceptre. And by his help we have overthrown the error of impiety, having as it were laid siege to the nefarious doctrine of the heretics. And then tearing to pieces the foundations of their execrable heresy, and attacking them with spiritual and paternal arms, and confounding their tongues that they might not speak consistently with each other, we overturned the tower built up by these followers of this most impious heresy; and we slew them with anathema, as lapsed concerning the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God, that we may express ourselves after the manner of David, in accordance with the sentence already given concerning them in your letter, and their names are these: Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Sergius, [Pope] Honorius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter.” “The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and confirmed by Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself. Also Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter; more recently. Macarius, Stephen, and Polychronius had diffused Monothelitism. He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees…As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy” “The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas,…And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers.”

The high speech of the Emperor surprises me none, as the East subsisted in a sate of Church and Empire. Which is clealry something that Orthodoxy has not sufficiently dealt with.

Actually we have, several times: every time the emperor tried to sell out the purity of the Orthodox Faith with the latest union scheme coming out from the West, he got himself excommunicated and shunned.

Again, the selective condemnation of Caesaropapism never ceases to amaze me.

King Reccared called the council of Toledo. He and his queen promulgated their confession and signed it. The Catholic bishops told the Visigoth bishops, clergy and laity to renounce Arianism and accept Catholicism: the Visigoths stated that they did with the King’s confession, a reply the Rome’s episcopacy there accepted. King Reccared then directed the council to draw up the canon (2) ordering the recitation of the Creed with filioque in the Divine Liturgy. Emperor Charlemagne at the Council of Frankfurt condemned the Seventh Ecumenical Council and ordered the recital of the filioque in the DL. Then Emperor Henry ordered that it be recited in DL at Rome, overturning centuries of oppositon to that by the Popes of Rome. King Oswiu at the Synod of Whitby ordered the suppression of the Celtic Church, and the imposition of Rome’s orders. No emperor of the East proclaimed himself supreme head of the Church. Only a king that the pope of Rome entitlted “Defender of the Faith.”

Don’t hurt yourself with that log.

(6) I only know of him stating that Constantinople was a city that had not known pagansim or had any of it temples, because the Christian Emperor Constatine founded the city. Of course he could not be speaking of Byzantium, which was a Greek colony and the exact place where Constatinople was to rise.

Actually in that he is wrong (the foundation ceremonies were pagan, along with a Christian one). Julian did have an effect, which didn’t last of course. For his statements about the paganism of Old Rome, see e.g. page 31.

-Again I please ask that you directly quote from a source that says Theodosius is speaking of the Empire when he states ‘Romans’. I have provided you with a couple and I imagine if others hold the same arguement as you do, of which I know none, then It wont be difficult to dig something up that deals specifically with ‘Codex Theodosianus XVI.i.2’ and your contention.

God bless,

JJR

It has proved otherwise, as I have stated above. Evidently only ultramontanists have grasped at this straw.