The Donation of Constantine!

davidoffinland · #1 4th October 2006, 03:31 AM

From Finland.

It was purported that a legal document called "Donation of Constantine" in which Constantine bestowed on Sylvester, the bishop of Rome (314-335) transferring to him his power, authority and the palace to the bishop of Rome. In short, granting the bishop his property and investing him with great spiritual power, and later civil power.

It is said that this document is a forgery because Constantine was made to speak 8th Ct Latin though he lived in the early 4th Ct. Also it was said that during these centuries Rome inserted in it her codes that no one was permitted to question its genuineness and those who refused to believe in it were burned.

Read it for yourself at:

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

Or, google for more information.

In Him, david.

Metanoia02 · #2 4th October 2006, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by davidoffinland

From Finland.

It was purported that a legal document called "Donation of Constantine" in which Constantine bestowed on Sylvester, the bishop of Rome (314-335) transferring to him his power, authority and the palace to the bishop of Rome. In short, granting the bishop his property and investing him with great spiritual power, and later civil power.

It is said that this document is a forgery because Constantine was made to speak 8th Ct Latin though he lived in the early 4th Ct. Also it was said that during these centuries Rome inserted in it her codes that no one was permitted to question its genuineness and those who refused to believe in it were burned.

Read it for yourself at:

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

Or, google for more information.

In Him, david.

What's the point? The Catholic Church recognizes it as a forgery and it has no impact on the Church or what it teaches. The rest is just "it was said" without any proof.

Rick Otto · #3 5th October 2006, 01:58 PM

The point is obviously to display corruption, and inform the public of it.
The fact it has no impact on that organization is testimony to that organization's indifference to reality and imperviousness to what should be shocking revelations.
It also gives analytical clarity to the ambiguities in the terms "catholic" & and "church", for if any one denomination was truly catholic (universal), there would be no need or desire for other denominations.
Indeed, the qualifying adjective "Roman" is apt, with all the imperious character imlications it evokes.
Thanks for asking, I wasn't going to respond to the O.P., but you inspired me.

Metanoia02 · #4 5th October 2006, 03:55 PM

Why is this such a big deal. The Church did not us it as any source of authority for what it did. Pepin the Short when he did legitimately give some these lands to the Pope never refered to this document as an authority. Why does this prove corruption beyond forgery? Is all of Christianity corrupt by virtue of the existence of the Gnostic Gospels?

Rick Otto · #5 5th October 2006, 11:04 PM

"Why is this such a big deal. The Church did not us it as any source of authority for what it did. Pepin the Short when he did legitimately give some these lands to the Pope never refered to this document as an authority."

>When is forgery not a big deal?
Who DID refer to it as an authority?
Why did it exist?
Who would benefit from it?

"Why does this prove corruption beyond forgery?"
>Who said it did? Are you implying forgery should be overlooked?

"Is all of Christianity corrupt by virtue of the existence of the Gnostic Gospels?"
> Is all of truth corrupted by the existence of one lie?

No, of course not, and neither is the true God, or His true Church corrupted by any self-appointed substitutes.

Perhaps you "protesteth" too much?

Metanoia02 · #6 6th October 2006, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

"Why is this such a big deal. The Church did not us it as any source of authority for what it did. Pepin the Short when he did legitimately give some these lands to the Pope never refered to this document as an authority."

>When is forgery not a big deal?
Who DID refer to it as an authority?
Why did it exist?
Who would benefit from it?

"Why does this prove corruption beyond forgery?"
>Who said it did? Are you implying forgery should be overlooked?

"Is all of Christianity corrupt by virtue of the existence of the Gnostic Gospels?"
> Is all of truth corrupted by the existence of one lie?

No, of course not, and neither is the true God, or His true Church corrupted by any self-appointed substitutes.

Perhaps you "protesteth" too much?

There is no evidence of authorship of the forgery, so you can blame the Church for this "crime". The Church did not benefit from it, becuase it was never used as an authority to prove any claim it had.

Rick Otto · #7 8th October 2006, 02:18 PM

Where is ANYone blamed?
I simply asked who WOULD do it & why?
If by "the Church" didn't benefit from it, I suppose you to mean the Catholic Church, and by "benefit" & "use an authority", you mean "officialy", I have, & you offer no proof of this, not to imply it's false, but to imply that it might be arguable.

So whoya think "dunnit"?
And why?

Metanoia02 · #8 8th October 2006, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

Where is ANYone blamed?
I simply asked who WOULD do it & why?
If by "the Church" didn't benefit from it, I suppose you to mean the Catholic Church, and by "benefit" & "use an authority", you mean "officialy", I have, & you offer no proof of this, not to imply it's false, but to imply that it might be arguable.

So whoya think "dunnit"?
And why?

I don't care who did it. It is a forgery which was never used by the Church to assert any claim of property or power.

You claimed that it indicates corruption. I only ask you prove that. Since you can't prove who did the forgery or show how the Church benefited from this forgery, what is your point. This is a tactic to discredit the Catholic Church which is based on assumption and not fact.

Rick Otto · #9 8th October 2006, 06:02 PM

Forgery IS corruption, and unless it is on the level of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, we follow "the money". At the time of the forgery, who would've benifitted from authoring is circumstantial evidence.
Again, you use the term "Church" with ambiguity.

I kind of doubt that the forgery was a tactic to discredit, but I could be wrong. Looks like an attempt to illegitamitely GIVE credit.

If you mean POINTING OUT the forgery is a "tactic", You still MIGHT be right as far as the O.P. author's intention, but he doesn't clearly state that, does he? Perhaps you too are making assumptions not based on fact.

However, you are clearly convinced, since you offer no "In my opinion", or qualify with "might" be a tactic, so without proof of authorship, & no offered proof that what the link says is false("This document was used by medieval popes to bolster their claims for territorial and secular power in Italy") by you, I might consider your statement a "tactic" to discredit the Wiki.

What's your point?
To defend the defenseless?

Metanoia02 · #10 8th October 2006, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

Forgery IS corruption, and unless it is on the level of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, we follow "the money". At the time of the forgery, who would've benifitted from authoring is circumstantial evidence.
Again, you use the term "Church" with ambiguity.

I kind of doubt that the forgery was a tactic to discredit, but I could be wrong. Looks like an attempt to illegitamitely GIVE credit.

If you mean POINTING OUT the forgery is a "tactic", You still MIGHT be right as far as the O.P. author's intention, but he doesn't clearly state that, does he? Perhaps you too are making assumptions not based on fact.

However, you are clearly convinced, since you offer no "In my opinion", or qualify with "might" be a tactic, so without proof of authorship, & no offered proof that what the link says is false("This document was used by medieval popes to bolster their claims for territorial and secular power in Italy") by you, I might consider your statement a "tactic" to discredit the Wiki.

What's your point?
To defend the defenseless?

Unless some evidence is presented to back up accusations, thisis pointless. I have still yet to find any benefit of your participation other then taking shots at the Catholic Church. But if that is the way you get your kicks, enjoy yourself.