Skip to Main Content
Have library access? Log in through your library
The Correspondence of Pope Julius I

The Correspondence of Pope Julius I

Greek and Latin text and English translation with introduction and commentary by GLEN L. THOMPSON
Copyright Date: 2015
Pages: 288
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    The Correspondence of Pope Julius I
    Book Description:

    Please fill in marketing copy

    eISBN: 978-0-8132-2708-5
    Subjects: Religion

Table of Contents

  1. Front Matter
    (pp. i-vi)
  2. Table of Contents
    (pp. vii-viii)
    (pp. ix-xii)
    (pp. xiii-xxvi)
    (pp. xxvii-lxvi)

    From earliest times, letter writing was one of the principal means by which the scattered members and congregations of the Christian Church maintained contact. All but six of the New Testament writings are letters; and two of those, the Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of St. John, contain letters within them. Among the other earliest Christian writings are letters authored by Clement of Rome (¹Clementto the Corinthians) and Ignatius of Antioch.

    As Rome grew into a spiritual and administrative center for the new religion, it was only natural that the bishop of Rome frequently engaged in correspondence...

    (pp. lxvii-c)
    (pp. ci-cvi)

    • LETTER I: To Julius, Bishop of Rome, from Marcellus of Ancyra (Έπειδή τιυες)
      (pp. 3-24)

      Marcellus was a member of the generation that experienced the Great Persecution while in their teens and twenties. He must have proved himself both courageous and capable, for, when he was elected bishop of the Galatian metropolis Ancyra in 314, he could hardly have met the minimum canonical age of 30. He continued to play a role in ecclesiastical politics for another sixty years, until his death, about 374.¹ Marcellus claimed that, at the Council of Nicaea, he had defended orthodoxy (ep.1.1), and this claim was confirmed by the priests who had represented the bishop of Rome (2.12).²


    • LETTER II: To the Bishops Assembled in Antioch from Julius, Bishop of Rome (Άνέγνων τά γράμματα)
      (pp. 25-82)

      In 340, a quarrel between Constantine II and his younger brother Constans, the western heirs of Constantine, resulted in a major political change. The former, the ruler of Gaul, Britain, and Spain, invaded the realm of the latter, who had been allotted Italy, Africa, and Illyricum. This incursion ended on April 9 with the defeat and death of the invader at Aquileia, in northern Italy. Now Constans was ruler of the entire West. It has been argued that he visited Rome after his victory. If so, he may have met the two exiles, Marcellus and Athanasius, and taken up their...

    • LETTER III: To Julius, Bishop of Rome, from Hosius of Cordova and Protogenes of Sardica (Meminimus, et tenemus)
      (pp. 83-98)

      Julius’ letter to the eastern bishops was not warmly received. If anything, it caused a further hardening of the eastern position. Since the bishop of Rome and his Italian synod had reaffirmed communion with both Athanasius and Marcellus and declared invalid the deposition of both, the easterners decided to petition the western emperor to support their decisions by preventing the deposed bishops from being reinstalled. They sent four of their number carrying a statement of faith, known as the fourth creed of Antioch, to Constans at Trier. Though they were not granted an audience, Constans issued no decree in support...

    • LETTER IV: To Julius, Bishop of Rome, from the Synod of Sardica (Quod semper credidimus)
      (pp. 99-116)

      After several months, the western bishops ended their deliberations at Sardica with the promulgation of some new canons¹ and the condemnation of eleven bishops.² The council then detailed its work in letters sent to the church of Alexandria and to the bishops of Egypt and Libya and in an encyclical to the Church at large.³ In addition, they addressed a special letter (ep.4), to Julius.⁴

      Greeting Julius as their “dearest brother,” the bishops acknowledge the necessity of his absence lest the “ schismatic wolves” and “heretical dogs” wreak havoc at Rome. They wish to report on their actions “to the...

    • LETTER V: To the Priests, Deacons, and Laity of Alexandria from Julius, Bishop of Rome (Σνγχαίρω κάγώ ύμίν)
      (pp. 117-134)

      Neither Constans nor Constantius was happy with the debacle of Sardica. A century later the historian Socrates still regarded the failed council as a turning point in the relations of east and west: “From then on the east was cut off from the west, and Mount Soucis, which divides the Illyrians from the Thracians, also became the dividing line of communion. On each side of the mountain, communion remained unbroken, with no disagreement about the faith. But when someone crossed the mountain, he was no longer in his own communion” (H. e.2.22).¹ Yet, the increasing pressures on the borders...

    • LETTER VI: To Julius, Bishop of Rome, from Valens of Mursa and Ursacius of Singidunum (Quoniam constat nos)
      (pp. 135-148)

      The careers of Valens of Mursa and Ursacius of Singidunum spanned almost the entire Arian conflict. Throughout they espoused thehomoeanposition.¹ While still quite young—the church historian Eusebius referred to them as “the fairest of God’s youthful flock” among the Pannonians and Moesians (V. C.4.43.3)²—they attended the Synod of Tyre (335), where Athanasius was eventually condemned and deposed. Both were members of the committee sent to the Mareotis to investigate the charges against him (Socr.,H. e.1.31; Ath.,Apol. sec.13; Iul.,ep.2.10).³ When Athanasius fled to Constantinople and attempted to gain the support...


    • APPENDIX A: Manuscript Descriptions
      (pp. 151-172)
    • APPENDIX B: Items Falsely Attributed to Julius
      (pp. 173-202)
    • APPENDIX C: The Latin Version of Letter V
      (pp. 203-208)
    • APPENDIX D: The Greek Version of Letter VI
      (pp. 209-210)
      (pp. 211-214)
      (pp. 215-218)
      (pp. 219-250)
      (pp. 251-260)
  10. Back Matter
    (pp. 261-262)