John Charles Storer, whilst you are at it can you also check the following historical forgeries by the Catholic Church?

Some Catholic Forgeries by Centuries

Century

2 Epistle of Barnabas. In Codex Sinaiticus (4th Cen.)

2 Shepherd of Hermas. Sinaiticus-Mid. Ages–Penance

2 Didache “embodies” Apostolic Constitutions

3 Didaskalia Apostolorum “earliest attempt-Corpus Juris”

4 Apostles Creed “unhistorical” “legend” “ex Cathedra”

4 Liberian Catalogue ends with Liberius

4 Clementine Recognitions – 20 books Summa 7 times, “forms”

4 Clementine Liturgies

4 Apostolic Church Ordinances

4 Egyptian Church Ordinances

5 Acts of the Martyrs – 12 books. Lives of Saints 64 Volumes.  Lives of Saints began Acts of Martyrs

5 Apostolic Canons

5 Apostolic Constitutions – “embodies” Didache

5 Dionysius the Areopagite

5 Antiochene Liturgy

5 Canons of Hippolytus

6 Symmachian Forgeries

7 Augustine – 3 forged books:

De Condition Cordis

De Penitentia

Hypognosticon

(These forgeries cited many times by Thomas)

8 Liber Pontificalis “Took Over” - Liberian-Catoluge-used Clementine Recog.

9 Donation of Constantine

9 False Decretals of Isadore. Took over former forgeries, reforging them

10 Deed of Gift to Sylvester II

12 Apoc. Acts of Apostles; Acts of Peter and Paul

13 Prayer of Manasses – Quoted from Latin Bible by St. Thomas Aquinas

14 (?) Bonaventure’s Writings – several works forgeries

14 Forged Decree of Council of Vienna, 13 Works of Duns Scotus

14 Works of Thomas

15 Alan DeRupe – Rosary a Forgery – St. Dominic

16 Clement VIII & “St.” Bellarmine’s Lie in Preface to Vulgate Bible.

Popess Joan – Falsifying history

18 Irenaeus (Pfaff)

10(?) Leo XIII Approves De Rupe’s Forgery

20 Liguoori – Glories of Mary (New edition a Forgery!)

20 Assumption of the Virgin – based on Dionysius, a fogery

Ken
Perhaps you should take the advice you have given to John, i.e., research the truth and not whitewash the argument put forward.

Every time you raise an objection to Catholic doctrine and a scriptural answer is given, you respond by injecting the argument with poison.  A couple of posts ago you raised the objection about Peter and the keys, petros etc.  Robert and I both answered your claims and you respond with utter tripe.  If you don’t agree, then fine, but you are the perpetrator of lies and you should stop.  Debate honestly and people will respect you.

All I can say is that you must be very creative with your googling.  Those sources are something else!
Donna
P.S. And you claim I am a bag of tricks!

..and another thing…

Ken Austin - 10 October 2008 07:49 PM

It is accepted by the RCC itself that it is has forged letters to gain advantage, in the middle ages. (it has happened since then as well)

The advantage they achieved was to poliltically rule Europe for hundreds of years by deception. A few Italian monks could present forged letters that allowed the Inquisition to occur at their desire: murders and tortures by Religious decree, for political ends.

You accuse with no basis given.  The RCC accepted they forged letters?!  Rubbish!  Your accusations are so easily refuted.  As John said, the protestant church had their own ‘inquisition’ and purged many Catholics who refused to become protestant, and actually they killed each other as well.  Be careful about that glass house Ken.  Move on.  Let’s talk scripture and not the sins of the past. 

The only forged documents I am aware of are the ones you present for ‘debate’.

Donna Green:

The only forged documents I am aware of are the ones you present for ‘debate’.

read the list i posted above, and check them out yourself.
You can read this link: New Advent - Catholic Encyclopedia
A quote from there:

Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called papal letters are forgeries. These documents, to the number of about one hundred, appeared suddenly in the ninth century and are nowhere mentioned before that time. The most ancient Manuscripts of them that we have are from the ninth century, and their method of composition, of which we shall treat later, shows that they were made up of passages and quotations of which we know the sources; and we are thus in a position to prove that the Pseudo-Isidore makes use of documents written long after the times of the popes to whom he attributes them. Thus it happens that popes of the first three centuries are made to quote documents that did not appear until the fourth or fifth century; and later popes up to Gregory I (590-604) are found employing documents dating from the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, and the early part of the ninth. Then again there are endless anachronisms. 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.

You also said:

As John said, the protestant church had their own ‘inquisition’ and purged many Catholics who refused to become protestant, and actually they killed each other as well.  Be careful about that glass house Ken.  Move on.  Let’s talk scripture and not the sins of the past. 

i am sure you are correct that Protestant churches made such errors in the past. I am glad you want to talk about Scripture, but the fact is that the RCC in its forgeries of the middle ages, also made Scripture irrelevant. It still does to a certain extent.

the Reformed Churches have made errors, but the aim of the present bible based churches, is living by the truth delivered by scripture, and not being misled by the errors of Churchmen. The RCC is not that way inclined, unfortunately.
It adheres to the errors of the past and is not led by the light of Scripture as its first aim. That has been the problem with that church through the ages.
Too many non scriptural ideas which still remain in the RCC.

The lie of Papal succession from the apostle Peter being my original point.

Ken
You really do need to read what you post.  You have claimed through your source that the CC deliberately forged documents to gain some sort of power in the middle ages.  The forged papal letters are just that.  Forged documents that someone claimed were authorised by the pope.  They no are more official documents of the church than my big toe is!  For goodness sake Ken, are you able to put aside your deep rooted anti-Catholicism for one moment and look at something objectively for the sake of truth.  I am finding it very difficult to be charitable towards you. 
Donna

Ken Austin - 10 October 2008 09:59 PM

Donna Green:

I am glad you want to talk about Scripture, but the fact is that the RCC in its forgeries of the middle ages, also made Scripture irrelevant. It still does to a certain extent.

Translated = I’m glad you want to talk about scripture, however, it is much more fun to pull down your opponent by injecting invective propoganda.

the Reformed Churches have made errors, but the aim of the present bible based churches, is living by the truth delivered by scripture, and not being misled by the errors of Churchmen. The RCC is not that way inclined, unfortunately.
It adheres to the errors of the past and is not led by the light of Scripture as its first aim. That has been the problem with that church through the ages.
Too many non scriptural ideas which still remain in the RCC.

You believe this to be true because you insist on relying on forged documents for your information!  Present bible-based churches allow divorce and remarriage which is clearly forbidden in the NT.  Female ministers, practices such as altar calls (which makes me laugh as there is no altar), insisting that the profession of declaring Jesus as your Lord and Saviour as being the thing that saves you - clearly a non-biblical teaching; the rejection of baptism as necessary; insisting that you are saved by faith alone (non-biblical); the relegation of communion to once a month (the apostles and early Christians met to break bread often, probably every day). 

The lie of Papal succession from the apostle Peter being my original point.

No it wasn’t.  Go back Ken.  Your objections were answered.  I can show papal succession by using scripture.  However, you pay no respect to honest debate so I won’t bother.

What you dont realise Donna, is that the forgeries, and lies of the Middle Ages affect the beliefs and traditions of the present day Catholic Church. That is the problem you can’t see. See things from a more neutral position if you could.

The whole problem highlighted is the honesty of the Roman Catholic Church. If it does not renounce obvious errors of the past, how can we give them credibility in the area of explaining Scripture to people nowdays?

You do well to try to understand Scripture, though. Keep pushing your church to let the Word of God rule in all matters relating to Church life. Forget about some of the dubious Traditions, which are really anti Scripture.

God bless you, I pray, in these matters.

Ken Austin - 10 October 2008 10:59 PM

What you dont realise Donna, is that the forgeries, and lies of the Middle Ages affect the beliefs and traditions of the present day Catholic Church. That is the problem you can’t see. See things from a more neutral position if you could.

You do well to try to understand Scripture, though. Keep pushing your church to let the Word of God rule in all matters relating to Church life. Forget about some of the dubious Traditions, which are really anti Scripture.

God bless you, I pray, in these matters.

What YOU don’t realise is that it is YOU Ken who is being deceived by allowing your mind to be persuaded by people who will write anything to prove Catholicism wrong.  Still waiting for you to use the scripture, which you claim rules your belief, to debate with Catholics on the issue of Peter, the keys, etc.

Ken, in America at the moment, there are approximately 400 protestant ministers looking into the Catholic Church with a view to conversion.  Approximately 100 last year converted.  Many of these were anti-Catholic and believed much of what you do about Catholicism.  Do you really think these men would not only leave protestantism for a ‘pagan’ religion, but also leave themselves unemployed to boot!  An organisation has been set up especially to help these ex-ministers with things such as employment.  These men don’t become non-Bible Christians when they join the Catholic Church.  They remain bible-Christians.  A pentecostal pastor converted along with his whole family and took 75% of his church with him.  He was an avid anti-Catholic and taught his congregation the things you talk about.

I pray you will have discernment so that you are able to recognise truth from fiction.

Various disputants in this thread should desist from binary stigmatisation of other parties.  Contrary to those who designate them as mutually exclusive concepts, Catholics in/loyal to a plethora of jurisdictions may and have issued protestations concerning sundry phenomena (indeed, a certain Welshman has been doing just that in this very thread!), while a fair proportion of mainstream Protestants enjoy catholicity per se in more than just some nebulous Platonic sense, especially where historical continuity is particularly strong (on a tangential note, I’d surmise that the Church of England has mercifully enjoyed greater stability since c. 1660 than that of Rome, what with the effects on the latter of Bonapartist and Savoy Aggression.)

Michael you shame your self with your verbose language… I have invented a new word for the English language..Canarism..

Robert ian Williams - 11 October 2008 10:40 AM

Michael you shame your self with your verbose language.

Many thanks for reminding me.

Robert ian Williams - 11 October 2008 10:40 AM

Michael you shame your self with your verbose language... I have invented a new word for the English language..Canarism..

Hi Robert,

One must really learn to google before one begins to post !

The word “canarism” already exists :

Canar N. (kIn ‘Ar; ‘kAn Ir) A practitioner of a religion based on or heavily influenced by Wicca, Reconstructionism, any form of reclaiming, or Postmodernist/parody religions—in short, any of several religions which have increased in popularity as a result of waning faith in Christianity and Secular Humanism as satisfactory philosophies. As such, it includes modern forms of JudeoChristian mysticism and “New Age,” and does not include traditional religionists, such as Hindus and Buddhists: For the most part, canars have made a conscious choice to explore alternatives to Christianity and Judaism, rather than inheriting non-JudeoChristian religions as part of their cultural upbringing. Adj. canaric (kIn ‘Ar Ik). (More details.)

Wonderlander N. A naive form of canarism usually characterized by an embrace of a primitive form of cultural relativism, the attitude that any religion that promotes positive values is valid, and that the world is a wonderful place. Taken this far, Wonderlanderism would be merely annoying, in the way that Boy Bands and smurfs are annoying, but Wonderlanders frequently attack when confronted with suggestions that their beliefs are not grounded in historical likelihood, or that the original worshippers of Mars and Venus might find it odd to have them worshipped together.

link

As for you saying :

Michael you shame your self with your verbose language…

Having attempted to read/scan some of your many wordy contributions, this is indeed a paramount case of the pot calling the kettle black. I find the tone of your latest post to Michael either tongue-in-cheek or just plain rude ;)

It is hard to tell from down here in the colonial Antipodeas whether your beard style has affected ( or effected ? ) your thinking on other matters. Such is life.

Cheers, Kevin

ps It’s a sunny, lazy Saturday afternoon down under in Sydney- and a time for being more relaxed and not so serious.

I may have a failing for typos but I like plain and to the point English....

Robert ian Williams - 11 October 2008 06:54 PM

I may have a failing for typos but I like plain and to the point English....

You have got to be kidding !!!  Pardon my bluntness, but “plain English” is not your forte !

Kevin Goddard - 13 October 2008 12:15 AM

Robert ian Williams - 11 October 2008 06:54 PM

I may have a failing for typos but I like plain and to the point English....

You have got to be kidding !!!  Pardon my bluntness, but “plain English” is not your forte !

+ 1

RIW,

You would do well to spell check your posts before you hit ‘submit’.

Apart from the typos, the English is often hard to follow …

Cheers,
Andrew

PS - RIW, are you going to reply to the PM that was sent seeking clarification of your question?

Andrew