Codex Theodosianus XVI.i.2

[JJR1453]

Dear brother JJR,

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

Hello marduk!

I would pose to you- How could it not necessarily refer to the city of Rome? Consider this, Theodosius states “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”, you see, Theodosius acknowledges that Damsus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria are of the orthodox faith; also he acknowledges that much of the East, specifically Constantinople, is not adhereing to that true faith, which is the reason for the edict. Now, all at the same time Theodosius acknowledges that all of these places are a part of the Empire, but wishes to have the East adhere to the faith that was being professed by Damasus and Peter of Alexandria which has its origins from St. Peter’s transmission to the Romans.

How could St. Peter give the true faith to a pagan Roman Empire of his day? Or, even, to a torn Christain Empire?

The Empire is only orthodox when it subscribes and proclaims to that true orthodox faith! Not the other way around!

The Romans, that is ‘the citizens of the Roman Empire’, subscribed to many different heresies over the centuries. However, that faith that was delivered to the Romans by St. Peter is always eternally truth, no matter who proclaims it. And that true faith has its origins in St. Peter’s tradition at Rome.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Isa_Almisry]

"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. ’

He menitions two centers. Btw, several Popes of Rome state that Alexandria is a Petrine See, as it was based on the preaching of St. Peter as recounted by St. Mark in his Gospel.

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.’

There should be no surprise, they were all Romans there in the East. And the edict was sent to New Rome, with the stated purpose, as the sources say (Sozomen, VII, iv) that from that “citadel of the whole empire,” it would be published to all the cities. If Rome was the center of everything, and not the has been it was at the time, he would have sent it there: as it is, it has the one emperor there, Gratian’s, signature, and uses the Roman legal term “pontiff.”

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…

Yes, ultramontanist tend to forget that St. Peter’s first see is Antioch, and on the Roman calendar the Feast of St. Peter’s Primacy was originally the Feast of St. Peter’s Throne at Antioch (Feb. 22). And even the Popes of Rome claimed that Alexandria was a Petrine See.

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.

Pontiff is a pagan legal title, dealing with the pagan state religion. Apostle is a purely Christian title. Peter also had the title Pope, which started first in Alexandria and continues to this day (except, of course for the Coptic and Melkite patriarchs who have submitted to Rome. The Vatican’s church is too small for more than one pope, and so, unlike all other churches attached to the Vatican, they do not have the title pope as their Orthodox counterparts do). Btw, Gratian granted the title pontiff to Damasus, and Theodosius was still technically a junior emperor, and Gratian the seniormost). If pontiff said it all there would be no need for Peter of Alexandria.

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–

As the edict is issued in the name of all the emperors, and was sent to Constantinople, the sources say, for difusion throughout the empire, Rivington is reading much to the fact it being sent to Constantinople. Btw, that mention of “people” under “our Clemency” means the emperors (plural).

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

Done

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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 still don’t see the hang up on pagan Rome. The Romans in Rome when St. Peter showed up were pagan (or Jewish). And in Theodosius’ day, it still was pretty pagan and holding out.

The literature I cited shows how the Imperium Romanum (Roman Empire) had by this time passed to Imperium Romanorum (Empire of the Romans) to even Romania (by the fourth century, ie. the time in question). So it would still be “to the Romans,” as the common parlance of the day would show.

Whereas your interpretation, it should say “have given to Rome”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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)…

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.”

You write as someone who has had to deal too much with lawyers and bureaucrats. Quick and to the point, which is what they don’t like. Obscurity is how you can charge hundreds of dollars an hour.

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.

From your name I assume you are ruumii of some sort. I’m ruumi, except when the Greeks show up, and then I’m 'arabi.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

The Christians at the time were busy doing what Virgil had done with the Aeneid. Virgil sticks the upstart Rome into the roots of Classical Greek greatness, it being a forgone conclusion that the sons of Troy of course would be entitled to world empire, legitimizing the Julio-Claudians. Christians would compose hymns of how just as Augustus united the world into one empire, so Christ would bring them into the Catholic Church, the nexus being the census enrolling them in Rome, along the Messiah whose Apostles would enroll them in heaven. St. Cyril would argue that render unto Caesar meant specifically the emperor of the Romans: anyone who refused to acknowledge this was in rebellion against God.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

Btw, with your interpretation, what was Theodosius saying to the numerous pagans back in Old Rome?

Part of the problem is this image you and your “authorities” seem to have that the whole East was Arian. The fact that he mentions Pope Peter of Alexandria should tell you otherwise. Sozomen says “Arianism met with similar opposition at the same period in Osröene [Mesopotamia, includes the craddle of Syriac Christianity, Edessa, and was attached to the Christian kingdom of Armenia] but in the Cappadocias, Providence allotted such a divine and most educated pair of men,—Basil, the bishop of Cæsarea in that country, and Gregory, bishop of Nazianzen. Syria and the neighboring provinces, and more especially the city of Antioch, were plunged into confusion and disorder; for the Arians were very numerous in these parts, and had possession of the churches. The members of the Catholic Church were not, however, few in number…It was through their instrumentality that the church of Antioch was preserved from the encroachments of the Arians, and enabled to resist the zeal of the emperor and of those in power about him. Indeed, it appears that in all the churches which were governed by brave men, the people did not deviate from their former opinions.” I.e. former opinion, the same opinion, btw, that Theodosius is calling wayward subjects to return to.] It is said that this was the cause of the firmness with which the Scythians adhered to their faith
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.iii.xi.xxi.html

Btw, Sozomen later talks about the various customs of the Churches, and notes that no one but the bishop teaches the people in Alexadria, a practice instituted, he says after Arius, just a priest, caused all the problems. He also, in the same passage does use the term Roman that indeed refers to the people of the city of Rome:
Again, there are even now but seven deacons at Rome, answering precisely to the number ordained by the apostles, of whom Stephen was the first martyr; whereas, in other churches, the number of deacons is a matter of indifference. At Rome hallelujah is sung once annually, namely, on the first day of the festival of the Passover; so that it is a common thing among the Romans to swear by the fact of hearing or singing this hymn. In that city the people are not taught by the bishop, nor by any one in the Church.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.iii.xii.xix.html

The explicit reference to “at Rome” and “in that city” make explicit that the Romans of the city of Rome are meant. The context, however, is quite different: Sozomen is explicitly talking about local customs, and not universal practice. The statement that the people are not taught by the Pope of Rome in Rome is interesting. Was the magisterium not developed yet.

Btw, you are aware that the Arians called themselves Catholic, which is why the edict is explicit on who can legally call themselves such.

And to paraphrase, “Hey you Romans of the Empire adhere to the faith that Peter gave to the Romans of the Empire, if you are TRUE Romans.”

To give a modern example, JP II once said to the Romanians that “if they were really Roman, they would be Roman Catholic.” The Romanian patriarch cut off all ecumenical contacts in response. Fortunately, it was patched up before the two passed away.

An aside, I always am amused on the speculation in ultramontanist literature on when the Latin mass was abandoned in Romania, as when Rome pulled out of Dacia (modern Romania) in the third century, there was no Latin mass in Rome (Latin wasn’t introduced into the Liturgy at Rome until 180 and Pope Victor from Africa, and didn’t become a Latin mass (save the Kyrie eleison and other parts even still in Greek, the original liturgical language at Rome) until Damasus nearly a century after the Romans pulled out (271, although evidence of the persistence of Latin speaking Christians long after survive in inscriptions. The Scythians mentioned above, the ones resisting Arianism, were proto-Romanians.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello marduk!

I would pose to you- How could it not necessarily refer to the city of Rome? Consider this, Theodosius states “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”, you see, Theodosius acknowledges that Damsus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria are of the orthodox faith; also he acknowledges that much of the East, specifically Constantinople, is not adhereing to that true faith, which is the reason for the edict.

The reason for it being sent to Constantiople, as Sozomen points out, is not only because the Arians still had the upper hand there, but also Theodosius knew that the “citadel of the Empire” would publish it to all the cities. Again, the mention of Alexandria shows not all the East was Arian, as attested as in the post above.

Now, all at the same time Theodosius acknowledges that all of these places are a part of the Empire, but wishes to have the East adhere to the faith that was being professed by Damasus and Peter of Alexandria which has its origins from St. Peter’s transmission to the Romans.

He wishes that all the peoples the emperors rule to subscribe to the Nicene Creed. And again, Peter is in the Alexandria, in the East. Btw. those tribesmen Theodosius defeated on the Danube, the ones seeking “the Romans as friends,” were Arians.

How could St. Peter give the true faith to a pagan Roman Empire of his day?

Are you saying St. Peter founded the Church of Rome on Christians already there? He was preaching to the choir? Christians crucified him?

Or, even, to a torn Christain Empire?

I guess the same way you claim he did at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), to a Church divided on the issue of the gentiles.

Here we are touching another difference between East and West. The East see Ecumenical Councils as a bad thing: something needs to be corrected. Dogmatizing for the fun of it makes not sense.

The Empire is only orthodox when it subscribes and proclaims to that true orthodox faith! Not the other way around!

Yes. Your point?

The Romans, that is ‘the citizens of the Roman Empire’, subscribed to many different heresies over the centuries.

Is that different from Romans, that is 'the inhabitants of the city of Rome."

However, that faith that was delivered to the Romans by St. Peter is always eternally truth, no matter who proclaims it.

Yes, whether in his first See Antioch, his disciple Mark’s see Alexandria, Jerusalem (see below), Thessalonica where an emperor is proclaiming it, or New Rome which was not evangelized by St Peter but his brother St. Andrew the First Called, where the edict was sent out to the rest of the “Romans.”

And that true faith has its origins in St. Peter’s tradition at Rome.

Funny, St. Peter is preaching all over Acts, but St. Luke seems to be under the impression that St. Peter is in Jerusalem.

Btw, as to why Arianism was not in Rome, it is interesting what Theodoret, another contemporary source as Sozomen, has to say:

Upon this Gratian departed for Italy and despatched Theodosius to the countries committed to his charge. No sooner had Theodosius assumed the imperial dignity than before everything else he gave heed to the harmony of the churches, and ordered the bishops of his own realm to repair with haste to Constantinople. That division of the empire was now the only region infected with the Arian plague, for the west had escaped the taint. This was due to the fact that Constantine the eldest of Constantine’s sons, and Constans the youngest, had preserved their father’s faith in its integrity, and that Valentinian, emperor of the West, had also kept the true religion undefiled.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.iv.viii.v.vi.html

No mention of the pontiff, pope, or bishop of Rome at all.

 

[Badaliyyah]

You write as someone who has had to deal too much with lawyers and bureaucrats. Quick and to the point, which is what they don’t like. Obscurity is how you can charge hundreds of dollars an hour.

From your name I assume you are ruumii of some sort. I’m ruumi, except when the Greeks show up, and then I’m 'arabi.

I need a job where I can charge hundreds an hr. I didn’t realize obscurity was the secret.

I am in indeed ruumi: Melkite as you may have gathered by now. From what I have seen of your posts we may have similar stories. I am not middle eastern, but spent several formative years there and still have quite a few contacts, mostly Muslim, both there and, now here, in the States. I assume from your name your ties are in Egypt. (if i got any of the details wrong I apologize, mostly I was just going on a couple of post in other fora).

As a side note, following up (very tangentially) on your comment about Antioch in another post…have you noticed how Antioch bears a striking resemblance to Damascus these days??

salaam.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I just came across a web site of the Greek in submission to the Vatican, which talks (with references) of the dissociation of the term Roman from the city, and its transference to the empire as a whole:

Diocletian (284-305) doesn’t seem to have spent much time in the vomitorium – though, as the only emperor ever to actually retire from office, he did build a nice retirement village at Split (Spalatum) in Dalmatia (now Croatia). He said he would rather grow vegetables than try to regain the throne. Not our idea of the typical Roman emperor. More like Candide. Ethnically, Diocletian is supposed, like several of his colleagues, to have been an Illyrian, a people whose modern descedants might be the Albanians. Be that as it may, he is the first emperor (after, well, Philip the Arab) with a certifiably Greek name: Dioclês. This is a name similar in form to Heracles (Hêras kléos, the “fame/glory of Hera”), with the stem for “Zeus” substituted for the stem for “Hera” (Diós kléos, the “fame/glory of Zeus”). This was Latinized to Diocletianus when Dioclês became Emperor. Diocletian also managed to go his entire reign with only one brief, ceremonial visit to Rome. The possession of the City, or residence there, was no longer of much political significance. Nobody had to “march on Rome,” as Septimius Severus did, to become Emperor.

But this was now a new empire. Not only did Constantine begin to institute Christianity, but the city of Rome itself had along the way assumed a very secondary importance in the life of the state. As we have seen, Diocletian seems to have visited the city only once. Rome had become Romania: a great Empire with a City, rather than a great City with a Empire. As Peter Heather puts it [The Fall of the Roman Empire, Oxford, 2006], Rome was now an “inside-out” Empire – the center and the periphery had exchanged places. This transformation is scrupulously ignored in popular treatments of the Roman Empire, even in apparently well researched presentations on venues like the History Channel. They treat the fate of the Empire as tied to the fate of the City, when their stories had long been separated and the City had ceased to be the center of events, politically, culturally, or militarily. All free Roman subjects had been citizens since Caracalla. The emperors who restored the empire in the Third Century, Claudius II, Aurelian, and Diocletian, had all come from Illyricum. There was little time for the emperors to spend at Rome; and for military reasons, Milan (Mediolanum) and later Ravenna became the practical western capitals, as Diocletian had taken up residence at Nicomedia (the modern Turkish Izmit, badly damaged by an earthquake in 1999) in Bithynia. The Roman citizens of the city of Rome were now distinct in no truly important way from the rest of the empire, though they still continued to receive subsidized food shipments and formal respects. “Roman” now meant the Empire and the citizens, and only secondarily the City

Peter Brown mentions, in The World of Late Antiquity, AD 150-750 [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971, p. 41], that “the empire itself was now called Romania.” Professor Brown has informed me personally (5 October 1999) that there are two extant 4th century texts that use the term “Romania,” one of them actually in Greek. The latter is especially striking, when the Mediaeval usage in Greek was “Emperor of the Romans” (Basileus [tôn] Rhômaiôn) rather than “Emperor of Romania” (Basileus [tês] Rhômanias). But the -an- stem can be seen in the four Emperors named Romanus. In Latin Romanus simply means “Roman,” and so one might suspect that in Greek the Emperors would have been named Rhômaios. Not so. Their name was written Rhômanos.

The Mediaeval term Romania tended to be used in Latin to refer to the contemporary lands of the Empire, especially by the Venetians and the Crusaders who took Constantinople and then ruled, for a while, most of those lands. A 7th century Latin text casually using “Romania” is given at the top of this page.

“Byzantium,” although the name of the original Greek city where Constantinople was founded, and often used for the City (as by Procopius), was not a word that was ever used to refer to the Empire, or to anything about it, by its rulers, its inhabitants, or even its enemies. The emperor was always of the “Romans,” Rhômaioi in Greek; and to Arabs and Turks the Empire and land were simply Rûm, "Rome"As Roman identity expanded from Old Rome into all Romania, it focused and contracted from the shrinking Empire onto the New Rome. “Byzantium” is in fact a term of ill will and scorn adopted and substituted by modern historians, who didn’t want to admit that Rome did not, after all, “fall,” leaving them personally as the eventual and proper heirs. As G.W. Bowersock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar say, the term “Byzantine Empire” is “a modern misnomer redolent of ill-informed contempt” (Late Antiquity, A Guide to the Postclassical World, Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, 1999, p.vii). When Frankish envoys, with their own pretentions as successors of Rome, arrived at the Court of Nicephorus Phocas in 968, they bore a letter addressed to the “emperor of the Greeks.” For this “sinful audacity,” they were thrown in prison [Jonathan Harris, Constantinople, Continuum, 2007, p.62]. Evidently even they had not heard of “Byzantium” as the name of the Empire

Fortunately, there has been a reaction against this for a while now. Peter Brown’s great The World of Late Antiquity 150-750 [HBJ, 1971] zeros in on many myths and misconceptions about the late empire and has inspired great interest and more critical appraisals of the period. Despite the date in the title, Brown essentially begins with the transformations of the 3rd century. This is, in essence, when Rome became Romania. But to those for whom “Rome” merely means the City, not the Empire, that is the problem. The transformation and universalization of the state means a loss of interest, despite complete continuity, even in language (for a while).

The Roman Empire looked fine in 395, the year of the death of Theodosius the Great. The frontiers were secure, orthodoxy was established, the Visigoths were pacified, and Theodosius, doubtlessly with a mind at peace (he had even patched up a nasty excommunication by St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan [not Rome, notice])

rumkatkilise.org/byzlinks.htm
friesian.com/decdenc1.htm#note-3

it has an interesting map of the capitals of the empires, with the remark of Rome (-286) for a date.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JJR,

I’ve come to the conclusion that the statement from Theodosius refers to the City of Rome. However, it is not by virtue of any of the reasoning you gave after my second post in this thread, wherein I considered the possibility of siding with you because of your insight on the fact that the words “is said to have” refers to a Tradition that was handed down to Theodosius.

Working off of that premise, which certainly cannot be denied, my only concern was whether the “Romans” being referred to was actually the City of Rome or the region ruled by Rome. If the former, I would have to side with you, if the latter, I would have to side with brother Isa.

The reason I side with your position is this:
Was there ever a tradition that St. Peter spread the faith to all the territories of Rome? The definite answer is NO. It was St. Paul who did more to spread the Faith throughout the Roman lands than St. Peter did. Thus, I have to conclude that when Theodosius writes that St. Peter gave the faith to the Romans, it can only refer to the city of Rome, which is a well attested tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Badaliyyah]

Was there ever a tradition that St. Peter spread the faith to all the territories of Rome? The definite answer is NO. It was St. Paul who did more to spread the Faith throughout the Roman lands than St. Peter did. Thus, I have to conclude that when Theodosius writes that St. Peter gave the faith to the Romans, it can only refer to the city of Rome, which is a well attested tradition.

I don’t agree with this. Peter is associated, in some form or another, with Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople. Moreover, the Emperors clearly thought of the glory of Rome as having passed East, and connected this with the Christianization of the Empire. The barbarians were over-running Rome with its old pagan Senate. Constantinople was the New Rome: the capital of new Christian Rome. This is why I am having a hard time buying into the thesis that this is meant specifically as an invocation of the city of Rome as the present-day guarantor and standard of orthodoxy. What is being appealed to here is the faith given to the Empire. Those who do not hold it, are not good Romans (i.e., undermining both faith and Empire…undermining the ecclesia).

And, with that, I will check out of the convo again for a while.

salaam.

 

[Badaliyyah]

I don’t agree with this. Peter is associated, in some form or another, with Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople. Moreover, the Emperors clearly thought of the glory of Rome as having passed East, and connected this with the Christianization of the Empire. The barbarians were over-running Rome with its pagan Senate. Constantinople was the New Rome: the capital of new Christian Rome. This is why I am having a hard time buying into the thesis that this is meant specifically as an invocation of the city of Rome as the present-day guarantor and standard of orthodoxy. What is being appealed to here is the faith given to the Empire. Those who do not hold it, are not good Romans (i.e., undermining both faith and Empire…undermining the ecclesia).

And, with that, I will check out of the convo again for a while.

salaam.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Badaliyyah,

I don’t agree with this. Peter is associated, in some form or another, with Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople.

I agree with that too, but I’ve never heard or read of people in Antioch being referred to as “Romans,” but rather as “the people of Antioch” or “those in Antioch,” I’ve never heard or read of the Alexandrians being referred to as “Romans,” but rather either “those from Alexandria,” or more commonly Africans, and I’ve never heard or read of a tradition that connects St. Peter to Constantinople, but rather St. Andrew. But even if St. Peter is to be connected with the faiths of these three great cities, it is nevertheless St. Paul, as Apostle to the Gentiles, who had the more prolific ministry in the Roman EMPIRE than St. Peter did. If anyone can be asserted to have given the Faith to the Roman EMPIRE, it has to be St. Paul, not St. Peter.

The idea of the term “Romans” being applied to everyone at this early period is beyond belief to me. They were Roman citizens certainly, but when the term “Romans” is referred to at this early period, it most certainly means those at Rome. This is the use made by Sozomen, and Eusebius, and other early historians, as well as individual Fathers in the fourth century, as far as I know (seriously, do just a cursory analysis of the writings of the Father of the period, and see what they mean when they use the term “Romans”). I believe it is only MUCH later in history that people would NORMALLY use “Romans” as a self-identification with the heritage of the Roman Empire, precisely because there were competing claims about who held the true heritage of the Roman Empire. In this early stage of Church history, there was no such tension. EVERYONE knew they were Roman citizens, but when the term “Roman” is used, everyone knew they were referring to the city of Rome.

Furthermore, to be honest, the more I read the text, the more awkward it sounded to imagine that the term “Romans” is a self-reference to “all the people who live under the rule of our clemency.” If the two were intended to be equated, why use separate terms? And why use a term that, in the writings of the bishops of the poeple, normally applied to those in the CITY of Rome? Why didn’t he just use the pronoun “us” instead of “Romans”? Seriously.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JJR1453]

Dear brother Badaliyyah,

I agree with that too, but I’ve never heard or read of people in Antioch being referred to as “Romans,” but rather as “the people of Antioch” or “those in Antioch,” I’ve never heard or read of the Alexandrians being referred to as “Romans,” but rather either “those from Alexandria,” or more commonly Africans, and I’ve never heard or read of a tradition that connects St. Peter to Constantinople, but rather St. Andrew. But even if St. Peter is to be connected with the faiths of these three great cities, it is nevertheless St. Paul, as Apostle to the Gentiles, who had the more prolific ministry in the Roman EMPIRE than St. Peter did. If anyone can be asserted to have given the Faith to the Roman EMPIRE, it has to be St. Paul, not St. Peter.

The idea of the term “Romans” being applied to everyone at this early period is beyond belief to me. They were Roman citizens certainly, but when the term “Romans” is referred to at this early period, it most certainly means those at Rome. This is the use made by Sozomen, and Eusebius, and other early historians, as well as individual Fathers in the fourth century, as far as I know (seriously, do just a cursory analysis of the writings of the Father of the period, and see what they mean when they use the term “Romans”). I believe it is only MUCH later in history that people would NORMALLY use “Romans” as a self-identification with the heritage of the Roman Empire, precisely because there were competing claims about who held the true heritage of the Roman Empire. In this early stage of Church history, there was no such tension. EVERYONE knew they were Roman citizens, but when the term “Roman” is used, everyone knew they were referring to the city of Rome.

Furthermore, to be honest, the more I read the text, the more awkward it sounded to imagine that the term “Romans” is a self-reference to “all the people who live under the rule of our clemency.” If the two were intended to be equated, why use separate terms? And why use a term that, in the writings of the bishops of the poeple, normally applied to those in the CITY of Rome? Why didn’t he just use the pronoun “us” instead of “Romans”? Seriously.

Blessings,
Marduk

Very well said marduk. For these reasons I hold the contention that he is refering to the city of Rome. To be absolutely honest, I thought it rather common sense, not to insult anyone’s intelligence, and most things in regards to history should not be taken as assumptions. However, I have never heard of anyone ever positing that in Theodosius’ edict he *was not *refering to Rome. One would assume there has to be some form of literature wishing to disprove the ‘Romans-- as city of Rome’ theory if it be so bold an analysis on the part of the Catholics. I apologize for taking so long in responding in this thread, been kinda busy lately. At this point I must say tho, some have their own rationalizations and understanding of the matter, which is good, we dont all have to agree on everything, right? However, I believe an objective look at the edict will certainly bring about a strong belief that Theodosius is indeed refering to lively tradition of St. Peter and his preaching at Rome. Indeed why would Theodosius refer to the Empire in the third person? As if he and the would be recipients of the edict were not themselves a part of that Empire…

God bless,

JJR

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Badaliyyah,

I agree with that too, but I’ve never heard or read of people in Antioch being referred to as “Romans,” but rather as “the people of Antioch” or “those in Antioch,”

Then you haven’t been in Antioch.

I’ve never heard or read of the Alexandrians being referred to as “Romans,” but rather either “those from Alexandria,” or more commonly Africans,

You’ve never been to Alexandria? I’ve been called “Roman” in Cairo (and Minya, and…).

and I’ve never heard or read of a tradition that connects St. Peter to Constantinople, but rather St. Andrew.

his brother, the First Called.

Btw, I KNOW that you have seen the quote from Pope St. Gregory of Rome on how Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (note the order: although St. Peter founded the 1st and 3rd himself, the 2nd was indirectly, perhaps after his death, founded by his disciple St. Mark. Why the jump in order?). It’s been posted here enough.

But even if St. Peter is to be connected with the faiths of these three great cities, it is nevertheless St. Paul, as Apostle to the Gentiles, who had the more prolific ministry in the Roman EMPIRE than St. Peter did. If anyone can be asserted to have given the Faith to the Roman EMPIRE, it has to be St. Paul, not St. Peter.

I seem to recall the APOSTLES fast, leading up to the Feast of SS Peter and Paul (the patronal feast of the Church were I was chrismated, not translated).

The idea of the term “Romans” being applied to everyone at this early period is beyond belief to me.

Look at the links I’ve provided. The term had been disassociated from the City even by the pagans.

They were Roman citizens certainly, but when the term “Romans” is referred to at this early period, it most certainly means those at Rome.

No. In an earlier period only few had citizenship (remember in Acts, the big deal when the persecutors find out he is a Roman citizen?), and it was largely confined to Italians and there descendants. In 212 (i.e. over a century and a half before the time in question) the Constitutio Antoniniana gave it to all free subjects of the empire, including women (women even of Roman birth in Rome (the city, that is ) were denied citizenship before).

This is the use made by Sozomen,

now I’ve provided the text and link to Sozomen, where, just lines about his account of the edict in question, he uses the term Roman and those Roman are on the Danube, not the Tiber and nowhere noway conected to the city in Italy (no longer capital by the way, as a link I’ve posted shows).

and Eusebius, and other early historians, as well as individual Fathers in the fourth century, as far as I know (seriously, do just a cursory analysis of the writings of the Father of the period, and see what they mean when they use the term “Romans”).

I’ve posted quite a number of them, and references to them, and literature on them.

As for Eusebius, I’ve quickly gleaned:

Oration of Eusebius. Chapter XVI.
4. At the same time one universal power, the Roman empire, arose and flourished, while the enduring and implacable hatred of nation against nation was now removed: and as the knowledge of one God, and one way of religion and salvation, even the doctrine of Christ, was made known to all mankind; so at the self-same period, the entire dominion of the Roman empire being vested in a single sovereign, profound peace reigned throughout the world. And thus, by the express appointment of the same God, two roots of blessing, the Roman empire, and the doctrine of Christian piety, sprang up together for the benefit of men.5. For before this time the various countries of the world, as Syria, Asia, Macedonia, Egypt, and Arabia, had been severally subject to different rulers. The Jewish people, again, had established their dominion in the land of Palestine. And these nations, in every village, city, and district, actuated by some insane spirit, were engaged in incessant and murderous war and conflict. But two mighty powers, starting from the same point, the Roman empire, which henceforth was swayed by a single sovereign, and the Christian religion, subdued and reconciled these contending elements.6. Our Saviour’s mighty power destroyed at once the many governments and the many gods of the powers of darkness, and proclaimed to all men, both rude and civilized, to the extremities of the earth, the sole sovereignty of God himself. Meantime the Roman empire, the causes of multiplied governments being thus removed, effected an easy conquest of those which yet remained; its object being to unite all nations in one harmonious whole; an object in great measure already secured, and destined to be still more perfectly attained, even to the final conquest of the ends of the habitable world, by means of the salutary doctrine, and through the aid of that Divine power which facilitates and smooths its way. 7. And surely this must appear a wondrous fact to those who will examine the question in the love of truth, and desire not to cavil at these blessings.The falsehood of demon superstition was convicted: the inveterate strife and mutual hatred of the nations was removed: at the same time One God, and the knowledge of that God, were proclaimed to all: one universal empire prevailed; and the whole human race, subdued by the controlling power of peace and concord, received one another as brethren, and responded to the feelings of their common nature. Hence, as children of one God and Father, and owning true religion as their common mother, they saluted and welcomed each other with words of peace. Thus the whole world appeared like one well-ordered and united family: each one might journey unhindered as far as and whithersoever he pleased: men might securely travel from West to East, and from East to West, as to their own native country: in short, the ancient oracles and predictions of the prophets were fulfilled, more numerous than we can at present cite, and those especially which speak as follows concerning the saving Word. “He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth.” And again, “In his days shall righteousness spring up; and abundance of peace.” “And they shall beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into sickles: and nation shall not take up sword against nation, neither shall they learn to war any more.” 8. These words, predicted ages before in the Hebrew tongue, have received in our own day a visible fulfillment, by which the testimonies of the ancient oracles are clearly confirmed. And now, if thou still desire more ample proof, receive it, not in words, but from the facts themselves. Open the eyes of thine understanding; expand the gates of thought; pause awhile, and consider; inquire of thyself as though thou wert another, and thus diligently examine the nature of the case. What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator, or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Saviour has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name.” He it was who gave the distinct assurance, that his gospel must be preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and immediately verified his word: for within a little time the world itself was filled with his doctrine. 9. How, then, will those who caviled at the commencement of my speech be able to reply to this? For surely the force of ocular testimony is superior to any verbal argument. Who else than he, with an invisible and yet potent hand, has driven from human society like savage beasts that ever noxious and destructive tribe of evil spirits who of old had made all nations their prey, and by the motions of their images had practiced many a delusion among men? Who else, beside our Saviour, by the invocation of his name, and by unfeigned prayer addressed through him to the Supreme God, has given power to banish from the world the remnant of those wicked spirits to those who with genuine and sincere obedience pursue the course of life and conduct which he has himself prescribed? Who else but our Saviour has taught his followers to offer those bloodless and reasonable sacrifices which are performed by prayer and the secret worship of God? 10. Hence is it that throughout the habitable world altars are erected, and churches dedicated, wherein these spiritual and rational sacrifices are offered as a sacred service by every nation to the One Supreme God. Once more, who but he, with invisible and secret power, has suppressed and utterly abolished those bloody sacrifices which were offered with fire and smoke, as well as the cruel and senseless immolation of human victims; a fact which is attested by the heathen historians themselves? For it was not till after the publication of the Saviour’s Divine doctrine, about the time of Hadrian’s reign [117-138], that the practice of human sacrifice was universally abandoned. 11. Such and so manifest are the proofs of our Saviour’s power and energy after death…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Badaliyyah,

Chapter VII.—The Exemption of the Clergy.Copy of an Epistle in which the emperor commands that the rulers of the churches be exempted from all political duties…it affords the most signal prosperity to the Roman name and remarkable felicity to all the affairs of men, through the divine beneficence,—it has seemed good to me, most esteemed Anulinus [governor of Africa], that those men who give their services with due sanctity and with constant observance of this law, to the worship of the divine religion, should receive recompense for their labors.2. Wherefore it is my will that those within the province entrusted to thee,in the catholic Church, over which Cæcilianus presides, [the bishop of Carthage ] who give their services to this holy religion, and who are commonly called clergymen, be entirely exempted from all public duties…

Chapter I.—The Pretended Relaxation.

1. The imperial edict of recantation, which has been quoted above, was posted in all parts of Asia and in the adjoining provinces. After this had been done, Maximinus, the tyrant in the East,—a most impious man, if there ever was one, and most hostile to the religion of the God of the universe,—being by no means satisfied with its contents, instead of sending the above-quoted decree to the governors under him, gave them verbal commands to relax the war against us.2. For since he could not in any other way oppose the decision of his superiors, keeping the law which had been already issued secret, and taking care that it might not be made known in the district under him, he gave an unwritten order to his governors that they should relax the persecution against us. They communicated the command to each other in writing.3. Sabinus, at least, who was honored with the highest official rank among them, communicated the will of the emperor to the provincial governors in a Latin epistle, the translation of which is as follows:4. “With continuous and most devoted earnestness their Majesties, our most divine masters, the emperors, formerly directed the minds of all men to follow the holy and correct course of life, that those also who seemed to live in a manner foreign to that of the Romans, should render the worship due to the immortal gods. But the obstinacy and most unconquerable determination of some went so far that they could neither be turned back from their purpose by the just reason of the command, nor be intimidated by the impending punishment.

Chapter VIII.—The Misfortunes which happened in Connection with these Things, in Famine, Pestilence, and War…2. In addition to this the tyrant [Maximinus, emperor from Dacia/Romania in the East] was compelled to go to war with the Armenians, who had been from ancient times friends and allies of the Romans. As they were also Christians.

Chapter XIX.—Rejoicings and Festivities.And now, the impious being thus removed, the sun once more shone brightly after the gloomy cloud of tyrannic power. Each separate portion of the Roman dominion became blended with the rest; the Eastern nations united with those of the West, and the whole body of the Roman empire was graced as it were by its head in the person of a single and supreme ruler, whose sole authority pervaded the whole…for all united in celebrating the praises of the victorious prince, and avowed their recognition of his preserver as the only true God. Thus he whose character shone with all the virtues of piety, the emperor Victor, for he had himself adopted this name as a most fitting appellation to express the victory which God had granted him over all who hated or opposed him, assumed the dominion of the East, and thus singly governed the Roman empire, re-united, as in former times, under one head. Thus, as he was the first to proclaim to all the sole sovereignty of God, so he himself, as sole sovereign of the Roman world, extended his authority over the whole human race.

There are places where Romans means the City.

Chapter XXXV.—Massacre of the Roman People by Maxentius [the emperor in Rome]…he exposed the populace to be slaughtered by his own body-guard; and countless multitudes of the Roman people were slain in the very midst of the city by the lances and weapons, not of Scythians or barbarians, but of their own fellow-citizens.

Chapter XX.—The Extant Works of the Writers of that Age [of Origen]…3. There has reached us also a dialogue of Caius, a very learned man, which was held at Rome under Zephyrinus, [bishop of Rome from 198-217] who contended for the Phrygian heresy. In this he curbs the rashness and boldness of his opponents in setting forth new Scriptures. He mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not counting that to the with the others. And unto our day there are some among the Romans who do not consider this a work of the apostle. [for much for Rome setting the canon].

I believe it is only MUCH later in history

I’ve given you contemporary documents.

that people would NORMALLY use “Romans” as a self-identification with the heritage of the Roman Empire, precisely because there were competing claims about who held the true heritage of the Roman Empire.

Only in Old Rome. The Second Ecumenical Council, explicitly states Constantinople is NEW ROME.

In this early stage of Church history, there was no such tension. EVERYONE knew they were Roman citizens, but when the term “Roman” is used,

New Rome had a Senate, senators, was fonded on Seven Hills, Consuls, issued Laws in Latin (the Theodosian and Justinian Codes were codified and published there. Btw. at the time Beirut was the Harvard (Roman) Law School of its day), was divided into 14 districts (Old Rome by sheer coincidence had 14), a dole, a hippodrome (where the relics of antiquity, the snake from Delphi, etc. were brought), a mile stone (Milion) showing the distances all the roads leading there, a forum, (by the date of the edict) a urban prefect and praetors. Sound like some place you know?

everyone knew they were referring to the city of Rome.

Rome was on its way to becoming a village again, and almost disappearing. No one was talking about Rome the city. The capital in the East was Milan (notice how St. Ambrose, not the Pope of Rome, is the one Theodosius seeks absoltion from, although the emperor was in Thessalonica.

Furthermore, to be honest, the more I read the text, the more awkward it sounded to imagine that the term “Romans” is a self-reference to “all the people who live under the rule of our clemency.” If the two were intended to be equated, why use separate terms? And why use a term that, in the writings of the bishops of the poeple, normally applied to those in the CITY of Rome?

It wasn’t normaly applied to those in the CITY. That’s the point.

Why didn’t he just use the pronoun “us” instead of “Romans”? Seriously.

Since it is issued in the name of the Emperor Gratian, who was in Rome, that’s a good question.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Very well said marduk. For these reasons I hold the contention that he is refering to the city of Rome. To be absolutely honest, I thought it rather common sense, not to insult anyone’s intelligence, and most things in regards to history should not be taken as assumptions. However, I have never heard of anyone ever positing that in Theodosius’ edict he *was not *refering to Rome.

As I pointed out, for historians for the period, the sense of Roman meaning the Empire is self evident, since it is replete in the sources of the time.

One would assume there has to be some form of literature wishing to disprove the ‘Romans-- as city of Rome’ theory if it be so bold an analysis on the part of the Catholics.

Actually, can you produce something that states it does mean the City that does so NOT in the context of “proving” the Vatican’s claims. After all, the links I’ve posted to those Greeks who submitted to the Vatican says the opposite.

I apologize for taking so long in responding in this thread, been kinda busy lately. At this point I must say tho, some have their own rationalizations and understanding of the matter, which is good, we dont all have to agree on everything, right? However, I believe an objective look at the edict will certainly bring about a strong belief that Theodosius is indeed refering to lively tradition of St. Peter and his preaching at Rome. Indeed why would Theodosius refer to the Empire in the third person? As if he and the would be recipients of the edict were not themselves a part of that Empire…

Since the edict is also (hence the “we” and “our”) in the name of Gratian, who was at Rome, good question why in the third person.