Forgeries in Christianity?

You want to hear about a Christian who has never been baptized? Well that is me. The rite of baptism is not required to be a Christian. Salvation is based solely on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Since your mind is already made up, why should it be confused with studying fact. Your last posting shows your bias. This shows that you cannot be edified because some of the links were to sources which were unbiased and you refuse to read them for true history. Face it, the Catholic Church is not the boogey man you like to make it out to be.

I've read tons of stuff like the links you posted, but it just doesn't interrest me one tiny grain

Jagd correct me if I am wrong but are you saying the church as unblemished are the correct books to read and those, which do not, are the wrong books to read?

I have read articles on the Internet which claims the inquisitions (i.e. Spanish Inquisitors) were completely wronged in the way they are commonly depicted by history do you feel that is correct?

I am not saying that the church is the bogeyman but as far as being pure and chaste that is not correct either

Any thoughts?

Toltec:
My review was for Chapter 6 "Forgery in Christianity" by Josehp Wheless. In Chpater 6, Wheless made contention that the Popes of the Roman Catholic Church operated a "forgery mill" to generate documents to futher their political aims. Wheless makes the implied assertion that this was done to "control the masses". In my review I make the following conclusions:
1. There is no evidence of a on-going Papal "forgery mill". The historical evidence indicates that the Popes were unaware of most forgeries and were probably duped as anyone else.
2. Most forgeries were generated by individuals (or a group of individuals operating independently).
3. Some of the "forgeries" listed were simply mistakes of bad scholarship and reasearch. The specific example is the "Liber Pontificalis" which is simply "bad history" up to a certain point. Wheless never proved that there was any intent to deceive, just that the document was unreliable for the early history of the Church.
4. Some of the forgeries had no effect on doctrine. The "Apostolic Constitutions" were not known in the West until the middle ages. The Eastern Chuch rejected them in the year 692.
5. Many of the forgeries were not used when they were appropriate to the current situation. The "Donation of Constantine" seemed to be totally unknown to Pope Adrian I and Charlemagne. The first documented use of the "Donation of Constantine" was by Leo IX in 1054. Which was long after the Papal Estates were established.
6. I concluded that the existence of these forgeries had little impact on the course of history if any at all.
7. I also concluded that the amount of fogery was not as bad as Wheless pretends it to be considering the length of time being covered. It is true that one would hope that the Church would have zero incidents of forgery, but when you are dealing with a large number of people these kind of things can happen because of individual action.
8. I believe the "Decretals of Isidore" forgeries fall into the category called out in Point 7. The "Decretals of Isidore" were most likely generated by a few guys who would be "hackers" if they were alive today. You always have some one who gets enjoyment out of fooling the experts; these were probably the kind of men who generated the "Decretals of Isidore". It was the way they got their "jollies".

I am not saying that the Roman Catholic Church has an unblemished record but it was not the boogey man that many people contend. At no time was the Pope in control of Europe; the Pope may have had influence but he did not select Kings or dictate foreign policy. As for the record as to what books to read and not to read, it was not an unblemished record. Since I have not closely studied the issue of the ban, I cannot really make a comment. Also I am sure that the record of the Inquistion was not as bad as some make it to be. I have not done a detailed study of the history of the Inquistion, but I can tell you that it was not as bad as some of the anti-Catholic literature would lead you to believe. In short the Roman Catholic Church is like any other organization with a history that goes back almost 1900 years. It did a lot of good things; it made some mistakes; it did some bad things.

To summarize, my posting was to refute the contention by Joseph Wheless that the Catholic Church ran an on-going "forgery mill". I reached the conclusions:
1. The Papal Office was never engaged in any on-going conspiracy to generate forged documents. In fact the Popes seemed to be unaware of the existence of most of the forged documents mentioned.
2. That forgery represented isolated incidents of individuals who most likely operated independtly of Church athority and knowledge.
3. That these individuals were motivated by the factors which normally motivate forgers. In some cases, people get an emotional high by "fooling the experts". Most likely the "Decretals of Isidore" were in this category since they covered what would have been ancient history for when they were generated. Also the "Decretals of Isidore" represented no change in the direction of Church doctrine. Remember these documents were forged by putting together statements copied from existing authentic letters. Most likely some lowly monks got a "horse laugh" out of fooling some bishop with the forged letters.
4. The existence of these forgeries did nothing to change Church Doctrine and had little effect on the course of history.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
You want to hear about a Christian who has never been baptized? Well that is me.

Well OK. Fair enough, for you. Since you live in 2003 you can call yourself a Christian without ever having been baptised, but would you've been accepted as a Christian by the Church back then? No. Would you have been accepted as a Christian by the Catholi Church now? No. Baptism is the first of the seven sacraments. The first step into the Catholic Church. If Constantine converted in a Catholic sense of the word, he would have to be baptised. And that didn't occur until he was on his death bed. End of discussion.

The rite of baptism is not required to be a Christian.

To the Catholic Church it is. It is just recently there has come branches of Christianity that doesn't demand baptism. It's a sign of the times.

Salvation is based solely on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Since your mind is already made up, why should it be confused with studying fact. Your last posting shows your bias. This shows that you cannot be edified because some of the links were to sources which were unbiased and you refuse to read them for true history. Face it, the Catholic Church is not the boogey man you like to make it out to be.

Wake up. You would never have been accepted as a convert without being baptised back then. Baptism is and was sentral to become a Christian. That you somehow have your own twist on this doesn't matter. And itr sure has no impact in this case.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Exodus xx, 5�as is.
�For I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of then that hate me�; ...

Ditto�as falsified.
�For I, the Lord thy God, am a God of loving-kindness and mercy, considering the errors of the fathers as mitigating circumstances in judging the children unto the third and fourth generation�!

Yep, easy to see how that could have been misread....

Why not? They already changed the "Tree of Knowledge" to the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil"....

The Church and forging go way back though...just look at the purveyors of "relics" selling false Saint finger bones, shrouds, grails, etc.... I'm surprised they didn't edit in a passage making it okay to rape little boys....

Jaged: Since you seem to love lists, here's mine:
1 To say that the two documents I point to never was important to the Catholic Church and her power is to say a deed of conveyance isn't important for a land owner. The donation of Constantine was the document that allowed the Church to form the "Holy Roman Empire". If the kings of Europe had known this document was a hoax, they would never joined the Church, and the Church would never had the power it had (unless of course that it was the kings of Europe who made the Church forge these docs). To say this document wasn't important to the forming of the "secular Church" is to say that Constantine was of little signifficance to the Church. BS!

2 To say that it wasn't used until much later, what can I say to that? Well the forged document surfaced when it did, and that would be the first time it was used. Look for the first time they refered to Constantine. Look at when they made him a saint. There you'll find the first referance to these documents. That you don't find any referances to it earlier in the archives of the Church, doesn't proove anything. The document called "the Donation of Constantine" is still a forgery and it helped, it was cucial to, the Church to get into power over Europe. Punktum finale. It basically hands over the power over Europe to the Papacy. To call this of little significance to the power of the Church back then, well, I can only pitty you for such ignorance.

3 And the other document in question, "the Conversion of Constantine" is also of great importancy for the RC Church, for it "shows" how good a man their favorite Saint Constantine the Great was for the Church. Since baptism is the first of the seven sacraments, it is the first step into the Church. Which basically means that Constantine didn't convert until he was on his death bed. So if the document in question isn't a forgery, it shows how the Church differs between Solomon and the common man.

4 They shaped reality as they saw fit. The Church had monopoly on teaching and learning back then. Why? So it could control "reality" and have complete control over the masses. And when reality didn't fit into their plan, they shaped it with lies and forged documents. Their whole Empire is grounded on a lie. But you don't see the importance of this. Their deed of conveiance is called the Donation of Constantine, and this document is a lie.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

quote from mikromarius
So it wasn't the pope who gave the French royal house supremacy as emperors of the
Holy Roman Empire as an eternal treat, but later changed their minds and was highly
involved in the attempt to destruct this line, and gave the crown of Europe to the Germans
instead?

I broke out my old book on Mediaeval history ("Mediaeval History", Fourth Edition by
Stephenson and Lyon). This was a standard text book on the subject and covers the
period of European history from the fall of the Roman Empire to the late 1400's. In that
entire book, there is not one mention of the "Donation of Constantine". The act which
created the Papal States was called "The Donation of Pepin". I am sure that if the
"Donation of Constantine" was such an important document it would have been
mentioned in a standard text book on Mediaeval history.

www.heraldica.org...
www.serendipity.li...
www.scaruffi.com...
ragz-international.com...

quote from mikromarius
I've read tons of stuff like the links you posted, but it just doesn't interrest me one tiny
grain

So why should I bother, you know it all already.

quote from mikromarius
That you somehow have your own twist on this doesn't matter. And itr sure has no impact
in this case.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY QUALIFICATIONS AS A BELIEVER IN THE
LORD JESUS CHRIST!!! THAT WAS AN UNWARRANTED ATTACK.

The original topic of this thread was "Forgery in Christianity". This thread languished
until I took the time to do the research (many hours) to make a proper response. No one
responded until I did the work. I do not appreciate this thread being turned into the
slanderous lies of anti-Catholic mad men. Yes I do have problems of doctrine with the
Catholic Church, but if I cannot convict an organization with truth then I will not slander
it with lies.

Gentlemen, each of you has made statements in respect to each other�s credentials and qualifications in regards to this topic. I see know real reason for either of you to take offense, altogether this is not a medium which allows resumes to be included as part of a topic.

As such any conclusion relates only to an impression in respect to the content of the posts. I know of no parameter, which considers discussion in a forum as
clear evidence of anything (beyond enjoying such discussions related to such topics).
---------
Jagd if memory serves the primary reason Europeans came to America was the issue of how religion and government interacted in there own countries. By far the idea of separation of church and state did not in reality exist prior to the conception of this country.

Cleary the lack of policies and laws akin to separation of church and state (in the US) actualized the role of the church as inclusive with respect to the authority of the government.

Furthermore, with respect to time I spent in catholic schools my history lessons were quite specific. What was known as the Vatican Assembly was an empire, to whom the kings of Europe paid homage under penalty of excommunication and death.

Any thoughts?

Toltec:
If anyone read the links to the history web pages, they would see that the Popes aligned
themselves with the Franks (Clovis) because the Eastern Empire would not aid in the
aggression of the Lombards who were threatening to engulf all of Italy. Today we still
know of a region of Italy named Lombardy. As for excommunication, just how many
kings were actually excommunicated. The subject was �Forgery in Christianity�, not how
powerful the Pope was. If the Pope was so all powerful, then why couldn�t the Pope stop
the formation of the Church of England. Remember Henry VIII formed the Church of
England when the Pope would not grant him a divorce.

Jagd if memory serves the primary reason Europeans came to America was the issue of
how religion and government interacted in there own countries. By far the idea of
separation of church and state did not in reality exist prior to the conception of this
country.

The early Spaniards came to the Americas for one basic reason - gold.
The English who came to escape religious persecution (Puritans, etc.) came here to escape
the Church of England (not the Roman Catholic Church). Remember, any English settler
who came to the Americas to escape religious persecution, came to escape from the
Church of England.
The French who came to America came for economic reasons (fur trade).
The early Germans came to escape political unrest and aslo because the economy started
to suck.
The Irish came to escape British rule and to escape the potato famine of 1848. They
continued to come because the economy sucked.
The Italians started coming because the economy sucked. As a matter of fact, several
came in the 1920�s just to bootleg (Italians were coming just to make gin for the Capone
mob at $15 a month).

Again, the original issue was forgery. My conclusion that the existence of these forgeries
did not influence the course of history to any great degree. In fact in my standard text on
Mediaeval history, I cannot even find a mention of a document called �the Donation of
Constantine�. It was simply irrelevant to the course of events. The truth of the matter
was that the Pope was not as powerful as some would make out. Indeed the Popes were
influential, but they did not run Europe. Indeed my study indicates that the Popes had a
hard time keeping the secular authorities from running the church.

Jagd rather that travel east the puritans opted the cross the Atlantic Ocean. The simple way to deal with the problem of the Church of England was not an option.

That was because, the problem was just not the Church of England, but rather, the Church of England was a symptom of a problem, which permeated Europe as a whole.

Again Jagd separation of church and state did not exist prior to the formation of the United States of America as such no country separated the two in any way. This then as well applied to every aspect of life, economics included. As far as your statement in respect to Italians my impression, is that you are expressing a stereotype.

I do feel you have no idea what you are talking about (causes of Italian migration to US) and will for now leave it at that.


From what I was taught, while attending catholic school (Holy Name Cathedral a bishop in charge) on religion and religious history was that every king who took a stance against the church was excommunicated at the time the act was committed.

For more on the policy of excommunication see link...

www.newadvent.org...

Am curious Jagd what exactly is the name of your standard text?



www.angelfire.com...

www.newadvent.org...

Latin Donatio Constantini, a document that discusses the supposed grant by the emperor Constantine the Great to Pope Sylvester I (314�335) and his successors of spiritual supremacy over the other great patriarchates and over all matters of faith and worship, as well as of temporal dominion over Rome and the entire Western Empire. It was claimed that the gift was motivated by Constantine's supposed�

history.hanover.edu...

concise.britannica.com...

jmgainor.homestead.com...

www.angelfire.com...

www.newadvent.org...

www.angelfire.com...


Any thoughts?




[Edited on 20-9-2003 by Toltec]

[Edited on 20-9-2003 by Toltec]

Originally posted by jagdflieger

quote from mikromarius
So it wasn't the pope who gave the French royal house supremacy as emperors of the
Holy Roman Empire as an eternal treat, but later changed their minds and was highly
involved in the attempt to destruct this line, and gave the crown of Europe to the Germans
instead?

I broke out my old book on Mediaeval history ("Mediaeval History", Fourth Edition by
Stephenson and Lyon). This was a standard text book on the subject and covers the
period of European history from the fall of the Roman Empire to the late 1400's. In that
entire book, there is not one mention of the "Donation of Constantine". The act which
created the Papal States was called "The Donation of Pepin". I am sure that if the
"Donation of Constantine" was such an important document it would have been
mentioned in a standard text book on Mediaeval history.

www.heraldica.org...
www.serendipity.li...
www.scaruffi.com...
ragz-international.com...

Beats me. Except the Donation of Constantine predates the middleages I can't find any reason why it shouldn't be mentioned in your "standard" history book on the Middle Ages. It's an important document that basically hands over the power of the Emperor to the Pope. So why it's not mentioned in your book I don't know. However the "donation of Constantine predates the document you refer to with a couple of hundred years. The document known as "the Donation of Pepin" made the pope a temporal ruler over the Papal States, a strip of territory that extended diagonally across Italy from coast to coast, while the document I refer to gives the Pope dominion over the Roman Empire. The two documents cannot be compared at all.

quote from mikromarius
I've read tons of stuff like the links you posted, but it just doesn't interrest me one tiny
grain

So why should I bother, you know it all already.

I don't know everything. And neither do you. Don't be such a sissy just because other posters have a different opinion.

quote from mikromarius
That you somehow have your own twist on this doesn't matter. And itr sure has no impact
in this case.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY QUALIFICATIONS AS A BELIEVER IN THE
LORD JESUS CHRIST!!! THAT WAS AN UNWARRANTED ATTACK.

I have never questioned your "QUALIFICATIONS AS A BELIEVER". If you had the knowledge of reading as well as writing you would have seen that what I said was that the Catholic Church demands baptism as the first step into conversion and to be enrolled in the books of the Church. You argue against this and say that since you are not baptised, but still a believer, the same would be the deal for st. Constantine the Great. Well the times have changed since then. As I've said many times: Baptism is the first step into the Catholic Church and it has always been as far as I know. It's the first and perhaps most important sacrament of the Church. You show no knowledge about this, but still you argue against it without giviung any other reason than that you, a believer isn't baptised. This is what I refer to as your twist. It has nothing to do withg you as a person, and I'm not debunking your faith. All I do is to point out ignorance about how life was back then. It doesn't resemble our life today at all.

The original topic of this thread was "Forgery in Christianity". This thread languished
until I took the time to do the research (many hours) to make a proper response. No one
responded until I did the work.

Well the reason nobody did, was probably because the server has been up and down like a yoyo lately. Just look at all the double postings around. The reason for these were that the server hung and people pressed the post button many times since nothing seemed to happen....

I do not appreciate this thread being turned into the
slanderous lies of anti-Catholic mad men. Yes I do have problems of doctrine with the
Catholic Church, but if I cannot convict an organization with truth then I will not slander
it with lies.

Poor you. You must feel like you're persecuted now, ha? Stop being such a wiener and be a man. Just don't lean on stupidities that says I'm an anti-catholic mad man presenting slanderous lies. I present what I have learned and so should you, without being such a baby when people confront you with a different view.

So: If you can say with your hand on your heart that the "donation of Constantine" isn't a forgery, please do so, or shut it. The document has it's mandate, and the Church has used this mandate for what it's worth. That your historybook doesn't mention this document should be reason enough to NOT discuss this topic. By the way, does your book mention Constantine at all?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 20-9-2003 by mikromarius]