Posted on 09/02/2013 9:07:37 AM PDT by bkaycee
Thanks for recognizing where I’m at in this conversation. I do not accept the forged documents in the OP of this thread as proof of anything for the simple reason (among others that Mrs Don-o elucidated) that the Church recognizes these as fakes and has no trouble admitting that fact, as was also pointed out upthread.
So my opinion is one of incredulity: who in their right mind would think these prove anything, when the Church herself says they’re fake? Does anyone believe they are still being used to support any dogmatic claim? If so, THAT would be interesting.
No, I’m not interested in a centuries old forgery that everyone knows is a forgery. I’m interested in any case where any forgery at all can be shown to be used NOW as “proof” of historical veracity by the Church.
roamer said he has encountered other “dodgy papers” not described by the OP. so again, fair enough. I’ll look into such claims myself to see how “dodgy” any documents are that are used in an official capacity.
Note the words, “official capacity”, such as in papal decrees (hence my follow up question to roamer) and/or Church councils.
I’m not interested in what some apologist may or may not have used in defense or promotion of Catholic dogma. An apologist doesn’t speak for the whole Church. Popes and the councils do. So any example of any pope or council using spurious documentation to bolster a claim would be of interest.
Some apologist on some website on the Internet is not of interest.
Just to be clear of how I’m approaching this. Of how it SHOULD be approached.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
There is no getting around it. The weight of evidences found in the historical record (and scripture, too) is just too overwhelming to leave it all now to Romanist 'Curia' to "decide". More Newmanesque duplicitous explanation from that crowd (and they ARE good at it, well polished, careful lawyers for their client -- which client is themselves too) is not going to lead anyone to unvarnished truth anymore than relying upon testimony of a criminal as to his own crime-- not when he has had access to evidence (and past opportunity to destroy some of that which may otherwise indict himself) and full ability to intimidate and otherwise tamper with "witnesses" from within the RCC. It's like --- at the end of the day, "tell us what we want to hear, or no soup for you, buckwheat". They don't even have to say it.
Try instead the link I offered, and if you like, skip down to the discussion offered in the last blockquoted portion.
Singular papacy, (along with much of all which is freighted with that) in that there being idea such a thing a singular bishop over all others, should be centered anywhere, including Rome, was not the original form of governmental structure of "the church". Period dot.
Even idea of "patriarchate" had some unfolding and development. With the situation in Rome, it was not originally given honor for singular reason of Peter having been there, for Peter had established previous to time of his first arrival in Rome, the church at Antioch (so much for "primacy",huh? they were "first" before Rome) but for reason that both Peter & Paul had been there, more as senior mentors as it were, then either of them being thought of as "bishop" there (with that idea -- Peter as bishop of Rome --- having been first mentioned only some a century or more later) leaving others outside of "Rome" saying such as the bishopric of Rome due some particular honor for reason of enjoying double-apostolicity, rather than any earliest tradition that all should bow towards that office, more than any other. All bishops were once regarded as "Peter's successors", in a clear sense.
So it is you who will finally unravel the effects of Aquinas, his own theology upon which the RC long relied, carefully separating out the fact from the well blended fictions? For this is not a simple matter of declaring some documents to be spurious and even fraudulent, but of what effect those same had on developments themselves, which are at this stage nigh unto impossible for a human being to unravel, particularly one who has already decided to just go along and accept whatever official "magesterium" has to say.
If they had already unraveled and nullified the consequences, then there would have been no declaration of infallibility, for such papal decrees as "all must be subject to the Roman Pontiff" and the like, which themselves had relied upon the falsehoods which had been sneaked into the Western church, being as they were originally presented to a pope as being of great antiquity (instead of being chiefly a pack of lies, with just enough truth mixed in to make it seem to all be "true"). That pope handed those to Aquinas (or likely as not, copies of the documents) and the rest as the saying goes, is history.
Do you have a time machine?
Good luck. You will be needing some of that, and more.
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
Sorry, I posted the source in other posts, but apparantly not there. the Source is "The Pope and the Council" by Catholic Historian Johan Joseph Ignaz Von Doellinger. The book is free online at many sites. Here is one
http://archive.org/details/a577134500dolluoft
I believe you are confusing terms. When Dollinger says "Papal System" I believe he means the attempt by the Ultramones at Vatican I to show false history (forgeries) to show Universal sumpremacy, where there was none, in support of Papal Infallibility (1870).
No one is claiming the Bishop of Rome was not called the Pope and had juristiction in the West, just as the Bishops of the other 4 Major juristictions were sometimes called Pope.
Every single last one of the Catholic posters first reaction was to somehow discredit her, not even addressing the topic in the objective, rational way that you have done.
Hence, my observation that Catholics cannot handle criticism of the Catholic church is hardly broad brushing. It's an observation that has held true on virtually any thread I've participated on.
As far as the church operating in deceit, it is still true regardless of whether it was done in naive ignorance in later years or not.
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.
Maybe, maybe not. There would be an awful lot to lose and people don't usually willingly give up position or power once its attained. There is the momentum of history behind it and that would be awfully hard to resist.
Mrs. Con-o = Mrs. Don-o
*sigh*
Proof reading is my friend.
Proof reading is my friend.
Proof reading is my friend.
Proof reading is my friend.
A lot of protestants have been on a guilt trip since the reformation. They know the Catholic Church is the One, True, Church, but they refuse to admit it as such. That would mean they have been living a lie for a few hundred years. Hardly ever does a Catholic bash protestants. They knew they are living the truth. And that’s the reason of very little protestant bashing. When you have nothing to feel guilty about and you are living your life according to God’s plan, no need in cutting down anyone down, just pray for them.
I'm not THAT old!!!!
And I'm not on a guilt trip.
Salvation is through Christ, not a church. When one is saved, they become the one true church.
That one true church is the body of Christ, not a denomination or religion.
Hardly ever does a Catholic bash protestants.
Just like you're not doing right here? Even when Catholics post that Protestants can only lie all the time because that's what they do? That's not bashing in Catholic lexicon?
When you have nothing to feel guilty about and you are living your life according to God’s plan, no need in cutting down anyone down, just pray for them.
You are posting that to the wrong Catholic. Mrs Don-o does not need to be told that.
“And I’m not on a guilt trip”.
I’ll say a prayer for you at Mass.
I especially admire Döllinger for not leading a schism, even though he remained excommunicated from the Catholic Church and his heart, doctrinally, was with the modernist movement drolly termed "Old Catholic." Many of his fellow anti-Ultramontane priests did go into OC schism. Now, I see, the remaining splinters of OC's in Europe have women priests and homosexual marriage and maybe homosexual priestesses, and are about to be (if they have not been already) sucked into the black hole of collapsing Anglicanism.
When it comes to discussions of monarchical vs conciliar/collegial Church, I'm more interested in Metropolitan Hilarion. Young (under 50), very bright, very immersed in advocating for the ancient Churches of the Mideast.
For which we should all pray. While we're keyboarding, they're in terrifying mortal danger. I should pray more. Pray and fast.
Ahh, but see, here is the stickler: the poison pill is already eaten. It matters not if the Roman church declares the forgeries herein, for the poison was already ingested in the form of Gratian and Aquinas. Have they been discredited by their reliance upon these forgeries? No, of course they have not. And so it goes.
Thank you for the gracious words.
I have just about exhausted my little store of knowledge, which needs to be replenished. I also have to pull out my squashes and plant some kale. That's what we do in Tennessee in the beginning of September.
Be back with you soon, I'm sure, on this thread or another one.
Mrs. Gon-o -- but no, not Guano :o}
Galatians 2:19-20 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
My sauce tomatoes are coming in nicely and I have tomato sauce to put up tomorrow.
The only thing I’ve pulled up so far is the garlic, which did very well. I even figured out how to braid them. :)
Once the first frost hits, though, that’s it for the garden. Back to quilting and cross-stitching.
The Catholic Church is the fullness of the Christian faith. The easiest way to heaven is through the faith that Jesus Christ started himself, not a mortal man. Come on in, the water’s fine.
http://www.catholicscomehome.org/im-not-catholic/
The easiest way to heaven is through the faith that Jesus Christ started Himself, not a mortal man.
Acts 4:8-12 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Christ died for me, not the church.
My sins were committed against God, not the church.
God alone forgives me, not the church.
I go to God through Jesus Christ, being IN Christ, I do not go to the church.
Jesus is my mediator, not the church.
Take Gratian’s Decretum. Despite being the standard textbook for students of canon law during the Middle Ages, the Decretum was never recognized by the Church --- by a Council or by a Pope --- as an official collection. It was a practical and continuously modified compendium of principles, maxims, examples, arguments, and case law.
Interestingly, many auctoritates (dodgy quotes from popes, for instance) were inserted in the "Decretum" by authors of a later date, not always as “original” sources, but often as makeweights and examples.
Over time, the Decretum developed different versions, layered up with cases and commentaries --- a Talmud-like process --- until after a millennium it eventually comprised some 10,000 norms. These became impossible to reconcile with one another due to changes in circumstances across different countries and centuries.
In other words, Gratian's Decretum was not irreformable dogma (in the strict theological sense). It was case law and commentary. This whole ball 'o wax was made defunct by the very buttoned-up and simplified Code of Canon Law (1917) which replaced it, and the next revision of Canon Law (1983) which replaced that.
Was the whole project permanently or fatally poisoned by having Pseudo-Isidore as one of its sources 1200 years ago? I don’t think so. < P> Here’s what I think: the mid-800’s AD were a desperate time: the Holy Roman Empire was disintegrating while the Vikings tore bloody chunks out of Christendom to the north, the Muslims to the south. Good popes and bishops were struggling to preserve the structure and security of the West, the Church and its people. In this very dark time --- here I’m using Warren Carroll’s words --- the Papacy had been brought, though unwittingly, to the employment of falsified elements of canon law. They believed it to be legitimate --- much of Gratian's collection was legitimate --- and they needed settled norms in a time of chaos.
I think it’s a huge, painful tragedy that a handful of Frankish monks appealing to the pope to restore their deposed bishop, used a successful ruse to get forgeries inserted into canon law. A Bad Thing. It indisputably led to long-lasting distortions in Western papal jurisdictional claims. But is it irreparable? No.
Ecclesia semper reformanda. Don't leave the field of struggle too soon. The Holy Spirit is still Lord and Giver of Life, and Christ still King.
I see. So you interpret the Bible for yourself and don’t need anyone telling you how to interpret it. “Me and and Jesus got a good thing going and we don’t need anybody to tell us what it’s all about”. A special prayer for you at Mass and I’ll light a few candles for you. God bless you friend.
No. The Holy Spirit interprets it to me. And, yes, Jesus and I DO have a good thing going and nobody needs to tell us what it's all about.
We made this deal, see. I gave Him all of me, and He gave me all of Him.
A special prayer for you at Mass and I’ll light a few candles for you. God bless you friend.
I appreciate the thought, but, Jesus and I have a good thing going already.
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.