I'm glad that the Dimonds continue to produce excellent defenses of the Catholic faith against the Eastern schismatics. I've seen too many young traditional Catholic men be seduced by that religion, primarily due to the crisis in the Catholic Church today and charismatic orthobros exploiting that. Eastern "Orthodoxy" crumbles on itself once you look beyond its beautiful external elements and study it's foundation. It refutes itself in a manner that is not that different from Protestantism.

It's too bad the Dimonds won't tackle the false Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, the Symachian forgeries and the donation of Constantine. I have asked them for years and they haven't dealt with it.

Why would they waste time on those?  Rome has never relied on those for proofs of it's claims, and everyone acknowledges they're forgeries.   What about them needs to be dealt with, and how does this pertain to Vigilius?

Rome has actually relied upon these quite heavily. The authenticity being unknown to St Thomas Aquinas, he relied upon these for his refutation of the Greeks in regards to the papacy, specifically St Cyril. This was the basis for the Catechism of Trent, with I believe, 11 citations that have since proved to be forgeries.

These forgeries also played a significant part in Gregory VII's Dictatus Papae.

Nonsense.  You have individuals in history who were taken in by the forgeries, but Rome itself never used them to prove it's claims, and never relied on them.  There is sufficient proof in scripture, the writings of the fathers, and elsewhere.   

The Dictatus Papae is attributed to Gregory VII, but it itself is a forgery in that no one can agree on who wrote it.  Most scholars agree that St. Gregory VII was not the author.

Please list the citations in the Roman Catechism that you refer to.

I have read St. Thomas' work against the Greeks, and do not recall him relying on the forged works.  If I am mistaken, please quote them.

I have come across many of the claims you make in my reading, particularly among the Orthodox apologists.  They hang on these forgeries like it's some kind of "gotcha", failing to understand that throughout history forgeries were as common as weeds in an neglected garden.  It was a massive problem.

Again, I reiterate, everyone acknowledges those docuмents you mentioned were forgeries. 

And again, what does this have to do with Vigilius?

...many young traditional Catholic men be seduced by that religion, primarily due to the crisis in the Catholic Church today and charismatic orthobros exploiting that. 

This is becoming a pandemic and a plague. Youtube is crawling with orthobro grifters. 

Nonsense.  You have individuals in history who were taken in by the forgeries, but Rome itself never used them to prove it's claims, and never relied on them.  There is sufficient proof in scripture, the writings of the fathers, and elsewhere.   

The Dictatus Papae is attributed to Gregory VII, but it itself is a forgery in that no one can agree on who wrote it.  Most scholars agree that St. Gregory VII was not the author.

Please list the citations in the Roman Catechism that you refer to.

I have read St. Thomas' work against the Greeks, and do not recall him relying on the forged works.  If I am mistaken, please quote them.

I have come across many of the claims you make in my reading, particularly among the Orthodox apologists.  They hang on these forgeries like it's some kind of "gotcha", failing to understand that throughout history forgeries were as common as weeds in an neglected garden.  It was a massive problem.

Again, I reiterate, everyone acknowledges those docuмents you mentioned were forgeries. 

And again, what does this have to do with Vigilius?

In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals…About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine docuмents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.
The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers…and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chockful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116).

In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled Against the Errors of the Greeks. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers. Under the names of the eminent Greek fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Abbott, a Latin forger had compiled a catena of quotations interspersing a number that were genuine with many that were forged which was subsequently submitted to Pope Urban IV. This work became known as the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum. In addition the Latin author also included spurious canons from early Ecuмenical Councils. Pope Urban in turn submitted the work to Thomas Aquinas who used many of the forged passages in his work Against the Errors of the Greeks mistakenly thinking they were genuine. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries. The following is a sample of Thomas’ argumentation for the papacy using the spurious quotations from the Thesaurus:

Chapter thirty-four
That the same (the 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 scepter 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 (Hebr. 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 on earth shall be bound also in heaven.
Chapter thirty-five
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 also 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 Jesus 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” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks. Found in James Likoudis, Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism (New Rochelle: Catholics United for the Faith, 1992), pp. 182-184).

With the exception of the last reference to Chrysostom all of Thomas’ references cited to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom and the Council of Chalcedon are forgeries. The remainder of Aquinas’ treatise in defense of the papacy is similar in nature. 

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, 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, Quetif, 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 (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 233-234).

The forgeries were/are a fact of history. They were used by popes, knowingly or not of their authenticity. 

LeDeg, you wouldn't happen to be John Pontrello, would you?  At the very least you seem to follow his blog closely, since you immediately pointed out when he issued his attack against me.

You claimed that Pontrello made some "very good points" that have not been adequately address by Traditional Catholics, admit to having read his (heretical/schismatic) book, seem to be a close follower of his blog, and now this thread?

I see that Pontrello still has a tab page dedicated to me, on which he only puts his ignorance on display.

In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals…About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine docuмents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.

[snip]

The forgeries were/are a fact of history. They were used by popes, knowingly or not of their authenticity.

LeDeg, you have lost all credibility.  Your response is a virtual cut and paste from the following virulently anti-Catholic website:  https://christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries/

In fact, that site has a whole section devoted to attacking Catholicism, the papacy, etc:  https://christiantruth.com/articles/category/roman-catholicism/

Incredible.

And your source relies heavily on Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, who was an ardent opponent of the papacy, specifically as defined at Vatican I, he was excommunicated, involved with the Old Catholics, and died refusing to be reconciled with the Church.  He abused his status as an historian and a priest to undermine the papacy and its charisms.  He has zero credibility when it comes to anything related to the papacy.

I don't for a minute think you're a traditional Catholic, but rather a mole who seeks to undermine and sow doubt and confusion.  This bears out when your previous posts are reviewed, as well.