False Decritals

[dairygirl4u2c]

I am still studying history. Trying to figure out how so little from early church fathers could be translated into so much today. Just considering how much Augustine wrote, and the absense of his writings regarding the papacy is astounding.

The following has much by Catholic Dollinger, the so to speak antithesis of Newman whom Newman corresponded with. Now I can see why Newman was so adament about a light declaration of infallibility. I still wonder if he held to infallibility at all times in the full form or just as the pope being inspired infallibly at times. But anyway, just to let you know what I'm up to in case you know something about this stuff that I don't:

[quote]

SHAMELESS REVISION OF HISTORY
The first of these bold forgeries was The Donation of Constantine. It was followed by pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, which were early papal decrees allegedly compiled by Archbishop Isidore (560-636) but actually fabricated in the ninth century. These frauds became the foundation for much "tradition" still relied upon today.

Catholic historian J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger writes that prior "to the Isidorian Decretals no serious attempt was made anywhere to introduce the neo-Roman theory of infallibility. The popes did not dream of laying claim to such a privilege" (Dollinger, op. cit., p. 62). He goes on to explain that these fraudulent Decretals would--

[quote]"gradually, but surely, change the whole constitution and government of the Church. It would be difficult to find in all history a second instance of so successful and yet so clumsy a forgery.

For three centuries past [he wrote in 1869] it [the fabrication] has been exposed, yet the principles it introduced and brought into practice have taken such deep root in the soil of the Church, and have so grown into her life, that the exposure of the fraud has produced no result in shaking the dominant system" (Ibid., pp. 76-77). [/quote]

The Isidorian Decretals involved about a hundred concocted decrees allegedly promulgated by the early popes, along with counterfeit writings of supposed Church authorities and synods. These fabrications were just what Nicholas I (585-67) needed to justify his claims that the popes "held the place of God on earth" with absolute authority over kings, including even the eight to "command massacres" of those who opposed them--all in the name of Christ.

The popes who followed Nicholas were only too happy to emulate his ways, and each of them used his predecessors' actions to justify his own, thus building an ever-larger case for infallibility, but upon a fraudulent foundation. Writing in the nineteenth century, Church historian R.W. Thompson, himself a Catholic, comments:

"Such times as these were adapted to the practice of any kind of imposture and fraud which the popes and clergy considered necessary to strengthen the authority of the papacy. ... the personal interest [and] ambition of Innocent III led him to preserve all these forgeries with care, so that. ... the ‘pious fraud’ might become sanctified by time ... The result he hoped and sought for has been accomplished. ... ‘[These] false Decretals, which are now universally considered to have been bold and unblushing forgeries ... constitute the cornerstone of that enormous system of wrong and usurpation which has since been built up by the papacy, to revive which Pope Pius IX has now put forth his Encyclical and Syllabus [of Errors]. ..." (R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power, New York, 1876, p. 372).

Devout Catholics would be shocked to learn that much of the "apostolic tradition" they have been told supports Roman Catholicism was actually a deliberately manufactured fraud. The doctrines built upon these forgeries became so interwoven into Catholicism that even after the hoax was exposed the popes were reluctant to make the necessary correction. Pope after infallible pope endorsed the counterfeit. To make a clean break from centuries of accumulated lies would tear apart the very fabric of Roman Catholicism.

Pope Pius IX relied upon the fraud, though it had already been exposed for three centuries, to build his case for pressuring the bishops to make papal infallibility an official dogma at Vatican I. But the testimony of history conclusively refutes both apostolic succession and papal infallibility. [/quote]

[quote]"In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in the Western Church, which dramatically altered the Constitution of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full development of the papacy. The papacy could never have emerged without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the Church and of men's perceptions of the history of that Constitution. As long as the true facts of Church history were well known, it would serve as a buffer against any unlawful ambitions. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West. This forgery is known as the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals," written around 845 A.D. The "Decretals" are a complete fabrication of Church history. 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."

"The historical facts reveal that the papacy was never a reality as far as the universal Church is concerned. There are many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to that fact as well as to the importance of the forgeries, especially those of "Pseudo-Isidore". One such historian is Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger. He was the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic."

"In addition to the "Pseudo Isidorian Decretals" there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled 'Against the Errors of the Greeks'. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers.... These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries."

"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."[/quote]

Edited March 12, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Archangel]

Looks like you read Dave Hunt and William Webster.

[God Conquers]

dairygirl, I just wanted to point out that your "study" of history is going to be fruitless if you continue as you are. History must be studied with the intention to know "what actually happenned". We must not bring our modern conceptions into our study, but seek to understand the people and events in their own context. Just a trying to help you on your quest.. quality is important, take the time to examine things carefully.

[littleflower+JMJ]

[b]Dave Hunt,[/b] the anti-Catholic Fundamentalist Dispensationalist who no one would mistake for a Church historian.........

[b]William Webster,[/b] a former Catholic turned Evangelical.........


why am i surprised?

we cannot stress enough to you dairygirl that you must stop the anti-catholic stuff if you want to learn any Truth.

[b]you will never find the truth in that garbage dairygirl. [/b] -_-


i am praying for you.

[lilac_angel]

[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm[/url]

The page above seems to debunk the writings of those mentioned authors.

Plus:

"The following shall be sufficient proof that St. Augustine, and the Catholic Church of his day (late 4th/early 5th century), believed that

(1) the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, held the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church;

(2) the Pope in this position had the final say on matters of doctrine (we shall discuss the history of the Pelagian heresy) and was indeed the final arbiter of truth and thus infallible;

(3) St. Augustine's "Rome has spoken; the case is closed" is indeed an accurate summary of his belief on the matter (from his Sermons 131:10);

(4) Further, we shall discuss the role of the African bishops, and Popes Innocent I and Zosimus (the latter is used as an instance of "papal fallibility") during the Pelagian controversy."

Looks like an interesting page.

Edited March 12, 2004 by lilac_angel

[God Conquers]

Also, Augustine is writing polemics and apologetics which do not have to do with papal authority, there would be no reason for him to write about it unless he disagreed.

[dairygirl4u2c]

bump

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]"In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in the Western Church, which dramatically altered the Constitution of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full development of the papacy. The papacy could never have emerged without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the Church and of men's perceptions of the history of that Constitution. As long as the true facts of Church history were well known, it would serve as a buffer against any unlawful ambitions. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West. This forgery is known as the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals," written around 845 A.D. The "Decretals" are a complete fabrication of Church history. 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."[/quote]

Hmmmm. So according to this historian, the change took place in the mid-Ninth Century. Why, then, in the mid-Seventh Century, did St. Maximus the Confessor, one of the greatest Eastern Saints in history, speak of the Church of Rome in such terms:

"Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world -- for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him." (Letter to Peter, Governor of Syria and Palestine)

Edited March 15, 2005 by Eremite

[Guest Eremite]

Did you forget about this thread Dairy?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i did not forget this thread.
basically, what my argument would be is to look at the early church as a unifying and persuasive authority.
what you have presented, is basically unifying, and not very hard core in asserting infallibility principals. not that hints of it are absent. if you have better evidence from before the decratals, i'm all ears.

also, the hints toward infallibility that are present in that writing, is not firm infalliblity, and not as present in the earliest texts and evidence.


(it only took me two and a half years to respond....)

Edited November 4, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c