Talk:Council of Rome

Why the claim about the RCC's official position?

In an earlier edit, I deleted this statement: "According to the Roman Catholic view, Pope Damasus issued the following decree as a result of the council," because I knew of no evidence that the RCC officially maintains the authenticity of the Damasine list. The poster "Wetman" has now reinserted the claim in an even stronger form: "It remains the official Roman Catholic position that Pope Damasus issued the following decree as a result of the council."

If this is indeed the official Roman Catholic position, can Wetman (or anyone else) please show me the official RC statement affirming the authenticity of the Damasine list? In the absence of such a statement (and no, entries in the _Catholic Encyclopedia_ don't count), it is irresponsible to make claims about the RCC's "official" position. The RCC is not coy about stating its official positions. If it puts its weight behind the authenticity of the Damasine list, there ought to be a statement somewhere saying so. (anonymous post from User:Contarini)

I cannot speak for Wetman, but it would appear that the RCC holds that the "Canon of Scripture" is indeed the same list of books as written in the Damasine list. See CCC Paragraph 120: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#120

Whether or not the RCC views the decree taken by Pope Damasus as the official action that recognizes them is less clear. Perhaps a more neutral statement, such as "The Roman Catholic Church accepts the Damasine list as the official biblical canon by way of Apostolic tradition." would be more appropriate? CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Pope" (sic) Damasus

A footnote needs to be inserted to the effect that Damasus, bishop of Rome, is being given the title "Pope" retrospectively, as a courtesy to Roman Catholics, though the anachronism obscures the contemporary situation.--Wetman (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No footnote is needed. Yes, the title "Pope" for the bishop of Rome did not exist in the 4th century. But this is not a point worth arguing about, because nothing in the article turns on whether Damasus was called "pope" in his lifetime. For most people, "pope" is shorthand for "bishop of Rome". Every Wikipedia article about a bishop of Rome is titled "Pope N", even those who were not so called in their lifetime. MDJH (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Apochryphal Texts

A reference to the Apochryphal texts should be added in a new section.Jemiljan (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph in the Intro

2nd Paragraph in the intro sounds like it ought to be placed in a separate "Historical Background" section. It is also unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehemiahBoreham (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Done: the paragraph has been moved into the body of the article, and a reference provided. MDJH (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Article seems anachronous

1. The title "Pope" did not exist at this time 2. The "Catholic Church" did not exist at this time, it was still in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy and did not adopt the filioque or question the power of the papacy within the Pentarchy 2601:1C0:5880:6D0:D839:6C82:4145:CD86 (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

1. True. This point has been answered above.

2. True: calling the 4th century Church "the Catholic Church" is polemical and POV. So, the term has been removed from the article. It is worth pointing out that the commenter's statement that the Catholic Church "was still in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy" is also polemical and POV, since it implies that it's the Westerners who broke with Eastern Orthodoxy. MDJH (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)