Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.

As we have observed on this thread - the responses to the clear historic facts presented here - are simply to "ignore the details".

When the Catholic, historic documents - are presented - - the RC response is "oh well - whatever!!" and then to rush back into "Mioque's closet of secret artifacts" to resume that little game that Mioque is playing.

Why not come into the light - and looking at the VFD statements in Cannon Law, in Catholic Documents, in quotes from the variety of RC documents shown here as AVAILABLE to ALL?

Why? Because that would be "clear" objective, compelling discussion. And so far - that is not the "objective" of the those posting in favor of Catholicism's mythologies.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob classically demonstrates he doesn't know what is going on. You can pull out the documents and references all you want; every one of those points has to be true for your theory to be true, and most of it is purely conjecture.

So, keep on preaching that nonsense; because that's all it is - nonsense dressed on a fewhistorical points.

 

Wait, did you say "compelling discussion?" Bob, it's impossible to have a discussion with you. You give lectures - you don't listen.

 

I am still "waiting" for the RC response "to the details".....

I had hoped that the RC posters would be interested in defending their views by actually making "compelling arguments".

Do you need the "Details" posted again??

Very well ---

#1. The thread is titled "Vicarius Filii Dei" - did you notice that??

#2. "Pay attention" do the DETAILS of history available to ALL. Why has that been a problem for you so far?

#3. "OBSERVE" that the CATHOLIC documents are quoting the title (and even authoring it) LONG before anyone in the 19th century. Why keep ignoring this "detail"?

#4. ADMIT that Popes are indeed the LEADERSHIP in the RCC. And so for the no less than ten Popes endorsing the document.

#5. ADMIT that Cannon law is ALSO quoting the name so horrific to late commer Catholics. Why avoid this "detail" as if Cannon law was written by "antiCatholics"?

#6. Why not REFUSE to play the "artifacts in a closet" game with Mioque and stick with the historic - bold facts of history available to all.


In Christ,

Bob

 

No problem. And "soooooo" we see that this VFD term IS STILL available to ALL today in HISTORIC documents of canon law, of the Donation, and of the quotes provided here. Impossible for the RCC to simply "walk away from that history" in a "revisionist history" style and say "it never happened" or that "canon law does not represent the church" or that "the papacy does not speak for the church".

The "details".

That "proposition" for a church that supposedly "never teaches error" would be a good subject "all on its own". You "propose" that the RCC distance itself from clear, historic statements of canon law

#1. -- I would love to have an RC poster "review that proposal".

#2. I would like to know how "that proposal" solves the problem - that the USE of VFD in historic canon law SHOWS an acceptance of it HISTORICALLY in the RCC. Or are you still trying to avoid the point?



"#6. Why not REFUSE to play the "artifacts in a closet" game with Mioque and stick with the historic - bold facts of history available to all."

Still waiting for an answer to that one.

Given the historic documents showing the position of the RCC in accepting the VFD title - you would "think" that a self-proclaimed historian would have some interest in publically documented "history".

In Christ,

Bob