{"slug":"stoa0121h.stoa003.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0121h.stoa003.opp-lat1","title":"In Codicem Canonum Et Constitutorum Eccleasiae Romanae Recepta","title_source":"In Codicem Canonum Et Constitutorum Eccleasiae Romanae Recepta","author":"Faustinus","genre":"canon-law","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T05:58:45Z","cost_usd":0.001405},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0121h.stoa003.opp-lat1","work_id":"stoa0121h.stoa003.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0121h/stoa003/stoa0121h.stoa003.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":2,"english_words":350,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":1361,"commentary_units":11,"commentary_kinds":8,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":2,"work_notes":5,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"stoa0121h.stoa003.opp-lat1","abstract":"Faustinus's 'In Codicem Canonum Et Constitutorum Ecclesiae Romanae Recepta' is a late 4th- or early 5th-century Latin compilation of canons and constitutions received by the Roman Church. It asserts Roman primacy and normative ecclesiastical discipline, reflecting the Theodosian establishment of Catholic orthodoxy. The work survives only in later canonical collections, such as the Collectio Quesnelliana, and was used by medieval canonists, including the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, to support papal authority. This edition lacks a critical apparatus of manuscript variants; readers should consult the Migne edition for the base text.","historical_context":"The compilation dates to the late 4th or early 5th century, a period when the Theodosian dynasty (379–395) enforced Nicene orthodoxy as the state religion of the Roman Empire. The work was produced in a Latin-speaking Christian community, likely in Rome or the western empire, to codify ecclesiastical discipline and bolster Roman primacy. It survives only through later canonical collections like the Collectio Quesnelliana (5th–6th century) and the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals (9th century), indicating its transmission as a source for canon law. The author, Faustinus, is identified as a Luciferian presbyter, a schismatic group that opposed the readmission of former Arians. His collection reflects the contested theological and jurisdictional landscape of the post-Nicene church, where Roman authority was being consolidated.","significance":"Faustinus's collection is significant as an early witness to the development of Latin canon law and the assertion of Roman primacy. It influenced later medieval canonical compilations, especially the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, which used it to support papal authority. The work also provides insight into the Luciferian schism and the theological controversies of the late 4th century.","timeline":[{"date":"late 4th–early 5th c.","event":"Faustinus compiles canons and constitutions for the Roman Church."},{"date":"379–395","event":"Theodosian dynasty enforces Nicene orthodoxy, shaping the context of the compilation."},{"date":"5th–6th c.","event":"The work is preserved in the Collectio Quesnelliana."},{"date":"9th c.","event":"The Pseudo-Isidorian decretals incorporate Faustinus's collection to support papal authority."},{"date":"19th c.","event":"Migne edition publishes the text, providing a base for modern study."}],"relations":[{"work":"Collectio Quesnelliana","relation":"preserves Faustinus's work as a source","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Pseudo-Isidorian decretals","relation":"uses Faustinus's collection to support papal authority","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Codex of Canons and Constitutions of the Roman Church","relation":"alternative title for the same work","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Migne edition","relation":"provides the base text for this edition","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The date of the compilation is uncertain; it is placed in the late 4th or early 5th century based on historical context.","The work survives only in later canonical collections, not in a complete manuscript.","The author's identity as Faustinus the Luciferian is plausible but not definitively established.","This edition lacks a critical apparatus of manuscript variants; readers should consult the Migne edition for the base text."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000458,"generated":"2026-11-15T05:58:45Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0121h/stoa003/stoa0121h.stoa003.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"stoa0121h.stoa003.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":2,"translated":2,"commentary_passages":2,"commentary_units":11,"english_words":350,"source_letters":1361,"commentary_kinds":8},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Faustinus’s work is a collection of canons and constitutions received by the Roman Church, compiled to assert Roman primacy and normative ecclesiastical discipline.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The compilation is dated to the late 4th or early 5th century, reflecting the period of the Theodosian establishment of Catholic orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text survives only in later canonical collections, such as the Collectio Quesnelliana, which preserve Faustinus’s work as a source for early canon law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Faustinus’s collection was used by later medieval canonists, notably in the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, to support papal authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition does not include a critical apparatus of manuscript variants; readers should consult the Migne edition for the base text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: canon-law in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 2 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":2},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"FAUSTUNI PRESBYTERI FIDES, THEODOSIO IMPERATORI OBLATA, IN CODICEM CANONUM ET CONSTITUTORUM ECCLESIAE ROMANAE RECEPTA.\n\nSufficiebat fides conscripta apud Nicaeam adversus haeresim Arianam: sed quia pravo ingenio quidam sub illius fidei confessione impia verba commutant 1, nobis invidiam facientes, quod veluti haeresim Sabellii tueamur; paucis et contra Sabellium primae fidei confessione signamus, et contra hos qui sub nomine catholicae fidei impia verba defendunt, dicentes tres esse substantias; cum semper catholica fides unam substantiam Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti confessa sit.\n\nNos Patrem credimus, qui non sit Filius, sed habeat Filium de se sine initio genitum, non factum; et Filium credimus, qui non sit Pater, sed habeat patrem, de quo sit genitus, non factus; et Spiritum sanctum credimus, qui sit vere Spiritus Dei. Unde et divinae Trinitatis unam substantiam confitemur; quin qualis esi Pater secundum substantiam; talem genuit et Filium: et Spiritus sanctus, non creatura exsistens, sed Spiritus Dei, non est alienus a substantia Patris et Fili; sed est ejusdem et ipse substantiae cum Patre et Filio, sicut ejusdem deitatis. Nam qui nos putant esse Apollinaristas, sciant quod non minus Apollinaris haeresim exsecramur quam Arianam. Miramur autem illos catholicos probari posse, qui Pati is et Filii et Spiritus sancti tres substantias confitentur.","english":"The Faith of Faustinus the Presbyter, Presented to the Emperor Theodosius, Received into the Codex of Canons and Constitutions of the Roman Church.\n\nThe faith written at Nicaea against the Arian heresy was sufficient; but because certain persons with perverse ingenuity, under the confession of that faith, substitute impious words, making us an object of ill-will, as if we were defending the heresy of Sabellius, we sign with a few words both against Sabellius, in the confession of the first faith, and against those who, under the name of the catholic faith, defend impious words, saying that there are three substances, whereas the catholic faith has always confessed one substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.\n\nWe believe in the Father, who is not the Son, but has a Son begotten from himself without beginning, not made; and we believe in the Son, who is not the Father, but has a Father from whom he was begotten, not made; and we believe in the Holy Spirit, who is truly the Spirit of God. Whence we also confess one substance of the divine Trinity; for as the Father is in respect of substance, so he begot the Son; and the Holy Spirit, existing not as a creature, but as the Spirit of God, is not alien from the substance of the Father and the Son, but is himself of the same substance with the Father and the Son, as of the same divinity. For those who think us to be Apollinarists, let them know that we execrate the heresy of Apollinaris no less than the Arian. We marvel, however, that those who confess three substances of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit can be considered catholics.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Faustinus, a fourth-century Luciferian presbyter, presented this confession to Emperor Theodosius I, likely around 380–381, to defend his orthodoxy against charges of Sabellianism and Apollinarianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"substantia","severity":"info","text":"The Latin term 'substantia' translates Greek 'ousia' (οὐσία). Faustinus insists on one substance (una substantia) for the Trinity, opposing those who confess three substances, a position he associates with heresy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Spiritus Dei' echoes New Testament usage (e.g., 1 Cor 2:11, 1 John 4:13), but no specific verse is quoted; the confession is creedal rather than exegetical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This text was included in the 'Codex of Canons and Constitutions of the Roman Church', a canonical collection, indicating its later authority in Latin canon law, though Faustinus himself was a marginal figure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a defense of Nicene orthodoxy against Arian and Sabellian misinterpretations, to a positive confession of Trinitarian faith, and ends with a rejection of Apollinarianism and a critique of those positing three substances.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'quin qualis esi Pater' is likely a scribal error for 'quin qualis est Pater'; the text is otherwise sound but reflects a contested theological milieu.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'certain persons with perverse ingenuity' is unspecified; they may be Homoians or other non-Nicene groups. The phrase 'prima fidei confessio' could refer to the Nicene Creed itself or an earlier local confession."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Sed et si dicunt, non se credere Filium Dei, aut Spiritum sanctum creaturam, tamen contra impiam fidem sentiunt, cum dicunt tres esse substantias: consequens est enim, ut tres deos confiteantur, qui tres substantias confitentur. Quam vocem semper Catholici exsecrati sunt.","english":"But if they say they do not believe the Son of God or the Holy Spirit to be a creature, yet they think contrary to the impious faith when they say there are three substances; for it follows that those who confess three substances confess three gods. This expression the Catholics have always abhorred.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"tres substantias","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'three substances' is the core of the theological dispute: Faustinus argues that to confess three substances necessarily implies tritheism, a charge leveled against those who reject the Nicene homoousios.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"substantia","severity":"info","text":"In Latin trinitarian theology, 'substantia' (Greek 'ousia') often denotes the divine essence shared by the three persons. Here Faustinus treats it as equivalent to 'hypostasis', a usage that the Nicene party rejected as implying three gods.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Catholici","severity":"info","text":"The term 'Catholici' here refers to the pro-Nicene party in the late 4th-century Latin West, who insisted on one substance (una substantia) and three persons (tres personae) to avoid tritheism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"tres deos confiteantur","severity":"info","text":"The accusation that confessing three substances leads to tritheism echoes a standard anti-Nicene polemic found in Latin authors such as Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose, who similarly warned against dividing the Godhead.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed et si dicunt ... tamen","severity":"info","text":"This concessive clause ('But even if they say ... yet') structures the argument: Faustinus grants the opponent's denial of Arianism but insists their terminology still implies heresy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'tres substantias' could be read as equivalent to 'tres hypostases' (three individual subsistences) or as 'tres ousiai' (three essences); Faustinus conflates them to press the charge of tritheism."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}