PhilosopherJay

Here is a question which I have never seen considered: Why was the first History of the Roman Catholic Church written in Caesarea and not in Rome?

Consider this, supposedly Rome had been a/the center of the orthodox Christian world since the 50's or 60's and the time of Peter. In all this time, some 250 years, why did nobody write a history of the Church? If the Roman Church really existed for all this time, would it not be evident that the major correspondence between all the Christian Churches and Rome would provide a wonderful history of early Christianity? Yet, over 250 years pass and nobody in the Roman Church deems it important to publish any history concerning the Church.

Not only does no Roman Christian publish a history, but Bishop Eusebius finds that he does not even have to go to Rome to write his history. Did he not think that he might find some important material in Rome for his work? How could he be sure that he was accurate in any of the things he wrote without visiting Rome?

Thank you for your consideration of this question.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

Because there was no Catholic Church of Rome in the 1st century? All indications are that the Catholic Church of Rome was started most likely in the 4th century with the help of Constantine.

Huon

Philosopher Jay, your post asks several questions.

1 - Why Caesarea Maritima (Palestine) ? At the time of Eusebius, there was an important christian library, collected by Pamphilus (of Caesarea), probably around 280 (my guess). Pamphilus was martyred in 309, and Eusebius was his successor.

Pamphilus knew well Alexandria, where he had been a student.

2 - Why not Rome ? Simply, because Rome was not an intellectual center for the Christians of that epoch. If you look at the list of the bishops of Rome, from St Peter (this thread is not meant to discuss this point), you will find a list of insignificant people until Fabian (236-250). Fabian himself was killed during the persecution of Decius. His successors were confronted by the Novatian schism. The Novatians had their own bishops in Rome until the beginning of the 5th century.

3 - Rome was not (at that time) "the capital of Christianity". The council of Nicaea (6th canon) says this :

6. The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.

Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome were acknowledged as Patriarchates in 325. (The Synod of Constantinople in 381 recognized the See of Constantinople also as a Patriarchate). Rome had no power on the Eastern Christians.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874 and Huon,

Thank you for your responses. Both of these are quite interesting.

Both canons 6 and 7 at the Council of Nicaea seem to point to a solution of why Caesarea and not Rome was the birthplace of Church historicism.

It seems evident that the custom that these canons reaffirm is that the Bishop of Alexandria appoints the Bishops of Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis, Rome and even Aelia/Jerusalem, although the Bishop of Aelia retained some special rights. This recognizes that the Church of Alexandria was the dominant Church and the Bishop of Alexandria, who was then called the Pope and the only one called the Pope, was the actual and sole head of the Constantine recognized Christian Church.

This puts things in an entirely different light. It might suggest that the ideas that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome was a 4th century invention by Eusebius to please Constantine and give more weight to the Church of Rome.

This explains why Arianism was such an important issue. Ultimately the struggle between Pope Alexander and Arius, both of Alexandria, was for control over the entire Church, dominated and controlled by Alexandria, of which the Church of Rome was a small and insignificant component at the time.

We should, perhaps, read Eusebius' history as an attempt to undermine the power of the Alexandrian Church by creating a mythological/revisionist history of independent Churches being created by the Apostles.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Because there was no Catholic Church of Rome in the 1st century? All indications are that the Catholic Church of Rome was started most likely in the 4th century with the help of Constantine.

andrewcriddle

I'm pretty sure that the canon means
IE the point is that just as the Bishop of Rome has supervision over the appointment of bishops in Italy, similarly the Bishop of Alexandria has supervision over Greater Egypt.

Andrew Criddle

CartesianFart

PhilosopherJay

That is an extensive question for that it requires a tedious research of early writings of statesman, theologians, intellectuals, and etc. It requires a lack of uneasiness since there is alot of things to find for to know as much of what was mentioned of the early Christian organization and the people who was involved in their movement to power.

mountainman

Scholars appear to be settling on a chronology of the preparations of the Eusebian Ecclesiastical "history" at the period between 312 and 324 CE, with a number of revisions at the end (eg: see T. D. Barnes).

This places Constantine at the beginning of the period in Rome (as the new Pontifex Maximus) and increasingly so, with raids and land-grabs during the intervening years, Constantine moving his takeover eastwards. By the time the year 324 CE had passed Constantine had the east and with it Caesarea.

It was important to have the history of the fraud prepared in Rome (in anticipation of future supremacy) but actually released in the eastern empire as soon as practical after its military submission to Constantine. When Constantine acquired Caesarea, he adorned it with a new history and installed Eusebius as the historical son of Pamphilus, the keeper of the works of Origen and the Greek LXX (at the Caesarea library) used by Constantine/Eusebius.

IMO Philosopher Jay, Eusebius was sponsored to write the christian history at or near Rome and worked on it 312-324 CE. But when it came to the light of the world, it was associated with the military acquisition of not just Caesarea, but the entire (very rich) Eastern empire. It was made known from Caesarea at that time. Doomsday for the classicial greek culture.

It was also obviously packaged with the new testament at Nicaea.
On display so to speak, for attendees to read and question.
Corporate launch.
Endorsed by the New Boss.



Best wishes,


Pete

PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

I think the reading is clear when we break it up into sections:

There are ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis which shall be continued. What are these customs - the customs are that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these place.

The similar custom refered to here can only be the same custom of the Bishop of Alexandria having control over the Bishop of Rome

The situation is the same in Antioch and other provinces; i.e, the Bishop of Alexandria rules over them.

The situation that is referred to in all three cases is the same. It is that the Bishop of Alexandria rules.

This seems the obvious interpretation, since the only custom being discussed involves the right of the Bishop of Alexandria to appoint Bishops in other territories, but this interpretation is made absolutely certain by the following line:

In other words, the metropolitan or Bishop of Alexandria has the power to veto bishops.

Reading it to mean that Rome has the same powers of authority as Alexandria, one has to add words like "in Italy" which do not exist in the text.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

Peter was promoted by the Pope Damasius who was the very first christian pope pontifex maximus c.365 CE. He renovated the Roman catacombs for the sake of posterity.

Best wishes,


Pete

Huon

First of all, I do not buy the idea that Constantine "created" or "started" the Catholic Church in the 4th century. My thesis is the ordinary thesis :

Constantine received the precious help of the Catholic Church between 305 (resignation of Diocletian) and 324-325 (battles of Andrinople and Chrysopolis 324) and later, he paid his debts.

Rome was not at the time of Nicaea (325) "the" capital of Christianity. Rome was one of the capitals of Christianity, alongside with Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and later (381) Constantinople.

Around 325 :

The Bishop of Alexandria supervises the Bishops of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.
The Bishop of Rome supervises the Bishops of Italy, Gaul, Spain, Britain, Belgica, Germania, Noricum, Pannonia, Dacia, and North Africa (Carthage).
The Bishop of Antioch supervises the Bishops of Asia, except probably that of Constantinople.
The Bishop of Jerusalem supervises nothing except himself, he is just respected because "Jerusalem".

But I am sure that the powers of these Patriarchs grew progressively during the second and third centuries.