Posted on 09/02/2013 9:07:37 AM PDT by bkaycee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What we now call popes were originally bishops of Rome (one bishop among brother bishops from other cities). Then they became popes, with power over the entire Church. Then they became so powerful that they were able to depose kings and emperors. They became so powerful that they were able to force kings to use their secular might to enforce the Inquisition, which was conducted by Catholic priests and monks. In 1870, the Pope was declared to be infallible. The process of increasing papal power was influenced by forged documents which changed people’s perception of the history of the papacy and of the Church.
I’m just going to briefly summarize some information about these forgeries. At the end of this paper is a link to an on-line article which gives detailed historical information.
One of the most famous forgeries is the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals,” which were written around 845 A.D. (They are also known as the “False Decretals”.) They consist of 115 documents which were supposedly written by early popes. [Note 1]
The “Catholic Encyclopedia” admits that these are forgeries. It says that the purpose of these forged documents was to enable the Church to be independent of secular power, and to prevent the laity from ruling the Church. [Note 2 gives the address of an on-line article.] In other words, their purpose was to increase the power of the Pope and the Catholic Church.
In addition to documents which were total forgeries, genuine documents were altered. One hundred twenty-five genuine documents had forged material added to them, which increased the power of the Pope. Many early documents were changed to say the opposite of what they had originally said. [Note 3]
One of the forgeries is a letter which was falsely attributed to Saint Ambrose. It said that if a person does not agree with the Holy See, then he or she is a heretic. [Note 4] This is an example of how papal power was promoted by fraudulently claiming the authority of highly respected Early Fathers.
Another famous forgery from the ninth century was “The Donation of Constantine”. It claimed that Emperor Constantine gave the western provinces of the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome. The Pope used it to claim authority in secular matters. [Note 5]
When Greek Christians tried to discuss issues with the Church in Rome, the popes often used forged documents to back their claims. This happened so frequently that for 700 years the Greeks referred to Rome as “the home of forgeries”. [Note 6]
For three hundred years, the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals” and other forgeries were used by Roman Popes to claim authority over the Church in the East. The Patriarch of Constantinople rejected these false claims of primacy. This resulted in the separation of the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church. [Note 7 gives addresses of on-line articles.]
In the middle of the twelfth century, a monk named Gratian wrote the “Decretum,” which became the basis for Canon Law (the legal system for running the Roman Catholic Church). It contained numerous quotations from forged documents. Gratian drew many of his conclusions from those quotations. Gratian quoted 324 passages which were supposedly written by popes of the first four centuries. Of those passages, only eleven are genuine. The other 313 quotations are forgeries. [Note 8]
In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas wrote the “Summa Theologica” and numerous other works. His writings are the foundation for scholastic theology. Aquinas used Gratian’s “Decretum” for quotations from church fathers and early popes. [Note 9] Aquinas also used forged documents which he thought were genuine. [Note 10]
The importance of Thomas Aquinas’ theology can be seen in the encyclical of Pope Pius X on the priesthood. In 1906, Pius said that in their study of philosophy, theology, and Scripture, men studying for the priesthood should follow the directions given by the popes and the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. [This papal encyclical is available on-line. Note 11 gives addresses.]
William Webster is the author of “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History”. (I recommend this book.) His web site has an article entitled “Forgeries and the Papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy”. The article gives detailed information about the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals” and other forged documents, showing their influence on the papacy and on the Catholic Church. Four quotations from his article are below. (They are used by permission.)
“In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in the Western Church, which dramatically altered the Constitution of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full development of the papacy. The papacy could never have emerged without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the Church and of men’s perceptions of the history of that Constitution. As long as the true facts of Church history were well known, it would serve as a buffer against any unlawful ambitions. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West. This forgery is known as the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals,” written around 845 A.D. The “Decretals” are a complete fabrication of Church history. They set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century and make it appear that the popes had always exercised sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church Councils.”
“The historical facts reveal that the papacy was never a reality as far as the universal Church is concerned. There are many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to that fact as well as to the importance of the forgeries, especially those of “Pseudo-Isidore”. One such historian is Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger. He was the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic.” [Webster quotes extensitely from Dollinger.]
“In addition to the “Pseudo Isidorian Decretals” there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled ‘Against the Errors of the Greeks’. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers…. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries.”
“The authority claims of Roman Catholicism ultimately devolve upon the institution of the papacy. The papacy is the center and source from which all authority flows for Roman Catholicism. Rome has long claimed that this institution was established by Christ and has been in force in the Church from the very beginning. But the historical record gives a very different picture. This institution was promoted primarily through the falsification of historical fact through the extensive use of forgeries as Thomas Aquinas’ apologetic for the papacy demonstrates. Forgery is its foundation.”
I strongly encourage you to read William Webster’s article. It has an abundance of valuable historical information. The address of the article is:
http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USE OF THIS ARTICLE
I encourage you to link to this article and to put it on your own web site. You have my permission to copy this entire article or portions of it, and to quote from it. You have my permission to incorporate this entire article or portions of it into publications of your own, including translating it into other languages. You have my permission to distribute copies of this article, including selling it for profit. I do not want any royalties or financial remuneration of any kind. Please give this information to anybody who might be interested in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES
[1] William Webster, “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History” (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), pages 62-63. Webster is a former Catholic.
Peter de Rosa, “Vicars of Christ” (Dublin, Ireland: Poolbeg Press, 1988, 2000), pages 58-61, 174, 208. De Rosa is a Catholic, and a former Catholic priest. He was able to do historical research in the Vatican Archives.
Paul Johnson, “A History of Christianity” (New York: A Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, 1976, 1995), page 195. Johnson is a Catholic and a prominent historian.
[2] “Benedict Levita” in the “Catholic Encyclopedia”. [Benedict Levita is the pseudonym of the author of the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals”.]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02466a.htm
[3] De Rosa, page 59.
[4] De Rosa, page 166.
[5] Johnson, pages 170-172.
[6] De Rosa, page 59.
[7] Orthodox Christian Information Center, “The False Decretals of Isidore”. An excerpt from “The Papacy” by Abbee Guette. The author was a devout Catholic and a historian. As a result of his historical research about the papacy, he eventually joined the Orthodox Church.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/decretals.htm
“The Great Schism of 1054”. This is a sermon given at the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist,in Washington, D.C.
http://www.stjohndc.org/Homilies/9606a.htm
[8] Webster, pages 62-63. De Rosa, page 60.
[9] Webster, page 63. De Rosa, page 60.
[10] William Webster, “Forgeries and the papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy”. This gives detailed accounts of Aquinas’ use of forged documents which he wrongly believed to be genuine.
http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html
[11] Pius X, “Pieni l’animo” (“On the Clergy in Italy”), July 28, 1906. (See paragraph 6.)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P10CLR.HTM
All right fair enough. I suppose I could start with the “Six Books” and “Mary’s Repose” you mentioned previously.
With regards to those works, is it your experience that they were relied upon when Pope Pius XIIth made his dogmatic decree in 1950?
I agree with the entirety of your post wholeheartedly! And it bears mention that 'The Assumption of Mary' as a concept is a perfect example of how the Roman church is based upon forgery and fairy tale. Their tradition's entire collective memory on the subject can be found primarily in two psuedepigraphical works (the Six Books, and Mary's Repose), which anyone honest enough to research the matter will soon find out. No matter what authority and fame may author, invariably, the root is to be found in these two strains.
The significance of theses forgeries is monumental.
It calls into question the "Code of Canon Law", The writings of Aquinas, The Marian docrines and the Infallibility of Pope.
It also appears that these forgeries were in great part responsible for the East-West Schism!
I have no idea what He relied upon - but I can imagine that he relied upon centuries of tradition, all of which boil down to these two works.
If that is the track record of *tradition*, then the concept of accepting tradition on par with Scripture is also invalid.
Oral tradition, or even what is called *sacred* tradition in an attempt to preclude that criticism, is inherently unreliable, and this is the proof.
Scripture is TRUTH and unchangeable. Having been written down, it can always be referred back to, so there is not the risk of this kind of fraud.
It's a slap in the face of God and His word to claim that their tradition is equal in authority or greater in authority to His Word.
Essentially, that is saying that their forgeries and deception trump the truth of the word of God itself.
Not a place wise to go.
Do you want to blow your mind? The Jewish tradition does the same thing. The similarities are astounding. If there is ever a true indictment of tradition, it can be found in the result and comparison between Jewish and Christian traditions. There can be no better defense for sola-scriptura.
Why not let her prove she exists with some sort of document before she talks about other supposed phony documents. Why should what she writes be taken seriously when her very existence is shadowy and dubious? This is a joke that writes itself.
The papacy is an historical institution. Historical in one sense like the First Baptist Church is historical. It is some sense separate from the office of the pope, which is also, in another sense, historical as well. You may have noticed that Pope Francis, like Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul II and even Paul Vi, has taken pains to emphasize his primary job, his first hat so to say, bishop of Rome. The pope is also the successor of Peter, which is perhaps the role most personal to the man. Since 1970 he has made his quarters in the buildings attached to the chief shrine to Peter. This remains true even though Francis has chosen, for obvious reasons, not to occupy the papal apartments, but he is still close to St.Peter’s.
The Orthodox speak of Tradition, which is useful because it is short for the authority of the Church. The right to say what is Scripture and in case of dispute, what Scripture says and in the case of disputed teachings, what right teachings is. You also believe in tradition, written and oral, only you dispute the right of the bishops to say what the true faith is. On the other hand, you claim this right for yourself.
Holding tradition above the written word is nothing more than idolatry.
Holding tradition up above the written word when it totally goes against the written word is nothing more than calling God a liar .
My own view necessitates looking at the Bible as a series of legal contracts (covenants) wherein the party of the first part (YHWH) declares to the party of the second part (Man), what He (YHWH) will do. And what He will do is not dependent upon whether the party of the second part (Man) abides by the terms of the contract or not.
It would thereby be the height of idiocy for the party of the first part to allow the party of the second part to change the terms (and in fact, the wording sets the contracts in stone, none can change it). In that, the original contract must of a necessity hold more authority than anything following thereafter.
Try the article at this thread's heading, for starters?
Here's link to discussion of what is being referred to now as "dodgy papers" but more accurately could be called fraudulent, (a mix of truth and false representations) which article itself was made mention of in one of the footnotes of the subject matter of this thread --- which was a (partial?) listing of the "frauds" being discussed ---> Forgeries and the Papacy.
Now someone may quibble over Webster's pointing towards these documents, for reason that "singular" papal authority over all other known bishops, far beyond a much earlier idea or principle of "patriarchate" of which there were once five, then seemingly only three written about (at least in the Western church) had already been claimed by bishops of Rome, in effect making all patriarchates in affect that of primarily Rome's own -- so even as the fraud he points to was not precisely the original "source" of the idea of there being a singular bishop over all, but as he explains in *some* detail and example, the fraudulent works were much employed as buttress for the claim that the Roman Pontiff was Supreme with pretense and {erroneous) justification being said to have existed from earliest times, when it was not.
Some years later, this helped lead to the schism of 1054. which many Roman Catholics to this day blame the Orthodox for, calling them the "schismatics" when the reverse is more true.
What does the RC church teach young children and neophytes concerning "the pope", to this day, but that there was always "a" pope, and if it noticed there were other "popes" in earliest ages of "the church", presentation made that the one in Rome being the sole and singular one which always had counted the most?
Thus it is not protestants per se, whommust always be liars or tell lies, but even if unwittingly believing the error & fraud that singular Romanist papacy to have "always been the truth", then that leaves them needing repeat error & lies, which lies were later buttressed by even more later "lies" would it not?
Would you accept it?
Why should what she writes be taken seriously when her very existence is shadowy and dubious?
How about because the facts are the facts and if they can be historically documented, it doesn't matter if she's using a pseudonym or not?
She did not make up the documents to which she is referring. She is just presenting them.
How about addressing them?
This is a joke that writes itself.
No, it's not a joke at all, no matter how much y'all would like it to be. Impugning the character of the person who is presenting the facts does not change the facts.
Catholics and Catholicism would gain far more credibility than they realize if they would stop attacking the messenger and diverting attention from the topic, and instead address the topic at hand. And that topic is that the Catholic church used forged documents to establish itself and its power.
If you'd like to contest that point, we're all ears.
That’s good. Thanks.
The raping of children by priests threads is a good example. If only the evil Prods had stopped talking about this issue it would have all been OK.
Lift up your heads for your redemption draweth nigh.....
woops, sorry. I see now the question had been answered, leaving my own (unasked for) assistance unnecessary.
But timely and to the point, all the same... : )
"I guess, when you think about it, we shouldn’t be shocked at the dishonesty, my goodness, everything hangs on the Roman church’s claim that the Popes reign over Christianity is historically valid (the rest of Christianity - yea, the entire world - must be in subservience to the Pope). As the lead article brings out, they have used dishonest means to establish the primacy. The institution of the Papacy is simply a lie, the fact that they use lying forged documents to establish it, proves it. And the lying tradition continues on."
Myself at #37--Challenged this and got no response.
"No matter how many references you post, no matter how many Catholic sources you cite, it will not be believed and our Catholic friends will 1) ignore it, or 2) claim your a pagan heretic."This despite the fact that I did not ignore anything, I addressed the false decretals issue, nor did I call anybody a "pagan heretic" --- words I have never written, and I've been posting here for 14 years.
“When the church is shown to have operated in deceit, the reactions on this thread are the result. It pushes the Catholics right over the edge. They just can’t handle it.”That’s an inexcusably broad statement. The “False Decretals” were not committed by “The Church.” they were committed: by some Frankish monks, the original forgers who knowingly cooked up false papers to beef up their local bishop Rothad’s appeal – in other words,to mislead Pope Nicholas I; and by the unscrupulous Papal librarian Anastasius (I quoted Warren Carroll on this in my post #67 to the effect that Anastasius not only represented the documents as being from the papal archives, but even probably composed, or at least, sourced, the letter written to reinstate the deposed Bishop Rothad. This is a substantive, researched post which was nobody has commented on or refuted.
Certainly the Catholic Church dropped the false documents which were intermixed in the Decretals, when the original subterfuge was exposed. The most adequate summary of the whole mess is still the Catholic Encyclopedia!
So “the Church operating in deceit” is not accurate: it should be “Pope Nicholas being scammed by clever forgeries, which weren’t even suspected as such until centuries later --- when a Catholic scholar Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa blew the whistle.” (A lot more words, I know, and doesn’t fit the template as well as "the Church operating in deceit".) And Catholics “can’t handle it”? Not one single Catholic on this forum defended the forgers or the forgeries; and none of the fraudulent material makes its way into any contemporary ecumenical discussions of the papacy.
"They [Catholics] simply cannot tolerate dissent or critiquing, or holding their beliefs up to the light of Scripture for comparison to see if they align with Scripture or not."
False. This is a broad-brush type charge which simply closes its eyes to, or writes off, the pages and pages of Scriptural and historical discussions, with meaty contributions from both sides, which continually enrich the pages of the Religion Forum.
You're quoting somebody, I don’t know who, -- the entire cut and-paste is one long insinuation that honest differences in scholarly opinion and errors in judgment can be subsumed under the label of deceit. (Just so we can look it up and make our own evaluations, what is your source there, bkaycee?)Moreover,the assertion that “It could now no longer be denied that with this forgery disappeared the whole historical foundation of the papal system is just a rhetorical swagger: as Warren Carroll and other historians have noted [Schrörs, "Papst Nikolaus I. und Pseudo-Isidor" in Historisches Jahrbuch, XXV (1904), 1 sqq.; Idem, "Die pseudoisidorische 'Exceptio spolii' bei Papst Nikolaus I" in Historisches Jahrbuch, XXVI (1905), 275 sqq.] --- the Church did not then, and does not now, base its apologia of the papacy on these documents alone, or even principally; and now, not at all.
Anyone actually interested in the status questionis should really try to follow the discussions between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, which have only intensified metmom at #42 since the universal repudiation of the False Decretals.
If the whole support for the Western Church's ideas about the Petrine Ministry were dependent on the False Decretals, the whole discussion would have collapsed two or three centuries ago. Whomever you are quoting, bkaycee, as saying the repudiated document collection is "the whole historical foundation of the papal system" is pumping up a very poorly sourced opinion and presenting it as a fact.
There have been quite a few arguments made which have been entirely apt and valid (grateful tip ‘o the hat especially, but not only, to metmom and sasportas), but the whole discussion is undermined if there is a constant insinuation (on both sides) that the other side is deceitful, acting in bad faith.
That kills truth-seeking at the root, by repelling people and draining out their motivation even to participate.
To the measure that I have done this myself, I am truly sorry.
If there's anyone else I left off the ping list who would'a been on there, it was inadvertent and I apologize
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.