Council of Rome in 384 and the Eastern Orthodox?

[Zeldarocks]

In my search for a definitive Canon of Scripture prior to Trent; I am brought to the local Council of Rome in 384, where, under Pope Damasus, the Canon of Scripture as we know it today in the Church was finalized.

Now, under the Council Canon (or what’s speculated to have been the council canon) The Church at Rome reaffirms its preeminence in stating that “…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…”’

How does one reconcile that with the Eastern Orthodox and their addition of certain books to their canon?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Neither Orthodox, nor Catholics consider the synod at Rome an ecumenical council, so that may explain it right there. Also, the language of the decree says that it is giving “what the Church accepts…” There isn’t language there about closing the canon, and as far as I know, the Orthodox accept all the books listed in that decree anyway. In that light, it does accurately list accepted books both in the West and East.

Although Trent is the definitive list of accepted books, Rome is traceable as a sort of genesis back to which the Tradition goes. That’s why we Catholics often say, and fairly, I think, that the canon was settled in the late 4th/early 5th century at Rome, Carthage, and Hippo––because in that Church in which we believe the fullness of the faith subsists, the canon is traceable to that time period.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Also, just as more info. to keep in mind when discussing this topic ––*from what I understand, Orthodoxy does not necessarily hold to a single canon. It seems either the Alexandrian or Hebrew Canon are the two common ones. I derive this from this article by Fr. R. Stergiou at orthodoxchristian.info who writes:
In the history of the Orthodox Church there have been inconsistencies not only by the Church Fathers, but also by many local and even Ecumenical Synods as to which Canon is to be used. For example, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius support the use of the Hebrew Canon, where as John Chrysostom and Basil the Great support the use of the Alexandrian Canon. Although the local Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 stipulated that the Alexandrian Canon was to be used, the second Canon of the Council of Trullo (691) sanctioned the use of the Hebrew Canon.

 

[Zeldarocks]

Neither Orthodox, nor Catholics consider the synod at Rome an ecumenical council, so that may explain it right there. Also, the language of the decree says that it is giving “what the Church accepts…” There isn’t language there about closing the canon, and as far as I know, the Orthodox accept all the books listed in that decree anyway. In that light, it does accurately list accepted books both in the West and East.

Although Trent is the definitive list of accepted books, Rome is traceable as a sort of genesis back to which the Tradition goes. That’s why we Catholics often say, and fairly, I think, that the canon was settled in the late 4th/early 5th century at Rome, Carthage, and Hippo––because in that Church in which we believe the fullness of the faith subsists, the canon is traceable to that time period.

The statement: “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”

In my eyes, The above affirms Roman Primacy among the Universal body of Christ. That would mean both East and West, Orthodox and Latin. I believe that the council was ecumenical in the sense that it was deemed as binding by the Bishop of Rome, under the umbrella of preeminence.

 

[BrianH]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gelasianum

 

[Zeldarocks]

So… The list of Books, the canons, the council; all non-authoritative?

 

[Zeldarocks]

What do we make of the Supposed “Decree of [Pope] Gelasian”? I recently read of the Canon of Scripture first having been ratified at a local Council of Rome in 384, but have now learned that the Council and its canons are of non-historical origin. The supposed Canonical Scriptures and its decree apparently formed part of The Decretum Gelasianum, attributed to Pope Gelasian 492-496.

A couple of inconsistencies to make note of:

The Council of Rome supposedly took place in 384, but the canons of the council are said to have been actually derived from the Decretum Gelasianum, formulated anywhere from 493-496 AD; a gap of of ~108-112 years.

Secondly, the Decretum Gelasianum itself is, at best, said to have been of South Galic origin in the 7th Century; at worst, it is of uncertain origin.

Citations:

**[Encyclopedia Britannica] **
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literature/73166/The-Christian-canon?anchor=ref597321

“Early councils of the African Church held at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) affirmed the use of the Apocryphal books as Scripture. In the 4th century also, Athanasius, chief theologian of Christian orthodoxy, differentiated “canonical books” from both “those that are read” by Christians only and the “Apocryphal books” rejected alike by Jews and Christians. In the preparation of a standard Latin version, the biblical scholar Jerome (c. 347–419/420) separated “canonical books” from “ecclesiastical books” (i.e., the Apocryphal writings), which he regarded as good for spiritual edification but not authoritative Scripture. A contrary view of Augustine (354–430), one of the greatest Western theologians, prevailed, however, and the works remained in the Latin Vulgate version.** The Decretum Gelasianum, a Latin document of uncertain authorship but recognized as reflecting the views of the Roman Church at the beginning of the 6th century, includes Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and I and II Maccabees as biblical.”**

[Wikipedia]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gelasianum

“The so-called Decretum Gelasianum or Gelasian Decree was traditionally attributed to the prolific Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496. In surviving manuscripts the Decretal exists on its own and also appended to a list of books of Scripture titled as attested as canonical by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, bishop of Rome 366–383. Since that list contains a quotation from Augustine, writing about 416, it is evident that the title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei, the so-called Damasine List, is of no historical value,[1] although the canon presented herein represents the same canon as shown in the Council of Carthage Canon 24, 415 AD”

I understand that this is a lot to digest, but I felt the need to bring this to your attention so that it may be debated in an intellectual, scholarly manner.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I disagree with the attempt to discredit the 382 list of the Biblical canon to Damasus. Here’s what my research turned up in 2008:

Here’s some more good stuff. I already showed the authentic Canon from Catholic sources as well as the admission from Bruce, whom RD has used as his authority. But also, the Gelasian decree does not debunk Damasus’ decree as he asserts. Here is the pertinent excerpt from Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers: Volume 1, page 404:

The first part of this decree has long been known as the Decree of Damasus, and concerns the Holy Spirit and the seven-fold gifts. The second part of the decree is more familiarly known as the opening part of the Gelasian Decree, in regard to the canon of Scripture: De libris recipiendis vel non recipiendis. It is now commonly held that the part of the Gelasian Decree dealing with the accepted canon of Scripture is an authentic work of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. and that Gelasius edited it again at the end of the fifth century, adding to it the catalog of the rejected books, the apocrypha. It is now almost universally accepted that these parts one and two of the Decree of Damasus are authentic parts of the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D.The assertion from Wiki that this decree of Damasus is a fraud is cross-referenced to an article which in turn cites a Ernst von Dobschutz. The reason he says the decree of Damasus is false is because within it is a quotation from Augustine from 416. He does not provide the quote or the context, but he therefore concludes that the entire decree cannot be attributed to Damasus. Wiki’s, and in turn RD’s entire allegation, are based on von Dobschutz’ claim.

But as you can see from Jurgens, the document did indeed undergo an edit after Augustine would have made his quote available to the world. This edit would in no way discredit the prior portions that were the authentic parts of Damasus’ Decree.

In summary the timeline would go like this.

• 382 - Pope Damasus makes his decree, lists the authentic canon (which would make sense in light of his order to Jerome to translate the canon)
• 416 - Augustine makes his comments.
• ca. 490 - Gelasius takes Damasus’ decree, and edits it, adding to it

Von Dobschutz speciously takes the edits by Gelasius to discredit what was originally Damasus’. Given Damasus’ concern with the canon, the repeat of his canon at Hippo and Carthage, what Jurgens wrote of his decree is by far the more plausible explanation. And this is probably why, as Jurgens stated, the almost universally accepted position is that Damasus authored the parts on the canon at the Council of Rome.

See this thread for further discussion.