Pope St. Damasus, a murderer?

[patricius79]

Hi I’m debating with some friends and they write:

Ah, an excellent choice. This bishop of Rome clearly shows that the germination of the papacy was simply due to politics, politics and more politics not to mention Damasus’ deadly strongarm tactics. His other claims to fame - adultery and murder. (quotes the historian Kelly:]

"An example of this is Pope Damasus I (in office:366-384). Damasus actively and sometimes brutally repressed heresies: be it Arianism, Apollinarianism or Macedonianism*. The method in which this pope actually got into office deserves to be told. On the death of Liberius (in office: 352-366), the previous pope, there was no consensus among the clergy as to his successor. A faction supported Ursinus, who was one of Liberius’ deacons. Damasus was supported by the faction which were previously loyal to the antipope Felix. To consolidate his position and claim to the papacy, Damasus hired a gang of thugs and carried out a three day massacre of Ursinus’ supporters. That did not satisfy this heresy-hunting pope. After his consecration as bishop of Rome, his men attacked Ursinus and his remaining supporters who were seeking refuge in the Liberian basilica. As a result of that attack, one hundred and thirty seven supporters of Ursinus were murdered. It is noteworthy that this Damasus- who, incidentally, was recognized by the church as a saint- was the first pope in history to use the Petrine text in Matthew to support the papacy’s claim of supremacy. " Kelly, Dictionary of Popes: p32

Now Kelly is often a reliable historian… BUt is this true, or is it simply mythology… I need the truth abuot this, whatever that is …

Anybody?

Thanks,
Pat

 

[William1964]

Hi I’m debating with some friends and they write:

Now Kelly is often a reliable historian… BUt is this true, or is it simply mythology… I need the truth abuot this, whatever that is …

Anybody?

Thanks,
Pat

St. Damsus was not the first to use the Petrine text in St. Matthew:

“Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

“…folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid…” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

“…the chief of the disciples…the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).

“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church…” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).

“**lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom…” Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359).

As for the rest I leave that to my follow more well informed Catholic brothers and sisters**

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi I’m debating with some friends and they write:

Now Kelly is often a reliable historian… BUt is this true, or is it simply mythology… I need the truth abuot this, whatever that is …

Anybody?

Thanks,
Pat

Suppose, for a moment, that this is true. So what? King David was a murderer and an adulterer.

Kelly’s real intent is to tie the text from Matthew 16:18 to a discredited murderer.

Once you step back in revulsion from the person of Damasus, you have unwittingly been seduced into denying the scripture which HAS ALWAYS been understood to support the papacy.

 

[William1964]

Suppose, for a moment, that this is true. So what? King David was a murderer and an adulterer.

Kelly’s real intent is to tie the text from Matthew 16:18 to a discredited murderer.

Once you step back in revulsion from the person of Damasus, you have unwittingly been seduced into denying the scripture which HAS ALWAYS been understood to support the papacy.

Good point Randy.

The Church isn’t full of perfect people. Those against the Church seem to think by pointing out a saints sins that’s grounds to leave the church.

God bless the Holy Catholic Church and her leader Pope Benedict.

 

[coin]

wait…Randy, did you say, ‘so what?’ personally, i find it hard to compare pre Christ peoples’ actions with post Christ peoples’ actions…I like to believe that the Word Incarnate did make a difference in the world. Seems we ‘know better,’ if you will since know God face to face and live.
Peace, John
godslovesong.blogspot.com/

 

[DOShea]

You may find it hard, but such is the nature of fallen man. Christ coming into the world did not alter that; He only came to show us the way to recover from it in an eternal sense.

Working on the premise that the evil of the individual automatically equals the evil of the Church, or that the Church cannot be sustained by the Holy Spirit because some questionable person or even scoundrel of a person leads it, is to deny that God is all-powerful. It essentially is an argument that man’s choice supersedes God’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

Take any example in the world today where an official, even the CEO, of a company is involved in something scandalous. Can you point to a single example where the sins of the CEO turned the entire company into something diabolical, rather than the sins being only a reflection of the individual’s personal weakness? Does that individual’s sin cause all the policies and procedures the company has in place to suddenly take on new meanings? How would you explain when these scandalous people are removed, replaced, or step down, the company continues on unabated?

If it is the case that one scoundrel in the ranks represents some sort of negation of the entire church, then we can safely say there is NO church on Earth today, since every single religion has contained at least one. This alone should reveal that a Church divinely revealed and maintained does not stop with any crimes or shortcomings of one of it’s members, even it’s human leader.

Interesting, isn’t it, that this same Pope in question did not go altering any doctrine to suit his immediate concerns, something one would imagine high on a person’s list who was only interested in the consolidation of personal power.

 

[Canto]

Hi I’m debating with some friends and they write:

Now Kelly is often a reliable historian… BUt is this true, or is it simply mythology… I need the truth abuot this, whatever that is …

Anybody?

Thanks,
Pat

Sounds like an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory

As you may know…Pope Damascus commissioned the Vulgate - a relialbe Latin translation (the language of the people) instead of the various old (vetus) Latin manuscripts floating around.

AND…At the Council of Rome in 382 AD he decreed the canon of the Bible which Protestants accept sans a few OT books.

The following is from an article adapted from the Catholic Encylopedia…

In the early years of his pontificate, supporters of Ursinus brought false charges of adultery and murder against Pope Damasus I, but he was soon exonerated. The murder charge may have been based on the fact that several Ursinus supporters were killed by men who favored Damasus. This would not be the end of the trials and disruptions Pope Damasus would encounter. He would vigorously defend the Catholic Faith against the heresies of Apollinarianism, Macedonianism, and Arianism.

aquinasandmore.com/catholic-articles/Pope-St.-Damasus-I/article/228

 

[DavidPalm]

Sounds like an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory

I agree. Kelly was indeed a reputable historian, but since he does not cite a source it’s not possible to evaluate the claim. But it is demonstrable that the Arians and other groups threw out a lot of false accusations against the Catholics. St. Athanasius, for example, was accused of murder as well; he exonerated himself by producing the “corpse” in the form of a very much alive deacon. So these kinds of charges need to be evaluated carefully and not just swallowed whole because someone likes the conclusion. In this case we’re not given the opportunity to evaluate that evidence (unless there’s a citation in Kelly’s volume. I can check when I get home), but as always it’s the strength of the evidence that matters.

 

[Mintaka]

Catholic Encyclopedia talks about this in their article on Pope Damasus.

It sounds like Ursinus’ party was the one going around slaughtering people to get their man in as pope. It also sounds like all the accusations against Damasus come from a single source, a petition called Libellus Precum.

All I know is that Damasus was a darned fine poet for a pope, and that St. Jerome, who didn’t have a good word for anybody, liked Damasus and liked working for him.

 

[Ignatius]

these kinds of charges need to be evaluated carefully and not just swallowed whole because someone likes the conclusion.

This is the crux of the argument. Baseless charges of this kind should be challenged.

 

[patricius79]

thanks, everyone, I reviewed the information I could find and personally I don’t see any evidence that Damasus did it, but only a group those who supported him … which is out of his control …

see the paragraph beginning with “Liberius died” at:
ewtn.com/library/MARY/DAMASUS.htm