[NYer]

From the link posted by boatbums:

They set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century and make it appear that the popes had always exercised sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church Councils. Nicholas I (858–867) was the first to use them as the basis for advancing his claims of authority.

Dear friend, if anything is a forgery, it is the nonsensical trash posted at your link. Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"

Fathers of the Church throughout the early centuries of the Church might be cited for hours, but what no one can provide is the testimony of even one of them denying this primacy. Even when there were disputed matters, such as involved St. Cyprian of Carthage and the pope, he still insisted on the primacy, writing in 255 or 256 A.D:

Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ. Indeed this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord's name, says, 'One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." If someone does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, can he imagine that he holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this very thing and displays the sacred sign of unity when he says: 'One body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God' (Eph 4:4-6).

[boatbums]

Dear friend, if anything is a forgery, it is the nonsensical trash posted at your link.

What does the link say that should be considered a "forgery"? Are you saying that the common knowledge that the Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore ARE forgeries is "trash"? Better tell the good folks at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm, because they readily admit it happened. They say:

Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called papal letters are forgeries. These documents, to the number of about one hundred, appeared suddenly in the ninth century and are nowhere mentioned before that time. The most ancient Manuscripts of them that we have are from the ninth century, and their method of composition, of which we shall treat later, shows that they were made up of passages and quotations of which we know the sources; and we are thus in a position to prove that the Pseudo-Isidore makes use of documents written long after the times of the popes to whom he attributes them. Thus it happens that popes of the first three centuries are made to quote documents that did not appear until the fourth or fifth century; and later popes up to Gregory I (590-604) are found employing documents dating from the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, and the early part of the ninth. Then again there are endless anachronisms. The Middle Ages were deceived by this huge forgery, but during the Renaissance men of learning and the canonists generally began to recognize the fraud. Two cardinals, John of Torquemada (1468) and Nicholas of Cusa (1464), declared the earlier documents to be forgeries, especially those purporting to be by Clement and Anacletus. Then suspicion began to grow. Erasmus (died 1536) and canonists who had joined the Reformation, such as Charles du Moulin (died 1568), or Catholic canonists like Antoine* le Conte (died 1586), and after them the Centuriators of Magdeburg, in 1559, put the question squarely before the learned world. Nevertheless the official edition of the "Corpus Juris", in 1580, upheld the genuineness of the false decretals, many fragments of which are to be found in the "Decretum" of Gratian. As a partial explanation of this it is enough to recall the case of Antonio Agustin (died 1586), the greatest canonist of that period. Agustin seriously doubted the genuineness of the documents, but he never formally repudiated them. He felt he had not sufficient proof at hand, so he simply shirked the difficulty. And it is also to be remembered that, owing to the irritating controversies of the time, anything like an impartial and methodical discussion of such a subject was an utter impossibility. In 1628 the Protestant Blondel published his decisive study, "Pseudo-Isidorus et Turrianus vapulantes". Since then the apocryphal nature of the decretals of Isidore has been an established historical fact. The last of the false decretals that had escaped the keen criticism of Blondel were pointed out by two Catholic priests, the brothers Ballerini, in the eighteenth century.

You can read more about this scandalous "wool" that got pulled over MANY eyes - including Thomas Aquinas - at the link.

As to Cyprian's comments that you claim prove the primacy of the Pope of Rome, I direct you to http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/cyprian.php, where we learn:

At the time when the controversy concerning baptism broke out between him and Bishop Stephen of Rome (255), Cyprian stood undisputedly as the prominent and most influential leader in the Christian Church. The Roman Church held that baptism administered in due form was valid, even when administered by a heretic, and admitted baptized heretics and schismatics by simple imposition of hands; while Cyprian protested that there was no baptism outside of the orthodox church, and baptized, or rather re-baptized, heretics and schismatics, before admitting them into the church. The Roman view held the ground; but it is very instructive to notice the relation in which Cyprian places himself to the Bishop of Rome. Acknowledging Rome as the natural centre of Christendom, and the successor of Peter as primus inter pares, he recognizes the precedence as one of honor only, and by no means as one of power. Of a feeling of subordination, of a yielding to a higher power of jurisdiction, there is in all his tracts and letters not the least trace. The papacy was not yet born. On the contrary, it is Cyprian who is styled Papa by the Roman bishop; and he does not give back the title to his interlocutor.

I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church has history on her side to prove that the Pope of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter and head over all Christendom, has always been a tenet held by the Christian community. That there HAVE been numerous splits and dissension from such a concept is indisputable and the false Decretals only prove that some people will stop at nothing to insist it is true - even to deceit and blatant forgery all in the name of Christ.