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.
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.
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.