Replies

A complete misrepresentation of the history of the False Decretals. Rather than being a work of the 8th century used in the dispute with the Eastern Emperor, they were a work of the 9th century. They were composed in France for the purpose of strengthening the position of the bishops against the king. They would not be received in Rome until the 11th and 12th centuries where they were believed to be authentic. They were also concerned with questions of ecclesiastical trials rather than theology and played no role in the development of the Papal authority. Papal primacy was claimed by Pope Stephen I as early as the 3rd century and was also acknowledge by St. Cyprian. The False Decretals were an unfortunate episode in church history but it would be wrong to walk in the footsteps of the forger and present them as something they are not.

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. 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 (ibid)