Forged Documents and Papal Power (A Former Catholic Nun)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we now call popes were originally bishops of Rome (one bishop among brother bishops from other cities). Then they became popes, with power over the entire Church. Then they became so powerful that they were able to depose kings and emperors. They became so powerful that they were able to force kings to use their secular might to enforce the Inquisition, which was conducted by Catholic priests and monks. In 1870, the Pope was declared to be infallible. The process of increasing papal power was influenced by forged documents which changed people’s perception of the history of the papacy and of the Church.

I’m just going to briefly summarize some information about these forgeries. At the end of this paper is a link to an on-line article which gives detailed historical information.

One of the most famous forgeries is the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals,” which were written around 845 A.D. (They are also known as the “False Decretals”.) They consist of 115 documents which were supposedly written by early popes. [Note 1]

The “Catholic Encyclopedia” admits that these are forgeries. It says that the purpose of these forged documents was to enable the Church to be independent of secular power, and to prevent the laity from ruling the Church. [Note 2 gives the address of an on-line article.] In other words, their purpose was to increase the power of the Pope and the Catholic Church.

In addition to documents which were total forgeries, genuine documents were altered. One hundred twenty-five genuine documents had forged material added to them, which increased the power of the Pope. Many early documents were changed to say the opposite of what they had originally said. [Note 3]

One of the forgeries is a letter which was falsely attributed to Saint Ambrose. It said that if a person does not agree with the Holy See, then he or she is a heretic. [Note 4] This is an example of how papal power was promoted by fraudulently claiming the authority of highly respected Early Fathers.

Another famous forgery from the ninth century was “The Donation of Constantine”. It claimed that Emperor Constantine gave the western provinces of the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome. The Pope used it to claim authority in secular matters. [Note 5]

When Greek Christians tried to discuss issues with the Church in Rome, the popes often used forged documents to back their claims. This happened so frequently that for 700 years the Greeks referred to Rome as “the home of forgeries”. [Note 6]

For three hundred years, the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals” and other forgeries were used by Roman Popes to claim authority over the Church in the East. The Patriarch of Constantinople rejected these false claims of primacy. This resulted in the separation of the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church. [Note 7 gives addresses of on-line articles.]

In the middle of the twelfth century, a monk named Gratian wrote the “Decretum,” which became the basis for Canon Law (the legal system for running the Roman Catholic Church). It contained numerous quotations from forged documents. Gratian drew many of his conclusions from those quotations. Gratian quoted 324 passages which were supposedly written by popes of the first four centuries. Of those passages, only eleven are genuine. The other 313 quotations are forgeries. [Note 8]

In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas wrote the “Summa Theologica” and numerous other works. His writings are the foundation for scholastic theology. Aquinas used Gratian’s “Decretum” for quotations from church fathers and early popes. [Note 9] Aquinas also used forged documents which he thought were genuine. [Note 10]

The importance of Thomas Aquinas’ theology can be seen in the encyclical of Pope Pius X on the priesthood. In 1906, Pius said that in their study of philosophy, theology, and Scripture, men studying for the priesthood should follow the directions given by the popes and the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. [This papal encyclical is available on-line. Note 11 gives addresses.]

William Webster is the author of “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History”. (I recommend this book.) His web site has an article entitled “Forgeries and the Papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy”. The article gives detailed information about the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals” and other forged documents, showing their influence on the papacy and on the Catholic Church. Four quotations from his article are below. (They are used by permission.)

“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.” [Webster quotes extensitely from Dollinger.]

“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.”

“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.”

I strongly encourage you to read William Webster’s article. It has an abundance of valuable historical information. The address of the article is:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I encourage you to link to this article and to put it on your own web site. You have my permission to copy this entire article or portions of it, and to quote from it. You have my permission to incorporate this entire article or portions of it into publications of your own, including translating it into other languages. You have my permission to distribute copies of this article, including selling it for profit. I do not want any royalties or financial remuneration of any kind. Please give this information to anybody who might be interested in it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] William Webster, “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History” (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), pages 62-63. Webster is a former Catholic.

Peter de Rosa, “Vicars of Christ” (Dublin, Ireland: Poolbeg Press, 1988, 2000), pages 58-61, 174, 208. De Rosa is a Catholic, and a former Catholic priest. He was able to do historical research in the Vatican Archives.

Paul Johnson, “A History of Christianity” (New York: A Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, 1976, 1995), page 195. Johnson is a Catholic and a prominent historian.

[2] “Benedict Levita” in the “Catholic Encyclopedia”. [Benedict Levita is the pseudonym of the author of the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals”.]

[7] Orthodox Christian Information Center, “The False Decretals of Isidore”. An excerpt from “The Papacy” by Abbee Guette. The author was a devout Catholic and a historian. As a result of his historical research about the papacy, he eventually joined the Orthodox Church.

“The Great Schism of 1054”. This is a sermon given at the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist,in Washington, D.C.

[10] William Webster, “Forgeries and the papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy”. This gives detailed accounts of Aquinas’ use of forged documents which he wrongly believed to be genuine.

[11] Pius X, “Pieni l’animo” (“On the Clergy in Italy”), July 28, 1906. (See paragraph 6.)

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 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!

"[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!

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”?

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.

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.