New Saints

[muppet]

Unbelievable story.

Reminds me of this, which of course was merely comedy.

[muppet]

My point is that these opinions weren't just made up by Seanie or you. These opinions surely are founded in your interpretation of the bible.
If you believe in God and you believe you can go it alone then good luck to you.
If you believe in God I would think your best shot at His promise of Salvation is to follow the rules put in place by His Son and that live on in the teachings of the church today as well as the sacraments.

Iceman I have posted a question here many times that none of the devout will tackle.

I will naively ask it again.

Why follow the teachings of the Archbishop of Rome when the Papacy is based on a known forgery? This forgery was even accepted by the Vatican in the 1600s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

Sorry muppet I really didn't think there was anything to defend. There is a difference between temporal and spiritual power - surely you see that?
The Catholic Church was founded on Christ, not on a forgery. What, exactly, do you believe the Church has "admitted" regarding the Donation of Constantine? Certainly it is a forgery of unknown origin. But, the Church's temporal power did not come from the document. Likewise, the Church made *no* pronouncement on faith or morals based on the document so it's spiritual power has nothing to do with it either.

Not sure what you are proving here or what needs to be defended?

My picture post above was in response to the previous story involving the idiot who awarded a statue a medal. 

As for the Donation of Constantine, it is hard to believe that you have missed it's significance.

It is the reason why us Roman Catholics see the Pope as head of the Church. If there was no Donation of Constantine the correct line from Saint Peter to modern times would lead us to The Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[The Iceman]

My point is that these opinions weren't just made up by Seanie or you. These opinions surely are founded in your interpretation of the bible.
If you believe in God and you believe you can go it alone then good luck to you.
If you believe in God I would think your best shot at His promise of Salvation is to follow the rules put in place by His Son and that live on in the teachings of the church today as well as the sacraments.

Iceman I have posted a question here many times that none of the devout will tackle.

I will naively ask it again.

Why follow the teachings of the Archbishop of Rome when the Papacy is based on a known forgery? This forgery was even accepted by the Vatican in the 1600s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

Sorry muppet I really didn't think there was anything to defend. There is a difference between temporal and spiritual power - surely you see that?
The Catholic Church was founded on Christ, not on a forgery. What, exactly, do you believe the Church has "admitted" regarding the Donation of Constantine? Certainly it is a forgery of unknown origin. But, the Church's temporal power did not come from the document. Likewise, the Church made *no* pronouncement on faith or morals based on the document so it's spiritual power has nothing to do with it either.

Not sure what you are proving here or what needs to be defended?

My picture post above was in response to the previous story involving the idiot who awarded a statue a medal. 

As for the Donation of Constantine, it is hard to believe that you have missed it's significance.

It is the reason why us Roman Catholics see the Pope as head of the Church. If there was no Donation of Constantine the correct line from Saint Peter to modern times would lead us to The Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

really? please explain how?

[muppet]

My point is that these opinions weren't just made up by Seanie or you. These opinions surely are founded in your interpretation of the bible.
If you believe in God and you believe you can go it alone then good luck to you.
If you believe in God I would think your best shot at His promise of Salvation is to follow the rules put in place by His Son and that live on in the teachings of the church today as well as the sacraments.

Iceman I have posted a question here many times that none of the devout will tackle.

I will naively ask it again.

Why follow the teachings of the Archbishop of Rome when the Papacy is based on a known forgery? This forgery was even accepted by the Vatican in the 1600s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

Sorry muppet I really didn't think there was anything to defend. There is a difference between temporal and spiritual power - surely you see that?
The Catholic Church was founded on Christ, not on a forgery. What, exactly, do you believe the Church has "admitted" regarding the Donation of Constantine? Certainly it is a forgery of unknown origin. But, the Church's temporal power did not come from the document. Likewise, the Church made *no* pronouncement on faith or morals based on the document so it's spiritual power has nothing to do with it either.

Not sure what you are proving here or what needs to be defended?

My picture post above was in response to the previous story involving the idiot who awarded a statue a medal. 

As for the Donation of Constantine, it is hard to believe that you have missed it's significance.

It is the reason why us Roman Catholics see the Pope as head of the Church. If there was no Donation of Constantine the correct line from Saint Peter to modern times would lead us to The Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

really? please explain how?

Because that document was used to elevate the hitherto fore relatively ordinary position of ArchBishop of Rome, to Pope. Subsequently is was used by Pope Leo IX to defend his right to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople precipitating the Great East-West Schism. It was also used by subsequent Popes to prove their right to appoint Bishops and other clerics in the Western Church in disputes known as the Investiture Controversy. Without the Donation of Constantine, it is arguable that the ArchBishop of Rome would have as much power today as the ArchBishop of Tuam.

[The Iceman]

My point is that these opinions weren't just made up by Seanie or you. These opinions surely are founded in your interpretation of the bible.
If you believe in God and you believe you can go it alone then good luck to you.
If you believe in God I would think your best shot at His promise of Salvation is to follow the rules put in place by His Son and that live on in the teachings of the church today as well as the sacraments.

Iceman I have posted a question here many times that none of the devout will tackle.

I will naively ask it again.

Why follow the teachings of the Archbishop of Rome when the Papacy is based on a known forgery? This forgery was even accepted by the Vatican in the 1600s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

Sorry muppet I really didn't think there was anything to defend. There is a difference between temporal and spiritual power - surely you see that?
The Catholic Church was founded on Christ, not on a forgery. What, exactly, do you believe the Church has "admitted" regarding the Donation of Constantine? Certainly it is a forgery of unknown origin. But, the Church's temporal power did not come from the document. Likewise, the Church made *no* pronouncement on faith or morals based on the document so it's spiritual power has nothing to do with it either.

Not sure what you are proving here or what needs to be defended?

My picture post above was in response to the previous story involving the idiot who awarded a statue a medal. 

As for the Donation of Constantine, it is hard to believe that you have missed it's significance.

It is the reason why us Roman Catholics see the Pope as head of the Church. If there was no Donation of Constantine the correct line from Saint Peter to modern times would lead us to The Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

really? please explain how?

Because that document was used to elevate the hitherto fore relatively ordinary position of ArchBishop of Rome, to Pope. Subsequently is was used by Pope Leo IX to defend his right to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople precipitating the Great East-West Schism. It was also used by subsequent Popes to prove their right to appoint Bishops and other clerics in the Western Church in disputes known as the Investiture Controversy. Without the Donation of Constantine, it is arguable that the ArchBishop of Rome would have as much power today as the ArchBishop of Tuam.

Really? Because he addresses Pope Sylvester I as "Pope" in the document. Not sure how you interpret that as an appointment of the "pope" when he wrote it to the Pope.... The RC Church recognizes this as a forgery - why would they recognize it as a forgery if it did in any way dispute their temporal or spiritual authority???
It wouldn't make any sense.

Try thinking through these things before reading protestant conspiracy theories...

[muppet]

My point is that these opinions weren't just made up by Seanie or you. These opinions surely are founded in your interpretation of the bible.
If you believe in God and you believe you can go it alone then good luck to you.
If you believe in God I would think your best shot at His promise of Salvation is to follow the rules put in place by His Son and that live on in the teachings of the church today as well as the sacraments.

Iceman I have posted a question here many times that none of the devout will tackle.

I will naively ask it again.

Why follow the teachings of the Archbishop of Rome when the Papacy is based on a known forgery? This forgery was even accepted by the Vatican in the 1600s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

Sorry muppet I really didn't think there was anything to defend. There is a difference between temporal and spiritual power - surely you see that?
The Catholic Church was founded on Christ, not on a forgery. What, exactly, do you believe the Church has "admitted" regarding the Donation of Constantine? Certainly it is a forgery of unknown origin. But, the Church's temporal power did not come from the document. Likewise, the Church made *no* pronouncement on faith or morals based on the document so it's spiritual power has nothing to do with it either.

Not sure what you are proving here or what needs to be defended?

My picture post above was in response to the previous story involving the idiot who awarded a statue a medal. 

As for the Donation of Constantine, it is hard to believe that you have missed it's significance.

It is the reason why us Roman Catholics see the Pope as head of the Church. If there was no Donation of Constantine the correct line from Saint Peter to modern times would lead us to The Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

really? please explain how?

Because that document was used to elevate the hitherto fore relatively ordinary position of ArchBishop of Rome, to Pope. Subsequently is was used by Pope Leo IX to defend his right to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople precipitating the Great East-West Schism. It was also used by subsequent Popes to prove their right to appoint Bishops and other clerics in the Western Church in disputes known as the Investiture Controversy. Without the Donation of Constantine, it is arguable that the ArchBishop of Rome would have as much power today as the ArchBishop of Tuam.

Really? Because he addresses Pope Sylvester I as "Pope" in the document. Not sure how you interpret that as an appointment of the "pope" when he wrote it to the Pope.... The RC Church recognizes this as a forgery - why would they recognize it as a forgery if it did in any way dispute their temporal or spiritual authority???
It wouldn't make any sense.

Try thinking through these things before reading protestant conspiracy theories...

What are you talking about?

The Church recognised this as a forgery for many reasons. For example it used language that didn't exist at the time Constantine was supposed to have made the Donation and it included lands allocated to the ArchBishop of Rome, that were not part of the known world at that time. It was a forgery and the old question of Qui Bono? points to what we now know as the Pope.

This is not a protestant conspiracy theory, it is a historical fact. This happened long before the Reformation.

[The Iceman]

It's a Protestant conspiracy theory in that Protestants today use it to attack the legitimacy of the Pope. The Pope was in power long before and long after this document. The Catholic Church recognize it as a forgery because it didnt do anything to affect the temporal or spiritual legitimacy of the Pope.
If anything it may have contributed additional riches but that doesn't change authority. The successor of Peter is the successor of Peter. Why would a Church stand up and AGREE with you that the document is a forgery if it in any way affected the Church??

[muppet]

It's a Protestant conspiracy theory in that Protestants today use it to attack the legitimacy of the Pope. The Pope was in power long before and long after this document. The Catholic Church recognize it as a forgery because it didnt do anything to affect the temporal or spiritual legitimacy of the Pope.
If anything it may have contributed additional riches but that doesn't change authority. The successor of Peter is the successor of Peter. Why would a Church stand up and AGREE with you that the document is a forgery if it in any way affected the Church??

They eventually agreed it was a forgery because it was obviously a forgery. For example, it named Constantinople as a chief seat before Constantinople had been founded and two centuries before it became a chief seat.

It certainly contributed additional riches. When the Document first appeared it was used by the then ArchBishop of Rome to claim sole authority to appoint the successor to Caesar, as he saw it, - Pepin.

He needed Pepin, up to then considered a Barbarian, to defend Rome from oblivion. He crowned Pepin Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, on the basis of the document The Donation of Constantine. Pepin granted lands to the Vatican, the basis for its wealth, and the Donation was used as evidence to prove that these lands properly belonged to the Pope.

This was the first recorded occurrence of a Pope crowning a king or emperor, and it was on the basis of an accepted forgery.


http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/westeurope/charlcrown.html

[The Iceman]

It's a Protestant conspiracy theory in that Protestants today use it to attack the legitimacy of the Pope. The Pope was in power long before and long after this document. The Catholic Church recognize it as a forgery because it didnt do anything to affect the temporal or spiritual legitimacy of the Pope.
If anything it may have contributed additional riches but that doesn't change authority. The successor of Peter is the successor of Peter. Why would a Church stand up and AGREE with you that the document is a forgery if it in any way affected the Church??

They eventually agreed it was a forgery because it was obviously a forgery. For example, it named Constantinople as a chief seat before Constantinople had been founded and two centuries before it became a chief seat.

It certainly contributed additional riches. When the Document first appeared it was used by the then ArchBishop of Rome to claim sole authority to appoint the successor to Caesar, as he saw it, - Pepin.

He needed Pepin, up to then considered a Barbarian, to defend Rome from oblivion. He crowned Pepin Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, on the basis of the document The Donation of Constantine. Pepin granted lands to the Vatican, the basis for its wealth, and the Donation was used as evidence to prove that these lands properly belonged to the Pope.

This was the first recorded occurrence of a Pope crowning a king or emperor, and it was on the basis of an accepted forgery.


http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/westeurope/charlcrown.html

A what if any of that disputes the legitimacy of the line of Popes?

[muppet]

It's a Protestant conspiracy theory in that Protestants today use it to attack the legitimacy of the Pope. The Pope was in power long before and long after this document. The Catholic Church recognize it as a forgery because it didnt do anything to affect the temporal or spiritual legitimacy of the Pope.
If anything it may have contributed additional riches but that doesn't change authority. The successor of Peter is the successor of Peter. Why would a Church stand up and AGREE with you that the document is a forgery if it in any way affected the Church??

They eventually agreed it was a forgery because it was obviously a forgery. For example, it named Constantinople as a chief seat before Constantinople had been founded and two centuries before it became a chief seat.

It certainly contributed additional riches. When the Document first appeared it was used by the then ArchBishop of Rome to claim sole authority to appoint the successor to Caesar, as he saw it, - Pepin.

He needed Pepin, up to then considered a Barbarian, to defend Rome from oblivion. He crowned Pepin Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, on the basis of the document The Donation of Constantine. Pepin granted lands to the Vatican, the basis for its wealth, and the Donation was used as evidence to prove that these lands properly belonged to the Pope.

This was the first recorded occurrence of a Pope crowning a king or emperor, and it was on the basis of an accepted forgery.


http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/westeurope/charlcrown.html

A what if any of that disputes the legitimacy of the line of Popes?

Because there is an argument that the Holy Roman Empire & its church moved to Constantinople. This document was used by Popes for centuries to refute that. Why did Leo IX and other Popes rely on this document for legitimacy?

It also saved the Church in Rome from possible oblivion at the hand of the Lombards.

[muppet]

My point is that these opinions weren't just made up by Seanie or you. These opinions surely are founded in your interpretation of the bible.
If you believe in God and you believe you can go it alone then good luck to you.
If you believe in God I would think your best shot at His promise of Salvation is to follow the rules put in place by His Son and that live on in the teachings of the church today as well as the sacraments.

Iceman I have posted a question here many times that none of the devout will tackle.

I will naively ask it again.

Why follow the teachings of the Archbishop of Rome when the Papacy is based on a known forgery? This forgery was even accepted by the Vatican in the 1600s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

Sorry muppet I really didn't think there was anything to defend. There is a difference between temporal and spiritual power - surely you see that?
The Catholic Church was founded on Christ, not on a forgery. What, exactly, do you believe the Church has "admitted" regarding the Donation of Constantine? Certainly it is a forgery of unknown origin. But, the Church's temporal power did not come from the document. Likewise, the Church made *no* pronouncement on faith or morals based on the document so it's spiritual power has nothing to do with it either.

Not sure what you are proving here or what needs to be defended?

Actually for a time, it did. This is how the Church claimed that the lands donated by Pepin were not a gift but were in fact a restoration.

http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/MBS201Crusades/LectureTwo/TimeLineCharlemagne.htm

753 - Pope Stephen II (752-757) appealed to the Byzantine emperor for military help against the Lombards.  When his appeal failed he turned to Pepin the Short in 754.  Pepin led a military expedition against the Lombards and defeated the Lombard King Aistulf.  Pope Stephen recognized the legitimacy of Pepin's claim to be king of the Franks.  Pepin gave the pope dominion over the lands of Central Italy and established the legal foundation of the Papal States (Patrimony of St Peter).  Stephen also used the Donation of Constantine to support his claim to rule over central Italy.

[Pangurban]

While Muppet is correct in some of his assertions re. advantageous use of this document when its authenticity was still under dispute, he is wrong to imply that it had anything to do the great schism between East and West, that resulted from another document known as the Filique and the vanity of two egotistical prelates

[muppet]

While Muppet is correct in some of his assertions re. advantageous use of this document when its authenticity was still under dispute, he is wrong to imply that it had anything to do the great schism between East and West, that resulted from another document known as the Filique and the vanity of two egotistical prelates

Ah hang on, I am not saying it caused the Great Schism. I am saying it was cited by Pope Leo IX to legitimise his papal primacy.

[Pangurban]

On that point you are correct

[Denn Forever]

Don't know what miracle he performed (maybe staying a live as long as he did),

Good on ya Oscar.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32859627