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.
Of course not - I have already discarded the whole lot (your tradition in it's entirety!).
But when one does not take great pains to pare out such infections as best as one can, One should expect the value of what one wants to preserve to go down in value due to it's impure form. Is it I who must trace every quote in Aquinas or Augustine to be certain of the veracity of their claims? It it left to me to ferret out every nuance and supposition to discover their validity? Apparently so... And thus I will not pretend to be impressed, and will move on to something which is maintained with veracity.
And I am well aware of Gratian's Decretum in it's form and function, by the way. I have read it all, or at least a version thereof. And like any such work, it's tendency is to accumulate, not correct.
Despite being the standard textbook for students of canon law during the Middle Ages, the Decretum was never recognized by the Church
Yet another fault - That such a work does not warrant official scrutiny and endorsement should be a warning.
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.
And I wonder if the ideas of psuedo-Isadore if not the text itself does not remain... It would not surprise me in the least.
But is it irreparable? No.
But then, is it repaired? No.
Forgery is its foundation. As an institution it was a much later development in Church history, beginning with the Gregorian reforms of pope Gregory VII in the 11th century and was restricted completely to the West. The Eastern Chruch never accepted the false claims of the Roman Church and refused to submit to its insistence that the Bishop of Rome was supreme ruler of the Church. This they knew was not true to the historical record and was a perversion of the true teaching of Scripture, the papal exegesis of which was not taught by the Church fathers (For an analysis of the church father's interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18 please refer to the article on that subject on this web page)
This seems to go against the grain of your reference to Aquinas...
Rome's first true pope is Gregory I (590-604). Very little of Rome's glory remained during his papacy. Even the imperial palaces were in sad disrepair. Most of the city's elite left Rome a cultural and urban slum. Gregory still distributed the dole and administered the city. Arian Lombards threatened the city. Gregory raised armies to fight the Lombards and raised funds to repair the city. Still, he did not have the power or prestige later popes would hold.
While I don't endorse the the Nazarene Church denomination (the messenger) they have a lengthy piece here on forgeries of the Catholic religion including forgeries of relics and miracles...Very interesting read...