Bob replied, where I last said (in
italics):
Bob. you have it shown to you that not one official document of the Catholic Church indicates that "Vicar of the Son of God" (in Latin)
Bill - sidestepping the point again?
The obvious fact is that the "Donation of Constantine" was NOT CLAIMED by the RCC as "ITS official document" - RATHER it claime that it was "CONSTANTINE's official document".
Claimed by who? That some in the Catholic Church thought it was genuine? Yes, I think many thought, in all innocence, that it was an official document from Constantine. But suppose someone were to "forge" a document written by Bill Putnam giving all of his estate to the Catholic Church, in that fake document, I was alleged to have call the pope by a title,
King of Heaven? Some Catholic officials think it is authentic, and this goes on for several years, and low and behold, it is found to be a fake. Does the title I allegedly given the pope
King of Heaven an official title, Bob? Even if a pope or two is taken in by this fake document does not in and of itself make that title official!
WHEN proven to be a forgery of CATHOLIC origin and NOT of Constantine's origin IT BECOMES a Catholic document - NOT the Emperor's document.
Total and complete hogwash, Bob! The guy who forged my fictitious document could have been a Catholic too, even a priest or (gulp!) a bishop, fooling some in the Vatican, even a pope or two, does not make that little title I coined "official." Unless and until you see that title on an official document of the Church, you will have a case. Even if the Donations of Constantine were to be brought fourth as a "proof of possession" (of what Constantine was supposed to give to the Church) does not make the superlatives said of the pope, even to call him the "Vicar of the Son of God" does not make that title official.
Simply because the Church was bamboozled into thinking this document was authentic for a while does not make it's contents any more valid, including the so called titles given to the pope (and there were several, as my last link pointed out) until and unless you were to see that title repeated in an official document of the Church, and the Donations of Constantine was certainly not an official document of the Church, it being thought to be official from the emperor Constantine
When PROVEN to be prmoted by no less than Ten popes it THEN becomes "official".
Please show me that the popes extracted from that document, the title "Vicar of the Son of God" from that document, Bob. Show me where they turned-around and used that title in any official document.
And when shown to be IN Latin AND to contain THE VERY Title that Catholics "now" want to assert that "ONLY ANTI-Catholics would use for the Pope" - your only response is that no OTHER Catholic document ALSO does the SAME?
Show me the other documents that use that title, Bob…
Are you following the point at all?
I am now, and I reject it on it's face! Here we have a forged document which snookered the higher-up's in the Church, even some popes, and somehow, thinking that the document was authored by Constantine, with all of the marvelous "titles" given to the pope, titles not seen in official documents of the Church, yet you think this authenticates those titles as being official?
No, you are so right, I am not following your point at all! But now that you elaborate it, I reject it as complete nonsense!
Why is it "so hard for catholics to understand" that by declaring the document to be NOT of Constantine's origin BUT rather of GENUINE CATHOLIC origin - we thereby declare it to be a FORGED document that CLAIMED to be of Constantine's origin and NOT of Catholic origin.
Excuse me but when did the Church ever declare it as of "CATHOLIC origin"? Did I miss something here I our exchanges? If so, would you please document where the Church may have done this, Bob?
We both know that the document is a forgery. And as I recall, it was Catholic scholars who discovered this:
Quote…
This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850. As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known and demonstrated. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (De Concordantiâ Catholicâ, III, ii, in the Basle ed. of his Opera, 1565, I) spoke of it as a dictamen apocryphum. Some years later (1440) Lorenzo Valla (De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio, Mainz, 1518) proved the forgery with certainty. Independently of both his predecessors, Reginald Pecocke, Bishop of Chichester (1450-57), reached a similar conclusion in his work, "The Repressor of over much Blaming of the Clergy", Rolls Series, II, 351-366. Its genuinity was yet occasionally defended, and the document still further used as authentic, until Baronius in his "Annales Ecclesiastici" (ad an. 324) admitted that the "Donatio" was a forgery, whereafter it was soon universally admitted to be such. It is so clearly a fabrication that there is no reason to wonder that, with the revival of historical criticism in the fifteenth century, the true character of the document was at once recognized. The forger made use of various authorities, which Grauert and others (see below) have thoroughly investigated. The introduction and the conclusion of the document are imitated from authentic writings of the imperial period, but formulæ of other periods are also utilized. In the "Confession" of faith the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is explained at length, afterwards the Fall of man and the Incarnation of Christ. There are also reminiscences of the decrees of the Iconoclast Synod of Constantinople (754) against the veneration of images. The narrative of the conversion and healing of the emperor is based on the apocryphal Acts of Sylvester (Acta or Gesta Sylvestri), yet all the particulars of the "Donatio" narrative do not appear in the hitherto known texts of that legend. The distinctions conferred on the pope and the cardinals of the Roman Church the forger probably invented and described according to certain contemporary rites and the court ceremonial of the Roman and the Byzantine emperors. The author also used the biographies of the popes in the Liber Pontificalis (q.v.), likewise eighth-century letters of the popes, especially in his account of the imperial donations.
Unquote…
From the link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm
Notice further that some resisted the claim of forgery. That does not make it an "official Catholic document," does it, Bob?
However that "claim" is shown to be false - it is SHOWN that in fact it is of Catholic origin INSTEAD - because it IS a forgery of something supposedly of Constantine's origin.
What "claim"? That a
Catholic wrote it? Name the culprit, Bob, name him!
I don't care if it was a Catholic, Hindu, Moslem, Shinto, whoever who wrote it, it is no more a "Catholic Document" unless it were written as such, and you have yet to produce the evidence. So please do it now, Bob…
The VERY CLAIM of forgery is what clears the smoke of anything to do with Constantine and lays it PURELY at the door of CATHOLIC origin - all agree.
All agree to what, Bob? If I, a Catholic, were to write such a forgery, is that what you consider to be of "Catholic origin"? Even if I were a bishop, and I were to write such a thing, it is no more an official Church document so long as we see no official signature of a pope with a plethora of witnesses of a few bishops/Cardinals in attendance.
So when you say "it is, something constructed out of whole cloth, clinging to a document that is a fraud, false, a forgery."
You merely RE-EMPHASIZE that it is in fact - of genuine historic CATHOLIC origin and NOT of genuine historic Constantine's origin.
Bob. read my lips, it is a fake, forgery, a worthless piece of paper other then the historical evidence of some skullduggery attempted in early times. Because it has been deemed to be a fake does not an official Catholic document make, Bob. Suppose we were to find a document supposedly written by John Adams, on of our country's founding fathers, a document believed to be true and good history until it was found to be a fake. Why even presidents quoted for it! Yet it is a fake!
Does that make it an official document of the United States of America, Bob?
What part of that point is so hard for some of our Catholic friends here?
What your question demonstrates, Bob, is our talking past one another. But for your information, this Catholic fails to understand how in the world you can make the claim of some nefarious "official church action" that, perhaps in the catacombs of St. Peters, no, wait, let's say the basement of St. John Lateren Church, where a bunch of black hooded monks conspired to create this document and claim it is an official donation by Constantine, the pope gleefully and with evil intent, goes along with the ruse, and claim it as "official," and yet when
caught by their own clergymen in the forgery, wash their hands of it immediately!
Please give me a break!
I save the rest of the points for another post since this ONE point seems to be so difficult for the Catholic responders to comprehend in their posts.
I just don't see what is so hard to get. - What is the problem?
What is so hard to get is your insistence on there being some sort of conspiracy in the writing of the donations by officials of the Church. If I were to tell you that horns grow out of the head of Catholic priests, would you believe it, Bob? I actually heard this to be believed in the "Bible Belt" South many years ago…
Prove this conspiracy, Bob, as that is the only thing I can think of that is lodged in your mind...
Did Ellen G. White originate this nonsense, Bob?
I last said:
And incredibly, even if the Donatation of Constantine were not a forgery, the fact that the author of this document may have called the pope as "The Vicar of the Son of God," does not in and of itself make it an official title!
Agreed. ONE catholic person living in the 7th century that "thinks maybe Peter held that title" would not be "compelling" for a Catholic - or for a non-Catholic.
Including all of the other superlatives that are lavished on the papacy in this forgery. I wonder why you SdA group landed on the one out of several, Bob?
It suited your purpose, I suppose…
But TEN POPES that READ that document and concluded that IT IS telling the TRUTH -- the TRUTH NOT JUST about its origin being from Constantine BUT ALSO the TRUTH about the points it makes IN FAVOR of the Papacy - then the ENDORSEMENT "is as infallibly official" as the RCC knows how to get!
Telling what truth, Bob? That Constantine donated to the Church as claimed? Can you show me one of these ten popes who zerioed-in on the Latin phrase, "Vicar of the Son of God" as an adopted title to be used officially in their documents? If so, please produce those decrees and papal bulls that use that title, Bob, show me one from the hand of any pope!
Furthermore when we LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE of the document (which is EXACTLY what the Popes were doing) and SEE that the ARGUMENT FOR the secular powers of the Popes WAS derived from the aspects associated with the Title - THEN it becomes in fact THE KEY SALIENT POINT of what the Popes were arguing from.
Yes, that is perhaps true, since the papal states was a controversial adjunct of the papacy for a while, Bob, but that is not the issue. The issue is, out of several very colorful "titles" given to the papacy in this forgery, including the one in question, show me one example of where it was used officially in any Church document?
Even if the document was absolutely true - not a forgery - the fact that the author, Constantine (we continue to assume here), used that title does not make it an official title of the papacy! If Constantine has said, as a title,
Your supreme Grace of the Entire Universe does not an official title make!
It is what we see on official Church documents, decrees and papal bulls that we note the official title of the pope. Show me one where any pope has used the title you suggest, Bob.
(Continued in next message)