Thursday, November 18, 2010

Scott Windsor on the Papacy: The Donation of Constantine

I’ve wanted to get back to this topic not merely because I said I would, but because I believe, with Robert Reymond, that Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16 and its historically developed claim to authoritative primacy in the Christian world simply cannot be demonstrated and sustained from Scripture itself. This claim is surely one of the great hoaxes foisted upon professing Christendom, upon which false base rests the whole papal sacerdotal system.

Now, to be sure, if it is a hoax, and “foisted upon professing Christendom” to boot, then to be sure, it has caused great harm.

Scott Windsor (“CathApol”) takes issue with my statement that The Donation of Constantine was “a complete lie.” Windsor says, The “Donation of Constantine” was indeed a forgery, but it is not a “complete lie” in supporting the papacy. The “lie” is that it came from the 8th-9th century, and not Constantine. Statements regarding the papacy are factual and predate the forgeries, as you will see below.

The “lie” involves not only the actual content of the document, but then, how it was used. First, let’s look briefly at what that document was and how it was used in the late medieval world to assert papal power over secular rulers.
In the eighth century, Constantine was known primarily through the account of him in the legend of Pope Sylvester. In this he was incorrectly portrayed as an emperor who had persecuted Christianity until struck down with leprosy. On rejecting the suggestion of his pagan priests that he bathe in the blood of sacrificed babies, he had a vision of Saints Peter and Paul telling him to find Bishop Sylvester, who cured, healed and baptized him. Onto this core narrative was grafted the claim that when Constantine subsequently decided to leave for the East, out of gratitude he entrusted Pope Sylvester with a set of imperial regalia, including a crown, and with the authority for himself and his successors to appoint an emperor in the West should circumstances ever require it. (Roger Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” New York: Basic Books (2009) 148-149)
Derek Wilson, in his biography of Charlemagne, is a bit more descriptive:
[This document] told a dramatic tale of the emperor going as a leprosy-inflicted supplicant to Pope Sylvester I, receiving Christian baptism at his hands and being in the same instant miraculously healed. This story, based on the Old Testament account of the healing of Naaman (2 Kings 5), was a total fabrication. Constantine was not baptized until the very end of his life, in 337, two years after the death of Sylvester. But it was a good story and an impressive prologue to what followed. In gratitude, so the document claimed, Constantine made a spectacular gift of his own authority to Sylvester and his heirs forever:

We decree that the sacred See of Blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted even above our Empire and earthly throne … as over all churches of God in all the world … We convey to Sylvester, universal Pope, both our palace and likewise all provinces and palaces and districts of the city of Rome and Italy and of the regions of the west.

In other words, papal territory had for centuries been an independent state and had ever been part of the [French] exarchate. The so-called Donation of Constantine was a thoroughgoing forgery, made for a specific purpose, at a particular place and time. It was the means chosen to achieve a specific end in a desperate situation, and it doubtless did not occur to the criminals who created it that it would be used to excuse a millennium of political intrigue, wars and carnage. (Derek Wilson, “Charlemagne” New York: Doubleday (2006) 23-24).
The document itself, a complete fabrication, was used to twist the arms of kings in that day and for many centuries beyond. It set up the tensions -- an untenable situation, really, that made the “break” of the Reformation so much more dramatic.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “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.” We can see some of the further “fruit” of that document also in, for example, the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, in which another pope is still emphasizing his superiority over another French king. (In this document, Boniface VIII proclaims that “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”)

In fact, the legend behind this document is quite a bit older than the eighth century. As I’ve noted, there were a tremendous number of legendary documents and forgeries cropping up around first of all, the person of Peter in the second century, and later around the office of Bishops of Rome after the time of Constantine. Among these was a document known as The Acts of Sylvester. Shotwell and Loomis briefly describe this document, “originating, as they probably do, before the period of our study is over, and making bold capital for the Roman See out of the renown of the Great Constantine by ascribing that emperor’s bodily healing and religious conversion of the agency of the Roman bishop Sylvester. Ignored at first by every reputable historian, this fable made its way, gathering volume as it went, re-enforced eventually by a forged Donation, until it had imposed upon all Europe the conception of Silvester as the potent influence behind Constantine’s most striking measures and of Constantine himself as the dutiful servant of the See of Peter.”

This “Acts of Sylvester,” they classified, as among “the apocryphal achievements of the early bishops, the spurious acts, miracles and decrees attributed to them, invented apparently, as the apocryphal Acts of Peter were invented, to enhance the popular reverence for the supposititious doer.”

As Wilson had noted about the Donation, the exact circumstances of the creation of this legend is unknown. But not only was it a “complete lie,” but as Reymond noted, it was one of the with many inventions, fictions, and forgeries, that not only became dogma, but which then was “foisted upon the world” in the service of the insatiable Roman quest for power.

Windsor says that “Statements regarding the papacy are factual and predate the forgeries, as you will see below.” My hope in the next few posts is to treat each of the statements he gives in support of the papacy, to show that these, as well, are part of the same weave of misunderstanding that led to the “development” of the papacy.

14 comments:

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Scott Windsor on the Papacy: The Donation of Constantine"

Sadly, some people want to believe a lie. And for some, the want to believe the lie becomes so great that they will distort other things to make the lie truthful and real for themselves.

All you can do is shine the light. Some will embrace the light. Others will throw rocks at the light to break the shine.

Scott Windsor, among others, is a rock thrower.

John Bugay said...

Scott Windsor, among others, is a rock thrower.

Hi Truth -- I suppose I could have gone into a bit more detail about the precise time period when this was created. That would have involved some more typing; maybe I'll get into that.

I've seen Scott Windsor around for years, but I really haven't interacted with him until now. He seems to be motivated, but in my reading of his "defense" of the papacy, it seems very weak and out-dated. He uses very old "defenses" that aren't even used officially by Rome any more.

For example, he throws out quotations from Tertullian and Origen that talk about Peter, as if these somehow referenced an early papacy, but they don't have anything like that in view at all. Those will (I hope) brought out in a future post.

Ken said...

interesting stuff, for sure, John.

For some reason none of the links are working in this article.

You might check that. (even though it might be something wrong on my end.)

John Bugay said...

Thanks for the heads-up Ken. I fixed all the links (I think).

pilgrim said...

The thing that occurs to me, is that even if this document were real, it doesn't really prove anything, other than a form of temporal power, but certainly it does not address spiritual power--so it has no force today.

CathApol said...

I have spent a good deal of time responding to Mr. Hays from another blog, my post to him is on my blog and it deals with the historic view of the papacy (though not the Donation of Constantine directly).

I find it a bit ironic too that I am the one accused of "throwing rocks" when primarily I DEFEND my Church and my Faith against the "rocks" thrown in my direction!

Scott<<<

John Bugay said...

My guess would be that the "rocks" comment had to do with the relative strength of your defenses, and not with any particular quality of aggressiveness.

As I noted, your "defense of the papacy" seems "very weak and out-dated."

I'm going to go through the particular items you put up, such as the Scriptural defense, the comments from Tertullian and Origen that you've posted, and several others.

It's not really anything personal, just that you happen to be "out there" at the present time, and I've been wanting to write about this for some time, anyway.

Rhology said...

primarily I DEFEND my Church and my Faith against the "rocks" thrown in my direction!

Did you forget that your church claims to be The One True Church?
Since it's not, we have an obligation to expose the lie. If your church were to change its claims, you can bet it would reduce the fervor of opposition; Rome would merely be one false religion among many.

John Bugay said...

Rhology: Did you forget that your church claims to be The One True Church? Since it's not, we have an obligation to expose the lie.

Oh yeah, thanks for bringing this up, too. I forget about that sometimes. Too focused on the details :-)

CathApol said...

Alan, I do recognize and even appreciate that you disagree with the claim that the Catholic Church is the One, True Church, and thus you feel called to defend against that statement. To be clear here though, that is NOT the thesis of this discussion. Mr. Bugay posited that the DofC was "entirely a lie." My current response demonstrates it is not.

Does it have SOME lies in it? That I will not deny, but to say it is "entirely a lie" is itself a false statement. THAT is my point to Mr. Bugay (John, if he would prefer to be called that).

Scott<<<

John Bugay said...

What, in the Donation of Constantine, is true?

CathApol said...

John, may I call you John? In my response I went through each paragraph of the DofC and at least 5 of the 18 paragraphs speak truth. 4 of the paragraphs speak to what I would consider definite falsehoods and/or anachronisms. The other 9 are questionable and/or merely beg the question.

EA said...

"We decree that the sacred See of Blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted even above our Empire and earthly throne … "

Rubbish.

How can anyone in temporal authority bestow upon another that which is beyond the limit of their temporal authority? You can only give what is yours to give.

John Bugay said...

John, may I call you John?

If you were to do that, it would be a far kinder thing than some of the other Roman Catholics who have commented here.

In my response I went through each paragraph of the DofC and at least 5 of the 18 paragraphs speak truth. 4 of the paragraphs speak to what I would consider definite falsehoods and/or anachronisms. The other 9 are questionable and/or merely beg the question.

I am trying to think of another historical context in which a blatant forgery

The orthodox creedal statements in that document are not there for the sake of expounding truth; the orthodox credal statements are there to make the lie appear to be more believable.

In that respect, they are all the more insidious.