"Roman Church Forgeries"


#1

This is a post from a Yahoo! group that I’ve joined that has former Catholics in it who think they know what they need to know about the Catholic Church, but from what I’ve learned about the Catholic Church, I don’t think they know what they think they know. So please, take a look at this and if there are any logical refutations that I can give them, can you give them to me, because I don’tk know exactly how I can answer this with proof of the untruth of this. Here goes . . .

THE Following is an article written by an ex catholic preist who i
know. I think you all will find it interesting…

The entire structure of the Roman Church is built on forgeries,
spurious epistles, spurious sermons, spurious miracles, spurious
relics, spurious councils, and spurious papal bulls. The Catholic
Encyclopedia admits the existence of thousands of forgeries and
divides the works of nearly every Father into (1) genuine, (2)
dubious, and (3) spurious. Roman inventions as Peter’s martyrdom at
Rome (2nd cent.), Assumption of Mary (6th cent.), Temporal power of
the bishop of Rome (8th cent.), Primacy of Rome (11th cent.), Seven
Sacraments (13th cent.), etc., can only be proved by forgeries.
Example: Cyprian (d. 258), like his predecessor, Tertullian,
ridiculed the pagan system of a Supreme Pontiff, a Pope (pater
patrum, bishop of bishops), a primacy, etc. Where his oldest MSS
read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was: endowed with
the same share of honor and jurisdiction,” we now have texts which
read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the Primacy
is given to Peter.” The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that this
conflated form is, of course, spurious (C. E. 4, 585).

Catholic theologians claim that with the development of the primacy
in the Middle Ages, the papal letters grew enormously in number (C.E.
6, 202). “There can be no doubt that during a great part of the
Middle Ages papal and other documents were fabricated in a very
unscrupulous fashion” (C.E. 3, 57). Speaking of the thousands of
miraculous relics of Rome, the same scholars admit that “the majority
of which no doubt were fraudulent,” a “multitude of unquestionably
spurious relics” (C.E. 12, 737). The same scholars admit the
following Roman frauds: the origin of the Rosary and the apparition
of Mary to St. Dominic, the Scapular and the apparition of Mary to
Simon Stock, the Santa Scala, the legends and relics of Veronica, the
Holy Lance, and St. Longinus, the Robe, the Sabbatine Privilege, etc.
Yet these same scholars are bound to confess that the written Word of
God is not superior to these Roman traditions. The life stories and
writings of the early popes are spurious, as the Catholic
Encyclopedia often admits under their names. The earliest Roman
rituals (8th cent.) are spurious, falsely attributed to Popes Leo,
Gelasius, and Gregory (Migne P.L. 55 & 74 & 78).

(continued on the next post)


#2

CONTINUED . . .

When scholars speak of an authentic work they do not imply that the
text has come to us in its original form. Manuscripts were seldom
copied for the sake of preservation, but rather for use as textbooks.
Obsolete teachings and expressions were altered, while so-
called “heretical” teachings were allowed to become extinct.

As early as the fifth century Augustine accused and convicted Pope
Zosiums for having falsified the 5th canon of the Council of Nice
(Mansi 4, 515; Migne, P. L. 50, 422). Canon laws of the Roman Church
are based on “The Apostolic Constitutions,” a 4th century forgery
purported to be a collection of apostolic writings collected by
Clement I. When Protestants exposed this fraud, the fallible Church
of Rome admitted the errors: “The Apostolic Constitutions were held
generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much
ecclesiastical legislation . . .As late as 1563. . .it was contended
that it was the genuine work of the apostles” (C.E. 1, 636).
Framing “divine” laws and falsifying the Word of God is not the work
of innocent Christian leaders. Example: “We, the twelve Apostles of
the Lord, who are now together, give you in charge these Divine
Constitutions concerning every ecclesiastical form, there being
present with us Paul, the chosen vessel, our fellow apostle, and
James the Bishop and the rest of the Elders and the seven Deacons”
(Migne, P.G. 1, 1070).

“The Donation of Constantine” was originally an 8th-century forgery
which gave the pope temporal power and possessions, and regal honors
and privileges. Pope Sylvester (1000 A.D.) declared it a forgery.
Pope Leo IV (1054) rewrote the text and used it to prove his
primacy. . .As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known.
Yet, the document was further used to authenticate the papacy.

The Apostolic Constitutions, The Donation of Constantine, The
Clementine Forgeries, The Liber Pontificals (Biographical book of the
popes), The Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, and hundreds of other works
are either spurious or have been mutilated. It is upon these that the
bulk of Roman traditions originated. Catholic scholars admit one
forgery after the other, but the Council of Trent upheld these
forgeries as genuine “traditions” to which the written Word of God is
not superior. Roman Catholic theologians even admit that they
themselves falsified the sacred books of other religions in order to
win converts. As neither the majority of the people nor the lower
clergy could read or write in the early Middle Ages, it is clear that
the Roman hierarchy itself corrupted and falsified the true
traditions. It is clear that Rome’s traditions did not originate from
the lips of Christ or the apostles!


#3

The Authority of the Pope :

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

Peter’s Roman Residency :

catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

Peter’s Successors :

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

Was Peter the First Pope?

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=635


#4

Seven Sacraments :

star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/Mod5.html


#5

[left]Here is a thoroughly documented article demonstrating the fraudulent foundations of the papacy as it exists today. [/left]

[left]christiantruth.com/forgeries.html[/left]

[left]Even the Catholic Encyclopedia itself documents the forgeries of those who tried to bolster the papal theory by means of deception:[/left]

[left]newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm[/left]

[left]newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm[/left]

[left]newadvent.org/cathen/09224a.htm[/left]

[left]Now, would those of you who are Catholic think seriously about this for a moment? If papal primacy and jurisdiction is, in the words of Vatican 1, “the ancient and constant faith of the universal church,” why then was there ever a need for such forgeries? If it is "ancient," that means it existed long before these forgeries were written. If it is “constant,” that means the Christian church has constantly held this belief. If it is “**universal,” **then every part of Christendom, throughout the entire world held to this belief. So, like, why was there ever a need to forge ancient documents to make it look like people believed this stuff if, as Vatican 1 said, they did believe it. Sorry, I just can’t put that together.[/left]

[left]BouleTheou[/left]


#6

[left]***

[/left]
[left]Even the Catholic Encyclopedia itself documents the forgeries of those who tried to bolster the papal theory by means of deception:**[/left]
[left]
*** **[/left]

[left]Even the Catholic Encyclopedia itself documents the primacy of Peter, the primacy of the Pope, the papal infallbility :stuck_out_tongue: [/left]
[left] [/left]

[left]newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm[/left]

[left]newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm[/left]

[left]newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm[/left]


#7

The only thing that amazes me about HATE is just how prolific it is. And what does Satan hate more than anything?

Truth.

So it does not surprise me to see the hatemongers spew their anti-Catholic and anti-papal rhetoric.

Spew all you want. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the divine institution of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.


#8

[quote=BouleTheou]Sorry, I just can’t put that together.BouleTheou
[/quote]

BouleTheou, It’s not complicated. There are literally hundereds of thousands of manuscripts collected over a period of 20 Centuries. Obviously some of the artifacts submitted are not genuine.The Church continues to study and examin them and make the results of this investigation available to the public. The documents are also available for any interested parties, Catholic or not, to investigate. In what way does this impact the validity of Church teaching? You are once again jumping at false conclusions.

Your brother in Christ.


#9

The barrister -

So it does not surprise me to see the hatemongers spew their anti-Catholic and anti-papal rhetoric.

So, the Catholic Encyclopedia is spewing anti-Catholic and anti-papl rhetoric?

BouleTheou


#10

[quote=Corpus Cristi]Example: Cyprian (d. 258), like his predecessor, Tertullian,
ridiculed the pagan system of a Supreme Pontiff, a Pope (pater
patrum, bishop of bishops), a primacy, etc. Where his oldest MSS
read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was: endowed with
the same share of honor and jurisdiction,” we now have texts which
read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the Primacy
is given to Peter.”
[/quote]

Tertullian was a longtime Montanist heretic in A.D. 220 when he wrote in Modesty against papal primacy.

It is now generally believed that Cyprian wrote both versions and the one that refers to Roman primacy is his original version.

From William A. Jurgens’ 1970 book, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, pp. 219-220, on Cyprian of Carthage’s treatise, *The Unity of the Catholic Church:*The treatise on The Unity of the Catholic Church belongs primarily to the year 251 A.D., but a second edition of the work, revised by Cyprian himself, belongs to the years 255 and / or 256 A.D. It is the most important of Cyprian’s treatises, and had the most lasting effect.
Chapter four of the work is extant in two recensions, the one with so-called additions having been regarded as an interpolated version until in 1902 Dom Chapman established the fact that both are from the pen of Cyprian himself. In Chapman’s view the edition having the word primacy and other expressions interpretable as referring to Roman primacy was a re-working of the original, made by Cyprian himself rather than a maliciously interpolated version. His theory is now very generally accepted, with one important difference, however, that the version with the so-called primacy additions is to be regarded as Cyprian’s original, while the version without those phrases is regarded as Cyprian’s own re-casting of the work. Cyprian’s revised version, his second edition, is actually the longer; but it has omitted those phrases of the original version which were extremely favorable to the Roman claims of primacy.
According to this latter view, Cyprian’s choice of words in the original form of the work would have been read in Rome as a recognition of the universal authority over the whole Church, which Rome claimed. Cyprian, indeed, recognized that the Bishop of Rome held some kind of a special and primatial position; but he had not thought it as implying a universal jurisdiction. Bevenot puts the matter very succinctly in the introduction to his translation of the work in question, Vol. 25 of the series Ancient Christian Writers, pp. 7-8:
[indent]At Rome, where there were no doubts about its Bishop’s authority over the whole Church, Cyprian’s original text could not fail to be read as a recognition of that fact. If in the course of the baptismal controversy this was, as it were, thrown in his teeth, he will have exclaimed, quite truthfully: “But I never meant *that!” *and so he “toned it down” in his revised version. He did not, then, repudiate what he had formerly held. He had never held that the Pope possessed universal jurisdiction. But he had never denied it either; in truth he had never asked himself the question where the final authority in the Church might be. … If the forgoing reconstruction is correctg, we have in Cyprian’s De ecclesiae catholicae unitate a good example of what a dogma can look like while still in an early stage of development. The reality (in this case, the Primacy of Rome) is there all the time: it may be recognized by some; by others it may even be denied, and that though much of what they say or do unconsciously implies it. … Cyprian is a standing example of what we mean when we speak of the Papal Primacy being “implicit” in the early Church.

[/indent]


#11

[quote=BouleTheou][left]Here is a thoroughly documented article demonstrating the fraudulent foundations of the papacy as it exists today…
[/quote]

Wow. I guess twenty centuries of Catholic saints, martyrs and other critical thinkers were full of rocks. Go figure.

Thanks for finally setting the Church straight. I feel better now. :wink:


#12

[quote=BouleTheou]Now, would those of you who are Catholic think seriously about this for a moment?
[/quote]

I will if you will.

Boule, if this information was so damaging to the Catholic Church and the papacy, WHY WOULD THE CHURCH OPENLY PRINT IT IN HER ENCYCLOPEDIA?

If you’ve nothing to hide, lay it ALL out. The Truth shall set you free!


#13

The fact that it is in the CE makes me trust it more. It shows no penchant for censorship.


#14

Here is a thoroughly documented article demonstrating the fraudulent foundations of the papacy as it exists today.

please show us this proof. we’re not going to waste our time reading your wacky links.


#15

CC no you are wrong I do not find it interesing, only boring-because it is so childish-


#16

If you read the councils and the church fathers you can see that the pope has had primacy since the first or second century. For example Irenaeus

  1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. “Against Heresies” Book III; Chap III

I think that is a pretty clear statement from the first century. Irenaeus then goes on to list all the bishops of Rome.


#17

You know you’re winning easily when the opposition is quoting Bill Webster. The guy doesn’t even have a history degree to my knowledge, and his primary source is the thoroughly discredited George Salmon. So basically, you have nothing to worry about.

But to answer your question more directly, it is a plain historical fact that many of the strongest advocates for papal infallibility invoked pseudo-Isidorean literature, the Donation of Constantine, and the Apostolic Constitutions. This is a well-known fact among historians of all theological stripes. But no responsible historian would thereby conclude that there was no pre-existing basis in tradition for papal jurisdiction (not merely primacy of honor). The record absolutely would not support such a conclusion. Sure, you could argue that there was a pluriform tradition on the Pope’s authority. That is, in fact, completely true. Not everyone had the same view of the Pope’s primacy, but that diversity of opinion was true of a number of doctrines that we consider settled today (such as the sinlessness of Mary). But to say that the belief was created (rather than simply strengthened) as a result of the spurious literature simply can’t be supported by the documentary evidence, and the hedges of even Orthodox historians on this point is the best evidence.

Regardless, spurious authorship was more the norm than the exception in the Middle Ages and before, which is exactly why tradition was used to discern the compatibility between the material and the Christian faith. In many cases, the reason that the material was supported was precisely because it coincided with existing beliefs, not vice versa.


#18

Thank you all so much for what you have supplied, but sadly, I must report, that even though I was kind, and I didn’t threaten anyone, didn’t insult anyone (though they may have taken what I said as “insulting”), and I was very nice to them all, they banned me from their group. :rolleyes: I guess they really couldn’t handle the truth. I guess they’ll be useful elsewhere. :wink: Tell me, what is the point of an anti-Catholic group, but to gripe about how much you hate the Catholic Church? :slight_smile:


#19

:mad: [font=Times New Roman][size=3]The entire structure of the Roman Church is built on forgeries,spurious epistles, spurious sermons, spurious miracles, spurious relics, spurious councils, and spurious papal bulls blah, blah, blah…:mad:

[/size] [/font]This is the writing of a supposedly ex-Jesuit priest Peter Doeswyck, of whom we should pray, fast, and commend his soul to the Father for exorcism. His writings appear under the following web sites:

[/font]http://sword_of_the_spirit.tripod.com/

a “Dave Hunt” type mindless hate site that has no organization behind it, it’s just for targeting the lucrative anti-Catholic lies, revisionism, and bigotry market.


[/font]http://sd.znet.com/~bart/3_98_nl.htm

CHALLENGER MISSION TO CATHOLICS Primarily Baptist

[/font]http://www.adventist4truth.com/

Seventh Day Adventists. A bizarre anti-Catholic cult which denies the divinity of Christ. Another paranoid group promoting the most absurd anti-Catholic nonsense catering to the gullible and the ignorant.

Please folks, don’t even read this stuff, it’s evil.

kepha1


#20

Looking over the list and gotta say most of it is Bull.

IF the catholic chruch knew it was false I think we would have folded long ago. Any other man founded insitution around 2000 years we have outlasted the empires, the conquerors, the mad men, the world wars etc has anyone else.
The Donation of Constantinte was false as it was used to usurp the church’s temporal powers. But all church claims of a relgiious nature is true, the councils, churcch fathers, the scriptures, all have been legitamized by many honest protestant and secular scholars.
What gets me is this with fundies we forged everything but the Bible?
Heck if we forged everything we are going to forge the Bible to our benefit to. HEck at least teh Davanic Code conspiracy is consistent if the catholic church is false everything that comes from us is flase. You won’t get a preserved pristine work inspired from God from an instution that is satanic and the mother of lies.

I really love the word of God vs the Catholic documents list.
The New Testament is a Catholic document idiot!
WHere else did it come from? The Baptist Church?

Oh Here’s another observation from the Sword of the Spirit WEbsite there is promo for the Passion of the Christ DVD!
That movie is dripping of Catholicism.
Catholic producer, writer, director, lead actor etc
That is catholic movie idito made by a Catholic just like the Bible!
Idiot he just doesn’t get it!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.