BobRyan replied, where I last said
But there is something that you repeat time and time again, that "10 popes" used this forged documents to their advantage. So far, I count only two (from the original link I provided) being Leo IX and Urban II. Other popes, it seems, may have taken the document for granted.
You can not establish your point about a document about which "NO one had ANY doubt" according to yuor OWN source - for over 700 years - with the "other popes may have taken the document for granated".
Bob, I am not trying to establish a point at all, but only trying to see where your "spin" lies in all of this, and so far, you would beat the best of the "spin doctors" of Bill Clinton and company!
Seemingly to you, all the cardinals and bishops in Rome jumped with glee at the knowledge of this document, and while I see at least two who cited it in their persuasions concerning the temporal right of the papacy, I so no mass movement to declare the thing almost as if it were "scripture" even! My source comes no where doing such a thing, else my eyes fail me as I read it over and over and over again.
Those two statements are hard to swallow even by Catholic standards.
What two statements? And what do you mean by "Catholic Standards"? So far in my nearly 20 years of Catholic apologetics, Catholic Standards of scholarship far exceed what I have seen in Protestant/non-Catholic literature. But then that is my opinion and my opinion only. And speaking of opinions, that is exactly all I see coming from you - opinions without a whit of good documentary proof that supports your assertions.
You then provided the following statement:
The Donation of Constantine is cited in writing by no less than 10 Popes as proof of their civil authority and sovereignty over Rome, and what came to be known as the Papal States, which included a large portion of Italy. It was eventually exposed as a pious fraud in 1440 by ~Laurentius Valla who proved it had to have been written several centuries after the death of Constantine (337 A.D.)
Who says this about the "10 popes," Bob? From what source do you derive the above? And to what degree do these "10 Popes" employ the Donation of Constantine in support of a given contention?
I am not denying that popes could have cited it, but to what extent did they use it to whatever advantage you seem to think
I last said:
A close read of the discussion from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia does not paint such a grim picture you have portrayed so far.
The RCC forged the Document, they crafted the language and there was "NO DOUBT" about accepting the document until the 15th century AND we have WRITTEN promotion of the Document from no less than 10 Popes.
You argue that if only TWO Popes affirmed "What NOBODY DOUBTED" during that time - that the CASE about the document fails in showing it to be an accurate reflection of what they were fully ACCEPTING in those centuries. But your argument falls flat when even you must admit to papal promotion and your own documents admit NOBODY doubted the document in those 7 or 8 centuries.
Bob, look, I have no real idea exactly how many popes may have used the Donation of Constantine to their advantage, going on what I see in what is usually a very reliable old encyclopedia. The problem is, was it used in what range:
1.)From the innocent quoting of it to...
2.)A "nefarious" use of it to their advantage, seemingly to know, deep down in their hearts, that it was a false document!
Methinks you tend heavily on 2, that it was a "nefarious" act on their part, even claiming that the Catholic Church was the very author of the document (through one or two well-coached writers, I suppose) which is something you fail to prove, giving all of here in this thread, simply your biased opinion.
As for the Catholic Encylopedia minimalizing the evidence -- Admittedly - they seem to severly restrict the evidence.
If this is so, please provide further evidence - good evidence from well documented sources with well documented references.
I last said:
Therefore, your hysterics over how good this link makes your case falls flat. It does nothing of the kind, sir!
On the contrary - you admit papal acceptance and your own source DENIES that there was ANY DOUBT at all about accepting the document until the 15th century. It is therefore YOUR case that falls flat.
What I will admit to is the fact that it was accepted by at least popes in there writings in defense of their positions, and others who simply took it for granted. The problem is, to what extent were these popes, and also the fact that no one recognized it as a forgery until the 15th century, doing so by some nefarious purpose? Can you identify the individual or individuals who forged this document, Bob? If so, name them sir! The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to have a very difficult time in pinning this down, coming up with many theories as to the time it was done, where it was done and by who.
Can you pin this down with better sources this I have provided, Bob?
I am not trying to make a case, sir, just trying to find the veracity in the one you are making.
Finally, if you clain that the "Catholic Church perpetuated the forgery" (in so many words) why then the discovery of the false nature by at least two Catholic clergy?
Or will you make the assertion that "The Catholic Church knew the jig was up" so let it be refuted. Would that be your position, sir?
Nope.
My position is that the RCC created the document -carefully crafted the wording to be fully accepted
(and its success is measured by the 10 popes and 15th century duration period). It therefore reveals what THEY THOUGHT was the MOST acceptable positioning for the Papacy. The perfidy of the authors is not the point. NOR is it my point that the Popes that used the document knew their own church had forged the document. My point is that they NEW OF ITS CONTENT AND they endorsed it.
OK, we finally get to the nitty gritty here, don't we, Bob?
It is surely is your position for which I would suggest you provide far more proof then you have managed to do so far. And here we go again, with that "10 popes" thingee! They are so, so guilty, aren't they; how dare they use a false document (innocently or not). Oops, I forgot! You are claiming that the Catholic Church created it! That must means that these "10 popes" knew deep down in their satan-darked hearts of the deception and perpetuated the document to their own nefarious desires!
Am I getting close here, Bob?
Instead of standing back with shocked face saying "HEY some Anti-Catholic must have invented a NEW title for the Pope here" - they themselves PROMOTED the document to support their own claims to civil power.
Ah, those mean wascally popes! Deep down, You seem to think Satan drove them to do this, the "anti-Christs" that they are!
And lookee here, they PROMOTED the document! It sure would be nice if you could provide the documents that showed to what extent they did this, from the range of a benign reference to the degenerate and depraved depth you seem to think they sank to.
I last said:
The problem is, did these popes know it was a forgery and referred to them deliberately or innocently in assuming it was valid?
Bob, in all of my years of apologetics, I have seen valid questions, tendered in honest inquiry, get sluffed-off or simply ignored, but never in the manner I see here! WOW! Can't answer that question, can you? But let's see your follow-up:
The document's value is in the clear and undeniable fact that its CONTENTS were clearly known and read. The argument that the RCC seeks to make today is that the CONTENTS (regarding the title for Peter) would ONLY BE acceptable to an ANTI-CATHOLIC seeking to MAKE UP that Title for the Pope.
But it does not give you a clue as to what extent the popes
exploited this document, but in fact, seems to indicate that it was not done so in the way you suggest. In fact, there are several theories of how/why the document was created; for the acquisition of the papal states "against the Frankish Government, then solidly established in Italy," or simply an attempt to "elavate the papacy in general"? In my opinion, there seems to be a lack of cohesion of exactly how the papacy may have used this document to their advantage. Note, I said opinion, not something I can prove as a fact, Bob.
Or can you provide better documentation from what I have given you here?
The document is therefore devastating to that RC argument.
What argument? This whole thing was brought up to indicate some entitlement of the pope by the title, "Vicarius Filii Dei" which has been well proven (in my humble opinion, of course) to be a total and complete farce! And the admission that the document is a fake certainly destroys that argument, does it not, Bob?
Sir, I cannot deflect your heart and mind from spinning this issue to that of some grand conspiracy on the part of the Catholic Church for some nefarious purpose with the Donations of Constantine, a document well refuted, denied and proven a forgery, even by at least two Catholic clergy!
I last said:
Popes are not infallible in that they can discern between an authentic document and one that is forged, Bob, so please don't make the claim that their "use" or possible "accepting at face value" an infallible declaration that the document is true and valid. Papal infallibility is far more restrictive, which I may explain sometimes.
This is simply a rabbit trail you have come up with. There is no emphasis AT ALL on successive users of the document "thinking it was a fake".
"Rabbit trail" or not, I think it forestalls any attempt you may attempt to make the argument I speak of, doesn't it, Bob?
The point is that the CONTENT of the document was easily "read" by the successor. IF they were supposedly "adverse" to the CONTENTS (as the RCC claims today when the topic of Vicarius Filii Dei comes up) they would take the same "anti-Catholics did this" approach to it SINCE they supposedly would view that TITLE as utterly false and NOT an accepted title for Peter OR for his successors (as the modern RC tactic has been suggesting).
Bob, I don't care how many times the comment "Vicarius Filii Dei" may have been used in the document, this is
not the title of the pope! You have not produced one official bull, decree or otherwise official Church Document that is signed by a pope that uses that as his title, not one whit!
We have explained to you that certainly, "Vicar of the Son of God" is a good derivation from the title "Vicar of Christ" simply because
Christ is the Son of God! But in Latin, that is not his title, Bob! But now I am ranting, sorry…
There is no reason for a pope to be "adverse" to the comment, "Vicarius Filii Dei" simply because of it's simple and obvious derivation from his offical title, "Vicar of Christ." The point continues to be, "Vicarius Filii Dei" is NOT the official title of the pope! There has never been produced, a picture, drawing (except by Jack Chick!) of a papal mitre showing such an inscription upon it.
This document is not only AUTHORED by RCC sources its CONTENTS were cleaverly crafted for maximum acceptance and clearly "promoted" IN WRITING by the Papacy. The success of that initial venture is measured by the fact that the Catholic Encyclopedia admits the document was "NOT doubted by ANYONE" prior to the 15th century.
So saith Bob!
Nice "spin" work, Bob, but we Catholics totally and completely deny it simply because you cannot prove your "spin" any more then I can prove that Abraham Lincoln is
not the man buried in the grave with his epataph.
Your opinion is noted, and rejected, sir……………………
Impossible to escape or obfuscate. The point remains.
Did you say "obfuscate"? Hum, yes, that is employed by many "spin doctors" as well, sir.
God bless,
PAX
Rome has spoken, case is closed.
Derived from Augustine's famous
Sermon.
