Forged Documents and Papal Power (A Former Catholic Nun)

http://www.CatholicConcerns.com ^ | June 2002 | Mary Ann Collins

[boatbums]

Iffen yer bored, Mrs. Don-O can use some help in her garden! :o)

[boatbums]

I'd think one of the major dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church - that of the infallibility of the Pope of Rome and his universal authority over all of Christendom - kinda makes any doctrine he asserts is a mandatory rule of the faith - even the infallible declaration that the Pope is infallible. The Assumption of Mary was one such dogma and, after the Pope declared it an infallible doctrine in 1950 as divinely revealed, it became necessary for the faithful to accept and believe or risk eternal damnation. That holds for ALL doctrines which pertain to faith and morals that the Pope decrees ex cathedra (from the chair) using his infallible charisma.

[BlackElk]

I am a Roman Catholic. I have no idea whether you are. Regardless. your post is absolutely on target. This constant refighting of the 30 Years' War is verrrrry old and serves only to divide us on this website.

JimRob is apparently an Evangelical but provides maximum hospitality to us all in what is obviously his parlor. His patience with this squabbling seems infinite.

To my fellow Catholics, I would say that there is no reason to poke fellow FReepers in the eye just because they disagree with us on matters religious. It convinces no one and saps our ability to act against our common enemies. We need conservative solidarity to overcome the serious challenges facing all of us and our nation and our civilization and our way of life.

When our political enemies have been subdued, we may politely discuss our religious insights in mixed company. That is a luxury of our earthly life to come if we can avoid being sent to some new Gulag.

Thanks for a great post. May God bless you and yours!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"[Catholics should]...undo the many bulls and dogmas, canons and credos that resulted from those now-proven false manuscripts. Any Catholic cleric pursuing that painstaking detective work that you know of?"

Thanks, boatbums, for an apt and reasonably focused comment. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that Orthodox/Byzantine scholars argue that the "Monarchical" form of Church governance (as opposed to the "Conciliar/Collegial" form) derive from Gratian's reliance on the false decretals.

Bless you, now we're finally getting to something that can be fruitfully discussed. Frankly, I regret that we all sniffed Eau de Red Herring and tore down a rabbit trail yelping at Pseudo-Mary-Ann when we should have been discussing Aristeides Papadakis!!

[Incidentally sasportas, this is the very first time somebody clued us in on what this dispute is all about: the monarchical vs conciliar form of church governance, or in shorthand, Catholic vs Orthodox.

I honestly think all the shoot-the-messenger stuff in the first dozen posts came out because we didn't catch that this is about a serious, and very present-day, disputed question in the Church. It looked like just a trawl through an irrelevant 9th century archive by a sketchy self-identified ex-nun, and "ex-nun" hits the buzzer for most of us: "Oh crap, not another Sister Mary Dingbat!"

Now, finally, to the substance of the thing.)

There has been a lot, a whole lot of combing through the canons pertaining to the exact authority of popes, bishops-individual, and bishops-conciliar, since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). It has been "the" top project for Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, which is proceeding diligently right to the present day. I just read some remarks by Metropolitan Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church (Link), at once a good friend of Catholic Christians and an exceedingly able proponent of the Orthodox critique of the papacy. (Metropolitan Hilarion was the Russians' representative at Pope Francis' papal consecration --- deeply involved in ecumnical dialogue.)

OK, I'm off to the Social Security office to present them with my wedding certificate and straighten out another can'o'worms.

Will re-join the discussion when I get back! Toodle-oo!

[ravenwolf]

My personal problem with them is that they “divide the house,” so to speak, and lead to internal squabbling instead of focusing on the left-wing menace that threatens us all.

---

I also see it that way at times but since i believe that the gospel of Christ is the most important document this world has ever known i have to put my other thoughts in second place.

And actually the Protestants and Catholics are not that far apart in their theology, by theology i just mean doctrine that can not be backed up by scripture.

1. where in the scripture can it be shown that the Sabbath was changed from the 7th day of the week to the first day of the week? where did the Sunday Sabbath come from?

2. There is nothing about the early church collecting tithes.

These are two things that the Catholics and Protestants and Mormon Church all have in common although there are Protestant Churches that do not agree with one or both.

The ones who do agree with tithes and the Sunday Sabbath call each other false Churches.

[metmom]

[Incidentally sasportas, this is the very first time somebody clued us in on what this dispute is all about: the monarchical vs conciliar form of church governance, or in shorthand, Catholic vs Orthodox.

I honestly think all the shoot-the-messenger stuff in the first dozen posts came out because we didn't catch that this is about a serious, and very present-day, disputed question in the Church. It looked like just a trawl through an irrelevant 9th century archive by a sketchy self-identified ex-nun, and "ex-nun" hits the buzzer for most of us: "Oh crap, not another Sister Mary Dingbat!"

No matter what people think of the person carrying the message, if they're right, they're right. If they have the facts to back themselves up, slandering the messenger isn't going to change THAT. It backfires on the slanderer.

All it's going to do is discredit the person doing the slandering because they are going to be perceived as 1) not having anything of substance to say. IOW, they can't actually refute it.

And 2) Shoot themselves in the foot for credibility.

[Elsie]

bump

[count-your-change]

Did you ever get a reply to your question? Someone pops in to let you know what’s wrong with you but can’t be bothered to deal with explaining what they call “inaccuracies” (things they disagree with or wish weren’t so).

[Mrs. Don-o]

I understand what you're saying here, metmom. "Mary Ann Collins" was a distraction for sure, and I'm sorry for any way I contributed to the distraction in my first post.

I thank boatbums for finally, specifically helping us cotton to what the real, contemporary issue here is: two distinctively different views of church governance, Catholic and Orthodox. That's something we can discuss fruitfully.

Having that way up there in the first two or three posts would have guided the discussion aright.

Instead it veered between, on the one hand, snarking about "Sister Dingbat" and on the other hand, libels about honest Church people (misled by a very complex forgery) being deliberate liars.

Here's hoping we're past that now, and can discuss the substantive issues.

[wmfights]

My personal problem with them is that they "divide the house," so to speak, and lead to internal squabbling instead of focusing on the left-wing menace that threatens us all.

It seems to me I only see this cry for "unity and peace" when an article is posted that is accurate and not complimentary of the RCC. In matters of religion we are not of the "same house" so dividing what doesn't exist makes no sense.

If you want to focus on the left wing menace you might want to start with your church's contribution to it's growth with it's socialist "social justice" garbage. It is not the states that are largely Evangelical Christians that you see the Rats in control.

[metmom]

Not likely.

[BlueDragon]

Actually, perhaps ten years or so ago, I contacted Mary Ann Collins by email. She is an actual person, as far as I can tell. Her story (though I admit not having read the article here) was real enough, with the quibbling here on FR years ago being she never fully made it being full-fledged "nun", when the hatred expressed towards her wasn't running along other lines of the foulest condemnations of her which could be spun up.

During that era, on FR, it was typical that such things as there being a significant homo-culture within the RC priesthood was being fully denied, much as the reports of sexual molestation perpetrated by RC priests was being denied to exist except for a very few instances. Most now are willing to admit it was more than "just a few" isolated instances.

[BlueDragon]

But what does "Mary Ann Collins"have to do with the posted article, concerning the multiple fruadulent "historical documents" which some aspects of RC attitude, practice, and belief were much affected by? Is the information contained within the article wrong, for reason of her having apparently made some discussion of those things herself?

Each and every item of discussion found in this article, relies upon other scholarship from elsewhere. But thanks for the typical "papist" response, in the first "reply" to the OP. Slash and slander aimed at the messenger, much like the Jews of old whom far too habitually slew the prophets which the Lord raised up among them, or sent to them from elsewhere. They didn't get 'em all, though. Thank God for that...

Aquinas himself, I am lead to believe, did not himself notice there were documents handed him which contained erroneous information, fake quotes and the like, when he used even those things in his own theology. Has the effect of those frauds been rooted out from RC canon law and catechism? I think not, for otherwise that "church" would need to admit to there being some past "whoopsie, there were mistakes made", and we all know that having RCC theolgians confess to past errors among their own ilk, is like pulling teeth in difficulty, what with the patient always biting down on the dentist, and also rhetorically kicking the guy in the huevos.

[metmom]

Her story (though I admit not having read the article here) was real enough, with the quibbling here on FR years ago being she never fully made it being full-fledged "nun", when the hatred expressed towards her wasn't running along other lines of the foulest condemnations of her which could be spun up.

It's interesting to watch the vehemence of the Catholic reaction to those who have left the *Church* and then to see Catholics imploring former Catholics to *cross the Tiber*.

What the heck for?

How schizophrenic.

Hell hath no fury like a Catholic spurned.

[count-your-change]

But the heart of the discussion was definitely not about two
“two distinctively different views of church governance, Catholic and Orthodox.”, it was about the fraudulent foundations of claims made for authority of the papacy.

A few here appear to grasp just what these fraudulent foundations imply and it’s wrong for anyone to try to gloss over them.

The foundation of infallibility, successor to Peter, etc. is based on fraud and obvious misuse of the Scriptures.

“Instead it veered between, on the one hand, snarking about “Sister Dingbat” and on the other hand, libels about honest Church people (misled by a very complex forgery) being deliberate liars.”

Just exactly who has been calling others “liars”?

[FourtySeven]

Place marker.

[roamer_1]

Your idea of what the "power" "amassed" by the Catholic Church consists of, or from whence it derives, needs to be reexamined. It does not consist of land grants and titles, most of which have long since lapsed, been relinquished, or were lost in the rough fast hassle of history. And it does not derive from dodgy papers planted in the archives by some 9th century Frankish librarian.

I care little for the material wealth of Rome in this conversation (that being another story altogether) - It is the ecclesiastical and political power that I refer to, and yes, I would assert that it IS based and derived in 'dodgy papers', almost wholly... So much so, that my sojourn through the historicity of your (all y'alls) 'tradition' some years ago was needfully cut short (a mere year or two) for the wont of any sort of solid foundation beneath it. That is why I accept *none* of your tradition as proof - It is so reliant upon spurious works, and the influence of those works is so tightly interwoven, that one must necessarily chuck the whole thing out the window en masse.

The documents of which you speak [...]

I am sorry if I lead you to believe that my view is limited to or by just these documents.

These are issues of not much interest to anybody today; I rather doubt that even any of the disputants here at FR have even read the whole article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (Link) in its entirety --- deadly dull it is, and small print to boot. (If anybody has, I tip my hat to you.) So that should be that, except for leather-bound pedants and enthusiasts of sectarian jiggery-pokery, from whom graciously preserve us, O Lord.

Ahh, but it has tremendous significance - Foundations are what matter. If that makes me a 'leather-bound pedant and enthusiast of sectarian jiggery-pokery', then so be it.

[FourtySeven]

To what “dodgy papers” do you refer?

A list on a website would be fine (for now). A more detailed source would be appreciated however.

[roamer_1]

I'd think one of the major dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church - that of the infallibility of the Pope of Rome and his universal authority over all of Christendom - kinda makes any doctrine he asserts is a mandatory rule of the faith - even the infallible declaration that the Pope is infallible. The Assumption of Mary was one such dogma and, after the Pope declared it an infallible doctrine in 1950 as divinely revealed, it became necessary for the faithful to accept and believe or risk eternal damnation. That holds for ALL doctrines which pertain to faith and morals that the Pope decrees ex cathedra (from the chair) using his infallible charisma.

I agree with the entirety of your post wholeheartedly! And it bears mention that 'The Assumption of Mary' as a concept is a perfect example of how the Roman church is based upon forgery and fairy tale. Their tradition's entire collective memory on the subject can be found primarily in two psuedepigraphical works (the Six Books, and Mary's Repose), which anyone honest enough to research the matter will soon find out. No matter what authority and fame may author, invariably, the root is to be found in these two strains.

But, we are expected to bow down anyway, because some vaunted 'doctor' of the church has lent his authority to the tale, or because some pope has lent his. The truth though, lies in that rotten root.

Their reliance upon such things has soured me to all of their tradition wholly - Every time I get in an argument, it almost always passes through some bit of spurious writing that I am supposed to take for granted.

[roamer_1]

To what “dodgy papers” do you refer? A list on a website would be fine (for now). A more detailed source would be appreciated however.

I am sorry, but I did not compile a bibliography a decade ago when I last visited the subject. No doubt a study of links returned from 'Roman Catholic Forgeries' will give you plenty to chew on.