A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[everready]

Why not add this to the mix, does your virgin mother have the same authority as Jesus, it would seem so, doesn't she act the mediator between God and man as well as Jesus, when Gods word says there is only one, the man Christ Jesus? If so she must hold those that key as well.

In Christ,
Lee

 

[Albion]

Not at all. I am trying to approach this from a different angel. And what i am suggesting would account for the Bishop of Rome as being Supreme to other Bishops because he holds the Keys.

Well, what I was doing there was agreeing with the point you made--that whatever was given by Jesus to Peter was given to him alone.

That was your point.

I merely added that if it is correct as you say, there can be no Papacy as you envision it because Linus, Clement, etc. are not Peter! Now, if you think this is hair-splitting, it is not. EVEN IF we agree to your proposition about Peter as a Pope, there is nothing at all in that to suggest a handoff by Peter to someone else or that Jesus had this in mind.

As to the comparison the Key from David and the Keys from Matthew are both a symbol of their authority. We have Keys with Jesus because of Heaven having more then one level.

So you are turning against your own analogy. David's key can't both be analogous to Peter's keys and at the same time not be.

Again, I am asking you to consider that this is a possiblity and I am not asking you to subscribe to it.

But I have already done that. I agree that it is a possibility along with at least a half-dozen other scenarios. Are you asking that we agree to a theory that is unprovable just because it "could have happened?" I personally can't make doctrine out of guesswork like that.

Dynastic in that they pass it on.

But that doesn't work. You begin with the proposition that we are talking about Royalty and then proceed to say that it doesn't matter that the Popes do not pass on anything to blood heirs, that the keys are not the same, that the power or authority of David and Peter were totally different kinds, etc. Either we have a comparison or we don't.

Again... I am not asking you to believe this is the correct interpretation. I am only asking if it could be interpreted this way?

Sure, it could. We know this because there is a famous church which does so. We may also ask if an angel buried the Book of Mormon in New York state for Joseph Smith to dig up. Or if Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and gave birth to his child. Those are plausible, too. What matters is whether plausibility--however strained and unlikely--is what we will base our religious convictions on.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Why not add this to the mix, does your virgin mother have the same authority as Jesus, it would seem so, doesn't she act the mediator between God and man as well as Jesus, when Gods word says there is only one, the man Christ Jesus? If so she must hold those that key as well.

In Christ,
Lee

I do not see your remarks as wit or humor. I see them as an insult.

 

[everready]

I do not see your remarks as wit or humor. I see them as an insult.

It wasn't meant to be humorous or witty, all I did was ask the question. How much authority does Mary have, and does she hold that key. Where does it say it's an insult to get to the truth of the matter

From scipture, when Jesus said I am the truth the way and the life, did he include Mary. Of course people would consider it an insult, but I still maintain there is nothing wrong with asking a question. All I'm doing now is waiting for the answer..

In Christ,
Lee

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well, what I was doing there was agreeing with the point you made--that whatever was given by Jesus to Peter was given to him alone.

That was your point.

Not really my point. That the Keys were only given to Peter is correct but also that these Keys would change hands to the next in line. The Keys are needed until Jesus returns. By leaving them here on Earth Jesus has left someone in charge of his Kingdom here.

It is similiar to a Prime Minister today.

I merely added that if it is correct as you say, there can be no Papacy as you envision it because Linus, Clement, etc. are not Peter! Now, if you think this is hair-splitting, it is not. EVEN IF we agree to your proposition about Peter as a Pope, there is nothing at all in that to suggest a handoff by Peter to someone else or that Jesus had this in mind.

Actually I thinkwe can see this with the House of David because they were without a King for some time. Right?

They had the holder of the Key being the chief steward and his role is similiar to a Prime Minister today AND when one person left that office another took that role as chief steward.

I think we can see that in the Old Testament there was always someone at the top to make the tough decisions.

AND this is no way conflict with Jesus still being King. After all Jesus said he had to leave. He also sent the Spirit of Truth to protect the teachings and help us remember them. But the Keys he gave to Peter so we would have someone to be the chief of all the churches. The one to decide in most difficult matters.

So you are turning against your own analogy. David's key can't both be analogous to Peter's keys and at the same time not be.

Actually I do see a very strong similiarity.

The Key to the House of David was given to a chief steward while there was no King to lead. The other stewards had their own areas to manage and minister to but when there was conflict it was the chief steward who holds the Key that decides since his authority is that of the King until the King is present. The stewards acted in laws and made laws and judged over matters of laws. They could forgive crimes and punish crimes.

Take this same relationship of the Key of the House of david and apply it to the Keys of the Kingdom of God and we see that Peter becomes the first chief steward and that all other stewards (bishops) would all sway to his decisions. Because there has to be a chief steward to decide on matters of all when a conflict arose this would continue in a line of Bishops from Peter. The reason we see Keys and not Key is that Jesus kingdom is here on earth and in heaven and heaven has more then one tier. When Jesus returns (as in Revelations) he would take back his Keys.

Can you see how I am understanding this? If so, is it plausible?

But I have already done that. I agree that it is a possibility along with at least a half-dozen other scenarios. Are you asking that we agree to a theory that is unprovable just because it "could have happened?" I personally can't make doctrine out of guesswork like that.

I am only asking you to consider it as plausible. If you do then we can at least agree that we see each others interpretation and understand the possibility but we choose to disagree on which is correct.

But that doesn't work. You begin with the proposition that we are talking about Royalty and then proceed to say that it doesn't matter that the Popes do not pass on anything to blood heirs, that the keys are not the same, that the power or authority of David and Peter were totally different kinds, etc. Either we have a comparison or we don't.

The Key does not make some one royalty. It allows the holder of the Key to act as the King while the King is away. This is becasue the King is wise enough to leave someone in charge until his return. If his absense is long then more than one holder of the Key will be needed. This is why I call it dynastic. Not because of a blood line or being royalty but rather as having successors.

Sure, it could. We know this because there is a famous church which does so. We may also ask if an angel buried the Book of Mormon in New York state for Joseph Smith to dig up. Or if Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and gave birth to his child. Those are plausible, too. What matters is whether plausibility--however strained and unlikely--is what we will base our religious convictions on.

I see where you are going here. It does require a faith and we have many Christian churches with many interpreations. Some believe Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus and I am sure these churches believe that.

If I have done nothing more then have you see the possibility then I feel like I did what I set out to do.

I expect you to believe what your heart tells you to believe.

The reason I was using ECF before was to show that my belief was also held by the ECF.

If we consider the belief that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus then we probably will be hard pressed to find anything until modern times that even suggest this. And I highly doubt anything from the ECF would support it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It wasn't meant to be humorous or witty, all I did was ask the question. How much authority does Mary have, and does she hold that key. Where does it say it's an insult to get to the truth of the matter

From scipture, when Jesus said I am the truth the way and the life, did he include Mary. Of course people would consider it an insult, but I still maintain there is nothing wrong with asking a question. All I'm doing now is waiting for the answer..

In Christ,
Lee

Mary according to Catholics...

She does not hold any keys. She is the mother of Jesus and thus the Mother of God. We see a very special relationship between Mary and Jesus.

Consider that God shared blood with Mary and was in Mary for some time. God protects himself from all evil.

Even the Ark of the Covenant carrying the word of God had to be made of the purest of materials and protected so only the High Priest could see it. Mary carried the Word of God in flesh. We see Mary as being protected against all evil because of this.

We also recognise that the Queen in Solomon had a particular relationship with her son the King and beleive Mary has a similiar relationship with our Lord and King, Jesus.

 

[racer]

Some people on these forums have questioned that there is no evidence of an "unbroken succession" from St. Peter until now. I would like to clarify that up with this:
St. Peter 67
St. Linus 67-76
St. Anacletus 76-88
St. Clement I, 88-97
St. Evaristus 97-105
St. Alexander I, 105-115
St. Sixtus I, 115-125
St. Telesphorus 125-36
St. Hyginus 136-40
St. Pius I, 140-55
St. Anicetus 155-66
St. Soter 166-75
St. Eleuterius 175-89
St. Victor I, 189-99
St. Zephyrinus 199-217
St. Callistus I, 217-22
St. Urban I, 222-30

And the list goes on in unbroken succession. All the way, 265 Popes later to Pope Benedict himself.

First error in this line of succession: According to St. Clement, Linus was appointed bishop of Rome by both Peter and Paul. In fact, they appointed him to the position and neither of them had to die so that he could serve as bishop of Rome.

 

[racer]

Hello ActionJack,

We haven't met. I'm racer. I don't know all areas that have been covered in this discussion, and I don't have time to read the entire thread. So, I just wanted to point a few things out. Feel free to ignore me if these things have already been addressed.

If there is any question as to the Keys and Peter in so far as Peter's primacy (if not supremacy) then let Origen be heard.

Origen who lived from 185 AD to 254 AD and is a scholar and theologan of the Church.

More on Origen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen#Exegetical_writings


Quote from Origen's commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:
"Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard, they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as such an one has been bound in heaven. But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens," has been specially set before the words, "And what things soever you shall bind on earth," etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage, with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens. The better, therefore, is the binder, so much more blessed is he who has been loosed, so that in every part of the heavens his loosing has been accomplished."

What you are implying by quoting Origen here, contradicts what Augustine said even in your quote above. Notice what he said:

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!"
​

Augustine says that Peter was representative of the whole church. Then Origen says in the above quote:

Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone,
​

The two are not in agreement. Augustine teaches in Book I of On Christian Doctrine that the keys were given to the Church:

Chapter 18.—The Keys Given to the Church.

17. He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.
​

Augustine did not teach that the keys--nor the power which accompanied the possession of the keys--were given to Peter alone.

​

 

[JasonV]

racer brings up a good point, the primacy of Rome was never intended to become the Papacy of today's Vatican.

 

[racer]

For the moment let us set the ECF letters aside.

Now let us look at the Keys to the Kingdom. We know Jesus gave his Keys to the Kingdom to Peter. We cannot say that these Keys were given to anyone else with certainty because they are mentioned once and that is with Peter alone.

Not to be difficult, but I respectfully disagree. Let's look at the book of Matthew:

Matt 16:18; And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ​

Matt 16:19; And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.​

Notice that possession of the keys also carried a particular authority--the authority to bind and loose. So, then we go to Matt 18:

Matt 18:18; Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.​

Matt 18:19; Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.​

In Matt 16 it is argued that Jesus is speaking to Peter alone. There is a good understanding as to why this is believed. Jesus standing before the 12 Apostles, teaching and instructing them, asks basically "who am I?" Peter is the one (the child in class who loves positive attention) who steps forward and correctly identifies Him. For this reason the argument of "Peter only" has arisen. But, you and I, former school children, know that what the teacher goes on to say after "one" child out of the whole class steps forward is taught to the "whole" class, not just the kid who was courageous enough to speak up. Jesus was still addressing all 12 apostles. The others did not just disappear nor did Jesus forget they were there. This is further confirmed in Matthew 18. If all twelve were given the power to bind and loose, then all twelve must have had access to the "keys."

You know, Jesus further says in this passage, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

In other passages Jesus says that wherever "two or three" gather in His name, "there He is in the midst of them." There is no reason to believe that Jesus would have placed sole authority or responsibility of His Church upon one man.

 

[everready]

Hello ActionJack,

We haven't met. I'm racer. I don't know all areas that have been covered in this discussion, and I don't have time to read the entire thread. So, I just wanted to point a few things out. Feel free to ignore me if these things have already been addressed.


What you are implying by quoting Origen here, contradicts what Augustine said even in your quote above. Notice what he said:

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!" ​

Augustine says that Peter was representative of the whole church. Then Origen says in the above quote:

Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone,​

The two are not in agreement. Augustine teaches in Book I of On Christian Doctrine that the keys were given to the Church:

Chapter 18.—The Keys Given to the Church.​

17. He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.​

Augustine did not teach that the keys--nor the power which accompanied the possession of the keys--were given to Peter alone.

 

[everready]

Sorry but I used the wrong link

Lee

 

[racer]

This Augustine?
http://foru.ms/t4788498-a-lineage-of-popes-in-unbroken-succession.html&page=28#post38558366

Um . . . I'm not sure what you are asking.

 

[Albion]

Not really my point.

I understand that, but you accidentally made an observation that undermines the claims of the Papacy. It was worth a mention on my part.

That the Keys were only given to Peter is correct but also that these Keys would change hands to the next in line.

Oh no. I absolutely find no reason to think that. Peter had a commission and it had to do with opening something. To take from that that there is always going to be someone doing that job is completely unfounded.

The Keys are needed until Jesus returns.

You don't know that and Jesus did not say that. Peter didn't say that. Odd isn't it, if this is your belief that this which would have to be one of the most important teachings in all of Scripture was not mentioned by either of them--and Peter had several epistles in which to do it, as we know.

By leaving them here on Earth Jesus has left someone in charge of his Kingdom here.

That is based upon a supposition that has not particular backing. If we agree in advance to your idea of what the keys are, then it might follow, but we have not agreed to that meaning.

It is similiar to a Prime Minister today.

Since there was no such thing as a Prime Minister until just several centuries ago, that is hardly convincing. You know you are just fishing. First you say that it's like a Royal Monarchy, then you say it's like a Democratic government with a Prime Minister (who leads the parliament which the Vatican doesn't have, and represents the majority elected party, which it also doesn't have; and neither of these has any similarity to David's system of government).

Can you see how I am understanding this?

I see the argument you are making, if that is the question.

If so, is it plausible?

As I said before, there is a slim chance of it being right. If so, have we deduced--that your idea is a likely as the next one? I have to say 'no' to that, and I explained this before.

I am only asking you to consider it as plausible. If you do then we can at least agree that we see each others interpretation and understand the possibility but we choose to disagree on which is correct.

Well, you can't make me think your scenario is probable just by restating its provisions two or three times. What I'd like is to have some feedback on what and others have pointed out are serious weaknesses in that theory.

I see where you are going here. It does require a faith and we have many Christian churches with many interpreations. Some believe Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus and I am sure these churches believe that.

The point was not that it takes faith to believe something that is absurd. I saying that if you are asking if the Papacy (as you are outlining it) is "plausible," I have to say that it is as plausible as these two theories are (quoting my earlier post)--

"We may also ask if an angel buried the Book of Mormon in New York state for Joseph Smith to dig up. Or if Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and gave birth to his child."

It seems to me that at this point in the discussion I have to ask you a question. It is necessary if I'm to be fair with your hopes of having me acknowledge something for you. Here it is: Do you consider either or both of those two scenarios that I outlined above (Book of Mormon, Jesus' wife) "to be plausible?" Or let's just take one. Would you say that the idea that an angel named Moroni buried golden plates in New York that God led Joseph Smith to dig up and translate using a device no one has seen...and, of course, no one gets to see the plates either since the angel took them back to heaven? Is that, in your opinion, "plausible?"

If I have done nothing more then have you see the possibility then I feel like I did what I set out to do.

I expect you to believe what your heart tells you to believe.

Well then, are you arguing for 'blind faith'--accepting something despite it being unsubstantiated and hardly likely of being correct?

The reason I was using ECF before was to show that my belief was also held by the ECF.

But we saw that the ECF's DID NOT hold it, so it looks very much to me like you are arguing for blind faith. Unless you care to prove the Papacy by using yet a different approach, that is, something other than ECF testimony or scriptural interpretation.

If we consider the belief that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus then we probably will be hard pressed to find anything until modern times that even suggest this. And I highly doubt anything from the ECF would support it.

What's the difference? The ECF's did not support your contentions about the Papacy, and I'm sure we could tease scripture sufficiently to make a case for it that's as strong as yours with "key" or "keys," it doesn't matter to you, a handing on of power that no where is suggested in scripture, and fanciful comparisons to other situations that are quite different. You could "prove" that Jesus was married, I'm sure, if required to have nothing more credible than this. How about this--

'Jesus isn't recorded as being married, but it was expected that men of his time and culture get married. So he must have been. He is called a king; David was a king. Therefore, he has to be married just as David was married. It's that wonderful business of the OT predicting the NT we always talk about. Mary was a friend. Who else would he have chosen? He "had to have" someone to carry on until his coming again...so who better than a son? That's better than a delegate as you are advocating in the Papacy. '

See? String a bunch of non-sequiturs together with some human speculation and guesswork and viola! "Plausible."

But is it really?

 

[racer]

I understand that, but you accidentally made a correct observation that undermines the claims of the Papacy. It was worth a mention on my part.



Oh no. I absolutely find no reason to think that. Peter had a commission and it had to do with opening something. To take from that that there is always going to be someone doing that job is completely unfounded.



You don't know that and Jesus did not say that. Peter didn't say that. Odd isn't it, if this is your belief that this which would have to be one of the most important teachings in all of Scripture was not mentioned by either of them--and Peter had several epistles in which to do it, as we know.



That is based upon a supposition that has not particular backing. If we agree in advance to your idea of what the keys are, then it might follow, but we have not agreed to that meaning.



Since there was no such thing as a Prime Minister until just several centuries ago, that is hardly convincing. You know you are just fishing. First you say that it's like a Royal Monarchy, then you say it's like a Democratic government with a Prime Minister (who leads the parliament which the Vatican doesn't have, and represents the majority elected party, which it also doesn't have; and neither of these has any similarity to David's system of government).




I see the argument you are making, if that is the question.



As I said before, there is a slim chance of it being right. If so, have we deduced--that your idea is a likely as the next one? I have to say 'no' to that, and I explained this before.



Well, you can't make me think your scenario is probable just by restating its provisions two or three times. What I'd like is to have some feedback on what and others have pointed out are serious weaknesses in that theory.




The point was not that it takes faith to believe something that is absurd. I saying that if you are asking if the Papacy (as you are outlining it) is "plausible," I have to say that it is as plausible as these two theories are (quoting my earlier post)--

"We may also ask if an angel buried the Book of Mormon in New York state for Joseph Smith to dig up. Or if Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and gave birth to his child."

It seems to me that at this point in the discussion I have to ask you a question. It is necessary if I'm to be fair with your hopes of having me acknowledge something for you. Here it is: Do you consider either or both of those two scenarios that I outlined above (Book of Mormon, Jesus' wife) "to be plausible?" Or let's just take one. Would you say that the idea that an angel named Moroni buried golden plates in New York that God led Joseph Smith to dig up and translate using a device no one has seen...and, of course, no one gets to see the plates either since the angel took them back to heaven? Is that, in your opinion, "plausible?"



Well then, are you arguing for 'blind faith'--accepting something despite it being unsubstantiated and hardly likely of being correct?



But we saw that the ECF's DID NOT hold it, so it looks very much to me like you are arguing for blind faith. Unless you care to prove the Papacy by using yet a different approach, that is, something other than ECF testimony or scriptural interpretation.



What's the difference? The ECF's did not support your contentions about the Papacy, and I'm sure we could tease scripture sufficiently to make a case for it that's as strong as yours with "key" or "keys," it doesn't matter to you, a handing on of power that no where is suggested in scripture, and fanciful comparisons to other situations that are quite different. You could "prove" that Jesus was married, I'm sure, if required to have nothing more credible than this. How about this--

'Jesus isn't recorded as being married, but it was expected that men of his time and culture get married. So he must have been. He is called a king; David was a king. Therefore, he has to be married just as David was married. It's that wonderful business of the OT predicting the NT we always talk about. Mary was a friend. Who else would he have chosen? He "had to have" someone to carry on until his coming again...so who better than a son? That's better than a delegate as you are advocating in the Papacy. '

See? String a bunch of non-sequiturs together with some human speculation and guesswork and viola! "Plausible."

But is it really?

I tried to give you rep points. But, it appears I have already done so recently. I was told I must spread some points around before giving more to you.

 

[everready]

Um . . . I'm not sure what you are asking.

Sorry, that was the wrong link, here is the right one

http://personal2.stthomas.edu/gwschlabach/docs/city.htm

This time I double checked,

In Christ,
Lee

 

[racer]

Sorry, that was the wrong link, here is the right one

http://personal2.stthomas.edu/gwschlabach/docs/city.htm

This time I double checked,

In Christ,
Lee

Yes. It is the same St. Augustine.

 

[kepha31]

I'm not denying it's a list! LOL But according to any respectable standard of evidence, your definition of "intellectual rigor" or "reliable documentation", especialy considering the vatican's history of forgery, is up for grabs "as anyone can see".
Gotta give ya props for Authoritative Tone", tho.
You probably scare the pants off intellectual children

" especialy considering the vatican's history of forgery,..."

I have reported this post and asked that it be removed. Such accusations require documentation or substantiation, which , Otto, you have none (again). This is hate propaganda and violates the rules.

 

[everready]

" especialy considering the vatican's history of forgery,..."

I have reported this post and asked that it be removed. Such accusations require documentation or substantiation, which , Otto, you have none (again). This is hate propaganda and violates the rules.

I'm not saying I have this documentation but let's assume that I do, then what? If you repoted this to staff they would probably wonder the same thiing. Life can do a round about and surprise us sometimes

 

[Albion]

I'm not saying I have this documentation but let's assume that I do, then what? If you repoted this to staff they would probably wonder the same thiing. Life can do a round about and surprise us sometimes

I can't say what anyone meant, but if it is said that there's a history of X, it doesn't say who is responsible for X. And if the word "forgery" is used, it makes us ask who did the forging.

However, it is normally accepted as a fact of history--and reported in standard public school textbooks--that the Vatican did benefit from using the "Donation of Constantine," a document convincingly shown later to have been forged. That doesn't say who actually created the forged document, of course.

That is what I thought was being referred to when I read the mention of this matter earlier in the thread, although I also didn't think it had anything to do with the topic of the thread.