I. Falsified Conciliar Records 1. Pseudo-Synod of Sinuessa in 303 a. An alleged gathering of 300 bishops, where it is said about Pope Marcellinus that "no one can judge the highest see" (from the Symmachian Forgeries). 2. Nicaea I 3. 4. 5. a. Denying the historicity of Paphnutius's presence and his speech against mandatory clerical celibacy (see points on clerical celibacy). b. Interpolating the text of the 6th canon to favour the Church of Rome, with the words "The Roman Church always had the Primacy" (see points on the 28th Canon of Chalcedon). c. A putative letter of the Nicene fathers to Pope Sylvester, showing the solemn approval of the Acts of the Council of Nicaea given by Pope Sylvester and an apocryphal Roman Synod of 275 bishops, along with other documents to show that the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea asked for the approval and ratification of their canons and acts by Pope Sylvester (from the Symmachian Forgeries). d. Arabic Canons of Nicaea, which promote the Papacy (see points on this forgery). e. Claiming that the canons of Nicaea permanently fixed the rankings of the Patriarchal Sees and forbade Constantinople from ever attaining the second place (see the chapter on the 28th Canon of Chalcedon). f. A false canon is ascribed to the Nicene Council in the collection of canons made by Latin Cardinal Deusdedit, to the effect that "it is impossible that any bishop bring it to pass or concede that someone not be required necessarily to obey the Roman Church, since this obedience has been granted her immediately by divine institution", and this was mentioned by other Latins against the Orthodox, such as John de Fontibus (see points on the Inauthentic Patristic Quotations in John de Fontibus). Council of Sardica in 343 a. Citing the Sardican canons as Nicene, and imposing them upon an African Council and quoting them as Nicene on other occasions after this error was revealed, to promote the privileges of the Papacy (see points on this). This is due to the Sardican canons being appended to the Nicene canons in early Latin canonical collections. It is worth noting that the Sardican canons have had textual variations of their own and some have doubted their full authenticity. b. The letter of the Council of Sardica to Pope Julius has been interpolated, with the words that it was "most fitting that the Bishops of the Lord make reference from all the Provinces to the head, that is, the See of the Apostle Peter." (see points on the Council of Sardica). Synod of Alexandria (with St. Athanasius) in 357 a. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals contain a spurious letter of a Synod of Alexandria, with St. Athanasius and the other Egyptian bishops, addressed to Pope Felix II, which Roman Catholics and later Latin popes have cited in defence of the papal claims, such as Francis de Sales, who says: "The Synod of Alexandria, at which Athanasius was present, in its letter to Felix II., uses remarkable words on this point, and amongst other things, relates that in the Council of Nice it had been determined that it was not lawful to celebrate any Council without the consent of the Holy See of Rome, but that the canons which had been made to that effect had been burnt by the Arian heretics." (see the chapter on this). Constantinople I a. Denying the ecumenicity of this Council (Pope Leo I calling them "certain bishops"), and claiming its canon on Constantinople's rank was ineffective and not in force (see points on the 28th Canon of Chalcedon). b. Corruption of the Third Canon in Aquinas's Summa and Contra Errores Graecorum, to state "we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops." (see the commentary on Aquinas's works). c. Falsification of the Constantinopolitan Creed with the Filioque, and claiming that the Greeks removed the Filioque from the Creed (see points on the Filioque). 6. 7. 8. 9. d. The Latin Peter Damian, when arguing for the Filioque, at multiple times claims that the Nicene Creed says that "We also believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds properly from the Father," and then makes an argument from the word "properly", saying that this implies that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father alone, but also from the Son. Two Councils on the Pelagian Controversy a. The famous misquotation of St. Augustine, "Roma locuta est; causa finita est", attributes everything to Rome, and omits mention of the two councils that had assembled and made decisions, and were an important component in the resolution of the Pelagian controversy (see points on this quote). Ephesus a. The pro-Papal speech of the papal legate Philip is suspected of being a forgery and interpolation, based on the internal evidence (see points on this). b. The Trent Catechism, along with many others, claimed that St. Cyril of Alexandria called the Bishop of Rome "archbishop of the whole universe" at this council (see points on the Spurious Passages of St. Cyril). Chalcedon a. The Papal legates falsely claimed that the bishops were "extorted" to sign the 28th canon, and Pope Leo then repeated this accusation after the Council itself refuted the claim, likely misled by the Papal legates (see points on the 28th Canon of Chalcedon). b. The Papal legates here quoted the interpolated 6th Canon of Nicaea, and in a later Latin manuscript of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, the response of secretary Constantine is removed, to make it seem as though the Council accepted the interpolated canon of Nicaea. c. The Latin version of the Acts contain significant tampering with the texts to make them more pro-Papal. This is related to a letter of Pope Leo, the extant text of which quotes from the corrupted Latin version (see points on this subject). d. False claims that Canon 28 was not accepted until the time of Photius (see points on the 28th Canon of Chalcedon). e. A likely corrupted letter of Patriarch Anatolius to Pope Leo, where Anatolius allegedly gives up the cause of the 28th canon, and says that "the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness" (see points on the 28th Canon of Chalcedon). f. A spurious or interpolated letter of Pope Leo to Theodoret of Cyrus, which contains passages supporting the Papacy at the Council. g. One forgery associated with the Pseudo-Isidore is a collection of excerpts from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, with interpolations that corrupt the authentic record of Chalcedon to favour the Papal primacy and Roman jurisdiction (see points on the Pseudo-Isidorian Forgeries). h. A false claim that the Bishop of Rome was called "ecumenical" by the whole Council of Chalcedon. Aquinas writes, based on the Forged Greek Catena, "For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: 'Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch." (see the commentary on Aquinas, Contra Errores Graecorum, Part II, Ch. XXXIII). i. A false canon of Chalcedon cited by Aquinas from the Libellus promoting the Papal supremacy. Aquinas says, "For the canon of the Council of Chalcedon says: 'If any bishop is sentenced as guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome, whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and to him alone, in the place of God, with unlimited power, is granted the authority to hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord.' And further on: 'And whatever has been decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar of the apostolic throne." (see the commentary on Aquinas, Contra Errores Graecorum, Part II, Ch. XXXV). Code of Canons of the African Church in 418-419 a. In some later editions and copies of Gratian's work, his commentary became appended to the end of the canon, thus corrupting and giving the opposite meaning to the African canon against appeals to Rome, which states, "But whoever shall think good to carry an appeal across the water shall be received to communion by no one within the boundaries of Africa." and appending the words, "Unless, perchance, they appeal to the Apostolic chair." II. Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (cont'd) the popes using the same imperative terms with the Eastern bishops that they employed in their metropolitan or Western competence. The pontifical texts of the False Decretals treat the whole world as suffragans of the Pope, with the obligation of conformity, not only in the faith, but in discipline and usages,* The Latin professor Christian Wolf (or Christianus Lupus, 16121681), one of the most learned Latin ecclesiastics of his time, thus describes the state of things as it regarded the interests of Rome: In that age the majesty of the apostolic see and all ecclesiastical government was greatly depressed; in Gaul and Germany by the Franks (laity), in Italy and Illyria by Lombards and Greeks, in Spain by the Saracens. Therefore, with a view to restore the papal authority and the decaying discipline of the church, some pious sons of the church - I know not who they were → concocted certain decretal epistles under the names of the ancient pontiffs of Rome; and these are the documents we now call the collection of Isidore Mercator." It is interesting to point out the inconsistency of Roman Catholic scholarship on the False Decretais, Many 19th century Roman Catholic works would not even admit that Pope Nicholas I was influenced by the decretals. The author of the "False Decretals" article in the Catholic Encyclopedia appears to have a different perspective than the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Pope St. Nicholas I". Though the article on Nicholas I writes that he was "One of the great popes of the Middle Ages, who exerted decisive influence upon the historical development of the papacy and its position among the Christian nations of Western Europe.", the article also summarizes a Roman Catholic study on Nicholas's use of the forgeries: After exhaustive investigation, Schrörs has decided that the pope was neither acquainted with the pseudo-Isidorian collection in its entire extent, nor did he make use of its individual parts; that he had perhaps a general knowledge of the false decretals, but did not base his view of the law upon them, and that he owed his knowledge of them solely to documents which came to him from the Frankish Empire Yet is has been admitted elsewhere, by more honest scholars, that Pope Nicholas I did make use of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, referring to them in authoritative matters, and he was certainly very influenced by them, so this shows here the incongruity of Roman Catholic authors, even in the age of critical scholarship, when these apocryphal papal letters had been exposed as fabrications. Even the Roman Catholics who admit that the false decretals influenced Pope Nicholas and his successors try to minimize the extent to which this forgery promotes the Papacy. Referring to extracts from these forged decretals will at once dispel the idea that the decretals did not significantly assert the Papal power. For example, in the so-called Third Epistle of Anacletus (circa 81), this ancient Pope of Rome is made to say: If more difficult suits should arise between you, refer them as to the supreme tribunal of this holy See as to the head, that they may be terminated by the Apostolical decision, because it was so willed by the Lord, and is declared by the aforesaid testimonies to have been so determined by Him. Another false epistle, claimed to be the Third of Pope Felix I (269-274), says: All doubtful and greater matters are accustomed to receive their settlement from this holy See from the time of the a. Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years: The Background of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, Notes upon Ch. IV, p. 137, n. 74, New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 1959. This work was originally published in Paris, 1954, and was translated from the French in 1959. The English translation bears the Nihil Obstat from John A. Goodwine, J. C. D., Censor Librorum, and the Imprimatur from Francis Cardinal Spellman, Latin Archbishop of New York. b. Thomas Greenwood, 1859, Cathedri Petri, Book VI, p. 180. However, Wolf still alludes to the Donation of Constantine as an undisputed fact (see the next section). c. Johann Peter Kirsch, Pope St. Nicholas I, in CE, Vol. XI, p. 54. d. Johann Peter Kirsch, Pope St. Nicholas I, in CE, Vol. XI, p. 55. e. Edward Denny, Papalism, p. 618. Apostles who instructed it by their writings, and therefore you did rightly that you wished that you and others should be strengthened and instructed by the advice of this holy See.! George Salmon (1819-1904), an Irish mathematician, Anglican theologian, and provost of Trinity College Dublin, wrote: If we want to know what share these letters had in the building of the Roman fabric we have only to look at the Canon Law. The 'Decretum' of Gratian quotes three hundred and twenty-four times the epistles of the popes of the first four centuries; and of these three hundred and twenty-four quotations, three hundred and thirteen are from the letters which are now universally known to be spurious. I will not pledge myself to the genuineness of the remaining eleven. In writing a former Lecture I had occasion to refer to Bellarmine, to see whether he could cite any Father as applying to Rome the text in which Christ prays that Peter's faith should not fail. I found he could allege no writer who was not a pope; and the popes he begins by citing are taken from the spurious decretals. The treatise of Bellarmine is founded on that of Melchior Canus; and of twenty quotations which he gives on this subject, eighteen are out of the false decretals. So idle is it to deny that this forgery is the foundation on which the Romish belief in papal power has been founded It is very significant that 18 out of 20 of Melchior Canus's quotations are forgeries, in a chapter upon the divine privileges of the Roman See and of the Pope in matters of faith," but I think Salmon goes too far in his statement that "this forgery is the foundation on which the Romish belief in papal power has been founded.", but it certainly served to promote and support the erroneous views of the Latins on the position of the Bishop of Rome, which contributed to their schism, and helped sustain them in their schism, along with other forgeries. On the other side, the Jesuit Paul Bottalla, who wrote at length defending the Roman Catholic communion from criticism relating to the false decretals, makes an entirely too strong claim, that Unless he [Edmund Ffoulkes] is prepared to admit this paradox, he must join with all the most learned writers of Europe, Protestant no less than Catholic, in confessing that the forgery of the Decretals contributed nothing either to originate and establish, or to propagate the doctrine of Papal supremacy in the Church. Bottalla's claim that the forgery "contributed nothing" to "propagate the doctrine of Papal supremacy" is proven incorrect by the evidence adduced here, of the numerous citations of the Pseudo-Decretals in defence of papal power (some of which Bottalla is aware of), and in the attempt to win over the Orthodox in controversy. All that Bottalla concedes is, In other words, we regard the change introduced into the discipline of the Church through the influence of the False Decretals, as affecting points of detail only, or rather as being no more than the practical application of principles already universally admitted." The Anglican scholar William Edward Scudamore (1813-1881) writes: To show that the Fathers understood our Lord's words as a promise of infallibility to the Pope, Bellarmine cites ten severat authors. Seven of these are themselves Popes, but his quotations from the two oldest are spurious; from the third nothing at all to the purpose; while the rest, whatever they mean, are so recent (ranging from A.D. 680 to 1200) as to be of no value to his cause. Of his remaining testimonies, one is an utterly irrelevant passage from Theophylact (A.D. 1070) another is from S. Bernard (A.D. 1140) who says of the See of Rome: "To what other See has it been said, I have prayed for thee, &c. ?" and the third from a spurious addition to an Epistle of Chrysologus, which a great Roman Catholic historian and critic (Dupin, cent. v. Petr. Chrysol.; vol. i. p. 485) supposes to have been made to the genuine text expressly "to raise the authority of the Church Denny, Papalism, p. 619. Many more like examples can be brought forth, which the reader can find in Note 13 of Denny's Papalism, pp. 612-621. Also see the end of this section. f. g. George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, Lecture XXIII, pp. 453 454, London: John Murray, 3rd Ed., 1899. See the rest of this lecture for further context. h. See T. J. Bailey (translator), Auguste Gratry, Second Letter to Monseigneur Dechamps, 1, pp. 8-13, London: J. T. Hayes, 1870. i. Paul Bottalla, The Papacy and Schism: Strictures on Mr. Ffoulkes' Letter to Archbishop Manning, III, p. 25, London: Burns, Oates, and Company, 1869. j. Bottalla, The Papacy and Schism, VIII, pp. 55 - 58. k. Bottalla, The Papacy and Schism, VII, p. 51. II. Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (cont'd) of Rome." Johannes Gratian (or Gratianus, fl. mid-12th c.) was an important Medieval Latin canonist, whom the Catholic Encyclopedia calls "the true founder of the science of canon law."7 As mentioned before, Gratian's famous "Decretum", which was written in the mid-12th century, "supplied the text of the 'everyday' instructor on the things most essential to be known" Gratian's work was also endorsed by men who became Latin popes, as the Catholic Encyclopedia writes of Latin Pope Alexander III (pope from 1159-1181), "As professor in Bologna he acquired a great reputation as a canonist, which he increased by the publication of his commentary on the 'Decretum' of Gratian, popularly known as 'Summa Magistri Rolandi." Melchior Canus (1509-1560) was a Dominican Roman Catholic bishop and theologian who was the top professor at the University of Alcala, and who attended Trent. The Catholic Encyclopedia writes of Canus: Early in 1551 he was sent by the emperor to the Council of Trent. He was accompanied by Dominic Soto, and, like other members of the order, was enabled by his historical erudition and his mastery of scholastic and positive theology to render important service in the deliberations and achievements of the council By reserving to the Holy See the decision of the causae maiores, which had formerly been a privilege of the provincial synods, he helped mightily to forward the cause of the Roman primacy. The decretals were made use of at Rome first by Nicholas I, who appeals to them when quashing the decision of the bishops of Gaul, who in 864 had deposed Rothadius, bishop of Soissons (N.A. XXV, 1900, pp. 652-63; according to the Hist. J. 1904, pp. 1-33, he was acquainted with only a few passages of the Decretals, and did not found his pretension on them at all). and throughout the Middle Ages they were generally held to be genuine. It was only their binding force which was questioned at first, for instance by Hinkmar of Rheims in the case of his nephew and namesake of Laon. The first real doubts as to their credibility were expressed in the fifteenth century by Nicholas of Cusa and Juan de Torquemada, and though their strictures did not then succeed in shaking the deep-rooted general persuasion, yet in the next century, as soon as the collection had been widely circulated by means of the press (it was first printed by Merlin in his Collectio Conciliorum, 1523), the fraudulent nature of the composition was borne in on all. The arguments adduced by the Jesuit Torres for their authenticity against the Magdeburg Centuriators were triumphantly confuted by the Protestant theologian Blondel (Pseudo-Isidorus et Turrianus vapulantes, 1622) d This work has the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat of the Roman Catholic authorities and censors, and the first edition was published in 1886. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) was a distinguished Jesuit theologian, writer, professor, and cardinal, and was declared by Roman Catholic Funk was considered the successor of the great church historian Hefele, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says: authorities to be a "Doctor of the Universal Church", and is considered a saint by Roman Catholics. Professor Franz Xaver von Funk writes on the False Decretals: a. b. But about the middle of the ninth century a new work made its appearance in western Gaul; its unknown author describes himself as Isidorus Mercator. The first witnesses to the existence of the work are the Councils of Soissons (853) and Quiercy (857), which both make use of it; they point to its having been composed among the Franks, and the same conclusion will be arrived at if the MSS. and the sources drawn upon in the collection be taken into consideration. The Decretals in question are found in two recensions, a shorter and a longer, of which only the latter is of interest to us at present, having, at an early date, completely ousted the other. Apart from the preface and the appendices, it falls into three parts, of which the first contains the fifty Apostolic Canons acknowledged in the West, fifty-nine Decretals or Papal Bulls and Briefs dating from Clement I to Miltiades, and the charter by which Constantine's Donation was made, whilst the second gives the Canons of the ancient Councils, which here are copied from the Spanish collection; the third part contains the Papal Decretals from Silvester I to Gregory II (314-731). As for the object of the collection, the writer himself tells us that he wished canonum sententias colligere et uno in volamine redigere et de multis unum facer - in other words, that his intention was merely to compose a bandy reference book of Canon Law. His intention is, however, no excuse for his wholesale fabrications. The papal briefs of the first part of his work are, every one of them, forgeries, and the same is true of many contained in the last portion of the work; nor can the author crave forgiveness on the score that much of the material he uses is really taken from early documents. More likely his real intention was to strengthen the band of the bishops against both the metropolitans and the secular power. To this intention corresponds his eagerness to magnify the office of the primates and to convince the reader that causae maiores (by which he means causae episcopales) can be decided only by Rome. It may also have been his desire to heal to some extent the wounds produced in the Church by the civil wars under Lewis the Pious and his sons, and to better the Church's position. His effort may have been to second those of the Councils of Paris (829, 846), Aachen (836), and Meaux (845), but whether this be the case or not, Möhler was certainly wrong in taking this as the primary object of the work. Since the work, in the main, is devoted to justifying customs which were already in possession, it would be an overstatement to say that Pseudo-Isidore founded an entirely new system of Canon Law. But his importance must not be under-estimated. William Edward Scudamore, England and Rome: A Discussion of the Principal Doctrines and Passages of History in Common Debate between the Members of the Two Communions, Letter IV, Part I, Sect. II, xi, p. 116, n. 5, London: Rivingtons, 1855. James F. Loughlin, Pope Alexander III, in CE, Vol. I, p. 287. c. John R. Volz, Melchior Cano, in CE, Vol. III, p. 251. In 1870 Funk was named extraordinary, and in 1875 ordinary professor of church history, patrology, and Christian archæology, an office which be filled till his death. His life was henceforth entirely devoted to his professorial duties and historical researches, especially to the various branches of the history of the early Church... Among the Catholic historians whom Germany has produced in the last three decades Funk was undoubtedly the greatest authority and the chief historical writer on early Christian times. Clear and purely critical in method, his sole aim was the establishment of historical truth. His character was frank and conscientious; his life was blameless, as became a minister of God. As a controversialist he could be severe when an opponent allowed himself to be swayed by any other motive than the demonstration of exact truth. His method has created a school among the Catholic historians of Germany which has been a benefit to the advancement of earnest historical investigation and scholarly criticism. Hefele mentions that the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals have made their way into the Roman Collections of Councils, from the very first published collections: Sec. 12. Histories of the Councils. James Merlin, canon and chief penitentiary of the metropolitan church of Paris, was the first who had a collection of the acts of the councils published. This edition, naturally very incomplete, appeared at Paris in 1523, in one folio volume, in two parts. A second impression was published at Köln in 1530, enriched by two documents, the golden bull of Charles IV., and the bull of Pius II. in which he forbade an appeal from the Pope to an oecumenical council. The third edition, in octavo, published at Paris in 1536, had no additions. Like all the collections of the councils which have been made after it, with the exception of the Roman edition of 1609, the edition of Merlin contained, with the acts of the oecumenical councils, those of several provincial synods, as well as many papal decretals. It may be mentioned that this alone had the collection of the false Isidorian Decretals printed in a continuous form, whilst in the more recent collections they are distributed in chronological order, assigning to each council or each Pope the part attributed to him by pseudo-Isidore. (The longest details on Merlin's edition are found in the work of Salmon, doctor and librarian of the Sorbonne, Traité de l'Etude des Conciles et de leurs collections, etc., nouvelle edition, Paris 1726, pp. 288 sq. and 724. In this last passage Salmon points out the faults of Merlin's collections.) The Roman Catholic priest Thomas Harding (1516 - 1572), in his notable controversy with the Anglican bishop John Jewel, argues for the d. Luigi Cappadelta (translator), Franz Xaver von Funk, A Manual of Church History, Vol. I, The Middle Ages, Part I, Ch. IV. § 99, pp. 287-289, London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., (authorized tr. from the 5th German Ed.), 1910. e. Johann Peter Kirsch, Franz Xaver von Funk, in CE, Vol. VI, pp. 323-324. f. Hefele, History of Councils, Vol. I, Introduction, Sec. 12, pp. 67-68. II. Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (cont'd) Papal Supremacy, quoting the Pseudo-Anacletus: But I, in this treatise, seeking to avoid prolixity, having purposed to say somewhat to this number of the other articles, and knowing this matter of the primacy to be already largely and learnedly handled of others, will but trip (as it were) lightly over at this time, and not set my fast footing in the deep debating and treating of it. First, as concerning the right of the primacy by God's law, by these ancient authorities it hath been avouched. Anacletus that holy bishop and martyr, St Peter's scholar, and of him consecrated priest, in his epistle to the bishops of Italy, writeth thus: In novo... testamento, post Christum, &c. : "In the new testament, the order of priests began after our Lord Christ, of Peter; because to him bishopric was first given in the church of Christ, where as our Lord said unto him, 'Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and unto thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Wherefore this Peter received of our Lord, first of all, power to bind and to loose; and first of all he brought people to the faith, by virtue of his preaching. As for the other apostles; they received honour and power in like fellowship with him, and willed him to be their prince, or chief governor." In another epistle to all bishops, alleging the same text, for the primacy of the see of Rome, speaking of the disposition of churches committed to patriarchs and primates, saith thus most plainly: "This holy and apostolic church of Rome hath obtained the primacy, not of the apostles, but of our Lord and Saviour himself, and hath gotten the pre-eminence of power over all churches, and over the whole flock of Christian people, even so as he said to blessed Peter the apostle, 'Thou art Peter; and upon this rock," Harding is writing in 1564, before the Latins had widely admitted the spurious nature of these Isidorian decretals, but Jewel learnedly replies with good reasons for doubting their authenticity. Jewel's entire chapter against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is well worth reading. Pope Nicholas I, in his sixth epistle, addressed to St. Photius, says: But the decrees made by the holy popes of the chief see of the Roman Church, by whose authority and sanction all synods and holy councils are strengthened and established, why do you say, that you do not receive and observe them? Latin officials continued citing false documents in their attempt to win over the Orthodox during the 15th century attempts at reunion. The Russian Orthodox priest and professor Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (1871-1944) notes: It is worth noting that John of Ragusa, in his answer to Vissarion, justified the pope's power over the bishops as his vicars by the alleged fact that St. Peter appointed patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops to various dioceses; in supporting this, he quoted a spurious passage from pseudo-Isidore's Anaclite, and an also spurious text of the 6th canon of the 1st Nicean Council. (The text had been proved to be spurious at the IV Oecumenical Council of 451, where papal legates had attempted to make use of it). In his arguments John of Ragusa referred also to the notoriously spurious Donatio Constantini-a document which had already been proved unauthentic by Laurentius Valla and Nicolaus Cusanus (Hefele VII. 733). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, John of Ragusa (1380 - 1443) was: a Dominican theologian, president of the Council of Basie, legate to Constantinople.... By reason of his great attainments in theology, Scripture, and the Oriental languages, he was considered an oracle in his native Dalmatia. At the University of Paris he shone conspicuously and there received the doctor's cap about the beginning of the fifteenth century. In the year 1426 he was appointed procurator general of the Dominican Order, and went to reside at Rome under Pope Martin V. There a. John Ayre (editor), The Works of John Jewel, Vol. I, Of the Supremacy, Art. IV, p. 341, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1845. b. "Decretalia autem, quæ a sanctis Pontificibus primæ sedis Romanæ Ecclesiæ sunt instituta, cujus auctoritate atque sanctione omnes Synobi et sancta Concilia roborantur, et stabilitatem sumunt, cur vos non habere vel observare dicitis?" Conc. Labb., tom, viii, Nicolai Papæ I epist. vi, ad Photium, col 285, D., Paris 1671. Cited in Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Book Ill, Chap. XI, p. 672, London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 4th Ed., 1877. c. Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov, The Vatican Dogma, III, South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon Press, 1959 [Originally Paris, 1929]. he received marks of honour and esteem from the pope and the College of Cardinals, and the former eventually named him papal theologian for the General Council of Basle. Basilios Bessarion (Vissarion) (1403-1472) converted to Roman Catholicism from Orthodoxy, and became a Roman Catholic Cardinal and Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. Also note that John of Ragusa cites largely from the spurious texts of Cyril in his inaugural sermon "Fiet unum ovile et unus pastor" given at Pavia on 23 April 1423, at the Latin Council of Pavia-Siena. Many other parts of his sermons are based on Aquinas's Contra Errores Graecorum (these forgeries will be reviewed in a following chapter)." Archbishop Manasses I of Rheims cited Pseudo-Isidorian texts in 1077, though not for the Papacy, but for the judicial immunity of the episcopate.! The French Roman Catholic priest Gratry writes: All our brethren in the priesthood possess the Moral Theology of S. Liguori. All can consult, somewhere or other, the work of Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice. For instance, I have before me the chapter in question, in S. Liguori [S. Liguori, Theologia Moralis, t. i., De Infallibilitate Papæ. Ed. Mellier, p. 109 et suiv.]. He collects all the passages of Melchior Cano and of Bellarmine, and he maintains that the Pope is absolutely infallible. He begins by quoting a passage of St. Irenæus: "All must of necessity depend upon the Roman Church, as their source and head." "Omnes a Romana Ecclesia necesse est ut pendeant, tanquam a fonte et capite." Now this passage is a pure invention. It is not to be found in S. Irenæus. S. Liguori has copied it from somewhere or other, without verifying it. After which our dear saint admits as true the two forged letters of S. Athanasius, quoted by Melchior Cano. He then enumerates the whole list of the forged decretals adduced by that same author, "Idemque senserunt plures alii Pontifices, Evaristus, Alexander I., Sixtus I., Pius 1., Victor, Zephyrinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, et alii quos refert Cano."... Melchior Cano was deceived by the forger, Bellarmine by Melchior Cano, S. Liguori by all the others." Coulton makes the following important note regarding Liguori's integrity: Dr. Franz Meffert, perhaps the latest Ultramontane biographer of St. Alfonso Liguori, confesses that Döllinger was right in his most serious accusation; viz. that Liguori, defending Infallibility against Febronius, based some of his arguments on quotations from the Forged Decretals, even though he betrayed at different times, in two separate places, the knowledge that those Decretals were false." Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1696-1787) was a highly influential Italian Roman Catholic bishop and theologian, and is considered a saint and Doctor of the Church by Roman Catholics. In recent times, an important discovery was made of a forgery associated with the Pseudo-Isidore. This component of the forgery complex is a collection of excerpts from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, titled Nonnullæ Sanctiones Sparsin Collectæ Actionis Prima Sancti et Magni Chalcedonensis Concilii. The author of the Pseudo-Isidore created this forgery, which helped corrupt the authentic record of Chalcedon to favour the Papal primacy and Roman jurisdiction. Eric Knibbs, an Assistant Professor of History at Williams College in Williamstown, MA, who specializes in the Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, writes the following in discussing one interpolation in this collection: The excerpts concentrate on episcopal power, Roman jurisdiction, and secular interference in ecclesiastical affairs; in some places the text has been interpolated or otherwise inauthentically revised.... As I said above, the Nonnullae sanctiones. d. Albert Reinhart, John of Ragusa, in CE, Vol. VIII, p. 476. John attained many more distinctions and was an important character in the discussions concerning the reunion of the East and West. e. f. Walter Brandmüller, Das Konzil von Pavia-Siena 1423-1424, Vol. II, Sermones, Nr. 2, pp. 139 sq. & 145 sq., Münster: Verlag Aschendorff, 1974. Patrick Healy, The Chronicle of Hugh of Flavigny: Reform and the investiture Contest in the Late Eleventh Century, Ch. V, pp. 129 - 130, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. g. TJ. Bailey (translator), Auguste Gratry, Second Letter to Monseigneur Dechamps, 1, pp. 14-15, London: J. T. Hayes, 1870. h. George Gordon Coulton, Papal Infallibility, Appendix IX, p. 269, London: The Faith Press, 1932. II. Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (cont'd) has some of the Chalcedon texts in interpolated form. As you might expect, these interpolations correspond to marginal additions in Lat. 11611, The marginal annotation [pictured above] is one of Pseudo-Isidore's inauthentic additions to the conciliar acta; it reads "... quod apostolicae sedis missi prius semper debeant iudicare (which the messengers of the apostolic see should always judge beforehand a lot of the interpolations have to do with papal prerogatives.)" The standard study of this Chalcedonian forgery is Klaus Zechiel-Eckes, Verecundus oder Pseudoisidor? Zur Genese der Excerptiones de gestis Chalcedonensis concilii, in Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, Vol. LVI., pp. 413-446, Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2000. Even well after these documents had been exposed as inauthentic, they were still occasionally used by negligent authors, and a very popular work by the Roman Catholic apologist Joseph Faà di Bruno, titled Catholic Belief (printed over 550,000 times from 1875 to 1922) contains six references to the false decretals, and yet this work still received the approbations of the papal legate to the USA, seven Latin archbishops, seventeen Latin bishops, and numerous other authorities (see points on the Council of Sardica and Misquotations of Nicaea, where Bruno's book is analysed in-depth). III. Donation of Constantine our imperial eminence, and the glory of our power... Christopher Bush Coleman (1875-1944), an American Protestant professor of history who specialised in the legends of Constantine, states that the Donation of Constantine "was cited by no less than ten Popes of whom we know, to mention no lesser writers, in contentions for the recognition of papal control, and contributed not a little to the prestige of the Papacy." In his dissertation on this topic, Coleman writes: It was referred to as valid or used by many popes, including Leo IX, Urban II, Eugenius III, Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Nicholas III, Boniface VIII, and John XXII. Though Gregory VII apparently did not use it, his representative, Peter Damiani did so. It may possibly have been in the mind of other popes who exacted oaths from prospective emperors that they would preserve all the rights and possessions granted by all previous emperors to the see of St. Peter, and may also have influenced Hadrian IV. The Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that "This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850", and that the document was generally considered to be authentic until the 15th century, exposed by the Treatise of Lorenzo Valla in 1440 which "proved the forgery with certainty". However, even after this treatise, "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. The Annales Ecclesiastici of Baronius is a large-scale classic Latin work on the history of the The donation of Constantine is a notorious document that has been cited numerous times to bolster the claims of the papacy, and it has had Church, and was published around the end of the 16th century. an influential place in Latin canon law collections. It begins with the following significant statements: The Emperor Constantine the fourth day after his baptism conferred this privilege on the Pontiff of the Roman church, that in the whole Roman world priests should regard him as their head, as judges do the king. In this privilege among other things is this: "We - together with all our satraps, and the whole senate and my nobles, and also all the people subject to the government of glorious Rome considered it advisable, that as the Blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God on the earth, so the Pontiffs who are the representatives of that same chief of the apostles, should obtain from us and our empire the power of a supremacy greater than the clemency of our earthly imperial serenity is seen to have conceded to it, choosing that same chief of the apostles and his vicars to be our constant intercessors with God. And to the extent of our earthly imperial power, we have decreed that his holy Roman church shall be honored with veneration, and that more than our empire and earthly throne the most sacred seat of the Blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted, we giving to it power, and dignity of glory, and vigor, and honor imperial. And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as well over the four principal seats, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth. And the Pontiff, who at the time shall be at the head of the holy Roman church itself, shall be more exalted than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world, and according to his judgment everything which is provided for the service of God and for the stability of the faith of Christians is to be administered. And below: §. 1. On the churches of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, for the providing of the lights, we have conferred landed estates of possessions, and have enriched them with different objects, and through our sacred imperial mandate we have granted him of our property in the east as well as in the west, and even in the northern and the southern quarter, namely, in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, and Italy and the various islands, under this condition indeed, that all shall be administered by the hand of our most blessed father the supreme Pontiff, Sylvester, and his successors. And below: §. 2. And to our Father, the Blessed Sylvester, supreme Pontiff and Pope universal, of the city of Rome, and to all the Pontiffs, his successors, who shall sit in the seat of the Blessed Peter even unto the end of the world, we by this present do give our imperial Lateran palace, then the diadem, that is, the crown of our head, and at the same time the tiara and also the shoulder-band, that is, the strap that usually surrounds our imperial neck; and also the purple mantle and scarlet tunic, and all the imperial raiment, and also the same rank as those presiding over the imperial cavalry, conferring also even the imperial scepters, and at the same time all the standards, and banners, and the different ornaments, and all the pomp of a. Eric Knibbs, Pseudo-Isidore: A Blog, Another Component of the Forgery Complex, or, Pseudo-Isidore's Autograph, (http://pseudoisidore.blogspot. com/2010/04/another-component-of-forgery-complex-or.html), & April 2010. The most notable reply to Valla and defence of the Donation was by Agostinus Steuchus (also called Agostine Steuco or Eugubinus, 1497 -1548), an Italian scholar, Latin bishop of Chisamo in Crete, and librarian of the Vatican. Steuchus published two replies to Valla. In 1530 he wrote "Pro religione christiana adversus Lutheranos", and in 1547 he wrote "Contra Laurentium Vallam de falso donation Constantini libri duo": The first time a pope officially cited the Donation of Constantine was Pope Leo IX in his letter to Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople, in 1054, on the eve of the Great Schism, which shows that the Latins separated from the Church based on incorrect information. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX: in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the "Donatio" acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power. Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit inserted it in their collections of canons. Gratian, it is true, excluded it from his "Decretum", but it was soon added to it as "Palea". The ecclesiastical writers in defence of the papacy during the conflicts of the early part of the twelfth century quoted it as authoritative (Hugo of Fleury, De regia potestate et ecclesiasticâ dignitate, II; Placidus of Nonantula, De honore ecclesiæ, cc. Ivii, xci, cli; Disputatio vel defensio Paschalis papæ, Honorius Augustodunensis, De summâ gloriæ, c. xvii; cf. Mon, Germ. Hist., Libelli de lite, II, 456, 591, 614, 635, III, 71). St. Peter Damian also relied on it in his writings against the antipope Cadalous of Parma (Disceptatio synodalis, in Libelli de lite, 1, 88). Gregory VII himself never quoted this document in his long warfare for ecclesiastical liberty against the secular power. But Urban II made use of it in 1091 to support his claims on the island of Corsica. Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV) took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro, in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24: Potthast, Regesta, no: 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced its evidence in favour of the papacy. b. Christopher Bush Coleman, The Treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine, pp. 10-15, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1922. c. Coleman, Donation of Constantine, p. 2. d. Christopher Bush Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity: Three Phases: the Historical, the Legendary, and the Spurious, Part III, Ch. 1, § 2, p. 178, Dissertation: Columbia University, New York, NY, 1914. More is said here on the acceptance and Latin use of the Donation. e. Johann Peter Kirsch, Donation of Constantine (Donatio Constantini), In CE, Vol. V. p. 119. This is a fair article that is worth reading. f. See Ronald K. Delph, Valla Grammaticus, Agostino Steuco, and the Donation of Constantine, in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. LVII, No, 1., Jan. 1996, pp. 55-77, Philadelphia, PA: Journal of the History of Ideas, 1996. g. Johann Peter Kirsch, Donation of Constantine (Donatio Constantini), In CE, Vol. V. pp. 120-121. Ill. Donation of Constantine (cont'd) Jean-Edmé-Auguste Gosselin (1787-1858), a French Roman Catholic priest and seminary director, writes. After this deed had been inserted in the collections of the False Decretals, it was cited by a great many authors, who never suppose that there was the least reasonable doubt of its authenticity. It was first cited by two French authors; Æneas, bishop of Paris, in a Treatise against the Greeks, composed about the year 867; and Hincmar of Rheims, in a Letter to the French Barons, written about the year 882. Though neither of these authors cites the words of this document, they manifestly suppose its existence; and the former states that copies of it were preserved in the libraries of several French churches. Pope Leo IX. cites long extracts from it in his letter to Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, in 1054, in order to establish against the Greeks the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Holy See. St. Peter Damian also cites some extracts from it in his Synodal Discussion, compiled about the year 1062. Long passages from it are also found in a collection of canons, compiled about the same time by St. Anselm of Lucca; and also in the Decreta of Ivo of Chartres, and of Gratian, which appeared in the course of the following century. There are, nevertheless, reasons to believe, that though Constantine's donation was so confidently cited by those authors, its authority was not universally admitted; for it is not mentioned by many authors of the tenth and eleventh centuries, who could neither be ignorant of its existence, nor omit citing it, had they believed that its authenticity was unquestionable. Even Gregory VII. himself does not cite it in many of those letters in which he collects so carefully all the arguments and authorities in favour of the extraordinary power which he claimed over sovereigns. [Gosselin's footnote:] The most complete edition of the False Decretals is given in Merlin's Collectio Concil. tom. 1. Paris, 1524, 2 vols. fol. The same edition was reprinted with some changes in Crabbe's Collection of Councits, Cologne, 1551,3 vols. fol. Constantine's donation is given in both those editions." Although Gosselin and the Catholic Encyclopedia say Pope Gregory VII never used the Donation himself, his close friend Cardinal Deusdedit of San Pietro in Vincoli (d. 1097-1100, most likely 1099) inserted it in his collection of canons, and the Catholic Encyclopedia says of Deusdedit. He was a friend of St. Gregory VII and defender of his reformation measures; Deusdedit joined the Benedictine Order and became a zealous promoter of ecclesiastical reforms in the latter half of the eleventh century. Pope Gregory VII raised him to the cardinalate with the title of St. Pietro in Vincoli. In 1078, he took part in a Roman synod, at which he represented the opinions of Berengarius of Tours. In the long conflict for the freedom of the ecclesiastical authority from the oppression of the civil power Deusdedit sided with Gregory VII, and was one of his chief agents and defenders. At the suggestion evidently of this pope, he undertook the compilation of a collection of canons which he completed in 1087 and dedicated to Victor III. He meant this work to defend the rights and liberty of the Church and the authority of the Holy See, in keeping with the measures of Gregory VII and his adherents. At the same time, this Collection reveals Deusdedit as one of the most important of the pre-Gratian canonists... Possibly also Deusdedit was the editor of this famous and important collection of Gregory's correspondence. In this case, the cardinal appears in a new light as intimate counsellor and intellectual heir of Gregory VII. Moreover, the Protestant historian Frank Zinkeisen writes: Another half-century passes before we hear of the 'Donation' again. To prove the superiority of the church of Rome, Leo IX, in 1054, sent a long letter to Michael, the patriarch of Constantinople. The fact that almost the entire text of the 'Donation' proper is inserted in it goes to show the implicit belief which the pope seems to have had in the supposititious document. The same year Leo IX once more called upon the great name of Constantine, but to no effect. After his defeat by the Normans at Civita in 1054 he made peace with his enemies, but with no intention of its being final, for he sent messengers with a letter to Constantinople to beseech the eastern emperor to take part with the German emperor in avenging his wrongs. In this letter a. Matthew Kelly (translator), Jean Edmé-Auguste Gosselin, The Power of the Pope During the Middle Ages, Vol. 1, Confirmatory Evidence, § V, pp. 317- 318, in Library of Translations from Select Foreign Literature, Vol. I, London: C. Dolman, 1853. b. Johann Peter Kirsch, Cardinal Deusdedit, in CE, Vol. IV, pp. 760-761. the pope begged the emperor to give up to the holy see all that which Constantine and his successors had once gisted There was no response to the request, and the pope soon died. In significant contrast to the lank assurance of Pope Lee is the reserve of Gregory VII. Still it does not seem strictly true to say that he never so much as mentions the Donation;' for in the oath which Gregory exacted from Rudolf of Swabia there is apparently an allusion to the spurious gift. De ordinatione vero ecclesiarum et de terris vel censu quae Constantinus imperator vel Carolus sancto Petro dederunt ita conveniam cum pap ut periculum sacrilegii non incurram. Perhaps Gregory had the 'Donation' in mind when, in his celebrated dictatus, he claimed that 'only the pope can make use of the imperial insignia, which, to be sure, always remained an empty claim. Finally, there is another case which is more in point but is still more doubtful than the two preceding. In a letter to the kings and princes of Spain the pope claims that regnum Hispaniae ex antiquis constitutionibus beso Petro et sanctae Romanae ecclesiae in jus et proprietatem esse traditum. Now the 'Donation' of Constantine is called Exemplar Constituti Domni Constantini Imperatoris in a manuscript of the ninth or tenth century, and this copy Gregory might have seen and had in mind. But on what a slender footing this hypothesis rests is made doubly clear when we examine another letter of the pope on the same subject, in which Spain is merely claimed as 'of old the property of St. Peter. In fact, it seems to me more than likely that Gregory's policy wan not to invoke the false 'Donation; for in two cases he is careful to name the grantor of lands which he claims for the holy see Concerning Pope Leo IX's use of the Donation of Constantine, Döllinger writes: Pope Leo IX. recounted nearly the whole text of the Donation to the patriarch Michael Cerularius in the year 1054, openly and confidently, without having (as it would seem) a single misgiving as to the weakness of his document. He wished the patriarch to convince himself "of the earthly and heavenly imperium, of the royal priesthood of the Roman Chair," and retain no trace of the suspicion that this chair "wished to usurp power by the help of foolish and old wives' fables." He is, however, the only one of all the popes who has brought the document expressly before the eyes of the world, and formally challenged criticism. John of Salisbury (1115/1120-1180), a distinguished Roman Catholic bishop and scholar, also quotes the Donation of Constantine, in support of Pope Hadrian IV conferring upon Henry II, the king of England, dominion over the island of Ireland in 1155. Döllinger writes: Hadrian does not mention the Donation of Constantine in his Bull; but his friend and confidant, John of Salisbury, the one who, according to his own confession, induced him to take this step so pregnant with consequences, quotes the Donation of the first believing emperor as the ground of this "right of St. Peter" over all islands. Döllinger also writes: In a chronicle of the church of St. Maria del Principio, it is stated that Constantine gave the whole of the kingdom of Sicily on both sides of the straits, along with other possessions, to pope Sylvester; the town of Naples was the only thing which he reserved as imperial property. [Döllinger's footnote:] The chronicle appears to belong to the end of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century. Otto of Freising (1111/1114-1158, also Friesingen) was an influential nobleman, historian, abbot, and Roman Catholic bishop. Döllinger writes about the chronicle of Otto of Freising: In his chronicle, which was composed between 1143 and 1146, he asserts the authenticitya of the Donation, and relates how Constantine, after conferring the imperial insignia on the pope, went to Byzantium, adding that "for this reason the Roman Church maintains that the western kingdoms have been given over to her possession by Constantine, and demands c. Frank Zinkeisen, The Donation of Constantine as Applied by the Roman Church, in The English Historical Review, Vol. IX, No. 36, Oct., 1894, pp: 627 628. Oxford University Press, 1894. d. Henry Boynton Smith (editor), Alfred Plummer (translator), Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, Fables Respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages, Part 1, Ch. V, pp. 133-134, New York, NY: Dodd & Mead, 1872 (originally published in German at Munich in 1863). This book contains several valuable studies with regard to papal fables. e. Döllinger, Fables Respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages, Part I, Ch. V. p. 138. 1. Döllinger, Fables Respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages, Part I, Ch. V. p. 139. III. Donation of Constantine (cont'd) tribute from them to this day, with the exception of the two kingdoms of the Franks" (that is, the French and the German one). [Dollinger's Footnote: a) Chron. 3, ap., Urstis 1., 80 of Isidore no such thing is to be found"" Cardinal Cencius Savelli, who later became Latin Pope Honorius III (1216-1227), included the donation in the "Liber censuum Romanae ecclesiae" which he completed in 1192, while he was papal chamberlain. The Catholic Encyclopedia says this work was "perhaps the most Liutprand (or Liudprand) or Cremona (920-972), around 968-969, a Latin Bishop in northern Italy who made important embassies to the valuable source for the history of papal economics during the Middle Ages. It comprises a list of the revenues of the Apostolic See, a record Byzantine court at Constantinople, refers to the Donation of Constantine." of donations received, privileges granted, and contracts made with cities and rulers."h In his chapter, Döllinger points out other Roman Catholics who were more cautious in using the Donation, but who still cited or alluded to it in favour of the Papacy, including Bishop Sicard of Cremona (1155-1215), Archbishop Romuald Guarna of Salerno (1110/1120 1181/1182), Robert Abolant (d. 1214), Bishop Tolomeo of Lucca (or Batholomew Fiadóni, 1236 1327), Amalrich Augerii (or Amalricus Augerii, 14th century), Bishop Lucas of Tuy (d. 1249), Balduin of Ninove (or Baudouin of Ninnove, wrote a Chronicle until 1294), Godfrey of Viterbo (or Gottfried. 1120-1196), Gervasius of Tilbury (or Gervase, 1150 1220), Canon Rudolf or Pandulf Colonna (14th century), Archdeacon Nicholas of Clamenge (or Mathieu-Nicolas Poillevillain de Clémanges, 1360-1434/1440). The Strasburg parish priest, John Hug of Schlettstadt, defended the Donation around the end of the 15th century, along with the jurist Peter of Andlo (or Petrus de Andio, 1420-1480). In the conclusion of his chapter, Döllinger writes: On the other hand, Nicolas Tudeschi, who was considered by his contemporaries as the greatest of all canonists, declares: that he who denies the Donation lies under suspicion of heresy Cardinal P. P. Parisius, and the Spanish bishop, Amold Albertinus, declare the same. Whosoever pronounces the Donation to be null and void, says the latter, comes very near to heresy; but whosoever maintains that it never took place at all is in a still worse case Antonius Rosellus, and Ludwig Gomez are of the same opinion, and cardinal Hieronymus Albano declares thus much at least, that there exist shameless persons who refuse to submit to the "unanimis consensus tot ac lantorum Patrum, respecting the Donation; or, according to the expression of Petrus igneus, to the "tota academia Canonistarum et Legistarum," with the whole host of theologians to boot But after cardinal Baronius had once for all confessed the unauthenticity of the Donation, all these voices, which had shortly before been so numerous and so loud, became dumb, Gabriel de Mussis (or Giovanni de Mussi, 1280-1356), an Italian notary and chronicler, alludes to the temporal dominion given to Sylvester, although he says that it was the source of countless evils and wars, and he argues against temporal power being given to ecclesiastics. Gratian, making use of other false stories about Constantine, says, "It is clearly enough shown that the Pope cannot be bound or loosed by the secular power, seeing that it is agreed that he was by the pious prince Constantine called a God, and it is manifest that a God cannot be judged by men" Gilbert Génebrard (1535-1597), the Latin Archbishop of Aix and a learned French scholar, still refers to false legends of Constantine as genuine, saying "that to Sylvester and his successors Constantine gave, as a present, Rome, and all the imperial dress and ornaments; and he adduces the authority of Eugubinus and Photius for his statement:" Johannes Vergenhans (Nauclerus) (1425-1510), an eminent Latin historian and scholar who is listed by the Catholic Encyclopedia as one of the "distinguished professors" of the University of Tübingen, while defending the authenticity of the Donation of Constantine, reports the Donation to be affirmed in the history of Isidore, yet this is based on false information, and a Protestant scholar replies, "But in the old copies a. Döllinger, Fables Respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages, Part 1, Ch. V, p. 144. b Zinkeisen, The Donation of Constantine as Applied by the Roman Church, p. 628. c. Döllinger, Fables Respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages, Part 1, Ch. V, pp. 180-181. d. Eric Russell Chamberlin, The Bad Popes, (introductory quote), New York, NY: Dorset Press, 1969 e. Gratian's Dist., 96, 7 Cited in James Anson Farrer, Literary Forgeries, Ch. VII, p. 142, London: Longman, Green, and Co., 1907 f. Genebrard's Chronicles, Paris, 1580, p. 216. Cited in James Todd A Protestant Text Book of the Romish Controversy, Vol. I. Ch. XI, § 33, p. 279, London: The Protestant Educational Institute, 1879. Fleury writes that "S. Bernard [of Clairvaux) presupposed it [the truth of the Donation], when he said to Pope Eugenius II] that he was the successor not only of Peter, but of Constantine". John Huss (Jan Hus) (1372-1415), an influential precursor to the Protestant reformers, who was burned at the stake for heresy against the Roman Catholic communion, cites and spends several pages discussing the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals and other false documents in his Treatise on the Church (or De Ecclesia, written 1413), considered his most important writing. Fle cites the spurious letters of Pope Marcellus on pp. 82 sq., 214 sq and Anacletus on pp. 82, 110, 152, 155, 211, as bearing on the Papal power, accepting these documents as true, and they significantly influence his ecclesiology However, he endeavours to give a less ultramontane interpretation to the words of Pope Anacletus, and he criticises the statements of Pope Marcellus, saying that he made mistakes, and that "Certainly this pope speaks confusedly" (p. 215). Moreover, Huss cites a spurious decretal of Pope Gelasius. Constantine's Donation, and a pact between the Emperor Lewis and Pope Pascal, upon which the editor comments, "This pact between Lewis and Pascal, 817-824, is first found in Anselm of Lucca, d. 1073, and is deemed altogether spurious or at least largely interpolated." The Donation of Constantine was not unquestioned in the West at first, although many adopted it later. Henry Charles Lea (1825-1909), an American Protestant historian, notes: About the year 1000, Otho III in a grant to Sylvester II, takes occasion to stigmatize the donation of Constantine as a fiction "Hæc sunt enim commenta ab illis ipsis inventa, quibus Joannes diaconus, cognomento digitorum mutius (mutilus) præceptum aureis litteris scripsit, sub titulo magni Constantini longa mendacii tempora finxit... Spretis ergo commenticiis præceptis et imaginariis scriptis, ex nostra liberalitate sancto Petro donamus quæ nostra conferimus." (Baronius, ann. 1191. No. 57) And not long after, in a donation of St. Henry II., confirming the previous liberalities of the emperors, no mention is made in the recital of Constantine's gift, showing that it was still regarded as supposititious (Lünig Cod. Ital. Diplom. II. 698). This soon passed away, however, and any doubt as to the authenticity of the donation was assumed to spring from unworthy enmity to the just claims of St. Peter. About the year 1150 Geroch of Reichersperg writes: "Memini enim cum in urbe Romana fuissem, fuisse mihi objectum a quodam causidico ecclesiæ Dei adversario, non esse rata privilegia imperatoris Constantini ecclesiasticæ libertati faventia, eo quod ipse vel baptizatus vel rebaptizatus fuissel in hæresi Ariana, ut insinuare videtur historia tripartita." (Geroch: Expos. in Psalm. LXIV) The reviving study of the imperial jurisprudence might well cause a shrewd lawyer to doubt the obsequiousness of a Roman emperor, but he found it prudent to justify his incredulity by the Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia, from whom the emperor on his death-bed received the rite of baptism The stubborn vitality infused into these forgeries by their success in establishing the papal power is shown by the learned Christian Wolf, as late as the close of the seventeenth century, alluding to the donation of Constantine with as much confidence as though its authenticity had never been questioned (Chr. Lupi Opp: II. 261) g. Stephen Reed Cattley (editor), The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe. A New and Complete Edition, Vol. I, Book I, p. 301, London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1841. h. Michael Ott, Honorius III, in CE, Vol. Vil, p. 459. 1. In Pusey, Eirenicon, (Part I), p. 321. Citing Fleury, Disc. 4, sur l'Hist. Eccl., n. 9. David Schley Schaff (translator and editor), John Huss, De Ecclesia. The Church, Ch. XV, pp. 150-151, New York, NY Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915. Also see Marios Costambeys, Power and Patronage in Early Medieval italy: Local Society, Italian Politics and the Abbey of Farfa, c.700-900, Ch Vill, pp. 315-323, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, who notes that this Pactum Hludowicianum is a text whose reliability is deeply problematic" (p. 322). k Henry Charles Lea, Studies in Church History, The Rise of the Temporal Power, p. 167, Philadelphia, PA. Henry C. Lea's Son & Co., 1883. III. Donation of Constantine (cont'd) It is significant that the official edition of the Roman Canon Law in 1582, the "Corpus Juris", defended the Donation of Constantine. It was already mentioned that Bartoli pointed out that this work retained the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals. The scholars who composed this work are referred to as the Correctores Romani, or Roman Correctors, who commented extensively on Gratian: The Roman Correctors were a group of mainly humanist scholars who, in the wake of the Council of Trent, set about editing the texts of canon law.... Three of the five cardinals who composed the core of the original congregation (established in 1566 under the direction of Pope Pius V) were renowned scholars: Ugo Buoncompagni (later Pope Gregory XIII), probably the most expert canonist in the papal curia; Guglielmo Sirleto, expert in both Greek and Latin manuscripts, and director of the Vatican libraries since 1554; and Francesco Alciati, former professor of law at the University of Pavia. There were twenty-eight other members, both lay and clerical, many with outstanding dossiers. The effective leader of the committee was Miguel Thomás Taxaquet, protégé of the famed canonist Antonio Agustín, archbishop of Tarragona.... they did their work diligently and intelligently, although there was a division 'between those who believed that good Humanist text-critical practice was of primary importance and those who were reluctant to part with medieval tradition' (p. 62). One point in which tradition triumphed was their defense of the Donation of Constantine (pp. 79-81, 95). It is also important to mention that many frescoes, statues, and works of art in Latin church buildings and elsewhere visually depict and represent the Donation of Constantine. Many examples of such artwork could be given here, but they are documented at length in a recent 550-page dissertation on the subject, which states in its introduction: As this dissertation demonstrates, in visual art the Donation was rhetorically potent for the advancement of papal claims, despite repeated challenges to the veracity of the historical document. The overarching argument of this dissertation is that in the early modern period the papacy utilized visual means both to defend and to reaffirm the authenticity of the Donation." Johannes Fried (1942-current), a German historian and professor, writes about the pseudo-Constantinian fabrication, and its promotion in numerous frescoes in Rome: the Reformation, which used the forged document as propaganda against the Roman pontiff, saw the papal side reassert its authority. This was proclaimed by a long series of canonistic authors; significantly, the commentary on Gratian by John of Torquemada, the learned canonist and formerly 'anti-conciliarist' cardinal, with its thoroughly unoriginal defense of the "Donation", indeed of papal rule generally, was now printed (1553). It was promoted in an elaborate sequence of frescoes commissioned (from Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni) by Clement VII (1523-34) in the "Sala di Constantino" of the Vatican Palace, adapting those that Raffael had painted for Leo X (1513-1521), and at the end of the century in the Lateran Basilica by Clement VIII in 1597, After being made aware of the spurious nature of this document, some Roman Catholics claimed it was a Greek fabrication. However, Döllinger demonstrates that this is not the case in his chapter on the Donation of Constantine. Döllinger writes: That the Donation was a fiction of the Greeks, composed in Greek, and brought from the East to Rome, has indeed been long ago maintained by Baronius. Next Bianchi undertook to defend the view, on no better grounds, however, than the weak allegation, that it is to be found in Balsamon; and lately, Richter also has given as his opinion that it probably originated in Greece. But from the Greek text, as well as from the contents of the document itself, the very opposite of this can be demonstrated to a certainty." a. The Catholic Historical Review, Volume 97, Number 4, October 2011, pp. 804805 [A review of Mary E. Sommar, The Correctores Romani: Gratian's Decreturn and the Counter Reformation Humanists, Pluralisierung & Autorität, 19, Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2009). Döllinger then demonstrates the Latin origin of the text, and concludes: The Donation of Constantine, therefore, beyond all doubt was composed in the West, in Italy, in Rome, and by a Roman ecclesiastic. The time of its appearance points to the same conclusion." The article on the Donation of Constantine in the Encyclopedia of Medieval Italy states: How effective this document was and what use the papacy made of it during the Carolingian period are matters of debate, although the document is known to have been available in Rome. The situation changed with the Gregorian reform, when the Donation was cited in a letter of Pope Leo IX, probably written by Humbert of Silva Candida. Other references are found in the formulary of Pope Gregory VII and in the letters of popes Urban II, Hadrian IV (1154-1159), Innocent III (1198 - 1216), and Gregory IX (1227-1241). The popes reconfirmed the Donation well into the fifteenth century, together with other imperial donations. Still, far greater use could have been made of the forgery. According to Fuhrmann (1981), a dangerous ambivalence or ambiguity surrounded the Donation: papal primacy could appear as the gift of a Roman emperor rather than as divinely bestowed. Several popes, therefore, used the document merely as a secondary proof for their claims.' In summary, Popes who made use of the Donation include Pope Leo IX, Nicholas III, Innocent III, Innocent IV, Clement V, John XXII, Urban II, Hadrian IV, Gregory IX, and implicitly by Hadrian I, Nicholas V, Alexander VI, Calixtus III, Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII, and Leo X. It was perhaps implicitly used by Stephen III/II and Gregory VII. There are many other Roman Catholics who have used the Donation in support of the Papal power. IV. Pseudo-Clementine Literature The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895, in reply to Latin Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on reunion, states: In the Holy Scripture the Apostle Peter, whom the Papists, relying on apocryphal books of the second century, the pseudo- Clementines, imagine with a purpose to be the founder of the Roman Church and their first bishop, discusses matters as an equal among equals in the apostolic synod of Jerusalem, and at another time is sharply rebuked by the Apostle Paul, as is evident from the Epistle to the Galatians.... The first seeds of these claims of a papal absolutism were scattered abroad in the pseudo-Clementines... The Clementine Romance refers to spurious early Ebionite writings, called the Clementine Homilies or the Clementine Recognitions. Among these is a spurious letter from St. Clement to St. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, which emphasizes the Roman Episcopate of St. Peter, and Clement as his immediate successor. In an analysis of this subject, Anglican scholar Frederick William Puller (1843-1938) writes that: In this spurious letter S. Peter is represented as speaking a good deal about his chair; but this chair is not the throne of government of the universal Church, but "the chair of discourse," or, as we should say, the pulpit, in the local community at Rome. S. Peter is represented as saying, shortly before his death, to the assembly of Roman Christians, "Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. Since the day of my death is approaching, I lay hands on this Clement as your bishop; and to him | entrust my chair of discourse," etc. Then Clement is represented as kneeling before S. Peter, and entreating him, "declining the honour and authority of the chair." However, S. Peter insists; and after giving a somewhat lengthy charge, he lays his hands on Clement, and compels him "to sit in his own chair," There is no doubt that these are heretical writings, as St. Peter, in the spurious Epistle of Peter to James, prefixed to the Clementine Homilies, "is represented as speaking of S. Paul as 'the man who is my enemy, who leads the Gentiles to reject 'my preaching of the law." b. Silvia Tita, Political Art of the Papacy: Visual Representations of the Donation of Constantine in the Early Modern Period, Ch. 1, p. 4, Dissertation: e. University of Michigan, 2013. c. Johannes Fried, Donation of Constantine and Constitutum Constantini: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and Its Original Meaning, Introduction, p. 3, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. This book is a good study on the Donation. The story of Wala of Corbie and Hilduin of St. Denis (pp. 96-109) is quite interesting. d. Döllinger, Fables Respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages, Part 1, Ch. V, p. 107. Döllinger, Fables Respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages, Part I, Ch. V, p. 115. f. Uta-Renate Blumenthal, Donation of Constantine, in Christopher Kleinhenz (editor), Medieval Italy: An Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 306, New York, NY Routledge, 2004. g. Anthimos VII, Encyclical, Art. XIV & XVII. h. Frederick William Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, Lecture II, p. 42, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 3rd Ed., 1900. 1. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, Lecture II, p. 42. IV. Pseudo-Clementine Literature (cont'd) Puller writes: As a matter of fact, the Clementine literature circulated very largely among the Catholics of Rome and Italy. S. Paulinus of Nola is supposed by some to have made an ineffectual attempt to translate the Clementine Recognitions. They were actually translated by Rufinus, who had been urged to undertake the task by S. Silvia of Aquitaine, and after her death by S. Gaudentius of Brescia. Mgr. Duchesne says, "Le roman Syrien eut au IVe et au Ve siècle, une très grande voque dans les cercles orthodoxies." The letter [of Clement] to James was quoted as genuine by the Council of Vaison in 442. It is also quoted more than once in the Liber Pontificalis, an eminently Roman book. That same letter, augmented by additional spurious matter, finds a place in the forefront of the celebrated forged decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore; and it is quoted as an authority by Pope Gregory VII. in a letter to Herimann of Metz. Altogether, this objection raised by Dr. Rivington ["that the Ebionite character of the Clementine documents would prevent their having any influence at Rome"] will not hold good. The Church of Rome and other Western churches failed during many centuries to detect the Ebionite tendency of these writings." It is also worthy of note that Pope Nicholas) (Epistle 147) quotes the spurious letter of Pope Clement to St. James, although this is not quoted for the Papal pretensions, but to denounce adultery. Puller sees these writings as significant in distorting the original traditions of the Roman Church with regard to the role of St. Peter as the first Roman bishop. However, these writings did not impact the orthodoxy of the Church of Rome. Puller writes: Even when the discourses and teaching attributed to S. Peter were perceived to be heretical, and were rejected, yet considerable portions of the framework of the story were supposed to give a true account of what had actually happened. The Ebionite tendency was to depreciate the role of St Paul in the founding of the Church of Rome, and it appears that these spurious writings did have the effect of increasing the focus on St. Peter, whereas St. Irenaeus gives us the true tradition, and "tells us that S. Matthew's Gospel was published 'while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church in Rome, and he also tells us that, 'having founded and built up the Church, they committed the ministry of the episcopate to Linus.e V. Forged Greek Catena (or Libellus) and Errors of Thomas Aquinas Later forgeries continued to distort Apostolic traditions in the Latin Church. The forged Greek catena, or Libellus, first used by Thomas Aquinas in his Contra Errores Graecorum (Against the Errors of the Greeks), contains over 200 spurious quotes from the Church Fathers that support the Latin position in various controversies with the Orthodox. Aquinas's treatise became the "quote mine" from which very many later Latin scholars quoted in their arguments against Protestants and the Orthodox Church. This chapter will first discuss the spurious passages of St. Cyril of Alexandria, which are especially relevant and have been commonly cited in Latin arguments for the Papacy, and then I will review the rest of the Libellus. Döllinger wrote the following: In theology, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, the spurious passages of St. Cyril and forged canons of Councils maintained their ground, being guaranteed against all suspicion by the authority of St. Thomas. Since the work of Trionfo in 1320, up to 1450, it is remarkable that no single new work appeared in the interests of the Papal system. But then the contest between the Council of Basle and Pope Eugenius IV evoked the work of Cardinal Torquemada, besides some others of less importance. Torquemada's argument, which was held up to the time of Bellarmine to be the most conclusive apology of the Papal system, rests entirely on fabrications later than the pseudo-Isidore, and chiefly on the spurious passages of St. Cyril. To ignore the authority of St. Thomas is, according to the Cardinal, bad enough, but to slight the testimony of St. Cyril is intolerable. The Pope is infallible; all authority of other bishops is borrowed or derived from his Decisions of Councils without his assent are null and void. These fundamental principles of Torquemada are proved by spurious passages of Anacletus, a. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, Lecture II, pp. 47-48. b. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, Lecture II, p. 42. c. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, Lecture II, p. 43. See the good analysis of this subject in Puller, Primitive Saints, pp. 41-49, Clement, the Council of Chalcedon, St. Cyril, and a mass of forged or adulterated testimonies. In the times of Leo X and Clement III, the Cardinals Thomas of Vio, or Cajetan, and Jacobazzi, followed closely in his footsteps: Melchior Canus built firmly on the authority of Cyril, attested by St. Thomas, and so did Bellarmine and the Jesuits who followed him. Those who wish to get a bird's-eye view of the extent to which the genuine tradition of Church authority was still overlaid and obliterated by the rubbish of later inventions and forgeries about 1563, when the Loci of Canus appeared, must read the fifth book of his work. It is indeed still worse fifty years later in this part of Bellarmine's work. The difference is that Canus was honest in his belief, which cannot be said of Bellarmine. The Dominicans, Nicolai, Le Quien, Quétif, and Echard, were the first to avow openly that their master St. Thomas, had been deceived by an imposter, and had in turn misled the whole tribe of theologians and canonists who followed him. On the one hand, the Jesuits, including even such a scholar as Labbe, while giving up the pseudo-Isidorian decretals, manifested their resolve to still cling to St. Cyril. In Italy, as late as 1713, Professor Andruzzi of Bologna cited the most important of the interpolations of St. Cyril as a conclusive argument in his controversial treatise against the patriarch Dositheus. This Luigi Andruzzi was a Roman Catholic professor of the University of Bologna, and he pressed the weight of this forgery when writing against Dositheus, the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. The Anglican scholar John Rainolds (1549-1607) was the first to show that Cyril's works were interpolated in the source used by Thomas Aquinas, in his conference with the English Jesuit John Hart (d. 1586) at Oxford in 1582, on the topic of "The fathers counterfeited by Papistes": Rainoldes... Your practices in corrupting the writings of the Fathers, are of two sortes: the one, before the art of printing was founde: and the other, sithence. Examples of them both I will give in our present question, touching the supremacie. The former sort therefore is rife in the chiefest Doctor of your Church, I meane, Thomas of Aquine. Who writing against the errours of the Grecians, doth bring in S. Cyrill, saying, that as Christ received power of his Father ouer euery power, a power most full and ample, that all things shoulde bowe to him: so he did commit it most fully and amply both to Peter and his sucessours: and Christ gaue his owne to none else, saue to Peter, fully, but to him alone hee gaue it, and, the Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles haue affirmed (in euery doctrine) Peter and his Church to be in steade of God: and, to him, euen to Peter, all doe bowe their head by the lawe of God, and the Princes of the worlde are obedient to him, euen as to the Lord lesus: and we, as being members, must cleaue vnto our head, the Pope and the Apostolike See: thence it is our duetie to seeke and enquire what is to be beleeued, what to be thought, what to be held: because it is the right of the Pope alone, to reproue, to correct, to rebuke, to confirme, to dispose, to loose and binde. These sayings are alleaged by Thomas of Aquine out of S. Cyrils worke entitled the treasure. But in S. Cyrils treasure there are no such base coynes to be found. Wherefore either Thomas coined them him selfe for want of currant money: or tooke them of some coiner, and thought to trie, if they would goe. Hart. Doe you knowe, what iniurie you doe to that blessed man S. Thomas of Aquine, to whose charge you lay so great a crime of forgerie? Rainoldes. None at all, to him, whose counterfeits I discrie. But he did great iniurie to the poore Christians, whome he abused with such counterfeits. Your Saint-maker of Rome did canonize him for the holinesse of his life and learning. The greatest triall of it was in his service to that See. And are you loth to haue it knowen? Hart. But why shoulde you thinke either him to be the counterfeiter, or the saying to be counterfeit, when, (as Cope sheweth) they are alleaged not onely by him, but by other too. Namely, by that worthy & most learned Cardinall lohn of Turrecremata, who was at the Councel of Basil: and before him by Austin of Anconæ: yea, by the Græcians themselues, who were at the councel of Florence, Andreas Bishop of Colossæ, and Gennadius Scholarius the Patriarke of Constantinople. Of whome when the former saide (in the Councell) that Cyrill in his treasures had very much extolled the authoritie of the Pope, none of all gainesaide him. The later (in a treatise that he wrote for the Latins against the Græcians, touching fiue poyntes, d. Janus (Döllinger et al.], The Pope and the Council, Ch. III, Sect. 20, pp. 287-289. e. Aloysio Andruzzi, Vetus Græcia De Sancta Romana Sede Præclare Sentiens, Sive Responsio Ad Dositheum Patriarcham Hierosolymitanum, Lib. III, p. 219, Venice: Apud Baltassarem Julianum, 1713. V. Forged Greek Catena (or Libellus) and Errors of Thomas Aquinas (cont'd) whereof one is the Popes supremacie) citeth the same testimonies, although perhaps not all, which S. Thomas of Aquine doth out of Cyrill. Yet you amongst so many choose him whom you may carpe at: and thinke that wordes alleaged by them all, are counterfeites. Rainoldes. Counterfeites are counterfeites, though they goe through twenty handes. All these, whome you name out of Harpsfieldes Cope, did liue long after Thomas: and seeme to haue alleaged S. Cyrill on his credit, as Cope himselfe doeth also. Wherefore I could not thinke that they had bene the coyners of that which was before they were. But Thomas is the first, with whom I finde the wordes: and therefore greatest reason to lap the fault on him, unlesse he shewe from whom he had them. At least, seeing I knowe the wordes are not Cyrils, whose Thomas saith they be: I did him no iniurie (I trust) when I saide, that either he received them at some coyners hands, or coyned them himselfe Hart. Although the wordes are not to be founde now in those partes of Cyrils treasure, which are extant; yet that is not sufficient to proue, that either Thomas or some other forged them. For Melchior Canus affirmed that heretikes haue maimed that booke, and have razed out all those things which therein pertained to the Popes authoritie. Which same thing to be done by the in the Commentaries of Theophilact vpon lohn: the Catholikes haue found, and shewed. Rainoldes. Me thinks, you and Canus deale against us, as the men of Doryla did against Flaccus. Whome when they accused out of their publike recordes, and their recordes were called for: they said that they were robbed of them vpon the way, by, I know not what shepheardes. You accuse us, that we deny the Pope his right of the supremacie. The recordes, by which you proue it his right, are the wordes of Cyrill. Cyrils wordes are called for, that they may be seene. You say, they are not extant: you are robbed of them, by, I know not what heretikes. Whereon to put a greater likelihood, you say further, that heretikes haue done an other robberie in Theophylact, as they are charged by Catholikes. And this doe you say: but you say it onely: you bring no proofe, you name no witnes, you shew no token of it. If such accusations may make a man giltie: who shal be innocent? He that should haue dealt among the heathens so: would haue bene counted rather a slaunderer then an accuser. Hart. Admitte, that the words were not razed perhaps out of any booke of Cyrill, which we haue. Yet might they be in some of them, which are lost, or not set forth in Latine. For we haue no more then fourteene bookes of his treasure: whereas the two and thirtieth is cited by the Fathers in the sixth generall Councell. And this is enough to remoue suspition of forgerie from Thomas, and other, who alleage them. Rainoldes. Nay, although the two and thirtieth be mentioned by the Fathers there: yet meant they no more of Cyrill, then we haue. For that, which in our Latine edition is the twelfth, is the two and thirtieth, in the Grecians count. Hart. This is an answere which I neuer heard. It hath no likelyhood of trueth. Rainoldes. Peruse you the place, which toucheth that of Cyrill: and the wordes them selues will proue it more then likely. Hart. The Councel hath it thus. Hoc & sanctus Cyrillus in trigesimo secundo libro Thesaurum docet, epistolam ad profanos explanans: nec enim vnam naturalem operationem dabimus esse Dei & creaturæ: vt neque id quod creatum est ad diuinam deducamus essentiam, neque id quod est diuinæ naturæ præcipuum, ad locum qui creatis conuenit deponamus. Rainoldes. This sentence alleaged out of the two and thirtieth of Cyrill in Greeke, is in the twelfth booke of our Latin Cyril. Sauing that, he being translated by an other hath it in other wordes. But there is the sentence: the very same sentence which the Councell pointeth to. Hart. It might be there, first, and yet againe afterward in the two and thirtieth: as many use one sentence often. Rainoldes. But the circumstance of the place doth rather import it to be the very same. For, the Councell saith, that Cyrill hath these wordes, explanus epistolam ad profanos, where he expoundeth the epistle to profane men. And what meant they. by this epistle ad profanos, to profane men? Hart. How can I tell what they meant, when that booke of Cyrill (whereof they speake) is lost? Rainoldes. It should be, the epistle ad Romanos, to the Romaines: [Romanos] made [profanos] by the printers error: unlesse he did it of purpose, to shew, what now the Romanes be: or some corrector chaunged it, least wee by this circumstance should finde the place of Cyrill. For, this [where he expoundeth the epistle to the Romanes] is a great argument, that the Councell meant the place in the twelfth booke: where Cyrill doth handle such points of that epistle as concerned the matter that he had in hand. Which that he should doe againe, in the same worke, with the same sentence, touching the same matter: they who know Cyrill, will not thinke it likely. The lesse, because it is an usuall thing with the Grecians, to diuide bookes otherwise then the Latins doe, As in the Greeke testament, the gospell of Saint Marke hath more then fortie chapters, which hath not twntie in the Latin: & yet notwithstanding ye Latin hath ye whole, as wel as the Greeke. Which is ye more lykely to have bene the difference betweene the Greeke Cyrill, alleaged by ye Councell, and our Latin Cyrill translated out of Greeke, because that our Latin hath also other sentences in the tenth booke, which are alleaged by the Councell out of the foure and twentieth: and, in their diuision, a chapter and a booke did goe for all one, whereas the bookes in Latin are sub-divided into chapters. The mentioning therefore of more bookes of Cyrils treasure, then wee haue, remoueth not suspicion of forgerie from the sayings, which Thomas citeth thence for the Popes supremacie. Chiefely, sith Trapezuntius who translated that worke of Cyrill into Latin, was a man affectionate greatly to the Pope. That, if he had left out somewhat of the Greeke, as he hath perhaps, (unlesse he used Cyrill better then Eusebius:) yet is it not credible that he would have left out so many places, so notable proofes of a thing so weightie, so nerely touching him whom he so deerely loued. In deed they are too notable, and perfit sor the purpose: and such, as, your Canus saith, haue not their matches throughout all the Fathers. Wherein, that is also worthie of remembrance which a wise man said in like case: too much perfection breedeth suspicion. Neither was S. Cyrill likely to write them, who, when the Councell of Carthage sent unto him about the Pope usurping, was so glad to send them euidence against it: neither was his treasure fitte to writh them in, as handling all an other matter, that the Sonne and the holy ghost are of one substance with God the Father. But the forging of Cyrill might be better borne with: he was but one man. That is no way tollerable, that the like dealing is used wite sixe hundred bishops, and more, euen with the genrall Councell of Chalcedon.* Here is all of Cyril's spurious quotes from Thomas Aquinas' Contra Errores Græcorum (Against the Errors of the Greeks), which concern the Primacy of Rome. I have used the English translation of Aquinas by Peter Damian Mary Fehlner (1931-2018, ordained 1957), and re-edited by Joseph P. Kenny (1936-2013, ordained 1963), both Roman Catholic priests and professors, with their critical notes: [Part II] CHAPTER 34: That the same [Roman Pontiff] possesses in the Church a fullness of power. It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: "As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors. And again: "To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully." And further on: "The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church." [Footnote] Lib. 98, 17-23, 55-56, and 60-66 (not found) CHAPTER 35: That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. And Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus says that the Apostles "in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their teaching that Peter and his Church are in the place of the Lord, granting him participation in every chapter and assembly, in every election and proclamation of doctrine." And further on: "To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinance bow the head a. John Rainolds, The Svmme of the Conference Betweene lohn Rainoldes and lohn Hart: Tovching the Head and the Faith of the Church, Ch. V, Division II, pp. 159-163, London: George Bishop, 1588. Notes in margin not copied here. Rainolds goes on to mention other Latin forgeries, and this conference is well worth reading. Note that the Austin of Anconae referred to is Augustine or Augustinus Triumphus or Agostino Trionfo of Ancona (1270-1328, although others give a birth date in the early 1240's), who was an influential pro-papal writer, professor, and chaplain to Charles (the son of Robert, King of Naples). As Hart mentioned, Augustine cites the false Cyril in his magnum opus, Summa de Potestate Ecclesiastica (Summa on Ecclesiastical Power), written 1326, printed 1473, and reprinted several times later, and it was a very influential book. V. Forged Greek Catena (or Libellus) and Errors of Thomas Aquinas (cont'd) and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord himself." [Footnote] Lib. 98, 25-30, and 56-57 (not found) CHAPTER 36: That to him belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith. It is also demonstrated that to the aforesaid Pontiff belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith. For Cyril in his Thesaurus says: "Let us remain as members in our head on the apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs, from whom it is our duty to seek what we must believe and what we must hold." [Footnote] Lib. 98, 49-51 (not found). CHAPTER 37: That he is the superior of the other patriarchs. It is also clear that he is the superior of the other patriarchs from this statement of Cyril: "It is his", namely, of the Roman Pontiffs of the apostolic throne, "exclusive right to reprove, correct, enact, resolve, dispose and bind in the name of Him who established it." [Footnote] Lib. 98, 53-55 (not found). CHAPTER 38 That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: "Therefore, brethren, if you imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve." [Footnote] Lib. 98, 44-48 (not found).* Thomas Aquinas cites this false Cyril in his other works, such as in his Liber contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem, and also in the following passage from the Supplement to his Summa Theologica, to answer affirmatively to the question "Whether in the Church there can be anyone above the bishops?": Further, the blessed Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, says: "That we may remain members of our apostolic head, the throne of the Roman Pontiffs, of whom it is our duty to seek what we are to believe and what we are to hold, venerating him, beseeching him above others; for his it is to reprove, to correct, to appoint, to loose, and to bind in place of Him Who set up that very throne, and Who gave the fulness of His own to no other, but to him alone, to whom by divine right all bow the head, and the primates of the world are obedient as to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself." Therefore bishops are subject to someone even by divine right. In the Catena Aurea on St. Matthew xvi. 18, Aquinas cites Cyril again: Cyril. According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immoveably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we, not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition. Upon which the Anglican editors (primarily John Henry Newman (1801-1890), who converted to Roman Catholicism in 1845 and became a. Joseph P. Kenny (editor), Peter Damian Mary Fehlner (translator), available online at http://jonhaines.com/thomas/english/ContraErrGraecorum.htm (formerly on the Priory of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies website, at dhspriory.org). Originally published in James Likoudis, Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism, Appendix I, Part II, Ch. XXXIV - XXXVIII, pp. 182-185, New Rochelle, NY, Catholics United for the Faith, 2nd Ed., 1992. The edition published online contains the additional edits of Kenny. The note of the Roman Catholic editors, "not found", means that the original words of St. Cyril have not been found in any manuscripts, and are spurious, copied from the Libellus. b. John Proctor, An Apology for the Religious Orders by Saint Thomas Aquinas: Being a Translation from the Latin of Two of the Minor Works of the Saint, Part II, Ch. II, pp. 93-94 & Ch. III, p. 113, London: Sands & Co., 1902. The Roman Catholic Dominican editor and translator, though writing a 40-page introduction, makes no comment or note about Aquinas's use of this spurious source. c. Summa Theologica, Supplement, Question 40, Article 6. Note that the Dominican editors write on the Supplement: "The remainder of the Summa Theologica, known as the Supplement, was compiled probably by Fra Rainaldo da Piperno, companion and friend of the Angelic Doctor, and was gathered from St. Thomas's commentary on the Fourth Book of the Sentences of Peter Lombard. This commentary was written in the years 1235-1253, while St. Thomas was under thirty years of age." (Fathers of the English Dominican Province (translators), The "Summa Theologica" of St. Thomas Aquinas, Part III, No. IV, p. 98, London: R. & T. Washbourne, 1917. a Cardinal in 1879) note: This passage is quoted in the Catena from 'Cyril in Lib. Thes.' but does not occur in any of S. Cyril's works. On the subject of this interpolation, vid. Launoy's Epistles, part i. Ep. 1-3. and v. Ep. 9. c. 6-12. From him it appears that, besides the passage introduced into the Catena, S. Thomas ascribes similar ones to S. Cyril in his comment on the Sentences, Lib. iv. d. 24. 3. and in his books 'contr. impugn. relig.' and 'contra errores Græc. He is apparently the first to cite them, and they seem to have been written later than Nicholas I. and Leo IX. (A. D. 867-1054.) He was young when he used them, and he is silent about them in his Summa, (which was the work of his last ten years,) in three or four places where the reference might have been expected Newman is implying that Aquinas later became aware of the unreliability of these quotes from St. Cyril, and thus did not use them in his later works, which is an argument other scholars have made. However, while this may be true, Aquinas never formally stated this and he never retracted those passages (and died carrying his book against the Greeks on his way to the Council of Lyons, prepared to adduce these false documents), and they were repeatedly cited by later authors, as shown in this work. Newman writes in the Preface: But there are two passages of serious moment, one on Matt. xvi. 18, the other on Luke xxii, 19. quoted from S. Cyril, which require a remark. The first affirming the supremacy of the successors of $. Peter is quoted from 'Cyril. in lib. Thes. but occurs no where in S. Cyril's writings. Accordingly it has been made the groundwork of an old charge against S. Thomas (lately revived by a German writer, see Ellendorf Hist. Blätter) of forgery, which however has been amply refuted by Guyart and Nicolai I was also inclined to believe that Thomas Aquinas was not the author or aware of these forgeries himself, but it is known, from the latest scholarship, that he was not the forger, and that he simply copied them from the Libellus, which however does not excuse him from the charge of negligence, and of his primary role in widely disseminating these spurious quotations. The American Church Review appropriately comments: We had intended to say something about Aquinas's mistakes in his controversy with the Greeks, whom he expected to confront in the Council of Lyons. In his tract against them, he employs, under the sanction of a Pope - he was blind when a Pope wanted him to be - manufactured or false quotations from the Fathers.... Aquinas was honest and honorable. If he erred, he was deceived by those whom he trusted implicitly, as he always did a Pope, through thick and thin.' It is important to mention the source from which Thomas Aquinas took many of his quotations. Nicholas of Cotrone (or Crotone), a Roman Catholic bishop but native Greek of Dyrrachium (Durazzo), compiled a work titled "Liber de fide Trinitatis, ex diversis auctoritatibus sanctorum graecorum confectus contra graecos", or simply Libellus, which he sent to Latín Pope Urban IV in 1262. Pope Urban then submitted the work to Aquinas, who used it to write his treatise Contra Errores Græcorum (Against the Errors of the Greeks) in about 1263 or 1264. Of the two hundred and five quotations of Greek fathers in Aquinas' work against the Greek Orthodox, two hundred are taken from the Libellus. However, this document contains many spurious texts that were forged to induce the Orthodox Greeks to join the Latin Church. Pope Urban made use of its statements in writing to the Greek emperor, Michael VIII Palaeologus, and the Latins repeatedly used it in their efforts to win over the Orthodox, especially in the era of the Second Council of Lyons (1272-1274). Before the mid-20th century, little was known of the Libellus and Nicholas of Cotrone's connection with it. Dupin remarks: d. (John Henry Newman (translator)], Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers; Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Vol. II (or Vol. I, Part II), Ch. XVI, pp. 585 586, Oxford: James Parker, New Ed., 1874 (first published in Oxford, 1841). Catena Aurea: St. Matthew, Vol. I (or Vol. I, Part II), Preface, viii. e. f. The American Church Review, Vol. XXV, Art. I, pp. 14 sq., New York & London, Jan. 1873. g. Also see Alexander Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and its Archetype, Chapter V, pp. 234 et sqq., in Dumbarton Oaks Studies XXXIV, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1996. I. Falsified Conciliar Records (cont'd) 10. Council of Toledo in 589 a. The Filioque was interpolated into the Acts of this council, and some had erroneously ascribed the first inclusion of the filioque in the Creed to the Council of Toledo of 447 (see points on the Corruption of Some Latin Documents with the Filioque). 11. Constantinople III a. Roman Catholics have taken out the name of Pope Honorius from the list of condemned heretics in several records. Some have accused the Greeks of foisting in Honorius's name. Some have asserted that all of the original documents with Honorius's name are inauthentic or interpolated (see points on the Condemnation of Pope Honorius). b. The Papal biographer Platina falsely makes Honorius to be a decided opponent of the Monothelites with a fictional history. c. Many falsifications and misrepresentations about the Council of Trullo, such as saying that it was a false synod, led by Monothelites, and not accepted by the Popes or the rest of the Church. (e.g., Bottalla saying "that pseudo- synod, stained with Monothelitism, was reprobated in every part of the Catholic world", see points on the Council of Trullo). 12. Nicaea II a. The Latin version of the Papal letters contain pro-Papal additions that are not present in the Greek version read at this Council (see points on this). b. Latins have misquoted St. Stephen on the Council of Hieria as saying "How can you call oecumenical a council when the Bishop of Rome has not given his consent and when the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the Pope of Rome?", and ending the quote early, whereas the full quote is "And how can [it] be 'ecumenical', a council to which th`e bishop of Rome did not give his approval (although a canon states that one does not regulate the affairs of the Church without the Pope of Rome) nor that [Pope] of Alexandria, as it were, neither that of Antioch nor that of Jerusalem?", which shows that the approval of the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem are components in the ecumenicity of a council (see the points on this misquotation). c. Stephen is implicitly referring to or borrowing from a passage in the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which has likewise been misrepresented: Latins have cited the Seventh Council as saying "How was it great and universal? For it had not the countenance of the Roman Pope of that time, nor of the Bishops who are about him, nor by his Legates, nor by an encyclical letter, as the law of Councils requires." However, the true passage is: "Again, how could that be Great or OEcumenic, which the Presidents of other Churches have never received or assented to; but which, on the contrary, they have anathematized? It had not as its fellow helper the then Pope of Rome, or his conclave: neither was it authorized by his Legate, nor by Encyclic Epistle from him, as the custom is in Councils. Neither do we find that the Patriarchs of the East, of Antioch, Alexandria, and the holy City, did at all consent thereto, nor any of their great doctors or high- priests." (see points on this misquotation). 13. Council of Soissons in 863 14. a. In a letter to this Council, Pope Nicholas I claimed a right to intervene in the trials of bishops, alleging in support the canons of Sardica, but the Catholic Encyclopedia comments, "yet what is our surprise to find him [Nicholas I] claiming in support thereof the canons of the Council of Sardica, which say nothing of the sort." (see the quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the False Decretals). Council of Worms in 868 (and later German councils) a. The Acts of this council, as well as of later councils of Germany, contain quotations from the Pseudo-Isidore (see the points on the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals). 15. Pseudo-Constantinople IV (869-870) a. There are many issues with this false council, which are discussed in the works listed on the Photian controversy. 16. Constantinople IV (879-880) a. Roman Catholics have denied the ecumenicity of this council and accused the Orthodox of forgery, denying that the Bishop of Rome accepted this council (also see the works on the Photian controversy). 17. Latin Synods held in Rome under Gregory VII a. A synod in 1074 cited the Pseudo-Isidore (see the points on the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals). 18. Latin Council of Lyons in 1274 a. Aquinas's Contra Errores Graecorum was influential at this council. Note that Aquinas died on his way to this council, carrying this work and prepared to quote its forgeries against the Greeks. 19. Latin Council of Pisa in 1409 a. The Acts of this council contain quotes from Aquinas Contra Errores Græcorem, Part II, Ch. XXXIV, including the spurious work of Chrysostom to the Bulgarian delegation (obviously anachronistic). 20. Latin Council of Florence a. Latins at this council cited the pseudo-Isidore to convince the Orthodox (see points on the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals). b. Latins cited inauthentic texts that have Basil stating that the Holy Spirit "is second to the Son, having his being from him and receiving from him and announcing to us and being completely dependent upon him, [as] pious tradition recounts;" (see the points on the Corruption of Some Latin Documents with the Filioque). c. Latins claimed to cite the Formula of Hormisdas, but it was actually another letter of Pope Hormisdas, which itself was interpolated with an explicit assertion of the double procession of the Holy Spirit (see points on the Corruption of Some Latin Documents with the Filioque). d. The last will of Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, where he allegedly accepts the Latin doctrines, was a forgery (see points on this). 21. Latin Council of Trent 22. b. A synod in 1079 explicitly condemned the story of Paphnutius as a forgery (although Pius IV later admitted its authenticity, see the chapter on clerical celibacy). a. A member of this Latin council admitted that other council members were sometimes citing incorrectly from the Church Fathers (see the short chapter on this, quoting Visconti, from Mendham's work). b. The Trent Catechism cites or quotes the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals at least eleven times, quotes the spurious passage of Cyril at the Council of Ephesus, cites a spurious work of Augustine in several places, and many editions of the Catechism have a false quotation of St. Ambrose (see the points on this). Latin Local Councils in the 1800s a. The Acts of the Latin Provincial Council of Kalocsa in 1863 quote the false statement of Cyril at Ephesus (see the points on the Trent Catechism). b. The promise of a papal legate at the Latin Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866) was broken, and the acts were tampered with (see the points on this). 23. Latin Vatican | Council II. a. A false quote of Latin bishop Strossmeyer was published by Cardinal Manning to promote the alleged freedom of discussion at the Latin First Vatican Council (see the points on this). Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals "The 'Decretum' of Gratian quotes three hundred and twenty-four times the epistles of the popes of the first four centuries; and of these three hundred and twenty-four quotations, three hundred and thirteen are from the letters which are now universally known to be spurious." - George Salmon "The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were the most extensive, most important, and most impudent fraud ever perpetrated in history." - Julian Joseph Overbeck (A Plain View, p. 45) The introductory notice to the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series states the following (I quote at length): The learned editors of the Edinburgh series have given us only a specimen of these frauds, which, pretending to be a series of "papal edicts" from Clement and his successors during the ante-Nicene ages, are, in fact, the manufactured product of the ninth century, the most stupendous imposture of the world's history, the most successful and the most stubborn in its hold upon enlightened nations. Like the mason's framework of lath and scantlings, on which he turns an arch of massive stone, the Decretals served their purpose, enabling Nicholas I. to found the Papacy by their insignificant aid. That swelling arch of vanity once reared, the framework might be knocked out; but the fabric stood, and has borne up every weight imposed upon it for ages. Its strong abutments have been ignorance and despotism. Nicholas produced his flimsy framework of imposture, and amazed the whole Church by the audacity of the claims he founded upon it. The age, however, was unlearned and uncritical; and, in spite of the remonstrances from France under lead of Hincmar, bishop of Rheims, the West patiently submitted to the overthrow of the ancient Canons and the Nicene Constitutions, and bowed to the yoke of a new canon-law, of which these frauds were not only made an integral, but the essential, part. The V. Forged Greek Catena (or Libellus) and Errors of Thomas Aquinas (cont'd) S. Thomas often quotes a Passage in favour of the Court of Rome, as being taken out of the Second Book of S. Cyril's Thesaurus, which is not to be found entire in that Work: But we need only to read it, and we shall be satisfied that there was never any such, nor ever could be found there. This is the famous Passage, as he cites it: "We must remain as Members in our Head, in the Apostolick Throne of the Roman Bishops, from whom we ought to request whatsoever is necessary to be believed and held, having a particular Respect for him, and enquiring of him about all Things, because it belongs to him to reprove, correct, order, dispose things, loose in his stead, who hath founded him, and given him a fulness of Power, him alone and not any other, to whom all the Faithful are obliged by Divine Right to be subject, and whom the Princes of the World should obey." Who of all the Greek or Latin Fathers ever spake thus? Who of them ever flattered the Bishop of Rome at this rate? But how is it possible for it to enter into the Thesaurus of S. Cyril, which is nothing else but a contexture of Texts and Arguments upon the Trinity? What coherence hath our pretended Passage with that Subject? What doth this Phrase mean, "That we may remain as Members in our Head, which is the Apostolick Throne of the Roman Bishops"? And of whom are they spoken, "That we may remain Members, &c." Are they the Bishops of Ægypt that speak them? Could it find a Place in a Theological Treatise of one Father only? S. Thomas is the First that cited this Passage; and we know with how much carelesness, and with how little Judgement he quotes the Works of the Fathers. It likewise appears, that he had never seen S. Cyril's Thesaurus, because he quotes the Second Book of that Work, which was never divided into Books. Urban IV. hath alledged it after S. Thomas, but upon the Credit of that Author. In the Council of Florence S. Cyril's Thesaurus is quoted in general, but when it was seasonable to produce this Passage, there is nothing said of it. All this makes it evident. That neither this Passage nor any other like it, cited by the same S. Thomas, in his Catena upon S. Matthew, as being in S. Cyril's Thesaurus, which is not found there no more than the former, are not, nor can be this Father's, nor are taken out of his Thesaurus. I wonder that F. Labbe should so openly profess himself a Defender of these two supposititious Passages. Qualificator of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. The Catholic Encyclopedia writes that he was "a voluminous writer on theological subjects, generally in defense of the Immaculate Conception... His principal opponents were the Dominicans. His polemic had such a personal tone and was so violent that he was sent to the Low-Countries." True to this, he spends several pages discussing and pointing out that Aquinas is using dubious sources, since Pedro d'Alva is intent on criticising the Dominicans, of whom Aquinas is perhaps the most eminent, and who moreover rejected the Immaculate Conception. For example, Pedro d'Alva writes that the contra Errores Græcorum of Aquinas "swarms with serious mistakes and errors". Henry Ignatius Dudley Ryder writes the following: Forged Greek Catena: This was a forgery introduced into the West by Latin missionaries from the East in the thirteenth century; undoubtedly of Latin origin, the Greek being clearly a translation from the Latin. But there is nothing to make one suppose that the Pope (Urban IV.) was not as honest as every one admits St. Thomas was, in his acceptance of it.' These spurious passages of St. Cyril misled many in the Western Church, who followed Aquinas in defending the Papal authority. Latin Cardinal John of Torquemada (Turrecremata) (1388-1468), as mentioned by Döllinger above, cited these spurious texts of Cyril in his major work "De Summi Pontificis Auctoritate, de Episcoporum Residentia, et Beneficiorum Pluralitate, gravissimorum Auctorum complurium opuscula ad Aposolicæ Sedis dignitatem Majestemque tuendam spectantia". Torquemada cites Cyril in his other works as well, such as in pp. 1 sq., 10 sq., and 19 of "De plenitudine potestatis Romani Pontificis in Ecclesia Dei" (Taurini, 1870). Latin Cardinal Bellarmine, in his attempt to show the primacy of Peter from the Church Fathers, quotes the spurious Cyril, referring to Thomas Aquinas." Francisco Suárez (1548-1617), the eminent Spanish Jesuit priest and theologian, cites the false Cyril, and he afterwards says, "Nor can we doubt this testimony, even though it is no longer found in the Thesaurus, but on account of the authority of the Doctor Thomas; and we also The German Roman Catholic scholar Otto Bardenhewer (1851-1935), professor of theology in the University of Munich, writes on the know that many books of the Thesaurus have been lost." spurious works of St. Cyril of Alexandria: Many works have been erroneously attributed to him. In order to confirm the doctrine of papal supremacy, Thomas Aquinas quoted in his Opusculum contra errores Graecorum ad Urbanum IV. several passages from a work of St. Cyril of Alexandria entitled: In libro thesaurorum. He says himself that he took these citations from the anonymous Libellus de processione Spiritus Sancti (in which Libellus they were said to occur in secundo, according to annother [sic] reading in tertio libro thesaurorum). From the Opusculum these passages made their way into works of other Western theologians. These quotations cannot be verified as words of St. Cyril; they are, therefore, and also for intrinsic reasons, to be looked on as spurious, probably forged by the author of the Libellus. The Jesuit Possevine writes in his Apparatus that the passages in question are found nowhere in all the books and editions of St. Cyril, whose works are extant in Greek and Latin in diverse libraries. They are not found even in the good manuscripts and codices. There are Greek MS. copies in the Vatican, Florentine, Constantinopolitan, and Bavarian Libraries, and in the records of Bessarion, the Duke of Urbin, and Ant. Cantacuzen, and in none of them these words of Cyril are to be found. These texts are pointed out as inauthentic in "Radii solis zeli seraphici coeli veritatis, pro Immaculatae conceptionis mysterio Virginis Maria", by the Roman Catholic Pedro d'Alva y Astorga (1602-1667), a lecturer in theology, Procurator-General of the Franciscans, and a. William Wotton (translator), Lewis Ellies du Pin, A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, Vol. IV, Tome III, Part II, p. 29, London: H. Clark, 1693. b. Thomas J. Shahan (translator), Otto Bardenhewer, Patrology: The Lives and Works of the Fathers of the Church, Second Period, First Section, § 77, 8., pp. 366 367, St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 2nd Ed., 1908. This book was originally published in German in 1894, and contains the approval of several Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops. c. John Edmund Cox (editor), Thomas James, A Treatise of the Corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers: By the Prelates, Pastors, and Pillars of the Church of Rome, for the Maintenance of Popery, Part 11, pp. 138-140, London: John W. Parker, 1843. L. Desanctis, Il Papa Osservazioni Dottrinali E Storiche, p. 104, Florence, 1864. Christoval de Vega, of the Society of Jesus, includes a text of Cyril to show that the fathers attest to the primacy of Rome, and he seems unaware of its inauthenticity. Domenico Zelo (1803-1885), who became the Roman Catholic bishop of Aversa, Italy, cites an aforementioned quote of St. Cyril, and says that it cannot be found in his works, concluding that these books "are not exempt from the impetus and fury of the corrupters." Remigio dei Girolami (12351319), a pupil of Thomas Aquinas, cites these texts of Cyril.' The University of Toulouse in 1402 wrote a letter to the king, in which the spurious texts of Cyril are cited to demonstrate the Papal power.5 The faculty of the same university also quotes pseudo-Cyril in 1396, and this statement of the university is uncritically cited on behalf of the d. Signum V. Radius LXXXI, § 3, 16-22, pp. 863 sq., Louvain, 1666. e. John J. A'Becket, Pedro d'Alva y Astorga, in CE, Vol. I, p. 372. f. Henry Ignatius Dudley Ryder, Catholic Controversy, Part. II, Charge IV, § 8., p. 190, Eighth Ed., London: Burns & Oates, [Undated, 1890s, first published 1881]. g. h. Quæstio III, XIV, XIX, XX, pp. 2-8, Venice, 1562. Also reprinted without note of inauthenticity in pp. 11-42 of the 1736 Milan edition. Controversiarum De Summo Pontifice, Liber I, Caput XXV; Roberti Bellarmini, Opera Omnia, Vol. 1, pp. 525 sq., Paris, 1870. i. "Nec dubitandum est de his testimoniis, etiamsi nunc in Thesauro non inveniantur, tum propter D. Thomæ authoritatem; tum etiam, quia plures libro Thesauri periisse scimus. Opera Omnia, Vol. XXI, Defensio Fidei Catholicæ et Apostolicæ aduersus Anglicanæ sectæ errores, Lib. III, Cap. XVII, p. 157, Venice, 1749. j. k. Ideo Patres omnes, Ecclesiarumque praesules semper Pontificem summum adierunt de rebus dubiis consulturi. A Romano Pontifice, inquit Cyrillus in libro Thesaurorum," &c. Theologica Mariana: sive certamina litteraria de B. V. Dei Genitrice Maria, Vol. I, Ch. X, 1320, p. 109, Napoli, 1866. This book on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was first published in 1653, and was later printed with the approval of Pope Pius IX. "non sono iti esenti dall'impeto e dal furore de' corruttori." Domenico Zelo, Della Vera Autorita' De'SS. Padri Della Chiesa E Maniera Di Adoperarli, IV, p. 56, Napoli, 1832. 1. Emilio Panella, "Per lo studio di fra Remigio dei Girolami, († 1319)." Memorie Domenicane, n.s., 10, 1979, p. 92. V. Papacy by the Abbé Romain in "Entretiens Sur Plusieurs Questions à L'Ordre Du Jour Touchant La Liturgie Et Le Droit Canonique" Forged Greek Catena (or Libellus) and Errors of Thomas Aquinas (cont'd) Archbishop Antoninus (1389 - 1459) of Florence, and papal theologian at the Latin Council of Florence (considered a saint by Roman Catholics), cites the spurious texts of Cyril in his Summa Theologica Moralis, on Cols. 1217 D., 1238 B., 1240 B., and 1241 C. Also note that the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals of Popes Marcellus and Anacletus are cited in Cols. 172 B., 296 C., 1201 A., 1203 D., 1207 D., 1223 B., and 1585 C. of the same volume. Archbishop Andrew of Colossus (Andreas Collossensis Episcopus, or Andrew of Rhodes, d. 1440) was born an Orthodox Greek, but had afterwards joined the communion of Rome, and was a speaker at the Latin Council of Florence. At the seventh sitting of this council, Andrew appeals to the testimony of the forged St. Cyril, Antonio Casini (1687-1755) of the Jesuits, in Encyclopædia Sacræ Scripturæ, Vol. I, Disputatio Prævia Octava, p. 64, Venice, 1747. After referring the reader to the Contra Errores Græcorum of Aquinas, and citing the Pseudo-Cyril, Casini comments, "Hæc ex Cyrillo, alia plura horum similia refert ex aliis Patribus Græcis." Juan Tomás de Rocaberti (1624-1699), the Archbishop of Valencia and inquisitor-general of Spain, in multiple locations (pp. 41, 177, 349, 364, 525, 613, 801) of his Bibliotheca Maxima Pontificia, Vol. IX, Rome, 1698. The reader is also referred to the Arabic Canons of Nicaea (p. 646), the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals (pp. 364, 493, 634, 636, 645, 765, 767), and numerous other inauthentic sources throughout this work. The spurious Cyril is also repeatedly cited on pp. 263 and 481 of Vol. XI, and pp. 20, 170, 247, 260, 339, 342, 564, 565, 558, 572, 579 of Vol. 19, not to mention other volumes. This work, in 21 volumes folio, is a compilation of the treatises of a large number of authors in defence of the claims of the Roman See. Thomas Aquinas is considered the "Angelic Doctor" and greatest theologian of the Latin communion. It is remarkable that in the only places in his Summa Theologica (as far as I noticed) where Aquinas tries to show the supreme power of the Pope, he cites spurious or interpolated documents. Constantinople is New Rome." In the following passage from the Summa, Aquinas first quotes the "Decretum" of Gratian, followed by a false quote from Jerome. Here the 1947 Dominican editors of Aquinas' work readily admit the falsehood of the citation of St. Jerome: Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic. This authority resides chiefly in the Sovereign Pontiff. For we read [*Decret. xxiv, qu. 1, can. Quoties] "Whenever a question of faith is in dispute, I think, that all our brethren and fellow bishops ought to refer the matter to none other than Peter, as being the source of their name and honor, against whose authority neither Jerome nor Augustine nor any of the holy doctors defended their opinion." Hence Jerome says (Exposit. Symbol [*Among the supposititious works of St. Jerome)): "This, most blessed Pope, is the faith that we have been taught in the Catholic Church. If anything therein has been incorrectly or carelessly expressed, we beg that it may be set aright by you who hold the faith and see of Peter. If however this, our profession, be approved by the judgment of your apostleship, whoever may blame me, will prove that he himself is ignorant, or malicious, or even not a catholic but a heretic." The citation from St. Jerome appears to be a similar, but interpolated version of Jerome's high-sounding appeal to the Pope of Rome during the controversy over the rightful bishop of Antioch. Latins have often cited the original appeal of Jerome (written when Jerome was still a layman, and no more than 30 years old, out of his life's 73 years) as though it were evidence that this great saint and Biblical scholar readily supported Papal Supremacy. I reply with the words of Jerome, "Si auctoritas quæritur, orbis major est urbe." However, words of great praise and exaltation can be found in many similar examples of grandiloquent appeals to great bishops and saints in the Church. For example, Jerome's contemporary Saint Basil, writes to Saint Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, No one knows better than you do, that, like all wise physicians, you ought to begin your treatment in the most vital parts, and what part is more vital to the Churches throughout the world than Antioch? Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head, soundness to all the body. In the Supplement to the Summa, Aquinas cites three authorities in his affirmative answer to the question "Whether in the Church there can be anyone above the bishops?" His quote of Cyril was already mentioned in the previous section. Another father he cites is St. John In another letter to St. Athanasius, St. Basil writes: Chrysostom: Although the power of binding and loosing was given to all the apostles in common, nevertheless in order to indicate some order in this power, it was given first of all to Peter alone, to show that this power must come down from him to the others. For this reason He said to him in the singular: "Confirm thy brethren" (Lk. 22:32), and: "Feed My sheep" (Jn. 21:17), l.e. according to Chrysostom: "Be thou the president and head of thy brethren in My stead, that they, putting thee in My place, may preach and confirm thee throughout the world whilst thou sittest on thy throne." (Reply to Objection 1) The above is not an accurate quotation from the authentic works of Chrysostom, and is from the same source (the Libellus) as the spurious Cyril. The last authority cited is the third canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople: We read in the council of Constantinople: "In accordance with the Scriptures and the statutes and definitions of the canons, we venerate the most holy bishop of ancient Rome the first and greatest of bishops, and after him the bishop of Constantinople." Therefore one bishop is above another. However, the true reading of this canon is: The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because a. Ch. XII, p. 150, Paris, 1858, b. Sancti Antonini, Summa Theologica Moralis, Partibus IV distincta, Pars Tertia, Verona, 1740 [originally printed in 1477}. In my former letter it seemed to me sufficient to point out to your excellency, that all that portion of the people of the holy Church of Antioch who are sound in the faith, ought to be brought to concord and unity. My object was to make it plain that the sections, now divided into several parts, ought to be united under the God-beloved bishop Meletius [of Antioch]. Now the same beloved deacon, Dorotheus, has requested a more distinct statement on these subjects, and I am therefore constrained to point out that it is the prayer of the whole East, and the earnest desire of one who, like myself, is so wholly united to him, to see him in authority over the Churches of the Lord. He is a man of unimpeachable faith; his manner of life is incomparably excellent, he stands at the head, so to say, of the whole body of the Church, and all else are mere disjointed members. On every ground, then, it is necessary as well as advantageous, that the rest should be united with him, just as smaller streams with great ones." In further correspondence with St. Athanasius, St. Basil writes: As time moves on, it continually confirms the opinion which I have long held of your holiness; or rather that opinion is strengthened by the daily course of events. Most men are indeed satisfied with observing, each one, what lies especially within his own province; not thus is it with you, but your anxiety for all the Churches is no less than that which you feel for the Church that has been especially entrusted to you by our common Lord; inasmuch as you leave no interval in speaking, e. Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 178. c. Döllinger, Some Words About the Address on infallibility, The Union Review: A Magazine of Catholic Literature and Art, Vol. VIII, January to December, f Summa, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 11, Article 2, Reply to Objection 3. 1870, p. 181, London: J. T. Hayes, 1870. d. Summa Theologica, Supplement, Question 40, Article 6. g. Basil, Letter LXVI, in NPNF, Series II, Vol. VIII, p. 164. h. Basil, Letter LXVII, in NPNF, Series 11, Vol. VIII, p. 164. V. Forged Greek Catena (or Libellus) and Errors of Thomas Aquinas (cont'd) exhorting, writing, and despatching emissaries, who from time to time give the best advice in each emergency as it arises. Now, from the sacred ranks of your clergy, you have sent forth the venerable brother Peter, whom I have welcomed with great joy. I have also approved of the good object of his journey, which he manifests in accordance with the commands of your excellency, in effecting reconciliation where he finds opposition, and bringing about union instead of division. With the object of offering some contribution to the action which is being taken in this matter, I have thought that I could not make a more fitting beginning than by having recourse to your excellency, as to the head and chief of all, and treating you as alike adviser and commander in the enterprise... But you will yourself give more complete attention to all these matters, so soon as, by the blessing of God, you find every one entrusting to you the responsibility of securing the peace of the Church. Of St. Athanasius likewise St Gregory Nazianzen writes as follows: Thus brought up and trained, as even now those should be who are to preside over the people, and take the direction of the mighty body of Christ, according to the will and foreknowledge of God, which lays long before the foundations of great deeds, he was invested with this important ministry, and made one of those who draw near to the God Who draws near to us, and deemed worthy of the holy office and rank, and, after passing through the entire series of orders, he was (to make my story short) entrusted with the chief rule over the people, in other words, the charge of the whole world: nor can I say whether he received the priesthood as the reward of virtue, or to be the fountain and life of the Church. For she, like Ishmael, fainting from her thirst for the truth, needed to be given to drink, or, like Elijah, to be refreshed from the brook, when the land was parched by drought; and, when but faintly breathing, to be restored to life and left as a seed to Israel, that we might not become like Sodom and Gomorrah, whose destruction by the rain of fire and brimstone is only more notorious than their wickedness Therefore, when we were cast down, a horn of salvation was raised up for us, and a chief corner stone, knitting us to itself and to one another, was laid in due season, or a fire to purify our base and evil matter, or a farmer's fan to winnow the light from the weighty in doctrine, or a sword to cut out the roots of wickedness; and so the Word finds him as his own ally, and the Spirit takes possession of one who will breathe on His behalf. Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in the evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office, and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne, the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name... Such was Athanasius to us, when present, the pillar of the Church... He legislated again for the whole world, and brought all minds under his influence, by letters to some, by invitations to others, instructing some, who visited him uninvited, and proposing as the single law to all - Good will. I will here place in full all that Aquinas writes on the topic of Papal supremacy in his "Against the Errors of the Greeks", which is Part II, Chapters XXXII-XXXVIII, along with my chapter-by-chapter commentary: [Part III CHAPTER 32: That the Roman Pontiff is the first and greatest among all bishops. The error of those who say that the Vicar of Christ, the Pontiff of the Roman Church, does not have a primacy over the universal Church is similar to the error of those who say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. For Christ himself, the Son of God, consecrates and marks her as his own with the Holy Spirit, as it were with his own character and seal, as the authorities already cited make abundantly clear. And in like manner the Vicar of Christ by his primacy and foresight as a faithful servant keeps the Church Universal subject to Christ It must, then, be shown from texts of the aforesaid Greek Doctors that the Vicar of Christ holds the fullness of power over the whole Church of Christ. Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is a. Basil, Letter LXIX, in NPNF, Series II Vol. VIII, p. 165. b. From Likoudis, Appendix 1, pp. 181-185. expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: "According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops." This, moreover, accords well with Sacred Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18: John 21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns first place among the Apostles to Peter Hence, Chrysostom commenting on the text of Matthew 18: 1: The disciples came to Jesus and asked, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, says: "For they had created in their minds a human stumbling block, which they could no longer keep to themselves; nor did they control their hearts' pride, because they saw that Peter was preferred to them and was given a more honorable place." It is interesting that Aquinas correlates the truth of the doctrine of papal supremacy with the filioque, for the Orthodox are rightly opposed to both. It was shown that "the authorities already cited" are far from making the matter "abundantly clear", but rather obscure the truth with ungenuine citations. The Libellus's version of the third canon of the Council of Constantinople is quite incorrect, as I had occasion to note above in the commentary on the Summa Theologica The commentary of St. Chrysostom is not an actual quote of what he actually said, but a paraphrase taken from the Libellus, and does not make for the purpose for which it is adduced. CHAPTER 33: That the same Pontiff has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: "Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch." And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says. "The power which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world." And in homily 85 on John: "He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world." Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: "Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons." This is also taught on the authority of Holy Scripture. For Christ entrusted his sheep to the care of Peter without restriction, when he said in the last chapter of John (21:15): Feed my sheep; and in John 10:16: That there might be one fold and one shepherd. The quote from the Council of Chalcedon is not found in the authentic acts of that Synod. Although several individuals at this Council, as read in the acts, did call him "Ecumenical Patriarch" and "Ecumenical Archbishop", the Council never officially ascribes the term "Ecumenical" to Leo. Moreover, at the Robber Council of Ephesus (449), Olympius bishop of Augaza speaks of Dioscorus as the "ecumenical archbishop of the great city of Alexandria"," and in later councils the Patriarch of Constantinople is repeatedly referred to as Ecumenical. Also, the Latins have continually mistaken the Greek term "Ecumenical Bishop", as if referring to universal dominion over the entire world, but the term refers to the Imperial cities. The Orthodox archpriest Fr. Gregorio Cognetti (d. 1998) writes: Ecumenical comes from the Greek word olkoumene, that literally means "the inhabited world." Due in part to lack of geographical knowledge and in part to the typical pride of conquerors, the Romans identified the "inhabited world" with the Roman Empire, and therefore, at that time, "ecumenical" was nothing more than a synonym of "Imperial" Constantinople was the "ecumenical" town. The chief librarian of Constantinople, for example, was called "Ecumenical librarian". But this implied only that he was the librarian of the imperial town, and not that he had authority over all the librarians in the empire. "Ecumenical Patriarch," therefore, in Greek, was understood only as "the Patriarch of the Imperial town just a synonym of Patriarch of Constantinople. As a matter of fact, this title is attested in sporadic use long before [the sixth century].* Much more could be said about the important controversy over the title of "universal bishop" in the times of Pope Gregory the Great, and it is interesting to note that Gregory said that the Bishop of Rome was offered this title per the Council of Chalcedon! As for the three quotes c. See the English translation of Chrysostom's 58th Homily on the Gospel of Matthew, found in NPNF, Series 1, Vol. X, pp. 359-360. d. The Latin word is "universalis", see Price & Gaddis, Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. 1, The First Session (Ephesus II), n. 88, pp. 287-288 Gregorio Cognetti The Dawn, July 1993. e. f. See Pusey, Eirenicon, [Part 1], p. 311, n. 3. V. Forged Greek Catena (or Libellus) and Errors of Thomas Aquinas (cont'd) from Chrysostom, they are also not precise. For the first quotation, the Roman Catholic editor writes in a footnote, "Power: thus the Libellus, where Chrysostom has 'revelation". The second quote, from Homily 85 on John, I have admitted as authentic in the table above, since it captures the sense of the passage. However, it is not very exact, and the actual quotation is "And if any should say, 'How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?' I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world." Concerning the third quote, the Roman Catholic editor writes that it is the "gloss of the compiler" of the Libellus. CHAPTER 34: That the same possesses in the Church a fullness of power. It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: "As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors." And again: "To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully." And further on: "The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church." And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation speaking in the person of Christ: "Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence." This is also taught on the authority of Scripture. For in Matthew 16: 19 the Lord said to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven. As already pointed out, these texts from St. Cyril are spurious. The quote of Chrysostom to the Bulgarian delegation is notably anachronistic, above, I have admitted the quote from Chrysostom, but the true quote is not as explicit about "in my place", and actually says, "If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren, and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show thou now, and the life which thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep." The larger context does indeed make for Peter's chief leadership among the Apostles, but this makes nothing unique for Rome since it was shown that Chrysostom considered the Bishop of Antioch the successor of Peter in the fullest sense. CHAPTER 36: That to him belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith. It is also demonstrated that to the aforesaid Pontiff belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith. For Cyril in his Thesaurus says: "Let us remain as members in our head on the apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs, from whom it is our duty to seek what we must believe and what we must hold." And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: "All the ends of the earth which have sincerely received the Lord and Catholics everywhere professing the true faith look to the Church of the Romans as to the sun, and receive from it the light of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith," Rightly so, for Peter is recorded as the first to have, while the Lord was enlightening him, confessed the faith perfectly when he said to him (Matt. 16:16): You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And hence the Lord The Cyrillian quote is spurious. St. Maximus the Confessor's quote is likely authentic, but it was shown that similar praise was given to other Apostolic churches, such as to Antioch by St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory Nazianzen. The works of St. Maximus will be discussed in a later chapter. CHAPTER 37: That he is the superior of the other patriarchs. It is also clear that he is the superior of the other patriarchs from this statement of Cyril: "It is his", namely, of the Roman Pontiffs of the apostolic throne, "exclusive right to reprove, correct, enact, resolve, dispose and bind in the name of Him who established it." And Chrysostom commenting on the Acts of the Apostles says that "Peter is the most holy summit of the blessed apostolic choir, the good shepherd." And this also is manifest on the authority of the Lord, in Luke 22:32 saying: "You, once converted, confirm your brethren." and is not found among his authentic works. The Roman Catholic editor points out in a footnote, "Bulgarian delegation: how spurious this work included among those of Chrysostom is had already been shown by J. Launoy, Epist. 1 ad Ant. Faurum (Geneva 1731, p. 4); Thomas, The quote from Cyril is spurious. Chrysostom's quote is authentic, but note that Chrysostom considered the Bishop of Antioch as the however, accepted the defective reading of the Libellus, whose origin cannot be traced." CHAPTER 35: That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. It is also shown that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and the Roman Pontiff is Peter's successor enjoying the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. For the canon of the Council of Chalcedon says: "If any bishop is sentenced as guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome, whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and to him alone, in the place of God, with unlimited power, is granted the authority to hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord." And further on: "And whatever has been decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar of the apostolic throne." Likewise, Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, says, speaking in the person of Christ "You for a while, but I without end will be fully and perfectly in sacrament and authority with all those whom I shall put in your place, just as I am with you." And Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus says that the Apostles "in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their teaching that Peter and his Church are in the place of the Lord, granting him participation in every chapter and assembly, in every election and proclamation of doctrine. And further on: "To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinance bow the head and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord himself." And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: "Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren There is certainly no canon or record of the sort from the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, and the Roman Catholic editor notes that it is "not found", and is taken from the Libellus. On the alleged quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the editor notes that it is the "gloss of the compiler", that is, not from the original text, and similarly from the Libellus. Again, Cyril of Alexandria's quotes are spurious. In the tally a. NPNF, Series I, Vol. XIV, p. 332 successor of Peter as well. CHAPTER 38: That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: "Therefore, brethren, if you imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve." And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: "The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter's confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him." The quote from Cyril is spurious. On the quote by St. Maximus, the editor notes that the author of the Libellus was "interjecting his own views in Maximus", and the passage is interpolated. Chapter XL is the only chapter on purgatory in this work: Chapter 40: That there exists a purgatory wherein souls are cleansed from sins not cleansed in the present life. The power of this sacrament [the Eucharist), however, is lessened by those who deny here exists a purgatory after death; for on the souls in purgatory special healing is conferred by this sacrament. For Gregory of Nyssa in his sermon on the dead says: "If anyone her in his frail life has been less than able to cleanse himself of sin, after departing hence, through the Glazing fire of purgatory the penalty is the more quickly paid, the more and more the ever-faithful Bride offers to her Spouse Homily LXXXVIII, in NPNF, Series I, Vol. XIV, p. 331. b. c. Homily VI, in NPNF, Series 1, Vol. XI, p. 38. V. Forged Greek Catena (or Libellus) and Errors of Thomas Aquinas (cont'd) in memory of his passion gifts and holocausts on behalf of the children she has brought forth for that Spouse by word and sacrament; just as we preach in fidelity to this dogmatic truth, so we believe." Likewise Theodoret, Bishop of Cyr, commenting on that passage of 1 Cor. 3: 11: If any man's work burn, etc., says thus: "The Apostle states that one is saved thus as through a blazing fire cleansing whatever accumulated through carelessness in life's activity, or at least from the dust of the feet of earthly living, in this fire one remains so long as any earthly and bodily affections are being purged. For such a person holy Mother Church pays and devoutly offers peace offerings, and so through this such a one emerging clean and pure assists immaculate before the most pure eyes of the Lord of hosts." Upon the quote from St. Gregory of Nyssa, the editor remarks, "Lib. III, 31-38, perhaps an imitation of Gregory of Nyssa De mortuis (PG 46, 521 D-524 B). This text is evidently interpolated with later and mediaeval perspectives on purgatory, but the original texts of St. Gregory have also been cited by others in favour of purgatory (in answer to which see Hall, Purgatory, pp. 126-129). On the quote from St. Theodoret. the editor notes, "Lib. 112, 33-46, cf. Oecumenicus Super 1 Cor. III (PG 118, 676 D), where, however, the last section 'In this fire...hosts' is omitted)." Omitting this last section greatly weakens the force of Theodoret's testimony, Also, in the Supplement to the Summa Theologica, where Aquinas discusses the question "Whether there is a Purgatory after this life?", he writes: Gregory of Nyssa says: "If one who loves and believes in Christ," has failed to wash away his sins in this life, "he is set free after death by the fire of Purgatory." Therefore there remains some kind of cleansing after this life.... Gregory of Nyssa, after the words quoted above, adds: "This we preach, holding to the teaching of truth, and this is our belief; this the universal Church holds, by praying for the dead that they may be loosed from sins." This cannot be understood except as referring to Purgatory: and whosoever resists the authority of the Church, incurs the note of heresy. The quotation here is corrupted as well. The Roman Catholic editors of the Madrid 1783 edition of the Summa comment, "æquivalenter in orat. de lis qui in fide dorm: à med." (Vol. VI, p. 464), that is, the quotation is "equivalent", and not exact. The same is found in Migne's edition. The 1947 editors simply put "De iis qui in fide dormiunt", without mentioning the inaccuracy of the quotation. The German Lutheran church historian Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) notes that in Aquinas's defence of purgatory, "there follows a forged passage from Gregory of Nyssa's Works, representing that the whole Church so teaches." Bacon's complaints are justified." VI. Inauthentic Patristic Quotations in John de Fontibus In this section I will point out the misquotations of the Dominican priest John de Fontibus, in his Letter to the Abbot and Monks of a Monastery in Constantinople (c. 1350). This John de Fontibus is not to be confused with the much more famous French abbot and bishop John de Fontibus (d. 1225). To show the primacy of Peter in chapter five, John de Fontibus quotes Chrysostom at second hand, borrowing from Aquinas, as the Roman Catholic editor notes, "The quotations from St. John Chrysostom are cited from St. Thomas Aquinas' Contra Errores Graecorum, chapter 33. John de Fontibus makes two quotes from Chrysostom, one authentic (though not exact) and one inauthentic (mentioned above on Aquinas) In chapter seven, John writes "it is impossible that any bishop bring it to pass or concede that someone not be required necessarily to obey the Roman Church, since this obedience has been granted her immediately by divine institution, as shown in the foregoing. And furthermore, this same point is expressly indicated in the first Council of Nicaea as well." There is no such decree or statement or canon made by Nicaea, and the editor notes here, "This canon is ascribed to the Nicene Council in the Collection of Canons made by Cardinal Deusdedit, IV (xciii), ed. V. Wolf von Glanwell, Paderborn, 1905, p. 478, It does not appear, however, that John de Fontibus utilized this particular Collection as his source." In chapter nine John writes "And witness of this is Blessed Augustine, born at Carthage and made Bishop of Hippo, in the book De Fide ad Petrum", whereupon the editor notes "De Fide ad Petrum is actually the work of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (468-533 A.D.) an eminent disciple of St. Augustine." This misattributed quotation is authentic, but only regards the necessity of being in the true Church, and does not have any bearing on the Papacy or the Roman Catholic controversy. In chapter ten, there is an authentic quotation from the Lives of the Desert Fathers, which has no bearing on the controversy. In chapter eleven, John writes on the filioque, "For this is not an opinion, but the true faith, which unless one believe it faithfully and firmly, one cannot be saved, as St. Athanasius, your doctor, says. And the same had said before this that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. Your holy doctors, namely the aforementioned Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil and many saints, held and taught this faith, as is inferred in their writings in which the Holy Spirit is described as the 'Spirit of the it is worth mentioning that Aquinas's major works referred to faulty translations of Aristotle and the Vulgate Bible, as Roger Bacon has Son', and 'from the Son, and the image of the Son', and 'flowing from Him', and 'caused by Him', and 'spirated by the Son', and 'Himself (the pointed out, George Gordon Coulton writes: The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas is habitually quoted, side by side with his Summa contra Gentiles, as the most perfect philosophical structure of the Middle Ages; yet his contemporary, Roger Bacon, criticised Aquinas in much the same terms as might have been employed by a modern critic. These younger men (writes Bacon, conscious of a slight superiority in age over St. Thomas), are in too great a hurry to round everything off into a complete scheme; and their work, apparently so perfect, is shaky at the very foundations. They base everything upon the Vulgate translation of the Bible, sometimes faulty in itself, and still more often corrupted by copyists' errors. They base it also upon an Aristotle still more often mistranslated or misunderstood.* [Coulton's footnote] * This latter criticism holds good to a considerable extent even though Bacon unquestionably exaggerates the imperfections of the Aristotelian translations used by Aquinas, and the number and importance of misinterpretations. With regard to the Bible text in the thirteenth century, the learned Dominican, H. Denifle, admits that Son) the origin and font of the Holy Spirit, spirating Him" Upon Athanasius the editor notes "The quotation is from the famous Athanasian Creed which actually originated in the West in the 5th century. It was of Augustinian inspiration but attributed to St. Athanasius.", and upon the references to the other fathers on the filioque, the editor writes "All these phrases are taken from the Contra Errores Graecorum of St. Thomas Aquinas." John de Fontibus was misled by the spurious quotes on the filioque in Aquinas's work. In chapter thirteen, John references Cyril of Alexandria's letter to Nestorius and exposition of the Nicene Creed, which John says teaches the filioque. However, I disagree with his theological interpretation of Cyril's works." e. George Gordon Coulton, Romanism and Truth, Vol. I, Ch. II, p. 24, London: The Faith Press, 1930. Also see George Gordon Coulton, Studies in Medieval Thought, Ch. XI, pp. 148-149, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1940. f. Translated in James Likoudis, Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism, Appendix III, pp. 205-216, New Rochelle, NY: Catholics United for the Faith, 2nd Ed., 1992. g. Likoudis, p. 207, n. 2. h. Likoudis, p. 209, n. 3) 1. Likoudis, p. 212, n. 4. J. Likoudis, p. 213, n. 5. a. Likoudis, Appendix 1, pp. 187-188. b. Summa, Supplement, Appendix II, Question I, Article I. c. Migne, Summa Theologica, Vol. IV. p. 1456, Paris, 1841. d. History of Dogma, Vol. VI, Ch. II, p. 262, n. 1, Boston, 1907. Note that von Harnack references this passage as Q. 69. Art. 7. k. Likoudis, pp. 213-214, nn. 6-7. 1. Likoudis, p. 215. m. See Siecienski, Filioque, pp. 47-50, 97-98. Markos A. Orphanos, The Procession of the Holy Spirit According to Certain Greek Fathers, in Deahoyla: tata ex on the lepas uvodou the ExxAnoias Ing Eldoos, Vol. LI, No. 1, 1980, 9., Cyril of Alexandria, pp. 99-105, Athens: Typ. tes Apostolikes Diakonias, 1980. VI. Inauthentic Patristic Quotations in John de Fontibus (cont'd) There are many other issues and references that indicate a severe ignorance of Church history, but I have directly focused on the false references. In summary, John de Fontibus makes a total of eight patristic citations, of which five are inauthentic or misattributed (a corrupted quote from Chrysostom, a false canon of the Nicene Council, misattributing Fulgentius's work to Augustine, incorrectly ascribing the so- called "Athanasian Creed" to Athanasius, and the inauthentic patristic phrases on the filioque). John de Fontibus's work is only one example of the dependence of later Roman Catholic apologists upon inauthentic history and upon Aquinas's heavily flawed work against the Greeks. VII. Authenticity of Certain Passages of St. Maximus the Confessor and his Ecclesiology 649, and is dated from October 649-June 653. It is interesting that Maximus refers to the Lateran Council as among the "holy six councils", since he is writing before what was later recognized to be the actual Sixth Ecumenical Council (The Third Council of Constantinople in 680; Chapman conjectures that this is likely a correction for five in the text by a copyist writing after 680)," but the Lateran Council was indeed an important and theologically Orthodox gathering (though it negligently failed to condemn Honorius, if the extant text is to be relied upon). However, Maximus's claims of Roman Orthodoxy have been undermined by the fact that the Pope Honorius was determined to have been a heretic, although I would generally agree that Rome at multiple important times held to theologically Orthodox positions amidst several heresies that disturbed the ancient Church, though Rome can in no way be described as "the sole base and foundation". Some scholars have doubts about the authenticity of this text, but the critical view appears to be that it is authentic, including by Orthodox scholars, such as Dr. Jean-Claude Larchet (b. 1949) who provisionally accepts Maximian authorship. A good discussion of the polemical issue of the Roman primacy in Maximus' writings is found on pp. 125-201 of this work, and Larchet's three volumes on St. Maximos are an excellent resource, and are widely acknowledged as among the best studies on this saint. Larchet has published many other articles and works on St. Maximos, and a relevant article is "The Question of the Roman Primacy in the Thought of Saint Maximus the Confessor". The works of St. Maximus have received more scholarly attention in recent decades. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that Maximus is "remarkable as a witness to the respect for the papacy held by the Greek Church in his day." and extensively cites his texts on the Roman primacy. It should also be pointed out that St. Maximus spent several years of his life in Rome, and was aligned with Rome against Monothelites in Constantinople. In the Contra Errores Græcorum, Aquinas makes three citations from St. Maximus (of which two promote Papal primacy), which will be The Orthodox scholar Fr. Andrew Louth has the following remarks on Opuscula 11: discussed here. The first citation is in Part II, Chapter XXVII, titled "That in the divine person to flow and to proceed is the same": And Maximus the monk says in his sermon on the candlestick and the seven lights: "Just as the Holy Spirit naturally exists by God the Father according to his essence, so also he truly exists by the Son according to his nature and essence, as it were proceeding as God from the Father through the Son." Upon which the Roman editors make the following note: Lib. 91, 27-321; cf. Maximus Qu. 63 ad Thalassium (PG 90, 672 C), who only has "belongs to the Son", where the Libellus says "exists... by the Son", This corruption attempts to make Maximus more in favour of the filioque. The next citation is in Ch. XXXVI, and is from Opusculum 11, which is cited here in its entirety. All the ends of the inhabited world, and those who anywhere on earth confess the Lord with a pure and orthodox faith, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and her confession and faith as to a sun of eternal light, receiving from her the radiant beam of the patristic and holy doctrines, just as the holy six synods [hagiai hex sunodoi], inspired and sacred, purely and with all devotion set them forth, uttering most clearly the symbol of faith. For, from the time of the descent to us of the incarnate Word of God, all the Churches of the Christians everywhere have held and possess this most great Church as the sole base and foundation [krepida kai themelion], since according to the very promise of the Saviour, it will never be overpowered by the gates of hell, but rather has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession in him, and to those who approach it with reverence it opens the genuine and unique piety, but shuts and stops every heretical mouth that speaks utter wickedness. For that which the creator of everything himself, our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, established and built up- together with his disciples and apostles, and the Holy Fathers and teachers and martyrs who came after - have been consecrated by their own works and words, by their sufferings and sweat, by their labours and blood, and finally by their remarkable deaths for the sake of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of us who believe in him, they through two words, uttered without pain or death - O the long-suffering and forbearance of God! - are eager to dissolve and to set at naught the great, all-illuminating and all-praised mystery of the orthodox worship of the Christians. This text, referred to as Opuscula 11, is still extant in an excerpt in Greek, and was a letter written in Rome shortly after the Lateran Council of a. John Chapman, St. Maximus of Constantinople, in CE, Vol. X, p. 78. b. International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, Vol. IV, No. 2, July 2004, 109-120, The Ecclesiology of Saint Maximos the Confessor, Andrew Louth, p. 116. Other translations (which are largely the same) can be found in Adam G. Cooper, The Body in St. Maximus the Confessor. Holy Flesh, Wholly Deified, Ch. IV, pp. 181 182, Oxford, 2005. Booth, Crisis of Empire, p. 272. The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on St. Maximus of Constantinople). Roman Catholic scholars are eager to see in these words proleptic support for papal primacy. They are certainly strong words, proclaiming the faithfulness of the Church of Rome to orthodoxy, and linking this to the words of our Lord in Matthew 16.18f. They are, however, words about the Church of Rome, not the papacy as such, and they are also words written by Maximos in the glow of gratitude he must have felt, following the Lateran synod, for the support he had found in Rome. However, I strongly believe that this text is inauthentic, for it is already known the extant text is false in claiming ecumenicity for the Lateran Council, and the exaggerated praise of Rome is typical of forgeries made in the Roman interest. One can also gain an understanding of St. Maximos's ecclesiology from the canons of the Lateran Synod of 649, which he is said to have authored, and which do not mention the Bishop of Rome at all. Canon XVIII states: If anyone according to the holy Fathers, harmoniously with us and likewise with the Faith, does not with mind and lips reject and anathematize all the most abominable heretics together with their impious writings even to one least portion, whom the Catholic and apostolic Church of God, that is, the holy and universal five Synods and likewise all the approved Fathers of the Church in harmony, rejects and anathematizes... Canon XIX: If anyone who indubitably has professed and also understands those (teachings) which the wicked heretics suggest through vain impudence says that these are teachings of piety, which the investigators and ministers of the Word have handed down from the beginning, that is to say, the five holy and universal Synods, certainly calumniating the holy Fathers themselves and the five holy Synods mentioned, in the deception of the simple, or in the acceptance of their own impious treachery, let such a person be condemned. Canon XX: If anyone according to the wicked heretics in any manner whatsoever, by any word whatsoever, or at any time or place c. Jankowiak & Booth, The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, Ch. II, A New Date List of the Works of Maximus the Confessor, n. 73, pp. 67- 68, Oxford, 2015. d. Chapman, Honorius, p. 58, n. 1. Also see C. Cubitt, The Lateran Council of 649 as an Ecumenical Council. e. Maxime le Confesseur, médiateur entre l'Orient et l'Occident, pp. 106-108, Paris, 1998. f. Chapter in Cardinal Walter Kasper, The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue: Academic Symposium Held at the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, pp. 188209, New York, 2006. Also see Dr. Phil Booth, Crisis of Empire: Doctrine and Dissent at the End of Late Antiquity, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 52, Ch. VI, Maximus and the Popes, pp. 269-276, Berkeley, CA, 2013. g. International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, Vol. IV, No. 2, July 2004, 109 120, The Ecclesiology of Saint Maximos the Confessor, Andrew Louth, p. 116. VII. Authenticity of Certain Passages of St. Maximus the Confessor and his Ecclesiology (cont'd) whatsoever illicitly removing the bounds which the holy Fathers of the Catholic Church have rather firmly established (Prov. 22:28), that is, the five holy and universal Synods, in order rashly to seek for novelties and expositions of another faith; or books, or letters, or writings, or subscriptions, or false testimonies, or synods, or records of deeds, or vain ordinations unknown to ecclesiastical rule; or unsuitable and irrational tenures of place; and briefly, if it is customary for the most impious heretics to do anything else, (if anyone) through diabolical operation crookedly and cunningly acts contrary to the pious preachings of the orthodox (teachers) of the Catholic Church, that is to say, its paternal and synodal proclamations, to the destruction of the most sincere confession unto the Lord our God, and persists without repentance unto the end impiously doing these things, let such a person be condemned forever, and let all the people say so be it, so be it (Ps. 105:48).* Maximos clearly identifies the teachings of the Catholic Church with the proclamations of its universal councils (and without reference to the Church of Rome), which is Orthodox ecclesiology. For the acts of the council, which are not free from Roman corruption, see Richard Price, Phil Booth, and Catherine Cubitt, The Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649, Translated Texts for Historians, Vol. LXI, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2014. The third Maximian quote Aquinas uses, in Ch. XXXVIII, is also intended to be from the same Opusculum 11 here quoted, but is significantly interpolated, as previously remarked, and it is apparent that the statement, "we must obey him", in reference to the Pope of Rome, is not found in the original There are two other documents attributed to St. Maximos that are more likely interpolated. These are Opusculum 12 and the Letter to Thalassius, which survive only in several excerpts or fragments translated in Latin in the ninth century, and preserved in the Collectanea of Anastasius Bibliothecarius." The Letter to Thalassius is classified as Letter A and was written about 640. The text survives in a Latin excerpt in the Collectanea of Anastasius Bibliothecarius under the title "Commemoration of what the Roman envoys did in Constantinople". The Catholic Encyclopedia again makes an extensive citation: Having discovered the tenor of the document, since by refusing they would have caused the first and Mother of Churches, and the city, to remain so long a time in widowhood, they replied quielly We cannot act with authority in this matter, for we have received a commission to execute, not an order to make a profession of faith But we assure you that we will relate all that you have put forward, and we will show the document itself to him who is to be consecrated, and if he should judge it to be correct, we will ask him to append his signature to it. But do not therefore place any obstacle in our way now, or do violence to us by delaying us and keeping us here. For none has a right to use violence especially when faith is in question. For herein even the weakest waxes mighty and the meek becomes a warrior, and by comforting his soul with the Divine Word, is hardened against the greatest attack. How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from of old until now, as the elder of all the Churches under the sun, presides over all? Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter, and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law. And so when without fear but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is, of the most great and Apostolic Church at Rome, had so replied to the clergy of the royal city, they were seen to have conciliated them and to have acted prudently, that the others might be humble and modest, while they made known the orthodoxy and purity of their own faith from the beginning. But those of Constantinople, admiring their piety, thought that such a deed ought to be recompensed, and ceasing from urging the document on them, they promised by their diligence to procure the issue of the emperor's order with regard to the episcopal a Roy Joseph Deferrari (translator), Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, The Lateran Council 549, 14 271,-274., pp 104-106, St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1957. b. See Booth, Crisis of Empire, p. 272. c. The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, Ch. il, Jankowiak & Booth. A New Date-List of the Works of Maximus the Confessor, n. 58, pp: 59 - 60, Oxford, 2015. election.... Of the aforesaid document a copy has been sent to me also. They have explained in it the cause for being silent about the natural operations in Christ our God, that is, in His natures, of which and in which He is believed to be, and how in future neither one nor two are to be mentioned. It is only to be allowed to confess that the divine and human (works) proceeded from the same Word of God incarnate, and are to be attributed to one and the same (person) The modern Oxford scholar Dr. Phil Booth comments on Opuscula 11 and 12 and the Letter to Thalassius: As has often been observed, this handful of texts contain some of the strongest statements of Roman privilege contained within Greek sources: the acknowledgment of a universal power derived from the promise of Christ, the emphasis upon Rome's status as the basis and guardian of the faith; and the guarantee that it would never be overcome. It is not surprising that some scholars have questioned the authenticity of such statements - not least because the Letter to Thalassius and Opuscula 12, at least, survive only in Latin excerpts, preserved in the ninth century precisely for their pro-Roman content. Broader evidence nevertheless suggests that Maximus's circle did indeed celebrate Roman preeminence in this period, as the Eastern consensus over monotheletism began to crystallize and as the realization dawned, no doubt, that Rome represented the last significant medium through which that circle might express its doctrinal (and political) opinions I would disagree with Dr. Booth's interpretation of the "broader evidence", and insist that there are good reasons to suspect the authenticity of these Latin fragments, especially as so many corrupted documents emerged from the Latins during the 9th century. Moreover, I do not consider Anastasius the Librarian as a reliable source in this matter, as he was a very partisan figure, notably anti-Greek and pro-Latin. The Anglican scholar James Barmby (1823-1897), in his introduction to the works of Pope Gregory the Great says, "The authority, however of Anastasius, who lived in a time of hierarchical forgeries, cannot be relied on without reserve." Guettée speaks with stronger words: "Anastasius the Librarian was so contemptible a man that no importance can be attached to his testimony" It should also be noted that Anastasius was highly prejudiced against St. Photius and attended the anti-Photian Council of 869. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Anastasius was also an anti-pope in Rome for some time, but was later reconciled with the Popes." Lastly, it should be remembered that (if the records are authentic) St. Maximus was deceived into believing that Pope Honorius was not a heretic, and Maximus was on this matter tricked by the ecclesiastics at Rome. Therefore, whatever misplaced veneration he may have had for Rome only misled him, for Rome had "deceived the very elect", and Maximus's error on this matter undermined his own Orthodox cause against the Monothelites, for the Monothelites saw that Honorius was one with their party, yet Maximus refused to concede that point (see the Appendix on the Condemnation of Pope Honorius) In conclusion, St. Maximos the Confessor confessed the Orthodox faith, and much of his supposed testimony for the Church of Rome is not properly interpreted in its context, textually unreliable, and does not reflect the views of the Orthodox Church (nor of the universal Church) in his era. VIII. More Corruptions of St. Cyril That St. Cyril of Alexandria did not teach the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is shown by the Orthodox scholar Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens and all Greece (1868-1938), who also points out a corruption in the authentic works of St. Cyril: St. Cyril in his writings has no knowledge of any such authority as the [Papal] Encyclical [Lux Veritatis] implies, especially concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in respect of the Apostle Peter. It is true that he calls this Apostle "the chief and "the foremost of the disciples," a but not in the sense of the primacy of any authority, for he teaches that the Apostles were equal with one anotherb. More particularly with regard to Peter and John he states: "Peter and John were both apostles and d. John Chapman, St. Maximus of Constantinople, in CE, Vol. X, p. 79. e. Booth, Crisis of Empire, pp. 272-273. f. NPNF, Series II, Vol. XII, Prolegomena, xxviii. g. Guettee, The Papacy, p. 274. See pp. 274-276 h. Johann Peter Kirsch, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, in CE, Vol. XVI, pp. 2-3: Anastasius was twice excommunicated in the West, once for having had himself elected antipope, and another time on the charge of being an accomplice to a murder. VIII. More Corruptions of St. Cyril (cont'd) saints and adorned with equal honours and powers through the Holy Spirit by Christ the Saviour of all ..." "Hence from their equal value, that is authority, we say that the two are reckoned as one man." He repeats the same argument in his third letter to Nestorius, in which he writes: "The equality of the two natures of our Saviour does not unite them, as also Peter and John, though equal with each other as Apostles and holy disciples, nevertheless these two were not one."d Throughout his writings he extols the Apostle Paule, but that he does not consider the Apostle Peter to have received any particular dignity from the Lord, he likewise testifies throughout. Thus interpreting the passage "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church,"f he teaches that by these words the Lord "promises to found the Church, attributing to it the power of endurance, as He Himself is the Lord of power, and to this Church He appointed Peter shepherd."g [Chrysostom's Footnotes:] a) Patr. Migne ser graeca, 77, 1025, 74, 661. b) Ibid., 77, 305, 75, 703. c) Ibid., 76, 75. d) Ibid., 77, 112. e) Ibid., 77, 1037, 76, 17. f) Matth. xvi. 16, etc. Upon the last quotation Archbishop Chrysostomos notes, 7. Patr. Migne ser graeca, 72, 424. In Migne's Patrology the text has "turns" (of this) instead of the more accurate "tauty" (to this) and the editor remarks: "Animadverte testimonium pro Petri primate"! ("Notice the testimony in behalf of the primacy of Peter"!)" Chrysostomos continues with more testimony from the writings of St. Cyril concerning his interpretation of the Petrine passages. By the way, I highly recommend his short book, and in the recommended reading section, I have listed several other works that extensively cover the Church Fathers' interpretation of the New Testament passages concerning St. Peter. Next, Chrysostom briefly mentions the spurious works of St. Cyril that were discussed at length above, and points out another inauthentic sermon: In the thirteenth century there appeared in the West certain forged texts and passages of St. Cyril, advocating the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. These were included, in good faith, as genuine by Thomas Aquinas (1274) in his Opusculum contra errores Graecorum, but their forgery and spuriousness has already been demonstrated.a Equally forged and spurious has been proved to be a certain sermon quoted among the other various sayings, namely, the eleventh, in which St, Cyril is represented as calling the Bishop of Rome "the most holy archbishop of the whole universe, Father and Patriarch Celestine of the great city of Rome."b From these words A. Ehrhardc rightly concluded the spuriousness and forgery of the sermon. Hence nowhere in his genuine writings does St. Cyril make even the slightest mention of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. [Chrysostom's Footnotes:] a) Vide F. H. Reusch. The forgeries in the Treatise of Thomas Aquinas against the Greeks, in Abhandlungen der hist. Classe der Bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, 1889, pp. 673-742. b) Patr. Migne ser, graeca, 77, 1040. c) A Spurious Homily of St. Cyril of Alexandria, in Rönische Quartalschrift, 1889, Vol. III., pp. 97-113," Nowhere in St. Cyril's other works and letters does he refer to the Bishop of Rome as "archbishop of the whole universe". Indeed, in a letter read at the Council of Ephesus, he refers to Celestine as the "most devout and most God-fearing brother, our Fellow-Minister, Celestine, Bishop of the Church of the Romans". It is worth noting that this work never had an ancient Latin version, and so the corruption was in Greek and the work of a later unknown Byzantine author. retouched and enlarged between the seventh and the ninth century, as A. Ehrhard has sufficiently shown." The modern Roman Catholic scholar Caro also investigated this homily, and argues that it is the work of an unknown Byzantine author from the 6th century. The German Roman Catholic scholar Fr. Johann Friedrich Ludwig Rothensee (1759-1835) concedes that this quote is not found in Cyril's works or the conciliar records, and laments that the Trent Catechism does not specify a source. Some Protestant authors have also pointed out that the authenticity of this homily is questionable. William Bright says: the "encomium" on the Virgin, included among his [Cyril of Alexandria's] works as delivered at this time [the fifteen days of waiting at Ephesus before the Council opened], is perhaps spurious." Upon this James Chrystal comments, "Now that is not strong enough. It is undoubtedly spurious. Chrystal extensively cites from and agrees with the Anglican scholar James Endell Tyler (1789-1851), who has also examined this homily, stating This homily cannot, in any point of view, be regarded as genuine: it carries its own condemnation with it, and evidently is the corrupt version of a rhapsody composed in a much later age than the Council of Ephesus." The Protestant authors of The Christian Remembrancer also agree with Tyler, and write of the expressions in this disputed homily, "we cannot regard them as even doubtful. They are certainly spurious;" However, this homily of St. Cyril was not as widely recognized to be spurious, and many Roman Catholics cited it as genuine in defence of the Papal claims. Most importantly, it was cited as genuine in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which states: Superior to all these [Patriarchs] is the Sovereign Pontiff, whom Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, denominated in the Council of Ephesus, "the Father and Patriarch of the whole world." Archbishop Chrysostomos also points out a misleading translation of Cyril's letter to Bishop Celestine of Rome, by Louis Duchesne (1843- 1922), a prominent French Roman Catholic priest, scholar, and professor: d. e. The German Roman Catholic patristic scholar Johannes Quasten (1900 - 1987, ordained 1926), agrees that the eleventh sermon of St. Cyril, f on the Blessed Virgin Mary, is spurious: The eleventh homily, entitled Encomium in S. Mariam Deiparam (MG 77, 1029 1040) is nothing more than the fourth, a. Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, The Third Oecumenical Council and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome: A reply to the encyclical "Lux Veritatis" of Pius ]. XI, translated by Gerard Shelley, p. 10, London, 1933. b. Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, The Third Oecumenical Council and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome: A reply to the encyclical "Lux Veritatis" of Pius Xi, translated by Gerard Shelley, pp. 13-14, London, 1933. c. James Chrystal, The Third World Council, Vol. I, Act I, 11 B., p. 212, Jersey City, NJ: James Chrystal, 1895. It is truly amazing how Latin theologians such as the eminent L. Duchesne, in splitting hairs in search of the Primacy in the phrases of the letter, have misinterpreted them. Cyril's phrase "{bad unicode}" ("the long customs of the Churches persuade (me) to make known to thy holiness") is translated by Duchesne as "Les graves causes doivent toujours être soumises au Saint Siége!" ("Grave causes must always be submitted to the Holy See!"). Here you have a complete misrepresentation of what was said by St. Cyril, who was referring to the ancient ecclesiastical custom, whereby the presidents of the Churches of the East and West communicated to one another the important happenings, as we have already mentioned. Subsequently, writing to Rufus of Thessalonica, who was Exarch of Eastern Illyricon and therefore the president of a particular Church, St. Cyril said: "It is appropriate that all things useful to the Johannes Quasten, Patrology, Vol. III, The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature, p. 132, Utrecht: Spectrum, 1960. The Patrology series is regarded as Quasten's magnum opus and was highly praised by reviewers. "Es ist inzwischen sehr zu bedauern, dass der Katechismus [Romanus] seine quelle für die angesührten worte Cyrills nichte angegeben hat." Rothensee. Der Primat des Papstes in allen Christlichen Jahrhunderten, Vol. III, pp. 208-209, Mainz: Kupferberg, 1838. William Bright, Cyrillus, in William Smith and Henry Wace (editors), A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. I, p. 767, bottom of right column, London: John Murray, 1877. g. James Chrystal, The Third World Council, Vol. II, Document VII, p. 33, Jersey City, NJ: James Chrystal, 1904. Chrystal has written a good analysis on the spuriousness of this homily in Vol. II, pp. 29-40. h. James Endell Tyler, The Worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Part V, Ch. V, p. 360, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, New Ed., 1851. Tyler remarks further upon this spurious homily in Appendix D (pp. 408-410). i. The Glories of Mary, in The Christian Remembrancer, Vol. XXX, October, 1855, Art. VI, p. 451, n. 2, London: J. & C. Mozley, 1855. "Præter hos omnes, catholica Ecclesia Romanum Pont. Max. qué in Ephesina Synodo Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archepiscopum, totius orbis terrarium patrem, & Patriarcham appellat, semper venerata est." John Donovan (translator), The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Published by Command of Pope Pius the Fifth, Part II, Sacrament of Orders, p. 319, Dublin: W. Folds and Son, 1829 (p. 296 of the Baltimore 1833 Ed., p. 222 of the New York 1905 Ed.) Catechismus Ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini Ad Parochos, De Sacramento Ordinis, p. 205, Rome, 1566. No citation or reference is provided for Cyril's quote. See the chapter below on Forgeries in the Roman Catechism. Vill. More Corruptions of St. Cyril (cont'd) Churches, and generally speaking, those which crop up day by day, should be communicated to your holiness."* IX. Three Spurious Epistles from the Fourteenth Century Concerning Purgatory Around the beginning of the 14th century, three spurious letters were in circulation among the Latins, one of which attempts to bring patristic witnesses to the novel doctrine of purgatory. Art historian Marjorie Elizabeth Cropper (1944- current) discusses the spurious letters that influenced numerous Renaissance works of art depicting the death of St. Jerome: Yet all the scenes of Jerome's death that we have considered so far, whether they include the scribe or not, are based on the text shown being written before our eyes in Starnina's fresco and Agostino's altarpiece. This is the letter De morte Hieronymi, to which we have already referred, describing the death of the saint on 30 September 420, and purportedly written to Damasus, Bishop of Porto, and Theodosius, a Roman senator, by Eusebius of Cremona, Jerome's disciple and his successor as leader of the monastery in Bethlehem. It suddenly appeared, probably in the first decade of the fourteenth century, together with two others. One of them, supposedly written by Saint Augustine to Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, praises Jerome as the near equal of John the Baptist. The other is from Cyril to Augustine and concerns Jerome's posthumous miracles. These letters must have been written in Italy and in Dominican circles. They are intricately bound up with the history of the cult of Saint Jerome in general in the later middle ages, and they can be linked most specifically with two important events. The first is the translation of Jerome's remains to Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, an event recorded in the Translatio corporis beati Hieronymi, dating from the 1290s. Jerome's body was laid to rest there, as it had been in Bethlehem, next to the Praesepium. The letter from Cyril, who actually predeceased Jerome, contains a "prophetic" reference to this translation. The second important event was a decretals issued by Boniface VIII in 1295 directing that the feasts of the Doctors of the Church be celebrated sub duplici solemnitate. The letter describing Jerome's death, claimed to have been composed by Eusebius and the writing of which is depicted by Agostino, includes an indirect quotation from this decretal, and therefore must postdate it." Mentioning the spurious letter of Cyril in a section discussing the false miracles adduced to support purgatory, the learned Protestant professor and author Dr. Charles Elliott (1792-1869) writes: The Priests and Friars have made great use of the apparition of St. Jerome after death to Eusebius, commanding him to lay his sack on the corpses of three dead men, that they, rising from the dead, might confess purgatory, which formerly they denied. This story is found in an epistle attributed to St. Cyril: but what is fatal to this assertion is, that Jerome outlived Cyril, and wrote his life. The prominent Anglican scholar Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) discusses this spurious work in his essay on prayers for the dead, reprinted in the Tracts for the Times: That "barbarous impostor," as Molanus rightly styleth him, who counterfeited a letter as written by St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, unto St. Augustine, touching the miracles of St. Jerome, taketh upon him to lay down the precise time of the first arising of this opinion [purgatory] amongst the Grecians in this manner: "After the death of most glorious Jerome, a certain heresy or sect arose amongst the Grecians, and came to the Latins also, which went about with their wicked reasons to prove, that the souls of the blessed, until the day of the general judgement, wherein they were to be joined again unto their bodies, are deprived of the sight and knowledge of God, in which the whole blessedness of the saints doth consist; and that the souls of the damned, in like manner, until that day are tormented with no a. Gerard Shelley (translator), Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, The Third Oecumenical Council and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome: A Reply to the Encyclical "Lux Veritatis" of Pius XI, pp. 21-22, London: The Faith Press, 1933. b. Marjorie Elizabeth Cropper, The Domenichino Affair, Ch. 1, p. 45, New Haven, CT Yale University Press, 2005. For more discussion and examples of the artworks, see Chapters 1-il, pp. 23-98. c. Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Book II, Ch. XII, VIII, 1., p. 281, London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 4th Ed., 1877. X. pains. Whose reason was this: that as the soul did merit or sin with the body, so with the body was it to receive rewards or pains. Those wicked sectaries also did maintain, that there was no place of purgatory, wherein the souls which had not done full penance for their sins in this world might be purged. Which pestilent sect getting head, so great sorrow fell upon us, that we were even weary of our life." Then he telleth a wise tale, how St. Jerome, being at that time with God, for the confutation of this new-sprung heresy, raised up three men from the dead, after that he had first "led their souls into paradise, purgatory, and hell, to the end they might make known unto all men the things that were done there," but had not the wit to consider, that St. Cyril himself had need to be raised up to make the fourth man among them. For how otherwise should he, who died thirty years before St. Jerome, as is known to every one that knoweth the history of those times, have heard and written the news which those good fellows, that were raised by St. Jerome after his death, did relate concerning heaven, hell, and purgatory? Yet it is nothing so strange to me, I confess, that such idle dreams as these should be devised in the times of darkness, to delude the world withal, as that now in the broad daylight Binsfeldius and Suarez, and other Romish merchants, should adventure to bring forth such rotten stuff as this, with hope to gain any credit of antiquity thereby, unto the new-erected staple of popish purgatory, An Interpolation Pertaining to Purgatory in Erasmus's Edition of Augustine In Erasmus's edition of St. Augustine's City of God, there are 10 or 12 lines interpolated on the subject of purgatory. There is no basis for this reading in the manuscripts, and it was soon removed and corrected by Roman Catholics in later editions,' but the false passage still impacted Latin apologetics. For example, Robert Bellarmine quotes the following sentence from this interpolation in his controversial work on Purgatory: "It is apparent that such [persons), cleansed before the day of judgment by means of temporary punishments which their spirits undergo, are not to be handed over to the torments of the eternal fire." XI. The Arabic Canons of Nicaeal Professor Giorgio Bartoli, a Jesuit scholar who left Roman Catholicism for Protestantism, writes about forgeries in the Papal interest: Another forgery in favour of Rome is found in the formula, or profession of faith, which Pope Hormisdas presented for signature to the oriental bishops who had taken part in the Acacian schism. In that formula we read the following words: "Quia in Sede Apostolica immaculata est semper catholica reservata religio et sancta celebrata doctrina." The words in italics are wanting in the genuine formula which Pope Hormisdas consigned to his legates for the Greek Emperor Anastasius, nor are they in his Letter 26 to the bishops of Spain. They appear, however, in the formula signed by the Fathers of the Eighth Ecumenical Council, and from that document were taken by the Vatican Council to establish the infallibility of the Pope. But they are not genuine. They are wanting in both the sources - i.e. in the formula of St. Hormisdas and in his Letter 26. They were, therefore, interpolated into the Acts of the Eighth Council by a friend of Rome.a A forgery, likewise, are the five documents, once commonly given at full length, in the old editions of Collectio Conciliorum, to show that the Fathers of the Council of Nicæa asked for the approval and ratification of their Canons and Acts by Pope Sylvester. The five documents are: (a) A collective letter written by Osius, Macarius of Jerusalem, and the two Roman priests. Victor and Vincent, to Pope Sylvester; (b) the answer of the latter, containing the ratification of the Council; (c) another letter of Pope Sylvester, almost identical in purpose with the former one; (d) the Acts of a supposed Roman Council, convened by Pope Sylvester, in order to confirm the Council of Nicæa; (e) the Constitutio Sylvestri. All these documents are spurious. They d James Ussher, Archbishop Ussher on Prayers for the Dead, Tracts for the Times, Vol. III, No. 72., Against Romanism, No. 2., pp. 30-31, Oxford: J. H. Parker, New Ed., 1840. e. De civitate Dei, Book XXI, Ch. XXIV. Note that the Anglican William John Hall mentions this interpolation (in Hall, Purgatory, Ch. IV, pp. 140-142 & 171, n. 4c.), but he quotes only the genuine passage of Augustine, and then, while likely intending to refer to the interpolated text, he mistakenly confuses the authentic passage with the interpolation, and calls the authentic passage the forgery, f See the footnote in the Maurist edition of St. Augustine's works (Vol. VII, pp. 641-642, n. d., Paris. Franciscus Muguet, 1685), reprinted in Migne, PL, Vol. XLI, pp. 737-738, n. 2. Also see Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (CSEL), Vol. XL, Vol II, p. 559, Prague: F. Tempsky, 1900. The modern critical edition here is Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (CCSL), Vol. XLVIII, p. 790. g. Robert Bellarmine, De Purgatorio, 1, 10. XI. The Arabic Canons of Nicaea (cont'd) were forged at a much later date than the Council of Nicæa, perhaps in the sixth century, by a Lombard priest, who lived at Rome, and wanted by that fabrication to defend Pope Symmachus, who had been accused of several crimes and summoned before a Synod of Bishops (501 or 503), who, however, acquitted him. The style and Latin of the documents are simply barbarous.b The words which the Prisca, the ancient Latin translation of the Nicene Canons, prefixes to Canon VI. - Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum ("The Roman Church has always possessed the primacy") - are interpolated, spurious, and false.c The true and genuine wording of Canon VI. is as follows: "The ancient custom, followed in Egypt, Libya, and in the Pentapolis, must continue - i.e. that the Bishop of Alexandria is to have the right of jurisdiction over all those provinces, because he is in the same conditions as the Bishop of Rome." Some unknown friend of the Roman See, a monk, perhaps, finding implied in this Canon a certain equality of rank, condition, and power of the Bishop of Alexandria with that of Rome, prefixed to the old Prisca the aforesaid words, to save the primacy of the Pope. But the words thus added are his, not those of the Council of Nicæa. Altogether spurious and fabricated is the pretended Synod of Sinuessa, held in that place A.D. 303, in which it was established that Prima Sedes non judicatur a quopiam ("The first See [that of Rome] may not be judged by any one"). Hardouin and Mansi inserted the Acts of that Council in their collections; but now all the learned, Catholic as well as Protestant, agree in holding these Canons to be spurious and utterly fabricated. Thus wrote, many years ago, Pagi, Papebrock, Natalis Alexander, Remi Ceillier, Bower, Walch, and others. False likewise is the celebrated Decretum Gelasii (the Decree of Pope St. Gelasius I.), where we meet very strong words in favour of the primacy of the Roman See. This has been lately demonstrated again, with very convincing arguments, by M. Roux in his book, Le Pape St. Gelase.d Largely interpolated, or, at least, very doubtful, is the text of the Canons III., IV., V. of the Council of Sardica. The Greek text of the Canons is much less explicit in favour of Rome than the Latin translation of Denis, which bluntly attributes the right of revision to the Pope. In the ancient Prisca, moreover, the additional sentence occurs: Quce decreverit Romanus Episcopus, confirmata erunt ("What the Roman Bishop has decreed, shall be confirmed"), which words are altogether wanting in the Greek text.e Of course, it is well known that the Council of Sardica is not, and never was, held for Ecumenical. Its canons had, however, a fictitious importance owing to the fact that later on Pope Zosimus (A.D. 417-418), in the cause of the priest Apiarius from Sicca in Africa, deposed from his rank by the bishop of that see, and appealing to Rome, the Pope, I say, in order to show that he had the right to accept the appeal of Apiarius, quoted, and referred the African bishops to what he called a Canon of the Council of Nicæa which says: "When a bishop believes he has been unjustly deposed by his colleagues he may appeal to Rome, and the Roman bishop shall have his cause examined by new judges (judices in partibus?)." This Canon is not of Nicæa, but of Sardica, the fifth in the Greek, the seventh in the Latin text. Another fraud, as singular as it is evident, has to do with the Canons of the Council of Nicæa, translated early into Arabic and edited in the sixteenth century by the Maronite Abraham Echellensis. Amongst them found the following, which comes Number XLIV.: "Quemadmodum Patriarcha potestatem habet super subditos suos; ita quoque potestatem habet Romanus Pontifex super universos Patriarchas, quemadmodum habebat Petrus super universos Christianitatis principes et concilia ipsorum; quoniam Christi Vicarius est super redemptionem, Ecclesias et cunctos populos ejus." (Just as the Patriarch has authority over his subjects, so has the Roman Pontiff over all the Patriarchs, as St. Peter had over all the princes of Christendom and their Councils; because the Pope is the Vicar of Christ over the redemption, all the Churches and all his peoples.) These supposed Arabic Canons of the Council of Nicæa were brought from Alexandria in Egypt into Europe by the Italian Jesuit John Baptist Romano, and were directly received as genuine, though in themselves most absurd, by the Jesuit Francis Turrianus; and another Jesuit, Alphonsus Pisano, did not shrink from inserting them into his history of the Council of Nicæa. The latter accepted likewise, as authentic, a pretended letter of St. Athanasius to Pope Marcus. The fact is that the Council of Nicæa made but twenty Canons, and the aforesaid Arabian Canons are synodical regulations referring to various oriental peoples, as, to Syrians, Chaldeans, Maronites, Copts, Jacobites, etc., etc. Moreover, the manuscripts from which the Maronite Abraham copied them are full of blunders, misspellings, interpolations, and various readings; which must be said in particular of Canon XLIV., savouring of modern manipulation from without. At any rate, even should it be genuine, which we most emphatically deny, the explanation is at hand. History tells us that, in former centuries, now this, now that oriental Church, driven to the wall by the Turks, used to approach the Roman Church with the view of obtaining from her more fortunate sister money and men against her foes. To get all this more easily, those oriental Churches in distress gratified the Pope with the most splendid and laudatory titles, which, later on, they themselves laughed at. In fact, as soon as the political danger that threatened them was warded off, they fell back into the schism and hated Rome more than ever. This is the history of all oriental Churches, the Maronite excepted. Notwithstanding all this, and in spite of history and of sound criticism, the so-called Arabian Canons were accepted as genuine by Fr. Hardouin, and printed in his Collectio Conciliorum.f [Bartoli's Footnotes:] a) Cf. Thiel, Epistolae Rom. Pontiff. b) Cf. D. Coustant, Epistolæ Rom. Pontificum, Praef. p. lxxxvi. Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, vol, i. p. 430 seq. c) Cf. Harduin, S.J., Collectio Concil, tom, i. p. 325. d) Roux, Le Pape St. Gelase, cap. vii. Paris, 1880. [Roux was a French Roman Catholic priest, and his work is cited as a source in the Catholic Encyclopedia article titled "Pope St. Gelasius I".] e) Cf. Van Espen, Diritto Ecclesiastico, ed. Ital. p. 276; Fuchs, Hefele, etc. f) Cf. Hefele, History of the Councils, vol. i. p. 350 seq.* Bartoli, the author of this extract, writes about himself: Until eighteen months ago I was a member of the Society of Jesus; now I am no more so. I was not expelled from that Society. I left it of my own accord, because the religious opinions and doctrines I held did not any longer agree with the opinions and doctrines held sacred by that Society. As long as I remained in the Society of Jesus my Superiors never complained of me for reasons other than those connected with differences in doctrine. On this point I can appeal to all the Jesuits who have known me. I served the Society of Jesus for twenty-seven years with the utmost fidelity, obedience, and self-sacrifice. I taught science, literature, and languages in several colleges of the Society, both at home and abroad; i.e. in Europe and Asia. I have preached the Word of God in different countries and languages, and for five years I was a regular writer on the staff of the Jesuit magazine La Civiltà Cattolica, which is published at Rome under the eye of the Pope, and in the interest of the Papacy. Alphonsus Pisano, who inserted the false Arabic canons in his history of the Council of Nicaea, was a Jesuit scholar of the 16th century, Doctor of Theology, and Professor of the ordinary, and was venerated by his Roman Catholic peers and superiors. I would disagree with how Bartoli represents the Orthodox churches approaching Rome, but it is true that there was considerable external pressure for the Orthodox to apostatize from the faith and turn to the Latins for political help. Also, while Sardica was not an ecumenical council, Sardica's canons do have a level of ecumenical authority from the Council of Trullo. Regardless, popes and Latin officials repeatedly mistook the Sardican canons for Nicene in their attempt to make a foundation for the Papal claims, yet this backfires against them as the very canons of Sardica provide good evidence against Papal supremacy (see the chapter on this). It has been said, in defence of the Latins, that the falsehood proceeded not from Rome, but from the Orientals. However, it most certainly came from partisans of Rome in the East, after the beginning of the schism between East and West, and thus they are not reflective of any ancient tradition. Moreover, the argument of Oriental provenance is beside the point because these canons are now admitted to be false, these canons highly exalt the Papal power, and the Latins and their allies have still used them in their interest. Following Bartoli's discussion of the forged Arabic Canons of Nicaea, I proceed to quote Hefele, who has an excellent discussion and detailed examination on these canons in his work, which was referred to in footnote 6 of the quoted extract of Bartoli (though beginning on p. 355 in the second edition). Hefele mentions that many Latins have tried to prove that Nicaea decreed more than 20 canons, but Hefele a. Giorgio Bartoli, The Primitive Church and the Primacy of Rome, Ch. VI, pp. 107 - 114, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910. b. Bartoli, The Primitive Church and the Primacy of Rome, Preface, pp. v - vi. II. Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (cont'd) East never accepted them for a moment: her great patriarchates retain the Nicene System to this day. But, as the established religion of the "Holy Roman Empire," the national churches of Western Europe, one by one, succumbed to this revolt from historic Catholicity. The Eastern churches were the more numerous. They stood by the Constitutions confirmed by all the OEcumenical Synods; they altered not a word of the Nicene Creed; they stood up for the great Catholic law, "Let the ancient customs prevail," and they were, and are to this day, the grand historic stem of Christendom. The Papacy created the Western schism, and contrived to call it "the schism of the Greeks." The Decretals had created the Papacy, and they enabled the first Pope to assume that communion with himself was the test of Catholic communion: hence his excommunication of the Easterns, which, after brief intervals of relaxation, settled into the chronic schism of the Papacy, and produced the awful history of the mediæval Church in Western Europe. In naming Nicholas I as the founder of the Papacy, and the first Pope, I merely reach the logical consequence of admitted facts and demonstrated truths. I merely apply the recognised principles of modern thought and scientific law to the science of history, and dismiss the technology of empiricism in this science, as our age has abolished similar empiricisms in the exact sciences. For ages after Copernicus, even those who basked in the light of the true system of the universe went on in the old ruts, talking as if the Ptolemaic theory were yet a reality: and so the very historians whose lucid pages explode the whole fabric of the Papal communion, still go on, in the language of fable, giving to the early Bishops of Rome the title of "Popes;" counting St. Peter as the first Pope; bewildering the student by many confusions of fact with fable; and conceding to the modern fabric of Romanism the name of "the Catholic Church," with all the immense advantages that accrue to falsehood by such a surrender of truth, and the consequent endowment of imposture with the raiment and the domain of Apostolic antiquity. The student of this series must have noted the following fundamental facts: - 1. That the name papa was common to all bishops, and signified no pre-eminence in those who bore it. 2. That the Apostolic Sees were all equally accounted matrices of unity, and the roots of other Catholic churches. 3. That, down to the Council of Nicæa, the whole system of the Church was framed on this principle, and that these were the "ancient customs" which that council ordained to be perpetual. 4. That "because it was the old capital of the empire," and for no other reason (the Petrine idea never once mentioned), the primacy of honour was conceded to Old Rome, and equal honour to New Rome, because it was the new capital. It was to be named second on the list of patriarchates, but to be in no wise inferior to Old Rome; while the ancient and all-commanding patriarchate of Alexandria yielded this credit to the parvenu of Byzantium only on the principle of the Gospel, "in honour preferring one another," and only because the imperial capital must be the centre of Catholic concourse. Now, the rest of the story must be sought in post-Nicene history. The salient points are as follows:- 1. The mighty centralization about Constantinople; the three councils held within its walls; the virtual session of the other councils under its eaves; the inconsiderable figure of "Old Rome" in strictly ecclesiastical history; her barrenness of literature, and of great heroic sons, like Athanasius and Chrysostom in the East, and Cyprian and Augustine in the West; and her decadence as a capital, - had led Leo 1, and others after him, to dwell much upon "St. Peter," and to favour new ideas of his personal greatness, and of a transmitted grandeur as the inheritance of his successors. As yet, these were but "great swelling words of vanity," but they led to the formulated fraud of the Decretals. 2. Ambition once entering the pale of Catholicity, we find a counter idea to that of the councils at the root of the first usurpation of unscriptural dignity. John "the Faster," bishop of New Rome, conceived himself not merely equal (as the councils had decreed) to the bishop of Old Rome, but his superior, in view of the decrepitude of the latter, and its occupation by the Goths, while the imperial dignity of Constantinople was now matured. He called himself "OEcumenical Bishop." 3. Gregory was then bishop of "Old Rome," and that was the time to assert the principle of the Decretals, had any such idea ever been heard of. How did he meet his brother's arrogance? Not appealing to decretals, not by asserting that such was his own dignity derived from St. Peter, but by protesting against such abasement of all the other patriarchs and all other bishops (who were all equals), and by pronouncing the impious assumption of such a nefarious title to denote a "forerunner of Antichrist." Plainly, then, there was no "Pope" known to Christendom at the close of the sixth century. 4. But hardly was Gregory in his grave when court policy led the Emperor Phocas (one of the most infamous of men) to gratify the wicked ambition of the new Bishop of Rome by giving to him the titular honour of being a "forerunner of Antichrist." Boniface III. (607 A.D.) assumed the daring title of "Universal Bishop." But it was a mere court-title: the Church never recognised it; and so it went down to his successors as mere "sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal" till the days of Charlemagne. 5. In his times the Petrine fable had grown upon the Western mind. All Western Europe had but one Apostolic See. As "the Apostolic See" it was known throughout the West, just as "the Post-Office" means that which is nearest to one's own dwelling. What was geographically true, had grown to be theologically false, however; and the Bishop of Rome began to consider himself the only inheritor of Apostolic precedency, if not of all Apostolic authority and power. 6. The formation of the Western Empire favoured this assumption: but it did not take definite shape while Charlemagne lived, for he regarded himself, like Constantine, the "head of the Church;" and in his day he acted as supreme pontiff, called the Council of Frankfort, overruled the Roman bishop, and, in short, was a lay-Pope throughout his empire. That nobody refused him all he claimed, that Adrian "couched like a strong ass" under the burden of his rebukes, and that Leo paid him bodily "homage," demonstrated that no such character as a "Pope" was yet in existence. Leo III. had personally "adored" Charlemagne with the homage afterwards rendered to the pontiffs, and Adrian had set him the example of personal submission. 7. But, Charlemagne's feeble sons and successors proving incapable of exercising his power, the West only waited for an ambitious and original genius to come to the See of Rome, to yield him all that Charlemagne had claimed, and to invest him with the more sacred character of the Apostolic head to the whole Church. 8. Such a character arose in Nicholas I. He found the Decretals made to his hand by some imposter, and he saw a benighted age ready to accept his assumptions. He therefore used them, and passed them into the organic canon- law of the West. The "Holy Roman Empire" reluctantly received the impious frauds: the East contemptuously resisted. Thus the Papacy was formed on the base of the "Holy Roman Empire," and arrogated to itself the right to cut off and anathematize the greater part of Christendom, with the old patriarchal Sees. So we have in Nicholas the first figure in history in whose person is concentrated what Rome means by the Papacy. No "Pope" ever existed previously, in the sense of her canon-law; and it was not till two centuries longer that even a "Pope" presumed to pronounce that title peculiar to the Bishop of Rome. Such, then, are the historical facts, which render vastly important some study of the Decretals. I shall give what follows exclusively from "Roman-Catholic" sources. Says the learned Dupin: "1. All these Decretals were unknown to all the ancient Fathers, to all the Popes and all the ecclesiastical authors that wrote before the ninth century. Now, what rational man can believe that so vast a number of letters, composed by so many holy Popes, containing so many important points in relation to the discipline of the Church, could be unknown to Eusebius, to St. Jerome, to St. Augustine, to St. Basil, and, in short, to all those authors that have spoken of their writings, or who have written upon the discipline of the Church? Could it possibly happen that the Popes, to whom these epistles are so very favourable, would never have cited and alleged them to aggrandize their own reputation? Who could ever imagine that the decisions of these Decretals should be never so much as quoted in any council or in any canon? He that will seriously consider with himself, that, since these Decretals have been imposed upon the world, they have been cited in an infinite XI. The Arabic Canons of Nicaea (cont'd) formatae.u But the document bearing the name of Bishop Atticus was unknown to the whole of antiquity; it belongs only to the middle ages, and has certainly no greater value than the pseudo-Isidorian documents.v But if this memorial were authentic (Baronius accepts it as suchx), it would prove nothing against our position; for Baronius himself tells us that the Fathers of Nicæa deliberated very secretly upon the form that the literae formatae ought to take, but made no canon upon the subject.y [Hefele's Footnotes:] a) See Athanasii Opp. ed. Bened. Patav. ii. 599. The learned Benedictine Montfaucon says (l.c. p. 597), speaking of this letter, and of some others which are also spurious: Sane commentis sunt et mendaciis respersæ exque variis locis consarcinatæ, ut ne umbram quidem yvηotótηtoç referant. b) This MS. was subsequently bought by Joseph Simon Assemani of the Coptic patriarch John; it is now in the Vatican Library. Cf. Angelo Mai, Præf. p. 5 to the tenth volume of his Scriptorum vet. nova Collectio. c) Lib. iii. d) Dilling 1572. e) At the end of his Latin translation of the Constit. Apostol. f) e.g. Mansi, ii. 947 sqq.; Hard. i. 463 sqq. Most of our information respecting the eighty Arabic canons is taken from the Proëmium of P. Turrianus. [Another Conciliar authority that could be added here is Labbe and Cossart (Concilia, Tom. II. col. 291-318).] g) Mansi, ii. 1071, 1072. h) Mansi, ii. 982-1082. i) Hard. i. 478-528. j) Cf. Pagi, Crit. in Annales Baron, ad ann, 325, n. 45; Pearson, Vindicia Epist. Ignat. P. i. p. 177; Richer, Hist. Councils-General, i. 110; Ludovici, Præf. ad Ittig. Hist. Concil. Nic. k) Sec. xiv. 1) Sec. v. m) Assemani, Biblioth. Orient. i. 23, 195; Angelo Mai, I.c. Præf, p. vii. n) Cf. Spittler, Geschichte des Canonischen Rechts, S. 108, note. o) Annales, ad ann. 325, n. 156 sqq. p) Collect. Concil. Hispan. i. 1; Appar. Diss. 8. q) Socrat. i. 9. r) Concil. Antioch, Antwerp 1681. [Our note - The inaccurate translator Emmanuel Schelstrate (1649 - 1692) was a Romanist theologian and "While he was a canon of the cathedral of Antwerp, he was called to Rome by Innocent IX and made an assistant librarian of the Vatican Library... He was a fine scholar in early ecclesiastical history and became the accredited defender of the papal supremacy." (René Maere, Emmanuel Schelstrate, in CE, Vol. XIII., p. 526)] s) Hard. i. 1428, n. 21, Mansi, iv. 415, in the note. t) The letter of S. Athanasius to Mark, speaking of that, is evidently spurious. See above, sec. 23. u) Sec. v. v) Hard. v. 1453. w) Tillemont, Mémoires, vi. 288, b. x) Ad ann. 325, n. 162 sq. y) Cf. Natal. Alex. I.c. p. 387.a For reference, these so-called Arabic canons of Nicaea contain the following statements on the Bishop of Rome: [Canon XXXIX] Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all: Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; inasmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod. [Canon XXXVII] Let there be only four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four writers of the Gospel, and four rivers, etc. And let there be a prince and chief over them, the lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Rome, according as the Apostles commanded. And after him the lord of the great Alexandria, which is the see of Mark. And the third is the lord of Ephesus, which is the see of John the Divine who speaks divine things. And the fourth and last is my lord of Antioch, which is another see of Peter. And let all the bishops be divided under the hands of these four patriarchs; and the bishops of the little towns which are under the dominion of the great cities let them be under the authority of these metropolitans. But let every metropolitan of these great cities appoint the bishops of his province, but let none of the bishops appoint him, for he is greater than they. Therefore let every man know his own rank, and let him not usurp the rank of another. And whosoever shall a. Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. I, Book II, Ch. II, Sec. 41, pp. 359-374. Also see Percival's Excursus on the Number of the Nicene Canons in Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils pp. 43-45. The best recent Roman Catholic analysis of these canons is in Scott Butler and John Collorafi, Keys Over the Christian World, Ch. XXIII, pp. 579-593, [Publisher and printing location not given (USA)], 2003. The canons (at least those on the papacy) appear to have had their origin in the ninth century, but the authenticity and reliability of the sources remains doubtful, and more research remains to be done on the Eastern sources. contradict this law which we have established the Fathers of the Synod subject him to anathema. Peter le Page Renouf says that the Arabic canons date well after the beginning of the controversy between the East and the West, and they are likely to be attributed to the Maronites: These Arabic canons contain gross anachronisms which prove them to be of much more recent date than the beginning of the schism [between East and West]. The manuscripts which contain the canons are not of very great antiquity... The Arabic canons themselves, however, furnish us with a clue which enables us to conjecture their origin with a great amount of probability. De Marca long ago called attention to the canon which placed the island of Cyprus under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Antioch. Is fecit cui prodest. The Maronite patriarchs of Antioch exercised jurisdiction in Cyprus over several bishops and churches of their own communion, and it was most probably in their interest that the canon was forged in justification of an ecclesiastical arrangement directly at variance with ancient rule. If the fraud owes its origin to a Maronite hand, it is not to be wondered at if in some of the canons great authority is ascribed to the Bishop of Rome." Several Roman scholars have attempted to bolster the authenticity of the Arabic canons, including Columbanus and Natalis Alexander, who follow Echellensis. In order to lend credence to the Arabic canons, Bellarmine, Binius, Canus, and Coster also tried to prove that there were more than twenty canons promulgated by Nicaea, but their arguments have been sufficiently answered. They are even cited in more recent times. The Roman Catholic priest and apologist Thomas Stanislaus Dolan (1869-1918) quotes the 39th and 37th canons (cited above) of this false collection, as if they were of assistance in proving the Roman Supremacy. Dolan qualifies this with the following statement: I am perfectly aware that there has been a long and as yet unsettled controversy, as to the exact number of canons: promulgated by the Council of Nice. I am aware also that perhaps the more critical view seems to point to only twenty canons, whereas the Arabic manuscript translated into Latin by Father Romanus S. J. points to eighty. The antiquity of the Arabic MS. however is not to be called into question, and the fact that it proceeds from an oriental source, makes it valuable in this connection. Dolan italicizes the word 'perhaps', as if to raise doubt, but it is absolutely certain that the more critical view, even by his own Church, is that there are only twenty authentic canons, as Hefele has demonstrated, and this critical view is correct beyond any reasonable doubt. The antiquity and provenance of the manuscript make no difference - the canons cited by Dolan are manifestly spurious and it can do him no good to allege that they might be from Nicaea, or even from the same century. The Arabic Canons of Nicaea provide no evidence for the papacy, and they are only valuable in showing what the decrees of the Nicene council might have looked like if the holy fathers had actually believed in papal supremacy. XII. The Council of Sardica and Misquotations of Nicaea As mentioned earlier, even the authentic words of the early councils were interpolated with passages meant to aggrandize Rome. I will first discuss a very popular Roman Catholic polemic work titled "Catholic Belief" by Joseph Faà di Bruno (1815-1888), an Italian Jesuit priest who was a missionary for 30 years in England. In this work, there are many additional instances of the Latin use of spurious documents, beginning with the first two examples given for the Papacy: History proves, however, that the Pope's Supremacy was as firmly believed by Catholics in the first ages of Christianity as in those that followed. So far from there being any difference on this head, the fact is, that whilst in later ages the supremacy of the Pope has been denied by the schismatical Churches of the East, and by Protestant communities which have separated b. Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 48. The numbering of the canons and their Latin translation varies in the different editions. C. d. Peter le Page Renouf, [Book review of] The Tradition of the Syriac Church of Antioch concerning the Primacy and the Prerogatives of St. Peter, and of his Successors, the Roman Pontiffs, in The Academy, Vol. III, No. 61., p. 454, London: Williams and Norgate, 1872. I recommend reading this entire article. Note that Sir Renouf was opposed to the dogma of Papal infallibility. James Bernard Clinch, Letters on Church Government, Letter IX, p. 465, Dublin: Graisberry and Campbell, 1812. e. Thomas Stanislaus Dolan, The See of Peter and the Voice of Antiquity, Ch. IV, pp. 48-50, St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1908. XII. The Council of Sardica and Misquotations of Nicaea (cont'd) themselves from the Catholic Church, for the first seven hundred years the whole of Christendom united in believing and proclaiming the supremacy of the Roman See. The Fathers of the Primitive Church had no doubt whatever that the Roman Pontiff was, by God's appointment, the Supreme Pastor of 'sheep' and 'lambs, that is, as interpreted by the Fathers of the Church, of the whole flock of Christ, and the source of all spiritual jurisdiction. To reject this truth was, in their judgment, to ruin the whole fabric of the Church; to deny His Vicar was to deny Christ. No one ever pretended to create this majestic office, the divine institution of it was always taken for granted. The Councils did not invent it, but bore witness to it as older than themselves. The Roman Church always had the Primacy,' said the Fathers of Nicæa in the year of our Lord 325. This was the confession of the first OEcumenical Council. Twenty-two years later the great Council of Sardica wrote to Pope Julius I., that it was 'most fitting that the Bishops of the Lord make reference from all the Provinces to the head, that is, the See of the Apostle Peter. This work has the Nihil Obstat from Pius Melia (1800-1883), an Italian Jesuit theologian, and the Imprimatur from Henry Edward Manning (1808-1892), a highly influential Roman Catholic cardinal and Archbishop of Westminster, who had been an Anglican priest. The "Author's American Edition" in 1884, edited by American Roman Catholic priest Louis A. Lambert (1825-1910) bears the Imprimatur of John McCloskey (1810-1885), the Latin Archbishop of New York. In the Preface to his work, Bruno states; During the thirty years passed as a Missionary Priest in England, I have found that nearly all the objections so often repeated against the faith and practice of the Roman Catholic Church come from misunderstanding the true teaching of our Holy Religion, that holy Catholic faith which, in order to be respected and beloved by well disposed Christian minds, needs only to be known. Bruno's book received much approval from Roman Catholics, and an advertisement for this work states that it is the cheapest and best book for missions... over 80,000 copies of this book have been sold in England, and it has perhaps more than any other book been the means of bringing very many into the Church. A later edition of Bruno's work notes on the cover that 280,000 copies have been sold. The 1922 printing says that 550,000 copies have been sold. Regarding the letter of the Council of Sardica to Pope Julius, this has been interpolated, as many Roman Catholic scholars have conceded, as Percival comments: A Letter to Pope Julius. Among the Fragments of St. Hilary is found a letter from the synod to Pope Julius. Hefele says that the text is 'considerably injured.' One clause of this letter above all others has given occasion to much controversy. The passage runs as follows: 'It was best and fittest that the priests [i.e., bishops] from all the provinces should make their reports to the head, that is, the chair of St. Peter.' Blondell declares the passage to be an interpolation, resting his opinion upon the barbarous Latin of the expression valde congruentissimum. And even Remi Ceillier, while explaining this by the supposition, which is wholly gratuitous, that the original was Greek, yet is forced to confess that the sentence interrupts the flow of thought and looks like an insertion. Bower, in his History of the Popes, and Fuchs have urged still more strongly the spurious a. Joseph Faà di Bruno, Catholic Belief: or A Short and Simple Exposition of Catholic Doctrine, Part I, Ch. XXVI, pp. 111-112, London: Burns and Oates, 2nd Ed., 1878 [first published in 1875]. b. Bruno, Catholic Belief, Preface, p. v. c. Hoffmann's Catholic Directory, Almanac and Clergy List - Quarterly, for the Year of Our Lord 1886, p. 37, Milwaukee, WI: Hoffmann Bros., 1886. d. Louis A. Lambert (editor), Bruno, Catholic Belief, New York, NY: Benziger Brothers, [Undated reprint of the Author's American Edition of 1884]. e. New York, NY & Cincinnati, OH: Benziger Bros., 1922 (reprint of the Author's American Edition of 1884). character of the phrase, the latter using the convenient 'marginal comment' explanation. In the Third Edition (1880) of Bruno's Catholic Belief, the citation of Nicaea is kept the same, but there is a long footnote in response to criticisms of Bruno's work, which endeavours to defend those words as authentic. In the Fifth Edition (1884) of Catholic Belief, the citation of Nicaea is rephrased and the footnote is retained. The citation of Sardica is kept unchanged, and appears to have never been corrected. The paragraph on Nicaea is changed to "The Roman Church always had the Primacy, said the Fathers of Nicea in the year of our Lord 325, as quoted by the Council of Chalcedon A.D. 451." Note that this revised paragraph, while attempting to be more accurate, adds another falsehood, and now contains two errors, namely, that those words from Nicaea are authentic, which is maintained from the earlier editions, and that those words were quoted "by" the Council of Chalcedon, when in fact they were merely uttered by the Roman legate at Chalcedon and are thus recorded in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. The interpolated canon of Nicaea was not quoted in the name of the Council of Chalcedon or in any conciliar statement, and immediately after Paschasinus, the Roman legate, read the interpolated canon, Constantine, the Greek secretary of the council, read the true Nicene Canon, implicitly and respectfully correcting the Roman legate, as mentioned in this chapter. Denny remarks on the interpolated versions of the 6th Nicene canon: There is no doubt that these 'versions' do not represent the true text, for not only do they differ from the Greek, which must be held to be the original, but also from the Latin text known as the 'Vetus, which the Ballerini consider to have been made from a Greek codex extant long before the Council of Chalcedon, as well as from that which is contained in the Acts of the Council of Carthage, A.D. 419, which, it is evident from a speech made by Aurelius, was made from the copy of the Nicene Statutes which, brought home by the Africans who had attended the Nicene Council, was preserved in the Church of Carthage. In a later Latin manuscript of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, the response of secretary Constantine is removed, to make it seem as though the Council accepted the interpolated canon of Nicaea. Percival notes: An attempt has been made to shew that this statement of the acts is a mere blunder. That no correct copy of the Nicene canons was read, and that the council accepted the version produced by the Roman legate as genuine. The proposition appears to me in itself ridiculous, and taken in connexion with the fact that the acts shew that the true canon of Nice was read immediately afterwards I cannot think the hypothesis really worthy of serious consideration.... It should be added that the Ballerini ground their theory chiefly upon the authority of a Latin MS., the Codex Julianus, now called Parisiensis, in which this reading of the true text of the canon of Nice is not contained, as Baluzius was the first to point out. The Anglican editors of The Church Quarterly Review wrote an article against the papal apologist Rivington, which says of him: he resorts to his usual scepticism as to whatever tells against Rome, and favours the hypothesis that the passage in the acts which represents an imperial secretary as reading the true Greek text is in fact an interpolation.* [* Footnote:] This is suggested by the Ballerini, and adopted by Hefele, for reasons which seem to us very weak. It was distinctly ad rem to produce the true text, and thus to damage the case of the legates; at the same time, respect for Rome would restrain the bishops from commenting on such an exposure, which would be in fact what Canon Bright calls it, a 'rebuff.' Mr Rivington should remember that Leo had already (Ep. xliv.) claimed as Nicene a canon which had been notoriously f. Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 434. Percival follows Hefele, who comments likewise on this topic (Hefele, History of Councils, Vol. II, Book IV, Sec. 66, pp. 163-164). Bruno implicitly refers to this quote again a few pages later when he says "A similar declaration of submission to the Roman See was made by the British Bishops at the Council of Sardica, A. D. 347." g. Joseph Faà di Bruno, Catholic Belief: or A Short and Simple Exposition of Catholic Doctrine, Part I, Ch. XXVII, pp. 105-106, London: Burns and Oates, 3rd Ed., 1880. h. This quote from Sardica is retained in the editions of this book through 280,000 copies. i. Denny, Papalism, p. 144. There are also very good notes on this topic in William Bright, The Roman See in the Early Church and Other Studies in Church History, Ch. 1, pp. 75-77 & Additional Note on the Sixth Nicene Canon, pp. 481 - 483, London: Longmans, Green, & Co, 1896; and in William Bright, The Canons of the First Four General Councils, Notes on the Canons of Nicæa, Canon VI, pp. 24-25, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd Ed., 1892. j. Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 293. XII. The Council of Sardica and Misquotations of Nicaea (cont'd) proved to be not Nicene. On this see Gore's Leo the Great, p. 114." Strangely enough, as though insisting on running counter to historical truth, another forgery is inserted in later (I noticed this in the Fifth and Sixth and later) editions of Bruno's book, in the very section that I originally quoted, where Bruno now adds the sentence, So much so that about the year 140, the then ruling Pontiff Sixtus I. could issue the rule that no Bishop going back from Rome to his diocese without a "Littera formata, that is, without the Apostolic declaration that he was recognized by the Roman Pontiff to be in communion with him, his diocesans were bound not to regard him as their legitimate Pastor (H. W. Wouters, Epoca 11. § 9.- History of the Roman Pontiffs by Artaud de Mentor). Furthermore, in listing the condemned Monothelites of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Bruno quietly passes over the name of Honorius, writing, "The Monothelites, with their leaders Cyrus, Sergius, and Pyrrhus, were condemned" Another example of Bruno's inaccuracy is when he alleges a quote from St. Cyprian in favour of the Immaculate Conception: St. Cyprian, a Father of the third century, says: "The Holy Spirit overshadowing her (Mary), the original fire of concupiscence became extinct, and therefore it was not fit that an innocent one should endure pain, nor could justice allow that that vase of election should be prostrated by the usual pains of childbirth. Because being very different from the rest of mankind, human nature, but not sin, communicated itself to her. (De Nativitate Christi.) The Anglican scholars of the Church Quarterly point out, Not only is there no treatise of this kind by S. Cyprian, but the Benedictine editors do not even condescend to put the cited book (attributed to Arnald, Abbot of Bonneval, a friend of S. Bernard) amongst the works erroneously ascribed to S. Cyprian. However, in a later edition of Catholic Belief, this is revised to: a. The ancient writer "De Nativitate Christi" found in St. Cyprian's works, says: Because (Mary) being "very different from the rest of mankind, buman nature, but not sin, communicated itself to her. (See the Anglican Bishop Fell's edition, A.D. 1700, p. 60, col. 2.) The Church Quarterly Review, Vol. XXIX, Oct. 1889, Art. VI, A Roman Proselyte on Ancient Church History, p. 131, London: Spottiswoode & Co., 1890. Compare with Luke Rivington, Dependence, Or, The Insecurity of the Anglican Position, Ch. II, pp. 53-54, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., 1889. This is a good article that addresses some of the errors of Rivington on the papacy in the ancient Church b. Bruno, Catholic Belief, p. 113 of the Fifth Edition (p. 110 of the Author's American Edition labelled as the 280,000th printing). This letter of Pope Sixtus 1 is a forgery from the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, and it is interesting that it was not cited in the earlier (2nd and 3rd) editions of Bruno's work, but it was later added in, and ended up being printed in hundreds of thousands of copies. Bruno cites the Roman Catholic scholars G. Henry Wouters and Artaud de Montor in parenthesis, who also promoted this forgery (Bruno misprints his name as 'Mentor'; the English translation and edition (with the Approbation of the Latin Archbishop John of New York), with no note of the spuriousness of the decretal, is William H. Neligan (translator), Artaud de Montor, The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs: From St. Peter to Pius IX., Vol. I, St. Sixtus I, p. 29, New York, NY: D. & J. Sadlier & Co., 1867 funchanged in the 1869 Ed.]). As noted in the Church Quarterly Review, Bruno elsewhere says, "attested by Anacletus (Epistola iii.), by Marcellus (Epistola iii.)", more spurious decretals (p. 353 in Second Edition, p. 311 in Fifth Edition, p. 271 of Author's American Edition). In another place, Bruno again implicitly refers to the spurious letters of Popes Clement 1, Anacletus and Marcellus I as providing evidence for the papacy, saying, "I abstain from giving the quotations of Pope St. Clement I., St. Anacletus, St. Marcellus, who all have asserted that they were succeeding to Peter, and sitting in the chair of Peter." (pp. 280-281 of Author's American Edition). However, the sole authentic letter of Pope St. Clement I does not say what Bruno claims, and no authentic writings of Anacletus or Marcellus are extant. Thus there are a total of six references to the False Decretals: Sixtus I (once), Clement (once), Anacletus (twice), and Marcellus. C. Bruno, Catholic Belief, pp. 125 126 of the Fifth Edition (p. 120 of the Author's American Edition). d. Bruno, Catholic Belief, p. 202 of the Second Edition. e. The Church Quarterly Review, Vol XII, 1881, p. 566. f. Bruno, Catholic Belief, p. 205 of the Fifth Edition, p. 178 of the Author's American Edition. Note the grammatical error in the beginning, missing the word "of" after "writer", which was not corrected in reprints of the Author's American Edition, but was corrected in the edition printed in The Glories of the Catholic Church, p. 172 (this edition is mentioned below), though the rest of the paragraph always remained the same. Another Anglican notes, Di Bruno Catholic Belief, 1878, p. 202, quoting S. Cyprian in favour of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, has, 'S. Cyprian, a Father of the third century, says, but the passage cited is really from a treatise ascribed to Arnald of Bonneval, a writer of the twelfth century, whose writings, though bound up in the same volume as S. Cyprian's works in the editions of Bishop Fell and the Benedictines, are placed at the end, with a separate title, head lines, and pagination, so that there could be no mistake. Notice was taken of this by Dr. Littledale Plain Reasons, p. 132. In Di Bruno's fifth edition he has quietly altered this into- 'The ancient writer found in S. Cyprian's works says; and alludes to, 'the Anglican, Bishop Fell's edition, which teaves the same false impression on the reader as before. Di Bruno says (ed. 1878, p. 179) 'The Catholic belief in Purgatory rests especially on the Apostolic traditions of the Church, recorded in all ancient Liturgies' This error was noticed by Dr. Littledale. Di Bruno, fifth edition, has dropped out 'especially' and 'all, though the references still give no support to the Romish doctrine of purgatory, though prayers for the dead are found. For proof see Translations of Primitive Liturgies, by Neale (Hayes)." There are many more errors 1 found in Bruno's work, and which have also been pointed out in William Lockett, Judge Fairly: A Reply to J. Faa di Bruno's "Catholic Belief", London: Chas. J Thynne, 2nd Ed., 1912; and Charles Hastings Collette, A Reply to "Catholic Belief": Letters Addressed to Cardinal Manning on His Approval and Recommendation of "Catholic Belief", London: J. F. Shaw & Co., 1887. An official letter of approbation, written by Henry Edward Manning, and standing next to the title-page, praises Bruno "for giving us one of the most complete and useful Manuals of Doctrine, Devotion, and Elementary information for the Instruction of those who are seeking the truth". Bruno's entire work (retaining his errors) is also included in a book titled The Glories of the Catholic Church: The Catholic Christian Instructed in Defence of His Faith, Vol. 1, pp. 49307, New York, NY: John Duffy, 1895. This work is a compilation of several Roman Catholic works, and received formal approvals from many Latin bishops and priests, as can be seen in the list of approbations printed at the beginning of this book, which includes a portrait of each person. Immediately after the title page of this book, it is stated that the following American Roman Catholic authorities have approved The Glories of the Catholic Church: Denis J. McMahon (1855-1915, "Theological Censor of the Diocese of New York"), Michael Augustine Corrigan (1839-1902, Archbishop of New York (Bruno's American Edition received the approval of Corrigan's immediate predecessor John McCloskey, as noted above]), Francis Satolli (or Francesco, 1839 - 1910, Italian cardinal, professor, and papal delegate to the United States of America, and it is stated in the approbation that "Mgr. Satolli has looked carefully over it. He is very much pleased with it. ... The information it contains is most useful and well selected."), James Gibbons (1834- 1921, Archbishop of Baltimore, MD, "He feels sure that it will be a source of instruction and edification to those who read it, and entertains the hope that it will have a wide circulation."), Francis Janssens (1843-1897, Archbishop of New Orleans, LA, "will be most useful in every Christian family."), Sebastian Gebhard Messmer (1847-1930, Bishop of Green Bay, WI, and later archbishop of Milwaukee), Patrick William Riordan (Archbishop of San Francisco, CA, 1841-1914, "I hope that so valuable a work will have a large circulation among our people."), Thomas Daniel Beaven (1851-1920, Bishop of Springfield, MA), Thomas Sebastian Byrne (1841-1923, Bishop of Nashville, TN), Winand Michael Wigger (1841-1901, Bishop of Newark, NJ), Henry Cosgrove (1834-1906, Bishop of Davenport, IA), James Schwebach (1847 - 1921, Bishop of La Crosse, WI, "This book is a Catholic Library in itself, and it ought to be in every Catholic family of the land."), James Augustine McFaul (1850-1917, Bishop of Trenton, NJ. "I have examined the volume and I have found it a very valuable and instructive work. It is well adapted for reading in Catholic families."), Stephen Vincent Ryan (1825-1896, Bishop of Buffalo, NY, "It contains a large amount of useful information, historical, ascetical, and doctrinal; and that it is safe reading, the Imprimatur of the Archbishop of New York is a sufficient guarantee. I commend it to the Catholic public, and hope that it will have a wide circulation."), John Joseph Williams (1822 1907, Archbishop of Boston, MA), Henry Gabriels (1838-1921, Bishop of Ogdensburg, NY, "a book I hope you will succeed in placing in many Catholic families. It is truly a religious library, dogmatic, moral, historical, devotional, and controversial, condensed into one volume, and its contents are correct and edifying. I give to it my full approbation."), Denis Mary Bradley (1846-1903, Bishop of Manchester, NH), Louis De Goesbriand (1817-1899, Bishop of Burlington, VT, "I consider to be a most useful work,"), Richard Phelan (1828-1904, Bishop of Pittsburgh, PA, "It is an excellent compilation, containing an immense fund of useful and instructive information for all classes. The Catholic who is familiar with its contents is well equipped for the practice of the duties and the defence of the teachings of our holy Religion.... I wish g. Richard Stephen O. Tayler, A Few Facts About the Roman Catholic Church, p. 8, n. 5, Norwich: A. H. Goose and Co., 1885 XII. The Council of Sardica and Misquotations of Nicaea (cont'd) it a most extensive circulation in my Diocese."), John Joseph Hogan (1829-1913, Bishop of Saint Joseph and Kansas City, MO, "It ought to find many Catholic purchasers."), Nicholas Chrysostom Matz (1850-1917, Bishop of Denver, CO, "I have examined your beautiful book... am happy to be able to say that it is a regular encyclopedia of useful and needful Catholic information, a book that should adorn the library of every Catholic home."), Ignatius Frederick Horstman (1840-1908, Bishop of Cleveland, OH), John L. Spalding (1840 - 1916, Bishop of Peoria, IL, "I have looked through your book, 'The Glories of the Catholic Church, and heartily give it my approval. It will be a treasure in any Catholic family."), and Silas Francis Marean Chatard (1834-1918, Bishop of Indianapolis, IN). The publisher received many more testimonial letters. I could quote more of the approbations, and it is fair to note that not all the Latin bishops said they carefully read the entire book, with many implying that they merely quickly reviewed or skimmed it, and only read some portions. In total, this book received approbations from the papal legate to the USA, seven archbishops, seventeen bishops, and numerous other Latin authorities, besides the fact that it was printed over 550,000 times. The edition of Bruno's Catholic Belief printed in The Glories of the Catholic Church still contains the six references to the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals of Popes Sixtus I, Clement I, Anacletus, and Marcellus 1, besides numerous other errors of fact. That in 1895 all these Roman Catholic authorities could stamp their approval on a work containing so many errors is one of those things which indeed makes the heart sad. All I can say is that they ought to have known better. The Pseudo-Isidorian decretal of Pope Sixtus I, mentioned above, has been commonly quoted in favour of the papacy, and I will only note here that in the seventeenth century, Stillingfleet replies to a Roman Catholic controversialist who had made an argument using this false decretal of Pope Sixtus I." Another work that cites the Council of Sardica's supposed testimony to the headship of Rome is the famous controversial work by British Roman Catholic priests Joseph Berington (1743 1827) and John Kirk (1760 - 1851), titled "The Faith of Catholics", the first edition of which was in 1812. A section attempting to demonstrate the "Primacy of the Successors of Saint Peter" states: The Council of Sardica, G. C. "If a Bishop, &c. (see p. 86) 'This shall seem most proper, if from all the provinces, the priests of the Lord, refer themselves to the head, that is to the See of Peter.' Ep. Synod. Ad Julium Rom. Conc. Gen. T. ii. p. 661. Cardinal Wiseman quotes these spurious words of Sardica to Pope Julius, making no note of their doubtfulness, saying: Another remarkable and still stronger testimony we find in the decrees of the council held at Sardica, in Thrace, at the request of St. Athanasius, at which 300 bishops were present. In its decrees we have this expression: - "It shall seem most proper, if from all the provinces the priests of the Lord refer themselves to the head - that is, to the See of Peter." So that here we have a council acknowledging that there was a final appeal to the head of the Church; and this is specified to be the See of Peter, where his successors resided.d The Hon. Colin Lindsay's apologetic work on The Evidence for the Papacy misquotes the Latin canons of Sardica. Here is his version of the third canon: "If judgement be passed upon any Bishop, and he thinks he has sufficient grounds for referring the matter to another judgement; let us honour the memorial (memoriam) of the holy Apostle Peter, by providing that the parties who entertained a. The Glories of the Catholic Church: The Catholic Christian Instructed in Defence of His Faith, Vol. 1, pp. 123, 242 & 249, New York, NY: John Duffy, 1895. These are the same passages from the Author's American Edition mentioned above. b. Edward Stillingfleet, A Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion, Vol. II, Part II, Ch. VII, Sect. XI, pp. 283-284, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1844. the case shall write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, and if he judges that a trial be renewed, let it be renewed." Can. III, Labb. Concil. T. ii. col. 659. The following is from the much more authentic Latin text of the canons (which were originally drawn up in both Greek and Latin), with an accurate translation: But if judgment have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it be your pleasure, honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure. Lindsay next cites the spurious text of the Sardican Epistle to the Pope: "For this seems to be the best and most suitable, if the Priests of the Lord in every province refer to the Head, that is to the Apostolic See of Peter" (se ad caput, id est, ad Petri Apostoli sedem). Ib. col. 690.9 Lindsay comments, "The testimony of this plenary Council to the Supremacy of the Chair of S. Peter is very full and complete." Unfortunately for Lindsay, the true testimony of this venerable Council is rather incomplete for the Papal theory. The words omitted by Lindsay, "if it be your pleasure", are extremely important to the proper understanding of this canon, as Tillemont says, "This form is very strong to shew that it was a right which the Pope had not had hitherto.", and as Pereira says, "It is certain that these and other prerogatives attached to the Roman Primacy had their beginning in the consent of the Bishops, or of a Council;" Moreover, the actual power conferred by this canon is quite reasonable and moderate, and nowhere near demonstrating Papal supremacy over the entire Church, especially since it refers by name to the contemporary Pope, and is comparable with similar canons regarding the powers of the Patriarch of Constantinople (see Canon IX of Chalcedon). Pusey has the following commentary on the limited reference of the Sardican canons to Rome: Other Canonsa secured to Bishops, deposed by the neighbouring Bishops, the power of having their sentence revised. These Canons also seem to have been occasioned by the tyranny of the Eusebians. The right given was to have the sentence revised if "Juliusb Bishop of Rome should see good." Yet it was not by way of appeal, but of revision; not at Rome, but by the Bishops of the neighbouring province, with or without the legates of the Roman Bishop. The specific mention of Julius in the first instance, seems again to imply a temporary object, such as was protection against the Eusebians. In any case, this limited reference to the Bishop of Rome is made in a form which shews that it was something new. "If any of the Bishops have been judged in any cause, and think that his cause is good, so that the judgement should be renewed, if you think good, let us honour the memory of the Apostle Peter, so that they who examined the cause should write to Julius, the Roman Bishop &c." "This form is very strong to shew," says Tillemontc, "that it was a right which the Pope had not hitherto." "The words of the Canon," says de Marcad, "prove that the institution of this law is new. 'If it seem good to you,' says Hosius &c. He does not say that the ancient tradition is to be confirmed, as was wont to be done in matters which required only the renewal or explanation of the ancient law." S. Athanasius himself insists strongly on the difference of the two forms of speech, the one declaring what is old, the other enacting what is new. "Theye [the Council of Nice] wrote concerning the Easter, 'It seemed good' as follows; for it did then seem good, that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, 'It seemed good, but 'Thus believes the Catholic Church; and thereupon they confessed how the faith lay, in order to shew that their sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic." e. Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy: As Derived from the Holy Scriptures and from Primitive Antiquity, Second Inquiry, Part II, II, 2., 85., pp. 180 -181, London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1870. Note that Lindsay appears to be using the Isidorian version of these canons. f. Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 417. c. Joseph Berington and John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics on Certain Points of Controversy, Confirmed by Scripture, and Attested by the Fathers of the Five First Centuries of the Church, Section I, Proposition XII, p. 151, London: Joseph Booker, 2nd Ed., 1830. The Footnote makes no note of the spuriousness of the quote, and cites the Latin: "Si ad caput, id est, ad Petri Apostoli sedem." g. Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, Second Inquiry, Part II, II, 2., 88., p. 181. h. Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, Second Inquiry, Part II, II, 2., Comment, p. 181. 1. d. Nicholas Patrick Stephen Wiseman, Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church, Vol. I, Lecture VIII, p. 243, Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1851 [These lectures were first delivered in 1836]). Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Councils of the Church from the Council of Jerusalem A.D. 51, to the Council of Constantinople A.D. 381, Chiefly as to their Constitution, but also as to their Objects and History, Ch. V. p. 142, Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1857. See the following quote. j. Antonio Pereira de Figueredo, Tentativa Theologica, Epistle Dedicatory, p. 4. XII. The Council of Sardica and Misquotations of Nicaea (cont'd) These three Canons form one wholef. Can. 3. required the Bishops who held the trial, to write to Julius Bishop of Rome, if the deposed Bishop should think his cause good. Can. 4. That in such cases a successor be not appointed to a Bishop deposed by the judgment of the neighbouring Bishops, until the cause be determined. Can. 7. appoints the mode in which the cause should be reheard, if reheard at all, viz. that the Bishop of Rome should write to the Bishops in the neighbouring province, that they should diligently inquire and define. Power was also given to the Bishop of Rome, to send a Presbyter, "to judge with the Bishops, with the authority of him, by whom he was sent." This was the first impulse to appeals to Rome. But it differed very much from the system engrafted upon it. 1. What it granted was a revision of a cause, not strictly an appealg. The deposed party, in this case, remained deposed, though no successor was appointed to him. 2. The cause was heard where it happened, not drawn to Rome. 3. It was mainly decided by the Bishops of the neighbouring Province; the legate of the Bishop of Rome, if sent, only judged with them, 4. Presbyters were allowed an appeal to the neighbouring Bishops, not to Rome. Greater powers were conferred on the see of Constantinople, by the ninth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. [Pusey's Footnotes: a) Can, 3. 4. 7. b) Can. 3. He is not mentioned by name in can. 4. and 7. having been already spoken of in the third, upon which they bear. c) S. Athanas. Art. 51. T. 8. p. 221. d) Conc. Sac. vii. 3. 8. e) Counc, Arim. and Sel. §. 5. p. 80. f) De Marca. I. c. §. 10. g) see De Marca I. c. 6. and 7.* Lindsay also cites the spurious epistle of the Council of Nicaea to Pope Sylvester: "Forasmuch as all things concerning the divine mysteries have been enforced to ecclesiastical profit, which pertained to the strength of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, we report them to your Roman See, having translated them from the Greek. Whatever, then, we have ordained in the Council of Nicæa, we pray may be confirmed by the fellowship of your countenance" (Quidquid autem constituimus in concilio Nicæno, precamur vestry oris consortio confirmetur). Labb. T. ii. col. 79.b Lindsay includes this among his evidence "to prove the superior pre-eminence of the Roman Church", but Roman Catholic historians consider its genuineness doubtful, as discussed in the previous chapter. This letter is among several others interpolated or falsified to aggrandize the role of the bishop of Rome in the Council of Nicaea, and are known as the Symmachian Forgeries (see the next section). Even if this letter were authentic, it would not prove that only the Bishop of Rome can confirm Councils. Similar requests were made to other bishops and to Emperors, for example, the bishops in the first council of Constantinople wrote to the emperor Theodosius with these words: "We desire your favour, by your highness' letters, to ratify and confirm the decree of the council." Adrian Fortescue also cites the corrupted letter of Sardica to Pope Julius, commenting, "It is difficult to understand how anyone can dispute that the canons of Sardica in 344 recognize the jurisdiction of the Pope over all other bishops." Soon after he cites a spurious Arabic canon of Nicaea, writing, "That these are genuine pronouncements of the Council in 325 we do not claim.... At any rate, they are old enough to come within our period." From a very early time improprieties appear in the West when dealing with conciliar documents. William Bright writes: the Roman series of canons, in the fifth century, confounded canons of the series called Sardican with Nicene, and led the Roman bishops, first perhaps in careless forgetfulness of the Sardican mention of Julius instead of Sylvester (as in the cases a. Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Councils of the Church, Ch. V, pp. 142-144. Note that there are printing errors with the closing of quotations in the original text, which I have corrected here. Also, it is worth reading the entire chapter by Percival on the Council of Sardica (Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 411 - 436). b. Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, Second Inquiry, Part II, II, 2., 84., p. 177. of Zosimus and Boniface), and afterwards, in spite of discussion and authentic information (as in the case of Leo, Epist. 43), to quote as Nicene what was really 'Sardican, as Gregory of Tours afterwards called a canon of Gangra Nicene (Hist. Fr. ix. 33) The following seven Popes called a Sardican canon Nicene, at least implicitly: Innocent I, Zosimus, Boniface 1, Celestine 1, Leo 1, Felix III, and Gelasius I (in Tractatus II, an inauthentic work ascribed to Gelasius (though some think it is authentic), and implied in numerous other places]. Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III and his mother Galla Placidia, misled by Roman authorities, also referred or alluded to the Sardican canons as Nicene. The Papacy claimed that the "318 fathers" made these decisions in favour of Rome's honour, and this can only refer directly to Nicaea. It is important to note that Pope Innocent 1 plainly said, "Other canon than the Nicene canons the Roman church receives not," and "the Nicene canons alone is the Catholic Church bound to recognise and to follow", yet Innocent and the popes who succeeded him were not careful in what they attributed to Nicaea. The usual defence of this confusion is that the Sardican Canons were grouped with the Nicene in various codices and canonical collections. However, this was not the case universally, and indeed, when in the fifth century Rome attempted to cite the Sardican canons as Nicene to the African bishops, the Synod of 217 African bishops, present from all Africa, said those alleged canons were not found among the Nicene canons, in any of their Greek or Latin copies. To ascertain the correct canonical list, the African bishops then sent envoys to the Eastern sees, and found that those cited by the Pope as Nicene were not in that collection. This proves that the Churches of Africa, Constantinople, and Alexandria, at least, did not consider the Sardican canons as an appendix to the Nicene. Despite the shortness of this section, this is an extremely important problem, for the Nicene canons were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and those who corrupt or misrepresent those canons, have committed a serious error, despite pleas of negligence or ignorance, especially seeing how Pope Leo I and other Roman bishops proclaimed the highest regard for the divine authority of the canons of Nicaea. XIII. Symmachian Forgeries The Symmachian forgeries were a significant early attempt by Roman partisans to falsify history in their favour. Hefele writes: Five documents, dating from the fifth century, mention, besides, a solemn approval of the acts of the Council of Nicæa, given by Pope Sylvester and a Roman synod of 275 bishops. It is granted that these documents are not authentic, as we shall show in the history of the Council of Nicæa, Binius also owns that the letter of the Nicene Fathers to Sylvester is false and feigned. The forgeries of Symmachus "were written during the dispute between Symmachus and Laurentius (498-507)". Symmachus and Laurentius were both elected pope by different groups in Rome on the same day, 22 November 498. Laurentius was later generally considered an anti- pope. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: During the dispute the adherents of Symmachus drew up four apocryphal writings called the "Symmachian Forgeries"; these were: "Gesta synodi Sinuessanae de Marcellino"; "Constitutum Silvestri", "Gesta Liberii"; "Gesta de purgatione Xysti et Polychronii accusation". These four works are to be found in Coustant, "Epist. rom. pontif." (Paris, 1721), appendix, 29 sq.; cf. Duchesne, "Liber pontificalis", I, introduction, CXXXIII sq.: "Histoire littéraire des apocryphes symmachiens". The object of these forgeries was to produce alleged instances from earlier times to support the whole procedure of the adherents of Symmachus, and, in particular, the position that the Roman bishop could not be judged by any court composed of other e. William Bright, The Canons of the First Four General Councils, Notes on the Canons of Nicæa, pp. 89, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd Ed., 1892. f. Beresford James Kidd, The Roman Primacy to A.D. 461, p. 138, London: SPCK, 1936. g. Cuthbert Hamilton Turner, The Organisation of the Church, in Henry Melvill Gwatkin and James Pounder Whitney (editors), The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. I, p. 179, Ch. VI, New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1911. h. Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. I, Introduction, Sec. 6, p. 44. c. "Rogamus tuam clementiam, ut per literas tuæ pietatis ratum esse jubeas confirmesque concilii decretum". John Ayre (editor), The Works of John i. See A Preservative Against Popery, Vol. XV, p. 176. Also see Samuel Hanson Cox (editor), Archibald Bower, The History Of The Popes, Vol. I, Sylvester, Jewel, Vol. I. Of the Supremacy, Art, IV, Division XXVI, p. 410. d. Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, Ch. V, p. 40, London, 1920. pp. 53-54, Philadelphia, PA: Griffith & Simon, 1844. j. Jasper and Fuhrmann, Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages, Part I, Ch. III, 2., p. 69, n. 293. XIII. Symmachian Forgeries (cont'd) bishops." In the book Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages, there is the following summary: The core of the work consisted of five forgeries: the Constitutum Silvestri (Maassen, Geschichte § 539.3), the Gesta Liberii (§ 557), the Gesta de Xysti purgatione (§ 558), the Gesta de Polychronil accusatione (§ 559), and the Synod of Sinuessa (§ 537). There were also additional texts: The view of Symmachus was preserved in a putative letter of the council fathers of Nicaea to Sylvester (Massen § 538), the letter of Sylvester JK † 174, Gaudeo promptam (§ 539.1), and a reworking of the Constiturum Silvestri, The Laurentians responded with their own version of the council fathers of Nicaea's letter, Silvester's letter Gloriosissimus, JK † 175 (§ 539.2) and the Roman council of 275 bishops (§ 539.4)." the emperor. Be that as it may, in the year 800 the doctrine of papal immunity had been established much more on the strength of these apocrypha than as a matter of theological conclusion from the doctrine of primacy. It was to these forgeries, for instance, that Alcuin appealed when he reminded Arn of Salzburg in the year 799 that the canons of Sylvester forbade anyone to judge a pope." Although this is a short chapter, these forgeries had a very significant impact in Church history, and many more examples of their influence could be given. XIV. The Alleged Speech of Philip at the Council of Ephesus Much could be written on the wide impact and reception of these forgeries. The Roman Catholic medieval scholar Uta-Renate Blumenthal In Act Ill of the Council of Ephesus in 431, Philip, the legate of Bishop Celestine of Rome, is said to have made a pro-Papal speech, applying writes: The principle, 'the pope is to be judged by no one', was appealed to for the first time during the schism between Symmachus (498514) and Laurantius (498c, 505), when the supporters of the former referred to the protocol of a synod of Sinuessa held allegedly in 303 near Capua where, it was said, Pope Marcellinus was obliged to judge himself because the assembly refused to do so although it had found Marcellinus guilty of an error in faith. The Symmachian party further strengthened their claim that the pope could not be judged by anyone with a reference to a pseudo-constitution of Sylvester I, who was said to have decreed at a synod in the presence of Emperor Constantine the Great that nobody could judge the pope, 'nobody shall judge the Holy See'. Pope Nicholas I quoted both instances in the letter he sent in 865 to the Byzantine Emperor Michael III in defense of the Patriarch Ignatius, and subsequently the decree of Sylvester I and/or the letter of Nicholas the Great were quoted frequently, last not least in the numerous canon law collections from the late eleventh- and early twelfth century, including the collections of Anselm of Lucca, Cardinal Deusdedit, and ivo of Chartres. The Roman Catholic scholar and priest (later bishop) James M. Moynihan (1932-2017) writes the following: a. C. In the centuries which followed, the gradual absorption of these forgeries into canonical collections aided greatly the acceptance in Western Europe of the maxim the popes could be judged by no temporal authority. ... Among canonical collections, the Symmachian forgeries are not contained in the Collectio Dionysiana, the Collectio Friesingensis, nor the Collectio Quesnelliania, all of which were compiled during the reign of Pope Symmachus. They make their first appearance in three early sixth-century collections: the Collectio Sanblasiana, the Collectio Vaticana, and in abridged form in the Collectio Teatina. The former two were frequently incorporated in larger collections during the years which followed, thus accounting for the preservation of our apocrypha. They are to be found, for example, in the MS. Collectio Mutensis, an Italian collection complied shortly after the year 524. All the apocrypha appear together in the MS. Collectio Diessensis I, another Frankish work said to date from the middle of the sixth or else the early seventh century. The Constitutum and Gesta Marcellini were also interpolated in certain manuscripts of the eighth-century Collectio Dionysio-Hadriana, or simply Hadriana as it is often called. Maassen mentions in particular MS. 74 of Irvee, MS. Burgundianum, and MS. Lucanum 125 as examples of the interpolation of our apocrypha. Finally we might note that the same two forgeries are to be found as well in the Collectio Hadriana aucta, a further interpolated version of the Hadriana containing additional manuscripts of Italian provenance, although the collection was made in Gaul. Thus it was that the doctrine of the pope's personal immunity from judgment spread rapidly throughout Western Europe... In the early days of the papacy however the popes considered themselves, in temporal matters, as the loyal subjects of Johann Peter Kirsch, Pope Saint Symmachus, in CE, Vol. XIV, p. 378. b. Jasper and Fuhrmann, Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages, Part I, Ch. III, 2., p. 69, n. 293. See the references in their footnote. Uta-Renate Blumenthal, Papal Reform and Canon Law in the 11th and 12th Centuries, Ch. XI, p. 86, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1998; Blumenthal goes on to note that Gregory VII also quoted this pseudo-Symmachian text in Dictatus Papae. Gratian can be added to the list of canonists. See the footnotes for additional references. Matthew xvi. 18 to the Bishop of Rome as Peter's successor. This passage has been often cited by Roman Catholics (including by the Latin First Vatican Council) as an evidence for the Papacy. However, I am not aware of any discussion on the authenticity of this speech, and even the few Protestants who notice these words appear to concede that it was said at Ephesus. Archbishop Chrysostomos of Greece, in his study of this council, has pointed out that it appears to be a forgery and interpolation, based on the internal evidence, and writes: Philip is stated to have accompanied this opinion with the following wholly unexpected declaration: "It is doubtful to nobody, but rather it was known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins; who lives and exercises judgment in his successors unto this time and ever. Therefore his successor in order and placeholder, our holy and most blessed pope, the Bishop Celestine, has sent us as [representatives] of his presence to this holy Council, which the most Christian and mankind-loving Emperors have summoned... in order that the catholic faith which has been guarded from ages unto this time may continue to remain unshaken." These words of Philip, which the Vatican Council (1870) adduced in support of "infallibility" without mentioning that they were pronounced in the Third OEcumenical Council, appear to have been interpolated in the acts of the Council and are indeed contrary to the very fact and summoning of the Council. For if they bore the meaning that the Bishop of Rome was the sole teacher of the faith and judge over the whole Church, the summoning of the Council and its decision against the heretic Nestorius would have been considered superfluous. Whereas Philip himself, after the above statement, and as though he did not remember it, extolled the canonical regularity of the Council as being "in accordance with the science of the canons" and as being unshakable, since after Nestorius' refusal to attend and after the lapse of the term fixed by the Apostolic See and much other time the sentence was delivered by the Council, in which all the Churches were represented by bishops "from the Eastern and Western Church.".... According to this, the Council did not execute the sentence of the Roman Bishop Celestine but pronounced its own judgment, to which the representatives of Celestine and of the other bishops of the West assented. Thus the words of Philip, if in fact they were spoken, remained suspended in the air through the total silence of the Fathers of the Council, and found no response whatsoever in it. More research on the question of the genuineness of this speech could be done, but I am inclined to agree with Archbishop Chrysostomos's suspicions. d. James M. Moynihan, Papal immunity and Liability in the Writings of the Medieval Canonists, Ch. 1, § II, pp. 6-8, in Analecta Gregoriana, Vol. CXX (Series Facultatis luris Canonici: sectio B, n. 9), Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1961. e. Gerard Shelley (translator), Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, The Third Oecumenical Council and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome: A Reply to the Encyclical "Lux Veritatis" of Pius XI, pp. 40-43, London: The Faith Press, 1933. A translation and Protestant commentary on Philip's words, assuming they are genuine, is in James Chrystal, The Third World Council, Vol. II, Act. III, pp. 99108, Jersey City, NJ: James Chrystal, 1895: XVI. Latin Version of the Papal Letters in Nicaea II (cont'd) seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end." and outside of the scope of this work. There is also another statement that Anastasius claims has been curtailed from the end of the pope's letter, which has the pope complaining XVII. Fictions in the Roman Breviary about some irregular circumstances of Patriarch Tarasius's ordination: We greatly wondered that in your imperial commands, directed for the Patriarch of the royal city, Tarasius, we find him there called Universal: but we know not whether this was written through ignorance or schism, or the heresy of the wicked. But henceforth we advise your most merciful and imperial majesty, that he be by no means called Universal in your writings. because it appears to be contrary to the institutions of the holy Canons and the decrees of the traditions of the holy Fathers. For he never could have ranked second, save for the authority of our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as is plain to all. Because if he be named Universal, above the holy Roman Church which has a prior rank, which is the head of all the Churches of God, it is certain that he shews himself as a rebel against the holy Councils, and a heretic. For, if he is Universal, he is recognized to have the Primacy even over the Church of our See, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and for ever, so that if any one, which we believe not, has called him, or assents to his being called Universal, let him know that he is estranged from the orthodox Faith, and a rebel against our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.t This passage was also not in the letter read to the Council. I think there is no doubt that the letter did not contain the passages that the Latins claim was in the original. Several Latins, such as Binius, following Anastasius, have accused the Seventh Ecumenical Council of reading a corrupted version of this letter, or deliberately editing or mistranslating the original text of the letter to be less offensive to the Greeks, but this position is not tenable. In the Acts, immediately after the letter of the Pope was read, the following is recorded: After the letter of the Pope to the Emperor was finished Tarasius said to the Legates: "Did ye yourselves receive these letters from the most Holy Pope which ye laid before our pious Sovereigns?" Peter and Peter, the legates, answered: "We ourselves having received from our Apostolic Father these letters, have brought them to your pious Lords." John, the most honourable Secretary, said "Our most worthy friends from Sicily can testify to this - I mean Theodore, most religious Bishop of Catana, and the most pious Deacon Epiphanius, who is here as Vicar of the Archbishop of Sardinia; for they both, at the command of our pious Sovereigns, went to Rome with the most pious Secretary of our most holy Patriarch." Theodore, Bishop of Catana, said to the Patriarch: "... He [the pope] then sent, by the hands of his Legates who now preside in this assembly, the letter which is directed to your Holiness, with that other letter which has been read, addressed to our most pious Sovereigns." It is also important to note the fact that the Council repeatedly calls Tarasius "Ecumenical Patriarch", which the pope had allegedly complained about in this letter. Anastasios makes another accusation of the Greeks having tampered with papal letters at this Council, claiming that in the pope's letter to Patriarch Tarasius, "And here also has much been expunged by the Greeks", but this is rather an attempt to discredit the Greek records of this Holy Council, and the internal evidence of this letter shows no signs of Greek tampering. Much could be said about the Latin version of the Acts of Nicaea II as they bear upon the Iconoclast controversy, and although this is an indication of the low quality of Latin scholarship and their records and translations of Greek documents at that time, this is a separate issue a. Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 536-537. Also see Mendham, The Seventh General Council, p. 49. b. Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 537. Also see Mendham, The Seventh General Council, pp. 69-70. c. Mendham, The Seventh General Council, pp. 70-71. d. Mendham, The Seventh General Council, p. 75, n. *. The Roman Catholic Breviary made use of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, and still retained falsehoods in the 19th century: One cannot pass by the two specimens of fiction still retained in the Roman Breviary. On April 26 Roman Clergy are still bound to recite the "lying legend" of the Council of Sinuessa, and its declaration that "the First See could be judged by no one." On January 16 is presented to them, on the part of their Church, an extract from the monstrous forgery of the False Decretals, telling how Pope Marcellus "proved to the Churches of the province of Antioch the primacy and headship of the Church of Rome" (see Hinschius' edition of the 'False Decretals, page 224). The Decretals were abandoned, it is said, by Plus VI., but under Pius IX. they still taint the Roman office book with falsehood.' XVIII. Inauthentic Documents in the Latin Pontificals and the Widespread Diffusion of Two Pseudo-Isidorian Texts The Roman Catholic Pontificals, which were widely used by clerics, contained inauthentic documents. The following information mentions some spurious documents in them: e. Allocution Libelli Closely related to the libelli earlier described and to the lectionaries were groups of texts used in the exhortations, admonitions, and allocutions to the ordinands in the first part of the ordination ceremonies. These texts could be in a variety of forms, and there is little rhyme or reason to the groupings in medieval manuscripts. They are often in the form of florilegia. Among the texts included to be read to the ordinand were snippets from Isidore of Seville's De ecclesiasticis officiis and Origines, the Pseudo-Hieronymilan De septern ordinibus ecclesiaea, the Pseudo-Isidorian De officiis septem graduumb, and Epistula ad Leudefredumc, the Pseudo-Alcuinian Liber de divinis officiisd, the Ordinals of Christ and a variety of sermons, including Sermo 11 attributed to Ivo of Chartres. Pontificals All of the above texts were gathered together into one volume variously called ordines, ritualia, and the like, but because the ordination ceremony was reserved to the bishop or pontiff, they came to be known by the 13th century as pontificals. [Selected Footnotes:] a) Athanasius Walter Kalff (ed.) Ps. - Hieronymi, De septem ordinibus ecclesiae (Wurzburg: 1935). b) Roger E. Reynolds, "The De officiis vii graduum: its Origins and Early Medieval Development," Medieval Studies 34 (1972): 113-51. [According to Reynolds, this Pseudo-Isidorian letter "formed one of the most commonly used epitomes of the functions of the ecclesiastical grades in early medieval manuscripts. In view of the popularity of this text in early medieval ordinational formulae, florilegia, and canonical collections, it is surprising that no extensive study has been devoted to its origins and early development." (p. 113)] c) Roger E. Reynolds, "The 'Isidorian' Epistula ad Leudefredum; An Early Medieval Epitome of the Clerical Duties," Medieval Studies 41 (1979): 252-330. [This article shows how this spurious letter was diffused throughout the Middle Ages in canonical collections, liturgical books, letters, sentence collections, and theological florilegia.] d) PL 101, 1173-1286." One scholar who has discussed this (though I do not agree with his conclusions) is Luitpold Wallach, The Greek and Latin Versions of II Nicaea and the Synodica of Hadrian I (JE 2448): A Diplomatic Study, in Traditio, Vol. XXII, pp. 103-125, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. Richard Price susprisingly favours the Latin edition of Anastasius Bibliothecarius above all the extant Greek manuscripts (Richard Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), Vol. 1. Session II, p. 143, in Translated Texts for Historians, Vol. LXVIII, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018). f. London: Rivingtons, 1872. There is more to this effect in the Breviary, and much could be written on the history of the Roman Breviary. Also see George Gordon Coulton, Papal Infallibility, Ch. XII, pp. 156-157 & Appendix X, pp. 269 274, London: The Faith Press, 1932; Janus [Döllinger et al.], The Pope and the Council, Ch. Ill, Sect. 31, pp. 396-400. g. Roger E. Raynolds, Ordinatio and the Priesthood in the Early Middle Ages and Its Visual Depiction, in Greg Peters and C. Colt Anderson (editors), A Companion to Priesthood and Holy Orders in the Middle Ages, Ch. III, p. 45, Brill: Leiden, 2015. XIX. "Roma locuta est; causa finita est" Archbishop John M. Farley), dates this saying from St. Augustine.9 The Harvard-educated Roman Catholic priest James Kent Stone (1840-1921), who was formerly an Episcopalian priest, wrote the following Archbishop Manning, in his pastoral letter to the clergy, when arguing for the authority of Rome, writes: in a book published soon after his conversion: There is a famous sentence of St. Augustine, which has already been given in a note, but to which attention may be fairly called again, since it has lately been made a pretext for the charge of fraud against some of the most learned writers as well as saintly prelates of the Catholic Church. St. Augustine's comment upon the condemnation of Pelagianism is as follows: Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem Apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est. These familiar words have sometimes been abbreviated, indeed have passed into the aphorism: Roma locuta est; causa finita est. It does not fall to me to vindicate the abbreviation; and if it did, I should scorn the task. The German Roman Catholic priest and preacher John Evangelist Zollner, in a sermon, misquotes Augustine in an attempt to defend the supreme authority of the Pope, saying, "And in all cases the children of the Church have observed the word of St. Augustine: 'Roma locuta, causa finita." Zollner fails to mention or qualify that these words are in any way an abbreviation of Augustine's actual words. The German Jesuit Weininger (or Weninger), in his catechism titled "Infallibility in a Nutshell", asserts, "They all ["the holy Fathers"] said with S. Augustine, as soon as the Pope pronounced a judgment in matters of faith: 'Rome has spoken, the case is decided." Weininger also makes the radical claim that "all the holy Fathers, from Hermas in the first century... without a single exception, thought the Pope to be infallible in the sense of the Vatican decree of 1870." Victor Augustin Isidore Dechamps (or Deschamps, 1810 - 1883), the Latin Archbishop of Malines, in a letter to the Latin Bishop of Orleans, also assigned this false saying to St. Augustine, writing, "When S. Augustine, for example, said with regard to those who demanded a second baptism, that S. Cyprian would have yielded, had the truth been made clear and affirmed by a plenary Council, what does he prove in speaking thus, but that, in giving his orders, Pope S. Stephen did not give them as a definitive decision, and to them could not yet be applied the saying, which belongs to S. Augustine himself: Roma locuta est, causa finita est?" Moreover, Dechamps boldly misrepresents St. Augustine on the question of Cyprian, and I highly advise re-reading the extensive quotations above made directly from Augustine on this matter. The Roman Catholic Irish Member of Parliament John Francis Maguire (1815-1872), in his book Pius the Ninth, which was revised in a new edition by Monsignor James L. Patterson, the Roman Catholic Bishop and president of S. Edmund's College, also falsely ascribes this quote to St. Augustine, writing: "Rome has ever been regarded as the centre of unity, the seat of authority, the court of final appeal in all matters of controversy; and whenever Rome has spoken, her decision has been received with submission by those who professed to belong to her communion. 'Rome has spoken; the cause is decided,' says St. Augustine." Hergenrother writes: "The judgment of Rome was so decidedly held up as final, that already Augustine declared "Rome hath spoken; the cause is ended' - 'Roma locuta est; causa finita est." In the footnote, Hergenrother attempts to defend this phrase. The Jesuit Walter Devivier (1833-1915), in a work edited by the Latin bishop Sebastian Gebhard Messmer (and with the imprimatur by Latin a. James Kent Stone, The Invitation Heeded: Reasons for a Return to Catholic Unity, Part III, Ch. VI, pp. 323-324, London: Burns, Oates & Co., 1870. b. John Evangelist Zollner, Repertorium Oratoris Sacri, Vol. I, p. 331, New York, NY: Fr. Pustet & Co., Third Ed., 1895. c. The Saturday Review, Vol. XXXII, December 16, 1871, Infallibility in a Nutshell, p. 776, London: Spottiswoode & Co., 1871, Henry Parry Liddon and William Bright, English Church Defense Tracts, No. I, Roman Misquotations, pp. 1 & 6-7, London: Rivingtons, 1872. T. J. Bailey (translator), Auguste Gratry, [Four Letters to Monseigneur Dechamps], Second Letter, pp. 37-39, London: J. T. Hayes, 1870. d. T. J. Bailey (translator), Monseigneur Dechamps, A Letter to Monseigneur Dupanloup (prefixed to Dechamps's First Letter to the Rev. Father Gratry), p. 23, London: J. T. Hayes, 1870. See Gratry's response in T. J. Bailey (translator), Auguste Gratry, [Four Letters to Monseigneur Dechamps], Second Letter, pp. 34-36, London: J. T. Hayes, 1870. e. John Francis Maguire and James Patterson, Pius the Ninth, Ch. XVI, p. 289, London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 2nd Ed., 1878 (Ch. XXVIII, p. 565 of the 1870 Ed.). f. Hergenrother, Anti-Janus, Ch. IV, p. 67. The Roman Pontiffs, from the beginning, have issued decrees, sentences, judgments, condemnations, on faith, on morals, on universal discipline, without Councils, general or particular, or with the assistance or bishops chosen by themselves, or with their own clergy and theologians. And such acts of the Roman Church have always been received as objects of faith, and laws of Divine authority. I need hardly stay to quote... or S. Augustin, 'Rescripts have come (from the Apostolic See): the cause is finished." William Bright writes on this aphorism against Roman apologist Luke Rivington's book The Primitive Church and the See of Peter: But we must give full prominence to our author's daring, and twice repeated, defence of 'Roma locuta est, causa finita est, as no more than 'the exact equivalent' of certain words of St. Augustine (pp. 291, 317; cf. 360). What words? He gives, fairly enough, in a translation, Jam enim de hac causa [i.e. Pelagianism] duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam: inde etiam rescripta venerunt: causa finita est. He tells us that it has been 'customary' to represent the words which we have italicised by the formula in question, which is, he says, their 'exact equivalent - although it gives no hint whatever of the purport of what precedes them as to the reports of two Councils, to which Rome's utterance was a reply. So then, to suppress one of the elements in a process, and to ascribe the whole result to the other, is evidently, in Roman eyes, a legitimate way of treating a document. In Anglican eyes, it is a scandalous offence against truth, and one of a numerous class of 'signs' against Rome. To those who still believe this was the opinion of Augustine, I respond that it is clear that Augustine did not think that Pope Stephen's decision in the baptismal controversy ended the cause, but that only a general council settled the question (as I show from extensive quotes of Augustine in the chapter on that subject). XX. Peter Damian's Misquotation of the Fathers in Favour of the Filioque Damian's inauthentic or misattributed quotations of the Fathers, in his attempt to defend the filioque, in the two primary letters he wrote discussing the subject. The influential Latin Peter Damian was involved in some controversies between the Orthodox and Latins. I will here point out some of Peter Damian writes in his Letter 81 (dated to around 1060), to an Ambrose, citing spurious words of Jerome, the Nicene Creed, and Athanasius: g. h. i. (41)... Very many of the Greeks think that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father alone and not from the Son, because they cannot find, as they think, clear evidence in the Lord's words. St. Jerome also, following their teaching, so states in his explanation of the faith, "We also believe in the Holy Spirit, true God, who proceeds from the Father,"a in which he was silent on whether he proceeded from the Son. Also in the Creed of the Council of Nicea we find: "We also believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds properly from the Father, and like the Son is true God."b... (45) But even though, as I said, many of the Greeks do not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father, the blessed Athanasius, bishop of the see of Alexandria, said among other things in the book he wrote against Arius, "I believe that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; I believe also that the Spirit, the Paraclete, who proceeds from Sebastian Gebhard Messmer (editor), Walter Devivier, Christian Apologetics: A Defense of the Catholic Faith, Part II, Ch. III, Art. III, III, p. 407, New York, NY: Benziger Brothers, 1903. Henry Edward Manning, The Centenary of Saint Peter and the General Council: A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy, p. 27, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1867, collected in Petri Privilegium: Three Pastoral Letters to the Clergy of the Diocese, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1871. Manning simply cites "S. Aug. Opp. Serm. exxxi. S. 10, tom. v. 645." It is strange that Manning should also quote St. Cyprian here, who certainly proves Manning's claim false, for Cyprian did not receive the decision of Pope Stephen in the baptismal controversy as an "object of faith" or "law of Divine authority." William Bright, The Primitive Church and the Papal Claims, Part II, in The Church Quarterly Review, Vol. XXXIX, No. LXXVIII, January 1895, Art. I. p. 275, London: Spottiswoode & Co., 1895.II. Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (cont'd) number of places by Popes, by councils, and as often by canonists, will be readily convinced that they would have acquired Immense credit, and been very often quoted by antiquity, if they had been genuine and true." Here I must direct attention to the all-important fact, that whatever may have been the authorship of these forgeries, the Roman pontiffs, and the "Roman Catholic" communion as such, have committed themselves over and over again to the fraud, as Dupin remarks above, and that, long after the imposture was demonstrated and exposed; in proof of which I cite the following, from one whose eyes were open by his patient investigation of such facts, but who, while a member of the Roman communion, wrote to his co-religionist Cardinal Manning as follows: - "Is it credible that the Papacy should have so often appealed to these forgeries for its extended claims, had it any better authorities distinctive authorities to fall back upon? Every disputant on the Latin side finds in these forgeries a convincing argument against the Greeks. To prove this,' the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, said Abbot Barlaam, himself converted by them from the Greek Church, to convert his countrymen, 'one need only look through the decretal epistles of the Roman pontiffs from St. Clement to St. Sylvester. In the twenty-fifth session of the Council of Florence the provincial of the Dominicans is ordered to address the Greeks on the rights of the Pope, the Pope being present. Twice he argues from the pseudo-decretal of St. Anacletus, at another time from a synodical letter of St. Athanasius to Felix, at another time from a letter of Julius to the Easterns, all forgeries. Afterwards, in reply to objections taken by Bessarion, in conference, to their authority, apart from any question of their authenticity, his position in another speech is, 'that those decretal epistles of the Popes, being synodical epistles in each case, are entitled to the same authority as the Canons themselves. Can we need further evidence of the weight attached to them on the Latin side? "Popes appealed to them in their official capacity, as well as private doctors; (1) Leo IX., for instance, to the pseudo- donation in the prolix epistle written by him, or in his name, to Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, on the eve of the schism. (2) Eugenius IV. to the pseudo-decretals of St. Alexander and Julius, during the negotiations for healing it, in his instructions to the Armenians. (3) But why, my lord, need I travel any further for proofs, when in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, that has been for three centuries the accredited instructor of the clergy themselves, recommended authoritatively by so many Popes, notwithstanding the real value of these miserable impostures had been for three centuries before the world, I find these words: 'On the primacy of the Supreme Pontiff, see the third epistle (that is, pseudo-decretal) of Anacletus'! Such is, actually, the authority to which the clergy of our own days are referred, in the first instance, for sound and true views on the primacy. (4) Afterwards, when they have mastered what is said there, they may turn to three more authorities, all culled likewise from Gratian, which they will not fail to interpret in accordance with the ideas they have already imbibed. Nor can refrain from calling attention to a much more flagrant case. On the sacrament of confirmation there had been many questions raised by the Reformers, calculated to set people thinking, and anxious to know the strict truth respecting it. On this the Catechism proceeds as follows: - "Since it has been already shown how necessary it would be to teach generally respecting all the sacraments, by whom they were instituted, so there is need of similar instruction respecting confirmation, that the faithful may be the more attracted by the holiness of this sacrament. Pastors must therefore explain that not only was Christ our Lord the author of it, but that, on the authority of the Roman pontiff St. Fabian (i.e., the pseudo-decretal attributed to him), He instituted the rite of the chrism, and the words used by the Catholic Church in its administration. "Strange phenomenon, indeed, that the asseverations of such authorities should be still ordered to be taught as Gospel from our pulpits in these days, when everybody that is acquainted with the merest rudiments of ecclesiastical history knows how absolutely unauthenticated they are in point of fact, and how unquestionably the authorities cited to prove them are forgeries. "Absolutely, my lord, with such evidence before me, I am unable to resist the inference that truthfulness is not one of the strongest characteristics of the teaching of even the modern Church of Rome; for is not this a case palpably where its highest living authorities are both indifferent to having possible untruths preached from the pulpit, and something more than indifferent to having forgeries, after their detection as such, adduced from the pulpit to authenticate facts? "This, again, strongly reminds me of a conversion I had with the excellent French priest who received me into the Roman- Catholic Church, some time subsequently to that event. I had, as an Anglican, inquired very laboriously into the genuineness of the Santa Casa; and having visited Nazareth and Loretto since, and plunged into the question anew at each place, came back more thoroughly convinced than ever of its utterly fictitious character, notwithstanding the privileges bestowed upon it by so many Popes. On stating my convictions to him, his only reply was: "There are many things in the Breviary which I do not believe, myself. Oh the stumbling-blocks of a system in the construction of which forgeries have been so largely used, in which it is still thought possible for the clergy to derive edification from legends which they cannot believe, and the people instruction from works of acknowledged imposture!" Further, Dupin remarks: "The first man that published them, if we may believe Hincmar, was one Riculphus, bishop of Mentz, who died about the ninth century. It is commonly believed, seeing the collection bears the name of Isidore, that he brought them from Spain. But it never could have been composed by the great Archbishop of Seville; and there is great reason to believe that no Spaniard, but rather some German or Frenchman, began this imposture. "It likewise seems probable that some of these Decretals have been foisted in since the time of Riculphus. Benedict, a deacon of the church of Mentz, who made a collection of canons for the successors of Riculphus, may have put the last hand to this collection of false Decretals attributed to one Isidore, a different person from the famous Bishop of Seville, and surnamed Peccator, or Mercator. About his time a certain Isidore did come from Spain, along with some merchants, and then withdrew to Mentz. Not improbably, therefore, this man's name was given to the collection, and it was naturally believed that it was brought from Spain. "And since these letters first appeared in an unlearned, dark age, what wonder is it that they were received with very little opposition? And yet Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, with other French bishops, made great difficulty in accepting them, even in that time. Soon after, however, they acquired some authority, owing to the support of the court of Rome, the pretensions of which they mightily favoured." On the twin imposture of the "Donation of Constantine," it may be well to cite the same learned authority. But this shall be found elsewhere [Elucidation II.]. Let me now recur to the same candid Gallican doctor, Dupin, who remarks as follows: - "2. The imposture of these letters is invincibly proved from hence: because they are made up of a contexture of passages out of Fathers, councils, papal epistles, and imperial ordinances, which have appeared after the third century, down to the middle of the ninth. "3. The citations of Scripture in all these letters follow the Vulgate of St. Jerome, which demonstrates that they are since his time (A.D. 420), and consequently do not proceed from Popes who lived long before St. Jerome. "4. The matter of these letters is not at all in keeping with the ages when those to whom they are attributed were living. "5. These Decretals are full of anachronisms. The consulships and names of consuls mentioned in them are confused and out of order; and, moreover, the true dates of the writers themselves, as Bishops of Rome, do not agree with those assumed in these letters. "6. Their style is extremely barbarous, full of solecisms; and in them we often meet with certain words never used till the later ages. Also, they are all of one style! How does it happen that so many different Popes, living in divers centuries, should. all write in the same manner?" Dupin then goes on to examine the whole series with learning and candour, showing that every single one of them "carries with it unequivocal signs of lying and imposture." To his pages let the student recur, therefore. I follow him in the following enumeration of the frauds he calmly exposes with searching logic and demonstration: - XX. Peter Damian's Misquotation of the Fathers in Favour of the Filioque (cont'd) the Father is of both the Son and the Father, because he also proceeds from the Son, as it is written in the gospel that, by his breathing, he would give the Holy Spirit to his disciples, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit."c [Footnotes by the Roman Catholic editor:] a) This citation cannot be found in Jerome. It derives from Pseudo-Jerome, Epistola 17 seu Explanatio fidei ad Cyrillum (PL 30.176 D: 179 C-D). But in both texts the word proprie, 'properly,' occurs and in the second the author states, "The Holy Spirit properly and truly proceeds from the Father and from the Son" It would seem, therefore, that Damian is not citing directly from this text, but is using some, as yet, undetected source. Nevertheless, in Letter 91 (PL 145.639 C-D) Damian quotes Jerome as saying, "The Spirit who proceeds from the Father and from the Son," a text that Ryan, Sources 128 no. 278 attributes to Smaragdus, Libellus de processione sancti Spiritus, ed. A. Werminghoff, MGH Conc. 2.1 (1906) 238. See also J Gill, "Filioque," NCE 5 (1967) 913-14. b) This is not found in the generally accepted text of the Nicene Creed. But the citation, without attribution to Nicea, is in Pseudo-Jerome, Epistola 17 (PL 30.176 D). c) John 20:22-23. Ryan, Sources 120f. no. 260, following Gaudenzi, Il codice 306, points to Smaragdus, Libellus 238 as the source of this quotation. Gaudenzi, Il codice 306f. notes that Codex Vat. Ottob. lat. 339 contained the work of Smaragdus, and that Damian's visit to the monastery of S. Giovani di Acereta in 1057-1058, which owned this codex, allowed him to cite Smaragdus in Letter 81. [Cf. Pseudo-Athanasius, Professie Ariana et confessio catholica (PL 62, 300 C), falsely ascribed to Vigilius of Tapsus. This passage is cited also in Letter 91." Peter Damian continues his inaccurate quotations in his Letter 91 (dated to 1062), to Patriarch St. Constantine III Lichoudes of Constantinople (Patriarch from 1059-1063), where Damian writes, "First of all, therefore, let me explain the source of this ignorance that allows almost all the Greeks and some Latins to maintain that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but only from the Father." In this letter, Damian misquotes the Nicene Creed (pp. 7, 15), Ambrose (p. 12), Augustin (pp. 12-13), Jerome (pp. 6, 13, but Damian notes his doubts with this last passage's authenticity), and Athanasius (p. 13), pressing these false documents upon the Patriarch." Damian inaccurately quotes St. Ambrose in the following passage of Letter 91: Nor is it improper for him to proceed from both, since he is equally in both, as Ambrose also states in book eight of the same work, "Just as the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, thus the Spirit of God is both in the Father and in the Son." However, the true Ambrosian passage reads: Just as the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, thus the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ is both in the Father and in the Son The addition of the words "the Spirit of Christ" dissipates some of the force of Damian's argument, for it is not as significant to say that the Spirit of Christ is in Christ, and anyways the passage has no bearing on the question of "from". the Father, and who just as the Son is true God", and a little further on, "And that the Holy Spirit is also true God we find in Scripture, and that he proceeds properly from the Father, and that he always exists with the Father and the Son" And again it says, "The Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds properly and truly from the Father". Hence, when in the creed of the Council of Nicaea, to which we referred above, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed not just from the Father without any qualification, but with the added word, "properly" - "and [we believe] in the Holy Spirit," it says, "who proceeds properly from the Father" - this "properly" is not referred to the Father in such a way that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him alone, but that from him is given to the Son the attribute that he proceeds also from him." These spurious quotations constitute a significant portion of Damian's testimonies from the Church Fathers in these two letters (in Letter 91, seven out of the fifteen patristic quotes are misquoted, and in Letter 81, three out of the seven patristic quotes on the procession are misquoted - this totals 10 inauthentic passages out of 22, or almost half, in his controversial letters against the Greeks), XXI. Forgeries in the Roman Catechism There are multiple citations of forgeries in the "Catechism of the Council of Trent", also known as the "Roman Catechism" or "Trent Catechism", an authoritative document which has been praised and quoted by numerous Popes, and was commissioned by the Latin Council of Trent. The Catholic Encyclopedia writes, "It [the Trent Catechism] was composed by order of a council, issued and approved by the pope: its use has been prescribed by numerous synods throughout the whole Church;" (fuller quotation below). References here are to the English translation by John Donovan (Dublin: W. Folds and Son, 1829), which was frequently reprinted in other cities and countries. The Roman Catechism extensively makes use of the pseudo-Isidorian decretals ascribed to the early Popes (Clement I, Anacletus, Eusebius, Urban I, Fabian, and, and Melchiades). I document all eleven examples that I identified (though some items could count as multiple instances): 1. A Pseudo-Isidorian decretal of Pope Melchiades (or Miltiades) is cited on p. 194, immediately followed by a quotation from a Pseudo- Isidorian epistle of Pope Clement 1, followed by references to the Pseudo-Isidorian writings ascribed to three Popes (Urban I, Fabian, and Eusebius): "That confirmation has all the conditions of a true Sacrament has been, at all times, the doctrine of the Catholic Church, as Pope Melchiades, and many other very holy and ancient pontiffs expressly declare. The truth of this doctrine S. Clement could not have confirmed in stronger terms, than when he says: All should hasten, without delay to be born again to God, and then to be sealed by the bishop, that is, to receive the seven-fold gift of the Holy Ghost; for, as we have learned from S. Peter, and as the other Apostles taught in obedience to the command of our Lord, he who contumeliously and not from necessity, but voluntarily neglects to receive this Sacrament, cannot possibly become a perfect Christian.' This same doctrine has been confirmed, as may be seen in their decrees, by the Urbans, the Fabians, the Eusebius's, pontiffs who, animated with the same spirit, shed their blood for the name of Christ." [Footnotes: "Epist. ad Episcop. Hispan. c. 2. ep. 4, ante finem.; Habes decreta horum Pontificum de consecrat, dis. 5"] 2. The same Pseudo-Isidorian decretal of Pope Melchiades is cited on p. 195 "Confirmation, although said by Melchiades to have a most intimate connection with baptism, is yet an entirely different Sacrament." [Footnote: "Epist. ad Episc. Hisp. in med."] 3. The same Pseudo-Isidorian decretal of Pope Melchiades is quoted on p. 196: "Hence, Pope Melchiades marks the difference between It is a serious matter that Damian does not know the correct text of the Nicene Creed, and makes an argument from the word "properly", them with minute accuracy in these terms: 'In baptism,' says he, 'the Christian is enlisted into the service, in confirmation he is equipped which is not found in the original Creed. In his Letter 91, Damian writes: In the creed of the Council of Nicaea, moreover, it says, "We also believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds properly from a. Owen J. Blum (translator), The Letters of Peter Damian, Letters 61-90, Letter 81, pp. 227-230, in The Fathers of the Church Mediaeval Continuation, Vol. III, Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1992. b. See Owen J. Blum (translator), The Letters of Peter Damian, Letters 91-120, Letter 91, pp. 1-17, The Fathers of the Church Mediaeval Continuation, Vol V, Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998. Another translation of this letter is found in James Likoudis, Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism, Appendix II, pp. 191203, New Rochelle, NY: Catholics United for the Faith, 2nd Ed., 1992. Latin in Migne, PL, Vol CVL, Opusc. XXXVIII, pp. 633 A 642 C. It is worth remarking that Damian points out that "some Latins" in his time rejected the Filioque. c. Blum, The Letters of Peter Damian, Letters 91-120, Letter 91, p. 12. for battle; at the baptismal font the Holy Ghost imparts the plenitude of innocence, in confirmation the perfection of grace; in baptism we are regenerated to life, after baptism we are forfeited for the combat; in baptism we are cleansed, in confirmation we are strengthened regeneration saves by its own efficacy those who receive baptism in peace, confirmation arms and prepares for the conflict. These are truths not only recorded by other Councils, but specially defined by the Council of Trent, and we are, therefore, no longer at liberty not only to dissent from, but even to entertain the least doubt regarding them." [Footnotes: "Loco citato."; "Laod, can. 48, Meld. c. 6. Florent. & Constant Trid sess 7."] d. Blum, The Letters of Peter Damian, Letters 91120, Letter 91, pp. 7-15. Damian's source here is the Pseudo-Jerome. See the editor's remarks for more information on Damian's sources - I do not allege that he was the author of any forgery, only that he uncritically and negligently copied the erroneous quotations of others, which had already been circulating among the Latins.II. Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (cont'd) 1. St. Clement to St. James the Lord's Brother. Plainly spurious. Equally so.. 2. The Second Epistle of Clement to the Same. 3. St. Clement to all Suffragan Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Others of the Clergy: to all Princes Great and Small, and to all the Faithful. Dupin remarks: "This very title suffices to prove the forgery, as, in the days of St. Clement, there were no "princes great or small" in the Church. He adds that it speaks of "subdeacons," an order not then existing, and that it is patched up from scraps of the apocryphal [Clementine] Recognitions. 4. A Fourth Letter of the Same. It is self-refuted by "the same reasons." 5. The Fifth Letter to St. James of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome and Successor of St. Peter. "But," says Dupin, "as St. James died before St. Peter, it necessarily follows, that this epistle cannot have been written by St. Clement." Further, "We have one genuine epistle of St. Clement, the style of which is wholly different from that of these Decretals." 6. The Epistle of Anacletus. - Barbarous, full of solecisms and falsehoods. 7. A Second Epistle of Anacletus. - Filled with passages out of authors who lived long after the times of Anacletus. 8. A Third Letter, etc. - Spurious for the same reasons. 9. An Epistle of Evaristus. Patched up out of writings of Innocent in the fifth century, dated under consuls not contemporaries of the alleged writer. 10. A Second Epistle of the Same. - Stuffed with patchwork of later centuries. 11. An Epistle of Alexander. Contains passages from at least one author of the eighth century. 12. A Second Epistle of the Same. - Refers to the Councils of Laodicea, which was held (A.D. 365) after Alexander was dead. 13. A Third Epistle, etc. - Quotes an author of fifth century. 14. An Epistle of Xystus. - Dates under a consul that lived in another age, and quotes authors of centuries later than his own day. 15. A Second Epistle of the Same. - Subject to the same objections, anachronisms, etc. 16. An Epistle of Telesphorus. - False dates, patched from subsequent authors, etc. 17. An Epistle of Hyginus. Anachronisms, etc. 18. A Second of the Same. - Stuffed with anachronisms, and falsely dated by consuls not of his age. 19. An Epistle of Pius I. Full of absurdities, and quotes "the Theodosian Code"! 20. A Second. It is addressed to Justus, etc. Bad Latin, and wholly unknown to antiquity, though Baronius has tried to sustain it. 21. A Third Letter, etc. - Addressed to Justus, bishop of Vienna. False for the same reasons. 22. An Epistle of Anicetus. Full of blunders as to dates, etc. Mentions names, titles, and the like, unheard of till later ages. 23. An Epistle of Soter. - Dated under consuls who lived before Soter was bishop of Rome. 24. A Second Letter, etc. - Speaks of "monks," "palls," and other things of later times; is patched out of writings of subsequent ages, and dated under consuls not his contemporaries. 25. An Epistle of Eleutherus. - Subject to like objections. 26. A Second Letter, etc. - Anachronisms. 27. A Third Letter, etc. - Addressed to "Desiderius, bishop of Vienna." There was no such bishop till the sixth century. 28. A Fourth Letter, etc. Quotes later authors, and is disproved by its style. 29. An Epistle of Zephyrinus. Little importance to be attached to anything from such a source; but Dupin (who lived before his bad character came to light in the writings of Hippolytus) convicts it of ignorance, and shows that it is a patchwork of later ideas and writers. 30. A Second Letter. "Yet more plainly an imposture," says Dupin. 31. An Epistle of St. Callistus. - What sort of a "saint" he was, our readers are already informed. This epistle is like the preceding ones of Zephyrinus. 32. A Second Epistle, etc. Quotes from writings of the eighth century. 33. An Epistle of Urban. - Quotes the Vulgate, the Theodosian Code, and Gregory the Fourth. 34. An Epistle of Pontianus. - Anachronisms. 35. A Second Epistle, etc. - Barbarous and impossible. 36. An Epistle of Anterus. Equally impossible; stuffed with anachronisms. 37. An Epistle of Fabianus. - Contradicts the facts of history touching Cyprian, Cornelius, and Novatus. 38. A Second Epistle, etc. - Self-refuted by its monstrous details of mistake and the like. 39. A Third Epistle, etc. - Quotes authors of the sixth century. 40. An Epistle of Cornelius. Contradicts historical facts, etc. 41. A Second Epistle, etc. - Equally full of blunders. "But nothing," says Dupin, "shows the imposture of these two letters more palpably than the difference of style from those truly ascribed to Cornelius in Cyprian's works." 42. A Third Letter, etc. - Equally false on its face. Dupin, with his usual candour, remarks: "We find in it the word 'Mass, which was unknown to the contemporaries of Cornelius. 43. An Epistle of Lucius. - It is dated six months before he became Bishop of Rome, and quotes authors who lived ages after he was dead. 44. An Epistle of Stephen. - "Filled with citations out of subsequent authors." 45. A Second Epistle, etc. Open to the like objection; it does not harmonize with the times to which it is referred. Here Dupin grows weary, and winds up his review as follows:- "For like reasons, we must pass judgment, in like manner, on the two Epistles of Sixtus II.; the two of Dionysius; the three of St. Felix I.; the two of Eutychianus; one of Caius; two of Marcellinus and those of Marcellus; the three of Eusebius; those of Miltiades, and the rest of Isidore's collection: they are full of passages out of Fathers, Popes, and councils, more modern than the very Popes by whom they are pretended to be written. In them are many things that clash with the known history of those times, and were purposely framed to favour the court of Rome, and to sustain her pretensions against the rights of bishops and the liberties of churches. But it would take too much time to show the gross falsehood of these monuments. They are now rejected by common consent, and even by those authors who are most favourable to the court of Rome, who are obliged to abandon the patronage of these epistles, though they have done a great deal of service in developing the greatness of the court of Rome, and ruining the ancient discipline of the Church, especially with reference to the rights of bishops and ecclesiastical decisions." The following is the Translator's Preface to these frauds: - In regard to these Decretals, Dean Milman says: "Up to this period the Decretals, the letters or edicts of the Bishops ofII. Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (cont'd) Rome, according to the authorized or common collection of Dionysius, commenced with Pope Siricius, towards the close of the fourth century. To the collection of Dionysius was added that of the authentic councils, which bore the name of Isidore of Seville. On a sudden was promulgated, unannounced, without preparation, not absolutely unquestioned, but apparently overawing at once all doubt, a new code, which to the former authentic documents added fifty-nine letters and decrees of the twenty oldest popes from Clement to Melchiades, and the Donation of Constantine; and in the third part, among the decrees of the popes and of the councils from Sylvester to Gregory II., thirty-nine false decrees, and the acts of several unauthentic councils." In regard to the authorship and date of the False Decretals, Dean Milman says: "The author or authors of this mest audacious and elaborate of pious frauds are unknown; the date and place of its compilation are driven into such narrow limits that they may be determined within a few years, and within a very circumscribed region. The False Decretals came not from Rome; the time of their arrival at Rome, after they were known beyond the Alps, appears almost certain. In one year Nicholas I, is apparently ignorant of their existence; the next he speaks of them with full knowledge. They contain words manifestly used at the Council of Paris, A.D. 829, consequently are of a later. They were known to the Levite Benedict of Mentz, who composed a supplement to the collection of capitularies by Ansegise, between A.D. 840-847. The city of Mentz is designated with nearly equal certainty as the place in which, if not actually composed, they were first promulgated as the canon law of Christendom." The False Isidorian Decretals refers to a collection of forged papal letters and other apocryphal documents created around the year 850. Saint Isidore, who was the Bishop of Seville in Spain from 600 to 636, was alleged to be the compiler of the collection. These forged documents claimed to be from the early ages of the Church, but incorporated the anachronistic ideas of Papal power. This forgery greatly promoted the Papacy and had nearly undisputed authority for about seven hundred years, from the ninth century to the sixteenth century. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a great article on this topic by the French professor and historian Louis Saltet (1870-1952), which will be quoted here, and Saltet confirms, "Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called papal letters are forgeries." Regarding the purpose of the forger, Saltet writes, "His chief concern was to defend the bishops; and if the papacy profited by what he did, it can be shown that it was a necessary consequence of the pope's being made the champion of the bishop. And even though it must be admitted that the popes benefited by the forgeries, their good faith is beyond question." However the ready acceptance by the Popes of these forgeries casts suspicion upon the staternent that their "good faith is beyond question". The Anglican priest and historian Henry Hart Milman (1791-1868), discussing the False Decretals in his magnum opus, History of Latin Christianity, has questioned: This immediate, if somewhat cautious, adoption of the fiction, unquestionably not the forgery, by Pope Nicolas, appears to me less capable of charitable palliation than the original invention. It was, in truth, a strong temptation. But in Rome, where such documents had never been heard of, it is difficult to imagine by what arguments a man, not unlearned, could convince himself, or believe that he could convince himself, of their authenticity. Here was a long, continuous, unbroken series of letters, an accumulated mass of decrees of councils, of which the archives of Rome could show no vestige, of which the traditions of Rome were altogether silent: yet is there no holy indignation at fraud, no lofty reproof of those who dared to seat themselves in the pontifical chair and speak in the names of Pope after Pope. There is a deliberate, artful vindication of their authority. Reasons are alleged from which it is impossible to suppose that Nicolas himself believed their validity, on account of their acknowledged absence from the Roman archives. Nor did the successors of Nicolas betray any greater scruple in strengthening themselves by this welcome, and therefore only, unsuspicious aid. It is impossible to deny that, at least by citing without reserve or hesitation, the Roman pontiffs gave their deliberate sanction to this great historic fraud.d a. Arthur Cleveland Coxe (volume editor), Stewart Dingwall Fordyce Salmond (translator), The Decretals, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (series editors), in ANF, Vol. VIII, VI, pp. 601 - 607. b. Louis Saltet, False Decretals, in CE, Vol. V, p. 773. c. Louis Saltet, False Decretals, in CE, Vol. V. p. 778. d. Henry Hart Milman, History of Latin Christianity, Vol. III, Book V, Ch. IV, pp. 198 - 199, 3rd Ed., London: John Murray, 1872 The following is a passage from Saltet's article in the Catholic Encyclopedia: The Collection of Isidore falls under three headings: (1) A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries; they begin with a letter from Aurelius of Carthage requesting Pope Damasus (366-384) to send him the letters of his predecessors in the chair of the Apostles; and this is followed by a reply in which Damasus assures Aurelius that the desired letters were being sent. This correspondence was meant to give an air of truth to the false decretals, and was the work of Isidore. (2) A treatise on the Primitive Church and on the Council of Nicæa, written by Isidore, and followed by the authentic canons of fifty-four councils. It should be remarked, however, that among the canons of the second Council of Seville (page 438) canon vii is an interpolation aimed against chorepiscopi. (3) The letters mainly of thirty-three popes, from Silvester (314-335) to Gregory II (715-731). Of these about thirty letters are forgeries, while all the others are authentic..... The Isidorian collection was published between 847 and 852. On the one hand it must have been published before 852, because Hincmar quotes the false decretal of Stephen I (p. 183) among the statutes of a council (Migne, P.L., CXXV, 775), and on the other hand it cannot have been published before 847, because it makes use of the false capitularies of Benedict Levitas, which were not concluded until after 21 April, 847. As to the place where the Decretals were forged, critics are all agreed that it was somewhere in France..... Isidore's forgeries were known among the Franks as early as 852. In Germany we hear of them a little later. We find traces of them in the Acts of the councils of Germany dating from that of Worms in 868, but in Spain we find no reference to them, and they seem to have been hardly known there. They found their way into England towards the close of the eleventh century, probably through Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury. Their reception in Italy is of greater importance. It occurred probably during the pontificate of Nicholas I (858-867). It seems certain that he knew of the decretals, and it is possible that he may have even possessed a copy of them, and showed proof of this on the occasion of the appeal to Rome made by Bishop Rothade of Soissons, who had got into difficulties with his metropolitan, Hincmar of Reims. He had already caused his appeal to be presented to the pope, but he now explained his case in detail. It was to his interest to quote the authority of the false decretals, and he did not fail to do so. This is proved by a letter written by Nicholas I on 22 January, 865, dealing with Rothade's appeal. Pope Adrian II (867-872) was acquainted with them, and in a letter dated 26 December, 871, he approves of the translation of Actard, Bishop of Nantes, to the metropolitan See of Tours, and quotes apropos one of the false decretais. Quotations made by Stephen V (885-891) are not conclusive proof that he directly used Isidore's text; and the same may be said of occasional references to it during the tenth century, which occur in the letters of the popes or of the papal legates. However, other authors in Italy show less reserve in using the false decretals. Thus, at the end of the ninth and the beginning of the tenth century they are quoted by Auxilius in the treatises he wrote in defence of the ordinations performed by Pope Formosus (891-896). It is true that Auxilius was born among the Franks, as was also Rathier, Bishop of Verona, who likewise quotes Isidore. Attone of Vercelli, however, was an Italian, and he quotes him. At the end of the ninth century and during the tenth, extracts from the false decretals begin to be included in canon law collections In the collection dedicated to Bishop Anselm of Milan, in the Réginon collection about 906, among the decrees of Burchard, Bishop of Worms. Nevertheless, until the middle of the eleventh century the false decretals did not obtain an official footing in ecclesiastical legislation. They were nothing more than a collection made in Gaul, and it was only under Leo IX (1048-1054) that they took firm hold at Rome. When the Bishop of Toul became pope and began the reform of the Church by reforming the Roman Curia, he carried with him to Rome the apocryphal collection. Anselm of Lucca, the friend and adviser of Gregory VII, composed an extensive collection of canons among which those of Isidore figure largely. The same thing happened in the case of Cardinal Deusdedit's collection made about the same time. And finally, when in 1140 Gratian wrote his "Decree" he borrowed extensively from Isidore's collection. In such manner it gained an important place in schools of law and jurisprudence. It is true that the Gratian collection had never the sanction of being the official text of ecclesiastical law, but it became the textbook of the schools of the twelfth century, and, even with the false decretals added to it, it retained a place of honour with the faculty of canon law. It was it that supplied the text of the "everyday" instructor on the things most essential to be known. And the faculty of law. styled itself faculty of the Decree; which shows how important a place in the schools was given to the Isidorian texts insertedPseudo-Isidorian Decretals (cont'd) U. in the decretals. .... Isidore wrote a long way off from Rome; he deceived his own neighbours in France, and among them the learned Hincmar of Reims. What wonder, then that he deceived the popes also, when his work was carried to Rome by Rothade of Soissons about the summer of 864?... And it is an undoubted fact that from the year 864, in cases such as the one we refer to, Isidore's ideas and expressions exercised a marked influence on the conduct and decisions of Nicholas I.... We can admit that, while the pope's contention is justified, the arguments with which he supports it are at times open to attack. Thus, in a letter addressed to the Council of Soissons in 863, he wishes to assert his right to intervene in the trials of bishops, even when there was no question of an appeal to Rome. This amounted to an assertion of the absolute power of the Holy See, a claim he might have supported by many solid arguments; yet what is our surprise to find him claiming in support thereof the canons of the Council of Sardica, which say nothing of the sort. The Council of Sardica (343) intended very particularly to safeguard the legal rights of bishops who were being persecuted; that was its main object, and it by no means intended to define the rights of Rome in matters of the kind. These canons mark one of the early steps in the question of church discipline.... On the whole, then, from the beginning of his pontificate, and before he knew of the Isidorian texts, Nicholas I was in fufl sympathy with the ideas expressed therein. Acquaintance with those texts did not seriously affect him. Yet, in his letter to the Frankish bishops, dated 22 January 865, apropos of Rothade, he puts the theory on appeals much after the manner in which Isidore had put it; so much so, that one writer speaks of the parfum isidorien that letter exhales (Fournier). If the letters of the early popes (i.e. the decretals of Isidore) are not explicitly quoted, they are at least alluded to.... Having said this, we are free to confess frankly that in lesser spheres than those of theology and law, the false decretals have not always exercised a fortunate influence. On history, for instance, their influence was baneful. No doubt they do not bear all the blame for the distorted and legendary view the Middle Ages had of ecclesiastical antiquity. During the Middle Ages it was almost an impossibility to consult all the sources of information, and it was difficult to check and control those at hand. It was not easy to distinguish genuine documents from apocryphal ones. And this difficulty, which was the great stumbling-block of medieval culture, would have been always an obstacle to the progress of historical study. It must be admitted that Isidore's forgeries increased the difficulty till it became almost insurmountable. The forgeries blurred the whole historical perspective. Customs and methods proper to the ninth century stood out in relief side by side with the discipline of the first centuries of the Church. And, as a consequence, the Middle Ages knew very little concerning the historical growth of the rights of the papacy during those first centuries. Its view of antiquity was a very simple one, and perhaps it was just as well for the systematizing of theology. In the main, it was no easy matter to develop a historical sense during the Middle Ages.... Though he [Hincmar of Rheims] had a suspicion that one or other document had been forged in part, he offered no objection to the collection as a whole.... Now the critics (scholars discussing the origin of the forgery] in question think they recognize a family likeness between two documents which were certainly written at Le Mans and the decretals of Isidore. The first of these is the apocryphal Bull of Pope Gregory IV (827-844) in favour of Aldric, Bishop of Le Mans. In this letter (Migne, P. L., CVI, 853) the pope recognizes the right of the Bishop of Le Mans to take his case to Rome whenever a charge is brought against him. The letter is supposed to have been written on 8 July, 833. It is quite after Isidore's own heart; and its style is wonderfully similar to that of the forger. The forged Bull of Gregory IV is a mosaic of authentic texts, and very often they are texts which Isidore used over and over again. The critics are all agreed that this forged Bull and the decretals are independent documents; that is, that neither makes use of the other.... In the interests of fairness we must, however, say one thing. As we have seen, the knowledge of the decretals shown by Pope Nicholas I dates from the visit to Rothade to Rome in 864.... It is true that in his letter of 22 January, 865, Nicholas | declares that the Frankish bishops appeal to the decrees of the early popes (ie, the decretals of Isidore).* a. Louis Saltet, False Decretals, in CE, Vol. V, pp. 773-780. Although Roman Catholics accuse Photius as the ambitious promoter of the schism, yet it is apparent that his antagonist and contemporary Pope Nicholas I was influenced by false documents, and though Nicholas' culpability is debated, it is clear that he never condemned the false letters, Roman Catholic scholars have admitted that this forgery played a significant role in the Latin communion, though they attempt to minimise its influence. The Belgian Roman Catholic professor Alphonse Van Hove (1872-1947) writes, "The Pseudo-Isidorian collection, the authenticity of which was for a long time admitted, has exercised considerable influence on ecclesiastical discipline, without however modifying it in its essential principles." The French Jesuit Jean Jules Besson (1855-after 1917) writes, "While the 'False Decretals' affected certainly ecclesiastical discipline, it is now generally recognized that they did not introduce any essential or constitutional modifications. They gave a more explicit formulation to certain principles of the constitution of the Church, or brought more frequently into practice certain rules hitherto less recognized in daily use. The Roman Catholic defence is to claim that the forgeries asserted nothing new, yet they are admitted to have significantly influenced the church, and there would have been no need to fabricate proofs for what was already both admitted and exercised from the beginning of the Christian religion, if adequate authentic documents previously existed. It does not appear that the widespread use of these false documents and the mounting errors of the Latins are mere coincidences. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Canon Law, by the French Roman Catholic priest and professor Auguste Marie Félix Boudinhon (1858 - 1941), who resided in Rome since 1916 and held an influential position at the Vatican, also mentions the False Decretals: (6) The collection of the False Decretals, or the Pseudo-Isidore (about 850), is the last and most complete of the "chronological" collections, and therefore the one most used by the authors of the subsequent "systematic" collections; it is the "Hispana" or Spanish collection together with apocryphal decretals attributed to the popes of the first centuries up to the time of St. Damasus, when the authentic decretals begin. It exerted a very great influence: (7) To conclude the list of collections, where the later canonists were to garner their materials, we must mention the "Penitentials", the "Ordines" or ritual collections, the "Formularies", especially the "Liber Diurnus"; also compilations of laws either purely secular, or semi-ecclesiastical, like the "Capitularies" (q.v.). The name "capitula" or "capitularia" is given also to the episcopal ordinances quite common in the ninth century. It may be noted that the author of the False Decretals forged also false "Capitularies", under the name of Benedict the Deacon, and false episcopal "Capitula", under the name of Angilramnus, Bishop of Metzd Evidently referring to the false decretals, Pope Nicholas I declares in an epistle: Decretales epistolae Rom. Pontificum sunt recipiendae, etiamsi non sunt canonum codici compaginatae: quoniam inter ipsos canones unum b. Leonis capitulum constat esse permixtum, quo omnia decretalia constituta sedes apostolicae custodiri mandantur.-Itaque nihil interest, utrum sint omnia decretalia sedis Apost. constituta inter canones conciliorum immixta, cum omnia in uno copore compaginare non possint et illa eis intersint, quae firmitatem his quae desunt et vigorem suum assignet.-Sanctus Gelasius (quoque) non dixit suscipiendas decretales epistolas quae inter canones habentur, nec tantum quas moderni pontifices ediderunt, sed quas beatissimi Papae diversis temporibus ab urbe Roma dederunt." On Christmas Eve of 864, Pope Nicholas declared in a sermon: although the Bishops had no right to hold a Synod without the precept of the Apostolic See, they had summoned Rothad there, and even if he had not appealed to the Apostolic See, they ought not, as you well know, to have opposed themselves to so many and great Decretals and unadvisedly depose a Bishop. b. Alphonse Van Hove, Corpus Juris Canonici, in CE, Vol. IV, p. 392.. c. Jean Jules Besson, Collections of Ancient Canons, in CE, Vol. III, p. 285. d. Auguste Marie Félix Boudinhon, Canon Law, in CE, Vol. IX, pp. 61 - 62. e. Nicolai | Epist. ad universos episcopos Galliae ann. 865 Mansi xv, p. 694 sq. Cited in Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. IV, p. 272, 1908. f. Nicholas, P. I, Servto quern de Rothadi causa... in missa fecit... die vigiliarum Naiiv. Domini (A.D. 864). Migne, PL, Vol. CXIX, pp. 890-891. English translation in Denny, Papalism, p. 112.II. Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (cont'd) documents of his papal predecessors in a formal appeal, during an important controversy between Bishops, and the Pope did not condemn Here is part of an article by the Catholic Truth Society, which has boldly tried to exculpate the Roman Catholic communion from guilt on the these documents. Milman well notes that there was "no holy indignation at fraud, no lofty reproof of those who dared to seat themselves in topic of the False Decretals: the pontifical chair and speak in the names of Pope after Pope." Some time after this (861), Rothade, Bishop of Soissons, had been excommunicated for alleged disobedience to his metropolitan, Hincmar of Rheims. He thereupon appealed to Rome. The Bishops of the metropolitan province of Rheims held a second synod, deposed Rothade, and appointed another bishop in his place, and handed him over to be imprisoned in a monastery. Rothade appealed to Rome again, and the Pope thereupon sent for Rothade, called a Council (Concilium Romanum V.) and annulled the whole proceeding, threatening Hincmar with excommunication unless Rothade were at once restored. A correspondence took place between the Frankish Bishops and the Pope, in which the former urged that the decrees quoted by Rothade to support his appeal, and which were taken from the False Decretals, were not contained in the Hadriana, or collection of decrees sent by Pope Hadrian to Charlemagne, and therefore were not binding. They did not attempt to deny the authenticity of the decrees; but accepting them as authentic, they denied their supreme authority, and they laid down the false principle that whatever was not contained in their Codex Hadrianus was not binding on them, and had not the force of law in the Empire of the Franks. To this St. Nicolas answers that they were wrong in despising decrees of the Pontiffs because they were not found in the Codex Canonum. "God forbid," he says, "that any Catholic should refuse to embrace with honour due and the highest approval either decretals or any exposition of ecclesiastical discipline, provided always that the Holy Roman Church, keeping them from ancient times, has handed them down to us to be guarded, and lays them up in her archives and ancient memorials. Some of you have maintained that these decretals of former Pontiffs are not contained in the whole body of the canons, while those very men, when they see that they favour their designs, use them without distinction, and now only attack them as less generally received (minus accepta) in order to diminish the power of the Apostolic See and increase their own privileges. For we have some of their writings which are known to adduce not only the decrees of certain Roman Pontiffs, but even of those of early times. Besides, if they say that the decretals of early Popes are not to be received because they are not to be found in the Codex Canonum (or Hadriana), this would be a reason for not receiving any ordinance or writing of St. Gregory or of any other Pope before or after him." And St. Nicolas then goes on to quote from the genuine letters of St. Leo and Gelasius to prove the respect due to all decretals of the Holy See. Whether in all this the Pope alludes directly or indirectly to the False Decretals is a question very difficult to decide. It seems that Rothade had quoted them in his favour. The other Bishops had not rejected them as spurious. St. Nicolas abstains from saying a word in their favour, but perhaps alludes to them so far as this, that he twits the Bishops with playing fast and loose using a document when it suited them, rejecting it as not of supreme authority when it ran counter to their wishes; but he expresses no sort of personal acceptance of the forged collection, and never makes any quotation from it, but only from those genuine letters which were, he says, actually stored up in the Roman archives. This is clear enough from the difficulty made by the Bishops. Hincmar does not say, Yes, but those documents quoted by Rothade are a forgery, as he would have said if the question turned on their authenticity. Instead of this he says, "We allow that these Decretals are to be received with veneration (venerabiliter suscipienda), but we do not allow that they are necessarily to be received and observed (recipienda et custodienda)," thus showing that in his mind the question turned simply on their weight of authority as Papal decrees. In fact, he himself uses these False Decretals over and over again in his quarrel with his nephew, Hincmar of Laon, and to exact submission from the Bishops under him. St. Nicolas, then, not only acted wisely and prudently in the answer he sent to the Bishops, but he pursued the only course open to him under the circumstances." The quotes they bring forward are very important, but their interpretation appears to be much more unfavorable than the Catholic Truth Society is willing to admit, as many great scholars have noted, and as the plain sense of the words imply. The article then argues that the popes after Nicholas rarely used the False Decretals, and even in those isolated cases, they were used unintentionally and not to the furtherance of Papal authority. The article comments: All this is the more remarkable, because all this time the Decretals were known at Rome. They are quoted over and over again by authors who wrote at Rome during those two hundred years. John the Deacon, about 880, in a Life of St. Gregory which he dedicates to the then reigning Pontiff; Auxilius, in his defence of the ordinations of Pope Formosus; Liutprand, or the author who bears his name, writing about 950, all use them freely: and we cannot but wonder at the wisdom and prudence of the Holy See in rejecting documents in which there was so much tending to establish Papal authority. In fact it was not until a French Bishop (St. Leo IX.) occupied the Chair of Peter that the False Decretals began to be regarded as genuine by the Papal Court, and to be quoted as authentic in the documents of the Holy See." Many of the Popes before Pope Leo IX were members of the undivided Church, so this inquiry is not as concerned with them, but it is significant fact, as stated before, that Pope Leo IX, who pretended to excommunicate the Greeks, was a notorious promoter of these False Decretals. The admission that the later popes used the False Decretals concedes quite a bit, and stands against much of the effort in attempting to clear the earlier popes, who were still negligent in failing to stop or condemn the promulgation of these false documents in Rome. In a council held in Rome in the year 1074 (the second year of the pontificate of Gregory VII), one of these Isidorian Decrees, ascribed to Marcellus, who is assigned to the year 304, is quoted as sufficient authority for the invalidity of Councils held without the sanction of the Holy See. The third Chapter of this Council reads thus: This blessed Pope [Marcellus], who, before the Nicene Council, sealed his Decrees with martyrdom, in the eleventh chapter says: The Apostles themselves, and their successors, by the inspiration of the Lord, decreed, "That there should be no Synod without the authority of the See of Rome." The "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and Other Forgeries" article in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia shows more examples of the widespread use of the counterfeit collection in the Middle Ages: It was in West Franconia (and in the province of Reims) that the completed and published work first appeared. The earliest known citations are Hincmar's of 852 (or 857; see § 4, above). In Hincmar's contests with his suffragans, Rothad of Soissons and Hincmar of Laon, the false decretals were the decisive factor in the former case, with help from the pope, in favor of the suffragan, in the latter case against the recalcitrant subordinate. There is some reason to believe that Hincmar discerned the true character of the documents; he was learned enough to do so, but he seems to have deprecated the controversy that must follow, if he spoke out boldly; and, moreover, he was not unwilling, on occasion, to use the decretals for his own purposes and to beat his enemies with their own weapons. It is probable that Rothad carried the decretals to Rome in 864 and laid them before Pope Nicholas I. The first sure intimations that Nicholas knew of them appear in his Christmas address of that year and in a letter of Jan., 865, to the Frankish bishops, both utterances being in regard to Rothad's contest with Hincmar. Adrian II., in 871, quotes a decretal of the Pseudo-Anterus, and a synodal address of 869, probably composed by Adrian himself, has more than thirty citations from the Pseudo-Isidore's collection; it is noteworthy as the first extensive use of the false decretals in favor of the claims of the Roman see. In the reform movements of the eleventh century their full possibilities and effect were disclosed. In Germany the first citations are in the acts of synods at Worms (868), Cologne b. Publications of the Catholic Truth Society, 1894, Volume XV, p. 18. This article proceeds to Jesuitical sophistry to defend Pope Nicholas, but the fact cannot be denied that the Pope was presented with false c. a. Publications of the Catholic Truth Society, 1894, Volume XV, pp. 14-15. There is a minor printing error in the original which I have corrected; the closing quotation marks go after "(recipienda et custodienda)," not the word "decrees". Eclectic and Congregational Review, 1860, New Series, Vol. III, p. 655, in another Bull, Gregory VII refers to the words of the Pseudo-Decretal of Anacletus, as the Roman Catholic Gallican scholar Fleury points out in his Histoire Ecclésiastique (Fleury is translated in Edward Bouverie Pusey. The Church of England A Portion of Christ's One Holy Catholic Church, and a Means of Restoring Visible Unity: An Eirenicon, in a Letter to the Author of "The Christian Year.", p. 244, Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1865). II. Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (cont'd) (887), Metz (893), Tribur (895), and at greater length - Hohenaltheim (916). At Gerstungen (1085) both the Gregorian and the imperial parties appealed to the false decretals; and an utterance of the papal legate (who afterward became Pope Urban II.) and the Saxon bishops concerning them is noteworthy for its doubting and contemptuous tone. They were introduced into England by Lanfranc, Spain they reached only as embodied in the later collections of canons. It was these collections which did most for their acceptance and dissemination. The oldest which embodies Pseudo-Isidorian material (A2) is the Collectio Anselmo dedicata, made, probably in Milan, between 883 and 897. Others followed (see Canon Law, II., 5, § 1), and a collection made in Italy under Lea IX. about 1050 is little more than a compendium of the Pseudo-Isidoriana (250 of its 315 chapters are from the forgery). When it was admitted to Gratian's Decretum, its acceptance became absolute. With the possible exception of Hincmar and the guarded expression of the Synod of Gerstungen, no one raised his voice against the forgeries till the fifteenth century." In the canon law collection commonly known as the Excerptions of Egbert, which originated in southern England around the year 1005, There are articles (e.g. those numbered 141 and 144 by Mr. Thorpe) taken from the 'decretals' of the early Popes fabricated by the false Isidore, and from the spurious Acts of the pretended Roman Council under Pope Sylvester. It is remarkable that despite the doubts raised, the official position of the Roman Catholic communion near the end of the 16th century, in her official canon law collection, was that the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals were genuine: The Middle Ages were deceived by this huge forgery, but during the Renaissance men of learning and the canonists generally began to recognize the fraud. Two cardinals, John of Torquemada (1468) and Nicholas of Cusa (1464), declared the earlier documents to be forgeries, especially those purporting to be by Clement and Anacletus. Then suspicion began to grow. Erasmus (d. 1536) and canonists who had joined the Reformation, such as Charles du Moulin (d. 1568), or Catholic canonists like Antoine le Conte (d. 1586), and after them the Centuriators of Magdeburg, in 1559, put the question squarely before the learned world. Nevertheless the official edition of the "Corpus Juris", in 1580, upheld the genuineness of the false decretals, many fragments of which are to be found in the "Decretum" of Gratian. The Italian professor Giorgio Bartoli (1867 - after 1917), a Jesuit for 27 years who was a professor at various Jesuit colleges and converted to Protestantism, writes, And it must be remarked here, that when in 1582, by order of Pope Gregory XIII. and under the revision of a committee appointed by him, the correct text of the Corpus Juris was published, the false decretals were retained, although, even then, most of the learned asked for their suppression. It was not until the 17th century that they were formally repudiated by Roman Catholics, urged by the studies of Protestant scholars: In 1628 the Protestant Blondel published his decisive study, "Pseudo-Isidorus et Turrianus vapulantes". Since then the apocryphal nature of the decretals of Isidore has been an established historical fact. The last of the false decretals that had escaped the keen criticism of Blondel were pointed out by two Catholic priests, the brothers Ballerini, in the eighteenth century. When the real character of these decretals was sufficiently demonstrated by the "Magdeburg Centuries" (1559), some Latins gave them up, but the Jesuit Franciscus Turrianus (or Francisco de Torres, Francisci Torresnsis, c. 15091584), endeavoured to prove their genuineness in his reply "Adv. Magdeburg. Centuriatores pro canonibus Apostolorum et epistolis Decretalibus Pontificum Apostolorum, libri quinque" a. Emil Seckel, Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and Other Forgeries, I, § 7., in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IX, p. 347, New York, NY: Funk and Wagnalis Company, 1911. b. Roundell Palmer, Ancient Facts and Fictions Concerning Churches and Tithes, Part II, Ch. VI, § 4., p. 244, London: Macmillan and Co., 1888. c. Louis Saltet, False Decretals, in CE, Vol. V, p. 773. (1572). To this work David Blondel wrote an answer entitled "Pseudo-Isidorus et Turrianus Vapulantes" (1628), which settled the question beyond all cavil. Francisco Turrianus is another case of a high-ranking official of Roman Catholicism defending forged documents: In 1562 Pius IV sent him to the Council of Trent, and on 8 January, 1567, he became a Jesuit. He was professor at the Roman College, took part in the revision of the Sixtine Vulgate, and had Hosius and Baronius for literary associates. His contemporaries called him helluo librorum for the rapidity with which he examined the principal libraries. He defended the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, the authority of the sovereign pontiff over the council, the Divinely appointed authority of bishops, Communion under one kind for the laity, the authenticity of the Apostolic Canons and the Pseudo- Isidorian decretals.' Other Roman Catholics who have attempted to defend the False Decretals have also failed: An attempt at defence by the Jesuit (Torres: Adv. Magd. centuriatores, Florence, 1572) was completely refuted by Blondel; and later attempts - Bonaventura Malvasia (Nuntius veritatis, Rome, 1635) and Eduard Dumond (Les fausses décrétales [1866]), in Revue des questions historiques, i. and ii. - have failed as signally." The Anglican scholar George Gordon Coulton (1858-1947) writes: The last scholar to attempt a defence of the genuineness of these decretals was the Spanish Benedictine, J. S. Aguirre, Professor of Theology at Salamanca and Secretary to the Inquisition in Spain, in the seventh dissertation of his Collectio Conciliorum Hispanae. The book was printed in 1683, and the author was promoted to the Cardinalate in 1686; but no modern Romanist scholar takes his dissertation seriously." Zeger Bernhard van Espen (or Espenius, 1646 1728) was a learned Roman Catholic priest and professor of canon law. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "He was consulted by all classes on account of his profound learning in canon law, and his famous work, Jus canonicum universum', although it raised numerous just criticisms, still remains remarkable." Van Espen writes of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals: It is undoubted that the Roman Curia supported this collection of false Decretals with the utmost zeal, and laboured that these Decretal letters might everywhere be received as authentic and as emanating from these early and most holy Pontiffs, and that the authority claimed in them for the Roman Pontiffs might be recognised by all, by this forgery and reception of the Decretals the discipline of the Fathers was broken down, and moreover, the Roman Pontiffs inserted into their own Decretals, and willed to be taken for law, the new principles asserted in these Decretals as if they had been transmitted to us by Apostolical tradition. Yves Congar (1904-1995), a knowledgeable Dominican Roman Catholic historian, professor, and ecumenist, while attempting to defend the Latin use of the False Decretals, notes: f. Concerning the False Decretals, we need not repeat what is today universally admitted, that they were not the acts of Rome but of Frankish clerics, seeking to ensure to the Church her independence in regard to the secular powers. But they contributed to the increasing of papal power and the ideology expressing that power. Cf. Fleury, Hist., ecclesiast. 4th "Discours" at the beginning of Vol. XVI, and Haller, op. cit. Hartmann, op. cit. 28, has shown that the Pseudo-Isidore has Perez Goyena, Francisco Torres (Turrianus), in CE, Vol. XIV, p. 783. g. i. d. Giorgio Bartoli, The Primitive Church and the Primacy of Rome, Ch. VI, p. 116, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910. Bartoli will be quoted later in the j. Forgeries section. Also note that thirty spurious quotations are ascribed to Pope Anacletus in the Corpus Juris. e. Louis Saltet, False Decretals, in CE, Vol. V, pp. 773-774. Hermann Wasserschleben, Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, in A Religious Encyclopædia or Dictionary, Vol. III, p. 1968, London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, Third Ed., 1891. h. George Gordon Coulton, Romanism and Truth, Vol: I, Ch, II, p. 23, note 3, London: The Faith Press, 1930. There were still scattered Latin attempts to defend the pseudo-Isidorian decretals, such as by Eduard Dumond in 1866. Zeger Bernhard van Espen, Alphonse Van Hove, in CE, Vol. V, p. 541. Van Espen, Comment. in jus novum Canonicum, pars secunda, diss. prima, De Collectione Isidori, op. tom. iii 453. Lovanii, 1753. English translation cited from Edward Denny, Papalism, p. 593. Due to Van Espen's stout Gallicanism, all of his works have been placed on the Roman Catholic Index of Prohibited Books.