From Jus to law: The Parable of Power
The recognition of an ecclesiastical council, which was requested by the emperor, effectively created the beginning of a new law, the incipit of the ecclesiastical one. It was the emperor Constantine who convened the council in Nicaea, and within this event, the emperor issued some constitutions which later passed into the Theodosian and Justinian Codes. Eusebius, Sozomen, Socrates and other Byzantine historians have mentioned some of the subjects touched upon by the emperor at the time of the council; thanks to them we begin to notice the imperial clemency toward the subjects of this “Church” (concilium as named in Cod. Theodosianus XVI, 2.4). These legal topics and edicts, however, would later become an integral part of the ius imperiale and a large part of it would de facto enter into what could be called “the dogmatic constitution” of the Christian faith. This connection, due to legislative interventions in favour of the Church, effectively created a very close union between the Church and the imperial power. In fact, the fides proclaimed in Nicaea, and then also registered in Constantinople in 381, became the symbol (credo) of the true and correct belonging to the Church desired by Constantine – one should remember that, in 325, the emperor was already decidedly turned toward the faith of the Christians. One may say that it is on this historical and ideological platform that the Christian identity document was shaped. A first question that arises is related to what was meant by fides christiana or the religio professed by some eminent bishops. Strangely, at least skimming the conciliar texts, the “evangelical narrative,” or the loving and redeeming figure of Jesus Christ, seems to be overshadowed. There is an intellectual formulation rendered with even philosophical language, and this is the forging of the symbol of faith, but the figure, the person of Jesus as the foundation and end of faith, is not focused on. As a matter of fact, it seems that Pope Francis, by careful choice, had never wanted to wear the red habit, the imperial colour, and chose to always wear the white habit. Is there perhaps something pertinent to this ancient alliance established at Nicaea? I see it as a possibility. This incipient alliance was very dangerous in the eyes and mind of St. Hilarius of Poitiers. This bishop sensed the great danger that this alliance entailed and traced the deviation that the Church was taking by forgetting the Church of the martyrs. Certainly Hilarius’ invective was directed against Constantius, son of Constantine, but the bishop’s accusation was obviously also directed against the father. This ideological and legislative process begun by Constantine in Nicaea finds its first definitive assertion and foundation of identification between jus principale and divina lex with the advent of the emperor Marcian’s legislation, validated and supported later by Justinian’s legislative proceedings.