the decree of Damasus..???

[MoNiCa4316]

I'm not here to argue; just seeking the truth I want to understand both sides of this issue...

What does the Orthodox Church say about this?

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

thanks!

 

[buzuxi02]

Dear Monica,

This proves that the papacy did not exist in the 4th century, but indeed the roots are being laid for this innovation.

In 381 a.d. in the Second Ecumenical Council was passed canon 3, which elevated the bishop of the city of Constantinople to a Patriarchate. Constantinople was given the second place after Rome and dropping Alexandria to the third spot and Antioch to the fourth.

Pope Damasus concerned with his political power within Christendom, immediately began calling Rome "the Apostolic See". The phrase "The Apostolic See" commonly used for Rome was invented by Pope Damasus immediately following the passage of Canon 3 at the Second Ecumenical Council. (you can look this up in any encyclopedia)

This is because Constantinople was not known for having apostolic origins. It was a way to "stick it" to Constantinople and remind them that they do not have apostolic origins (but on the contrary churches within the diocese of Constantiople was found by Andrew).

Pope Damasus simply wanted to preserve canon 6 of Nicea, and attempt to elevate his own See in the process. When Constantinople was made a Patriarchate by canon 3 it was done so because it became "New Rome", but "Elder" Rome would continue in the first place because of her seniority.

If you continued reading this roman council's decree from where you left off, you will discover that Pope Damasus is the person who originated the "Petrine theory". This Petrine Theory was meant to safeguard Canon 6 of Nicea; by only recognizing as Patriarchates those Churches found by Peter. In Rome only Nicea was an ecumenical council and in that council only Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were recognized as such, all three Sees had the Apostle Peter in common.

Beginning from where you left off , The Council of Rome makes a comment or two on the martyrdom of Paul in Rome and goes on to say:

"Therefore first is the seat at the Roman Church of the Apostle Peter having no spot or wrinkle or any defect.

However the second place was given in the name of the blessed Peter to his disciple Mark, the gospel writer at Alexandria and who himself wrote down the word of truth directed by Peter the Apostle in Egypt and gloriously consumated his life in martyrdom.
Indeed the third place is held in Antioch of the most blessed and honorable Apostle Peter, who lived there before he came to Rome and where first the name of the new race of christians was heard."

The Second Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 381 a.d. was considered only regional, effective for only the eastern churches, however it became Ecumenical at Chalcedon in 451 a.d. proving false Pope Damasus assumptions and made his own local council in Rome obselete.
Since the time of Pope Damasus decree in the 382 a.d. toman council; Jerusalem was added to the 5th spot as a Patriarchate even though its the See of James the Lords Brother, and in the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon -Canon 28 gave Constantinople EQUAL priveleges as Rome but reaffirmed its second placed soley because of the seniority of honor.

I want to point out one more thing from the Council of Rome in 382. Something that the roman catholics no longer teach but is still held in Orthodoxy. This is the concept of "Catholicity". According to Modern Rome the church is catholic because it is Universal as headed by the pope.

But according to Pope Damasus he says:

"...Although all the CATHOLIC CHURCHES (plural) spread abroad thru the world compromises but one bridal chamber of Christ..." (caution- the roman apologetics machine is attemtping to remove this plural phrase from new translations)
Obviously the fullness of the Catholic church can be found on the local level. Each parish headed by a right believing bishop with apostolic succession partaking of the One Eucharist is the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

 

[buzuxi02]

Here are the canons of the Ecumenical councils as pertaining to the discussion, Canons which are binding in both the east and west concerning the patriarchates:

Canon VI of Nicea 325 a.d:

Medieval Sourcebook: Canons from Nicea 1, 325

Canon 3 of Constantinople 381 a.d.:

NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Canon XXVIII (28) of Chalcedon: (very important wording, denies that Roman priveleges are from divine authority as the RC now claims, and these priveleges have been passed to Constantinople as well) scroll to canon 28:

Medieval Sourcebook: Council of Chalcedon, 451

 

[MoNiCa4316]

oki thanks well I can't help but wonder though, how do we know that Damasus said this because he was concerned with power, and not simply to clarify something that was always believed, but was being opposed by some at the time? For example, maybe he wanted to clarify that point so that people wouldn't misinterpret the Second Ecumenical Council? I've noticed that sometimes official statements are only made once the ideas are opposed, even though the ideas were always believed...for example, during the Reformation, the Pope said that we are not saved by 'faith alone', and that salvation is a transformation....this was always so and he didn't invent this doctrine, but he said it because the idea was opposed by the Reformers.

I'm just trying to find the truth here...

I'm also wondering,

In the link it says:

The bishop of Constantinople is to be honoured next after the bishop of Rome

Why did the Bishop of Rome have first place?

thanks for your help!

God bless

monica

 

[buzuxi02]

The reason Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were the three Ecclesial centers( in that order) is simply because those were the three most prestigious cities of the empire in that order.

When the Emperor Constantine transfered the capital from Rome to Constantinople, that city began flourishing, and thus a new ecclesiastical center was born. This prompted the passing of Canon 3 since Cinstantinople had surpassed Alexandria in importance, but canon 3 did not grant Constantinople jurisdiction, this was done in Canon 28 at Chalcedon.

Canon 28 explains WHY these cities were singled out:

"Following in all things the descisions of the Holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon which has been read (canon 3 of Constantinople) of the 150 bishops beloved of God who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted priveleges to the throne of Elder Rome because it was the royal city. And the 150 most religious bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal priveleges to the most Holy Throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Soverienty and the Senate, and enjoys equal priveleges with the Old Imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters be magnified as she is, and rank nex to to her. So the Pontic, Asian and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the most Holy Throne of the Most Holy Church of Constantinople..."

The Council of Chalcedon was the largest and most documented Ecumenical Council in the history of the Christian Church with over 630 Fathers in attendance.

To demonstrate the level of propaganda Rome uses to justify the papal supremacy, one needs to only look at Canon 9 which gave the See of Constantinople a privelege never accorded to Rome.

Can you imagine how Rome would advertise this canon if it were granted to her instead of Constantinople? If Canon 9 of Chalcedon, the greatest Ecumenical Council in the history of the Church was given to Rome, would Christianity ever hear the last of it? Yet because it was never granted to Rome but to Constantinople, no one in Orthodoxy ever used it to support supremacy, while at the same time Rome is so glad the east is hush hush about it. After all doesnt Rome teach that they alone are given authority and no one else was ever given any?

Canon 9 of Chalcedon:

"If any clergyman have a matter against any other clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishops consent, select.

And if any shall contravene these decrees, Let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other Bishop, Let it be decided by the Synod of the province.

And if a bishop or clergyman have a difference with the Metropolitan of the province, Let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the Throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried."

The Patriatch of Constantinople can indeed use this canon in the same way Rome throws around priveleges (not rights) to justify supremacy, but he doesnt. Constantinople has never said he has a divine right to judge all cases and depose archbishops alone, on the other hand if this canon was granted to Rome, the roman catholic apologists would use it and abuse it and publish it and make mention of it every chance they got.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Thanks for the reply...

wow I really need to ..pray about all this and read more..lol..

Unfortunately teh more I read about church history the more questions I have.

lol thanks for your help though.

God bless

 

[Philothei]

The reason Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were the three Ecclesial centers( in that order) is simply because those were the three most prestigious cities of the empire in that order.

When the Emperor Constantine transfered the capital from Rome to Constantinople, that city began flourishing, and thus a new ecclesiastical center was born. This prompted the passing of Canon 3 since Cinstantinople had surpassed Alexandria in importance, but canon 3 did not grant Constantinople jurisdiction, this was done in Canon 28 at Chalcedon.

Canon 28 explains WHY these cities were singled out:

"Following in all things the descisions of the Holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon which has been read (canon 3 of Constantinople) of the 150 bishops beloved of God who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted priveleges to the throne of Elder Rome because it was the royal city. And the 150 most religious bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal priveleges to the most Holy Throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Soverienty and the Senate, and enjoys equal priveleges with the Old Imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters be magnified as she is, and rank nex to to her. So the Pontic, Asian and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the most Holy Throne of the Most Holy Church of Constantinople..."

The Council of Chalcedon was the largest and most documented Ecumenical Council in the history of the Christian Church with over 630 Fathers in attendance.

To demonstrate the level of propaganda Rome uses to justify the papal supremacy, one needs to only look at Canon 9 which gave the See of Constantinople a privelege never accorded to Rome.

Can you imagine how Rome would advertise this canon if it were granted to her instead of Constantinople? If Canon 9 of Chalcedon, the greatest Ecumenical Council in the history of the Church was given to Rome, would Christianity ever hear the last of it? Yet because it was never granted to Rome but to Constantinople, no one in Orthodoxy ever used it to support supremacy, while at the same time Rome is so glad the east is hush hush about it. After all doesnt Rome teach that they alone are given authority and no one else was ever given any?

Canon 9 of Chalcedon:

"If any clergyman have a matter against any other clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishops consent, select.

And if any shall contravene these decrees, Let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other Bishop, Let it be decided by the Synod of the province.

And if a bishop or clergyman have a difference with the Metropolitan of the province, Let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the Throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried."

The Patriatch of Constantinople can indeed use this canon in the same way Rome throws around priveleges (not rights) to justify supremacy, but he doesnt. Constantinople has never said he has a divine right to judge all cases and depose archbishops alone, on the other hand if this canon was granted to Rome, the roman catholic apologists would use it and abuse it and publish it and make mention of it every chance they got.

We need for you to come up for more about those issues.. Where did you get this information a book or a link?

I am keeping your posts....

 

[buzuxi02]

We need for you to come up for more about those issues.. Where did you get this information a book or a link?

I am keeping your posts....

I have already given the link to this in post 3. The entirety of the Council of Chalcedon is presented at the Fordham Medievel Sourcebook or you can also get it from CCEL.ORG. Just click on the link on my previous post 3 and scroll down to the appropriate canons.

 

[Philothei]

It would be so much more easier for the Patriarch to claim supremacy.... with quote-mines just like they do... for the Pope but we know that this supremacy was always one of honor... not true authority... only on ecclesiastical matters ... where there was a dispute they could step in and offer a solution... so very rightly you said it....


The Patriatch of Constantinople can indeed use this canon in the same way Rome throws around priveleges (not rights) to justify supremacy, but he doesnt. Constantinople has never said he has a divine right to judge all cases and depose archbishops alone, on the other hand if this canon was granted to Rome, the roman catholic apologists would use it and abuse it and publish it and make mention of it every chance they got.

 

[Philothei]

sorry now I saw it....dah...

 

[nestoj]

I have already given the link to this in post 3. The entirety of the Council of Chalcedon is presented at the Fordham Medievel Sourcebook or you can also get it from CCEL.ORG. Just click on the link on my previous post 3 and scroll down to the appropriate canons.

Since that canon is a decision of Ecumenical Council, thus a voice of entire Church, does that means that the Church agreed to give a final word in disputes to the Constantinople? Going further on this line, entire Church agreed that Rome (or whomever else) would have no Bishop if Patriarch excommunicated him, until the excommunication (Anathema??!!!??) is removed?

You should bring this to some of the multiple GT threads where RC's are debating supremacy of Roman Pontiff over all other Bishops.

God helps

 

[buzuxi02]

Since that canon is a decision of Ecumenical Council, thus a voice of entire Church, does that means that the Church agreed to give a final word in disputes to the Constantinople? Going further on this line, entire Church agreed that Rome (or whomever else) would have no Bishop if Patriarch excommunicated him, until the excommunication (Anathema??!!!??) is removed?

You should bring this to some of the multiple GT threads where RC's are debating supremacy of Roman Pontiff over all other Bishops.

God helps

From what I understand (and i can be wrong) this is the canon which was applied, when the brotherhood of the holy Sepulchre went to the E.P. TO withdraw the recognition of Patriarch Irenios. After this the brotherhood simply elected the new patriarch Theophilus. Hypothetically the EP could judge a case against the Pope.

 

[Macarius]

oki thanks well I can't help but wonder though, how do we know that Damasus said this because he was concerned with power, and not simply to clarify something that was always believed, but was being opposed by some at the time? For example, maybe he wanted to clarify that point so that people wouldn't misinterpret the Second Ecumenical Council? I've noticed that sometimes official statements are only made once the ideas are opposed, even though the ideas were always believed...for example, during the Reformation, the Pope said that we are not saved by 'faith alone', and that salvation is a transformation....this was always so and he didn't invent this doctrine, but he said it because the idea was opposed by the Reformers.

I'm just trying to find the truth here...

I'm also wondering,

In the link it says:


Why did the Bishop of Rome have first place?

thanks for your help!

God bless

monica

We know that Damasus was the initiator of this view on the same level that we know Luther initiated Sola Scriptura: no one was preaching this before him.

The two closest are St. Cyprian and St. Irenaeus, who, in brief proof texts sometimes pulled from their writings, say something that can be interpreted to give primacy of authority (not honor) to Rome. However, Irenaueus is recorded as reprimanding a Pope (Victor) and directly defying that Pope's expressed wishes. Additionally, Cyprian's calls the Bishop of Rome his BROTHER (not papa - or Pope) and describes all patriarchal sees (and indeed all bishops) as being equally successors to Peter - both things are necessary for a Damasus like view.

Hence, we assert he came up with it because we don't see it before him, and not seeing it before him, we try to imagine reasons why he would start this kind of view.