[Mrs. Don-o]

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.

The documents of which you speak--- "Pseudo-Isidore" and "Donation of Constantine" --- were gone over with a fine-tooth over a period of centuries, literally, by critical-textual scholars (first Catholic, then Protestant) who were willing to do a lot of literary detective work. They were finally well and truly sorted out, with some of the documents found to be legitimate in every way, some of them true but plagiarized, and some of them fabricated (flat-out fraud.)

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.

But some clarification is needed: just what "amassed" "power" should I, as a Catholic, be on the lookout for?

These additional perspectives may possibly be of interest:

#67

...and...

#70

And now, bedtime for me, and peace to you. I'm up early tomorrow.

[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.