Forged Documents and Papal Power (A Former Catholic Nun)

http://www.CatholicConcerns.com ^ | June 2002 | Mary Ann Collins

[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

[FourtySeven]

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.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[BlueDragon]

How it should be approached? That's like having the same fox (who is well learned & practiced) to watch the same old chickens which have for centuries have suffered being devoured by the same fox. Would the fox admit to culpability? Not really, since the fox has an investment to protect. No...independent sources must be evaluated instead of "whatever Rome says" as final word concerning their own "selves".

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.

Note the words, “official capacity”, such as in papal decrees (hence my follow up question to roamer) and/or Church councils.

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.

[bkaycee]

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.

[metmom]

Mrs. Con-o, I just scanned this thread and for the first hundred posts of the thread, you were singularly, the ONLY Catholics who did not dis Mary Ann Collins.

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.

[metmom]

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.

[NKP_Vet]

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.

[metmom]

A lot of protestants have been on a guilt trip since the reformation.

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.

[NKP_Vet]

“And I’m not on a guilt trip”.

I’ll say a prayer for you at Mass.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, Döllinger -- I might have guessed. He argued that the Ultramontanes were overly influenced by the False Decretals as late as the First Vatican Council. How I'd like to hear a debate between Döllinger and Pope Benedict XVI! Several generations apart, they'd be a good match for each other in intensive intellectual background and Bavarian roots, and certainly Döllinger's thoughts must have been enthusiastically and critically analyzed in Ratzinger's University milieu.

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.

[roamer_1]

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.

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hey Yetmom... I mean Petmom...no, but you're pretty quick: Jetmom? Vroom....

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}

[metmom]

I am free from the bondage of guilt. Don't worry about me.

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.

[metmom]

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.

[NKP_Vet]

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/

[metmom]

The easiest way to heaven is through the faith that Jesus Christ started himself, not a mortal man.

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You can't be asking for the wholesale repudiation of Gratian and Aquinas. They operated on a wider field and with far more sources than Pseudo-Isidore. Yes, part of their work was inadvertently vitiated by their reception of the False Decretals. That has an impact on the value of some of their writings--- a difficult impact, one that requires careful sorting and discarding--- but not a fatal one. It doesn’t undermine the whole of their work, or the whole continuity and authority of 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.

[NKP_Vet]

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.

[metmom]

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”.

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.