Your "opinion"??? I thought we were discussing evidence? Are we now discussing your opinions? If so, your opinion is based on what?
As to the opinions of "many others"...who are these others? Dollinger is cited most liberally by protestant apologists/others (e.g. Hunt, Webster, De Rosa) who have written on this subject of the False Decretals. Dollinger, in all probability is *the* ultimate source in question in your post on this topic; yet he says they were NOT written with this purpose in mind. Who is your "history scholar" who says otherwise and based on what?
I'm fully aware of the work you linked, and while some of what it says seems reasonable, it is in the realm of apologetics to undercut opponents. I take it with a tablespoon of salt.
This is an amazing statement. No doubt, the information you provided in your original post appears to be straight from a book by a protestant apologist - hence, it is, no less, from the 'realm of apologetics' as well! Take care that the table spoon of salt you take doesn't get salt in your eye and obscure your vision! I can't help but feel there is some hypocrisy in what evidence you admit into or exclude from the discussion.
I addressed some of the claims in your original post directly or through links; why don't you do the same, beginning with addressing the rebuttals presented in http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9810fea3.asp? The linked article provides arguments from history on the subject. You should consider and address them.
Your "opinion"??? I thought we were discussing evidence? Are we now discussing your opinions? If so, your opinion is based on what?
Are you trying to change the topic? I form my opinion from the evidence presented.
As to the opinions of "many others"...who are these others? Dollinger is cited most liberally by protestant apologists/others (e.g. Hunt, Webster, De Rosa) who have written on this subject of the False Decretals. Dollinger, in all probability is *the* ultimate source in question in your post on this topic; yet he says they were NOT written with this purpose in mind. Who is your "history scholar" who says otherwise and based on what?
The "others", as you ask, are those who likewise form their opinions on the evidence presented. I have no idea what "Hunt, Webster, De Rosa" have said, and have no intention of looking up what they said. While Dollinger, a real scholar, a former Roman Catholic apologist, is often quoted, he is far from being the "ultimate" origin of "most" quotes. In fact, most of the quotes I have been able to substantiate are from Roman Catholic sources.
For example, Archbishop Bagshawe did not hesitate to say: "There is no Christianity outside of the Catholic Church"; so also states Pius X's Catechism, thus placing Christianity inside a colossal lie.
Again: Concerning the "Donation of Constantine" which was concocted at Rome, based on the earlier fifth century legend, whereby the Pope is described as Lord and master of all Bishops, and having authority over the four "thrones of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem; and as having receied Italy and the Western Provinces from the Emperor. It is upon this forgery that the Pope's claim to territorial power rested. The earliest reference to this pretended gift of Constantine occurs in Pope Adrian's letter to Charlemagne in AD 777; though Popes had, since AD 752, spoken of "restitution" of Italian towns and provinces to St. Peter or to the Roman Republic. Twenty years later, 797 AD, the need was felt at Rome of a more extensive invention. So a document was laid before Charlemagne in Rome, professing to be his father Pepin's "gift" or "promise" of territory to the Pope. This forgery assigned all Corsica, Venetia, Istria, Luni, Moselica, Parma, reggio, Mantua, and the Duchies of Spoleto and Benevento, and the Exarchate of Ravenna to the Pope. (Liber Pontificalis, II., 193, Vignol edition.)
Again: There have unquestionably been some falsification in privileges granted to Popes by Emperors later than Charlemagn - such as the "pact" of Lois the Pious, in AD 817 - an interpolation of the eleventh century. So, again, with the privileges of the Emperors, Otho I, in 962, an henry II in 1020. All kinds of the other forgeries are traceable to Rome. As "Acts of Martyrs" had been fabricated there earlier, so from the tenth century, false documents were fabricatd wholesale at Rome. (Le Grotte Vaticane, Roma, 1639, pp. 505-510; Jaffe, Regesta, p. 936.)
The most potent instrument of Papal machination was Gratian's "Decretum," issued in the twelfth century, from Bologna. In this the Isidorian forgeries were combined with other Gregorian writers' fabrications, as well as with Gratian's own. This work displaced all older collections of Canon Law, and became the fount of knowledge for all "sholastic theologians"! Forgery was herein added to forgery - all alike enhancing the claims of the Papacy.
I suppose I should stop now....have to go and eat a late dinner.