Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Eowyn · 05-26-2006, 05:03 PM

I am reading a book by Hans Kung called Infallible? An Unresolved Enquiry (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Here are some quotes:

Quote:

"The papal teaching authority was now buttressed by the monstrous ninth-century forgery of the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore (115 forged documents attributed to the early bishops of Rome from Clement of Rome onwards, and 125 documents with interpolations). They destroyed all feeling for the historical development of institutions, and created the impression that the Church had been goverened in detail since the earliest times by papal decree, and the resulting image of the Church and Church law was based entirely on Roman authority. On questions of doctrine the assertions in the forged documents that were of the greatest importance were that the holding of councils, including provincial councils, was liinked with the papal authority and that all important Church affais were subject to papal decision. The Pope, by virtue of his own authority, was the norm for the whole Church. 'Pseudo-Isidore ascribes to the Pope's teaching office and disciplinary authority an autonomous character which is not bound by norms of tradition ... " p. 94

"It was on such and similar statments that Gregory VII relied in the second half of the eleventh century for his monarchical conception of the Church." p. 95

"... the following points would have to be demonstrated; hitherto all scholastic speculation and logical argumentation have failed to establish them. 1. That Luke 22:32 (as well as Matthew 16:18 and John 21:15) refer to a teaching office. But infallibility is not mentioned. A man whose faith does not 'cease' (that is the literal translation) is not necessarily immune from error in detail; and an individual who is by no means infallible (for example, Peter) can in fact strengthen his brothers in faith. 2. That in these passages it is not just Peter who is addressed, but his successors also. But successors are not mentioned. 3. That the Bishop of Rome is such a successor. " p. 89

On p. 91 "Matthew 16:18f., which now adorns Saint Peter's in big black letters on a golden background, is not once quotes in full in the whole of Christian literature of the first two centuries, but is quoted for the first time in the second century by Tertullian, and then reference, not to Rome, but to Peter; that not till the middle of the third century did a bishop of Rome - Stephen II, an early example of roman authoritarianism who worked above all with the weapon of excommunication and abused the great St Cyprian as a pseudo-apostle and pseudo-Christian - claim the better tradition by appealing to the pre-eminence of Peter; that it was not till the fourth century that Matthew 16:18f. was quoted (notably by the Roman Bishops Damasus and Leo) in support of a claim to primacy, though without any formal claim to infallibility; and, finally, that in the whole of the Eastern exegisis of Matthew 16:18 until the eighth century and beyond at most a personal primacy of Peter was thought of, without any idea of Roman primacy being seriously entertained. And neither in the East or West was any claim to the Bishop of Rome's infallibility ever made in connection with Matthew 16:18 or Luke 22:32. This explains why the Vatican I definition of infallibility is supported by such meagre references to tradition."

p. 95 - 96
"It was St. Thomas Aquinas ... who in the second half of the thirteenth century incorporated the new political-juridical development into the dogmatic system. That must be admitted, in spite of his indisputable services to theology as a whole. In his Contra errores Graecorum, which was comissioned by the Curia for Pope Urban IV in his negotiations for unition with the Greek Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, he confronted the wea, Greeks with an exorbitant argument for the Roman perogatives, which in turn reacted on the West. On the supreme question of the Trinity he 'demonstrated' to the Greeks in several chapters towards the end of a work that positively teems with quotations from forged documents 'that the Pope of Rome is the first and greatest of all bishops', 'that he presides over the whole Church of Christ', 'that he has plentitude of power in the Church', 'that the Pope of Rome is the successor of Peter in the power conferred by Christ on the latter'. In regard to the papal teaching authority he shows 'that the Pope decides waht is part of faith'.

"These propositoins based on forgeries were then taken over by St. Thomas into his Summa Theologiae, where they really began to make history." p. 96

I have not been able to find any critical reviews of this book, and personally cannot verify the claims he makes. Any thoughts?

Eowyn · 05-27-2006, 12:13 PM

Someone please respond

Toto · 05-27-2006, 12:55 PM

Hans Kung is highly credible. Forgery was common in Christian history (and other historical conflicts.) So it's likely, but I don't have any specific information about the particular documents. I don't have any big stake in whether the Catholic church forged some documents that bolster a doctrine that I wouldn't believe under any circumstances.

If anyone could help you, it would be Bede.

Eowyn · 05-27-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If anyone could help you, it would be Bede.

Thanks, I PM-ed him!

Roger Pearse · 05-27-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eowyn

I am reading a book by Hans Kung called Infallible? An Unresolved Enquiry (or via: amazon.co.uk)

I think that I remember Kung, and this is what I remember (it may be inaccurate in detail). He held some kind of Catholic university teaching post, but in the 1970's started publishing books that made it clear that he didn't believe in Catholicism. He kept right on doing it, and was seen by the secular establishment as their champion to subvert the RCC's. Unfortunately for him Pope John Paul II came along, and he was deprived of his post. I believe the current Pope was involved in the process fairly closely. His attacks were only significant so long as he was inside the RCC; thereafter he disappeared from public view. I haven't heard his name in a long time. I would imagine that the book is one of those published as part of this.

Quote:

Here are some quotes:

"The papal teaching authority was now buttressed by the monstrous ninth-century forgery of the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore (115 forged documents attributed to the early bishops of Rome from Clement of Rome onwards, and 125 documents with interpolations)."

The forged decretals is an old story, and an old piece of anti-Catholic invective. They were composed by interpolating an existing collection of canons, some time in the later dark ages, in France. The people who composed them found the royal authority (which was close at hand) irksome and therefore tried to present themselves under the papal authority only (which was weak and faraway).

I was reading Andrew Lang, "Books and bookmen" yesterday, and he reminds us that in the dark ages and the middle ages, all the literate people were all clergymen in some way, however secular they might otherwise be (e.g. Cardinal Wolsey). Thus every forgery of the period is by a clergyman, by definition, and so general attacks on 'church forgeries' in the period sort of miss the point.

Quote:

"It was on such and similar statments that Gregory VII relied in the second half of the eleventh century for his monarchical conception of the Church." p. 95

Perhaps so. This is well outside my period, tho. Of course in the middle ages the technical ability to detect these forgeries did not exist; that had to await the renaissance.

Quote:

("You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church")
2. That in these passages it is not just Peter who is addressed, but his successors also. But successors are not mentioned. 3. That the Bishop of Rome is such a successor. " p. 89

All good protestant arguments, but I don't see how they can be made with integrity by someone holding a catholic teaching post.

Quote:

On p. 91 "Matthew 16:18f., which now adorns Saint Peter's in big black letters on a golden background, is not once quotes in full in the whole of Christian literature of the first two centuries, but is quoted for the first time in the second century by Tertullian, and then reference, not to Rome, but to Peter;

In De praescriptione haereticorum. Curiously, in an Italian translation of the early part of this century, which I have online, the translator interpolates a 'clarification' which misrepresents this.

Tertullian's testimony is not really as Kung suggests. He routinely appeals to the apostolic authority of the churches founded by apostles, and specifically to Rome.

Quote:

that not till the middle of the third century did a bishop of Rome - Stephen II, an early example of roman authoritarianism who worked above all with the weapon of excommunication and abused the great St Cyprian as a pseudo-apostle and pseudo-Christian - claim the better tradition by appealing to the pre-eminence of Peter;

Cyprian edited his own treatises and letters into a more papalist form after the start of the Novatianist crisis -- so much so as to lead to 17-19th century accusations that the Jesuits must have interpolated them -- so this seems all rather unlikely to me. Stephen and Cyprian did quarrel -- over the rebaptism of heretics.

Quote:

"St. Thomas Aquinas ... In his Contra errores Graecorum, which was comissioned by the Curia for Pope Urban IV in his negotiations for unition with the Greek Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, he confronted the Greeks with an exorbitant argument for the Roman perogatives, which in turn reacted on the West. On the supreme question of the Trinity he 'demonstrated' to the Greeks in several chapters towards the end of a work that positively teems with quotations from forged documents 'that the Pope of Rome is the first and greatest of all bishops', 'that he presides over the whole Church of Christ', 'that he has plentitude of power in the Church', 'that the Pope of Rome is the successor of Peter in the power conferred by Christ on the latter'. In regard to the papal teaching authority he shows 'that the Pope decides waht is part of faith'.

This may be so; but hardly the fault of Aquinas.

Note that I am not a catholic. I merely prefer people who claim to be catholics to believe in catholicism, or stop lying to the rest of us; and the same for every other ideology. The attempts of the selfish to treat rules as for other people and integrity as a luxury seem curious to me, whoever does it. Did not someone refer to it as the clerical conscience?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Eowyn · 05-27-2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Tertullian's testimony is not really as Kung suggests. He routinely appeals to the apostolic authority of the churches founded by apostles, and specifically to Rome.

Could you please say where he does this? What exactly he says?

Thanks for responding!!!

yalla · 05-28-2006, 04:38 AM

Here is an interesting exercise.
Find the Joseph Wheless stuff available in the library here.
Extract specific claims he makes re church forgeries.
Check out the criticism of his claims available elswhere [by Roger, as above or someone else ?, perhaps Roger can guide us ?].
Then go to the online Catholic Encyclopaedia and check out what it says about the various issues raised by Wheless.
Then weigh all these inputs against each other.
That will keep you busy for a while.
cheers
yalla.

Huon · 05-28-2006, 05:37 AM

In the late 1960s Küng became the first major Roman Catholic theologian to reject the doctrine of papal infallibility. Consequently, on december 18,1979, he was stripped of his license to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian but carried on teaching as a tenured professor of ecumenical theology at the University of Tübingen until his retirement (Emeritierung) in 1996. To this day he remains a persistent critic of papal authority, which he claims is man-made (and thus reversible) rather than instituted by God. He was not excommunicated and remains a Roman Catholic priest.

andrewcriddle · 05-28-2006, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Here is an interesting exercise.
Find the Joseph Wheless stuff available in the library here.
Extract specific claims he makes re church forgeries.
Check out the criticism of his claims available elswhere [by Roger, as above or someone else ?, perhaps Roger can guide us ?].
Then go to the online Catholic Encyclopaedia and check out what it says about the various issues raised by Wheless.
Then weigh all these inputs against each other.
That will keep you busy for a while.
cheers
yalla.

Roger Pearse has a page on Joseph Wheless at http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/wh...less_intro.htm

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse · 05-29-2006, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Here is an interesting exercise.
Find the Joseph Wheless stuff available in the library here.
Extract specific claims he makes re church forgeries.
Check out the criticism of his claims available elswhere [by Roger, as above or someone else ?, perhaps Roger can guide us ?].
Then go to the online Catholic Encyclopaedia and check out what it says about the various issues raised by Wheless.
Then weigh all these inputs against each other.
That will keep you busy for a while.
cheers
yalla.

You didn't mention the criteria for winning, or the prize. It does involve dancing-girls, doesn't it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-27-2006, 12:13 PM	#2
Eowyn Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Middle Earth Posts: 156	Someone please respond

05-27-2006, 12:55 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hans Kung is highly credible. Forgery was common in Christian history (and other historical conflicts.) So it's likely, but I don't have any specific information about the particular documents. I don't have any big stake in whether the Catholic church forged some documents that bolster a doctrine that I wouldn't believe under any circumstances. If anyone could help you, it would be Bede.

05-28-2006, 04:38 AM	#7
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Here is an interesting exercise. Find the Joseph Wheless stuff available in the library here. Extract specific claims he makes re church forgeries. Check out the criticism of his claims available elswhere [by Roger, as above or someone else ?, perhaps Roger can guide us ?]. Then go to the online Catholic Encyclopaedia and check out what it says about the various issues raised by Wheless. Then weigh all these inputs against each other. That will keep you busy for a while. cheers yalla.

05-28-2006, 05:37 AM	#8
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	In the late 1960s Küng became the first major Roman Catholic theologian to reject the doctrine of papal infallibility. Consequently, on december 18,1979, he was stripped of his license to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian but carried on teaching as a tenured professor of ecumenical theology at the University of Tübingen until his retirement (Emeritierung) in 1996. To this day he remains a persistent critic of papal authority, which he claims is man-made (and thus reversible) rather than instituted by God. He was not excommunicated and remains a Roman Catholic priest.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.