Replies

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.

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.