Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.

As has been noted - the title is reference in Cannon Law. It is referenced in the Catholic document "The Donation of Constantine" (A genuine CATHOLIC document but not a genuine Constantinian document as it turns out).

NONE of these are Anti-Catholic "sources" as much as "revisionist history's" like the one Bill published "want" to make it appear as "a NEW title recently invented by anti-Catholics".

(His repeated efforts to make it such - not withstanding).

Even "Our Sunday Visitor" is "magically coming up with that title" without any "help" from anti-Catholics.

The RC position seems to be "anybody that actually pays attention to any of these historic RC-sources and does not devoutly turn a blind eye is creating the title used by the RC sources - on their own".

A fascinating and wrenching kind of logic - but it appears to be a "favorite" on this topic.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Mioque's revisionism is a refreshing kind that is bold enough to come right out with a fallacy and hold it up as though "true".

Now - the "Catholic source" writing the "Donation of Constantine" in the 7th Century is "actually a 19th century Adventist".

How refreshing!

How original!

How down right "entertaining"!

I like it.

More -- please.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Did I say the Donation's history was being reworked by Mioque so that now it was originated by some in the 19th century?? Oh no! I believe mioque has updated that to the "20th".

Ahh the joys of freewheeling revisionism. But you don't get a chance to read the really good stuff like this - very often.

Thanks again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Now lets try to fully understand the problem (so difficult to grasp "apparently").

John was writing during the time of the "Roman" Empire. hmmmm "What language" would their "titles" be in?? What system of "assigning the number of a name" would have been used "during the days of the Roman Empire".

Now remember "this is supposed to be hard" according to mioque. Is it "supposed" to "appear" that during the Roman empire the "number of the name" would have been assigned using the Greek text of the previous empire (as if the Greeks were doing that-- ever).

Using that unknown-RC-skill "Exegesis" - is it possible that the context has John's "readers" fully understanding "how the number of a name is assigned for those living in the Roman Empire" - even though it appears like greek to mioque 2000 years later?

Surely this is not the "hard part" for our Catholic bretheren.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I'd sure love to hear how a forgery can be a genuine document, and I'm sure you, Bob, are just the one to explain it to me!

 

Mike - you needed "to read" the previous posts.

The point was already made that the only thing FORGED was CONSTANTINE's supposed part in that REAL GENUINE Catholic document.

If you are "The church of Constantine" then the document is useless to tell you about your history - since Constantine knew NOTHING of that document.

If you are "the CATHOLIC church" then that historic genuin CATHOIC document is VERY useful and genuine - because it IS A REAL CATHOLIC document REALLY written BY Catholics really FOR Catholics and really used BY no less than Ten Popes.

ONLY those members of "the Church of Constantine" (were there ever to be such a denomination) would find it "less than helpful".

What part about that is "so hard to get"??

ooops - don't answer that. I already know the answer - you're suppose to "pretend" that you don't see how a catholic document forged to appear as if it WERE NOT catholic, but was a emperial document of Constantine, is LESS of a historic document telling us something about Constantine - and MORE of a historic catholic document telling us about the RCC itself and HOW it used it in history.

In Christ,

Bob

 

OK, let's try another tack. How can a forgery be a valid Catholic document.

 

Hello, Bob.

I think you missed this.

Just because you keep saying over and over that the Donation of Constantine is a "Catholic Document" don't make it so.

Given the above, you need to prove it.

 

Studied a lot of Latin have you, Bob?

This whole things is pointless because "Vicarivs" is not a word at all. It's "Vicarius".

That would be with a "u" not a "v".

Here is the sentence with the offending title, in Latin, from the document.

"Petrus in terris vicarius Filii Dei esse videtur constitutus, ita et Pontifices, qui ipsius principis apostolorum gerunt vices, principatus potestatem amplius quam terrena imperialis nostrae serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur, concessam a nobis nostroque imperio obtineant, eligentes nobis ipsum principem apostolorum vel eius vicarios firmos apud Deum esse patronos."

So either show how "Vicarius Filii Dei" adds up to 666 without changing the "u" to a "v", or just quietly drop it.

 

OK, OK, OK, let's get back to basics, shall we?

The point Bob seems to be worrying is that this title is proof that the Pope is the Antichrist. That he has to become creative in spelling and rely on a single forged document is instructive, but almost a side issue.

Parenthetically, ever read the PC(USA)'s "Book of Confessions?" Some of the "Confessions" that we include aren't very current anymore, but show a historical progression in the development of current doctrine in the PC(USA). No one expects a Presbyterian to know and abide by, say, the Second Helvetic Confession, and then if some arcane reference is found to thus be condemned by it.

In any case, it's interesting to look at the chapter of the Book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ to Saint John in question, and ask these questions: What in this chapter looks at all like a Christian, or even quasi-Christian, group rather than a group of secular or occultic origination? Under what circumstances would a religious leader of, oh, let's say Catholic origin, aw, heck, let's say the Pope, become so powerful as to wield the influence of either Beast mentioned in Revelation 13? Let us discuss the passage in terms of what it says, not in terms of some extraBiblical and disputed document.

Again, remember that I am not a fan of the RCC. I simply believe wholeheartedly that confronting any religion on the basis of hearsay and theory is at least obfuscative and poor apologetics.


Revelation 13 (NASB) (I have removed footnote references to aid in reading)


The Beast from the Sea

1 And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.
2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority.
3 I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast;
4 they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?"
5 There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven.
7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear.
10 If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints.


The Beast from the Earth

11 Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon.
12 He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed.
13 He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men.
14 And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life.
15 And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.
16 And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,
17 and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.

 

Vicarius Filii Dei = 666 ?

Radicitus ridiculum!

 

Mioque's revisionism is a refreshing kind that is bold enough to come right out with a fallacy and hold it up as though "true".

Now - the "Catholic source" writing the "Donation of Constantine" in the 7th Century is "actually a 19th century Adventist".

How refreshing!

How original!

How down right "entertaining"!

I like it.

More -- please.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, you really need to "read more carefully".

Mioque said the "myth" originated with the SDA.

To be so smarmy, when you are so wrong, just looks "plain foolish".

 

Rev 13:1-2 1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

The first beast rises up out of the sea. Water, in prophetic symbolism, represents peoples and nations and tongues. "Rev 17:15 15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." This beast arises in the midst of multitudes, and nations and tongues.

Verse two says that the beast has different body parts from the leopard, the bear, and the lion. the dragon is the one who gives the beast his power and authority. The leopard, the bear, and the lion, are the same three animals that depicted beasts, or kingdoms in the book of Daniel. We know that these three beasts represented Babylon, Medo Persia, and Greece. The next major kingdom or power in the earth was Rome. The fourth beast of Daniel 7 was Rome, in both it's pagan and papal form. This first beast of Revelation is also Rome, for it rises out of these other nations, and tongues, and peoples that we already know to be the same as those in the book of Daniel 7.

The fourth beast of Daniel 7 was also dreadful and powerful. It also had ten horns just like this beast does. Verse 21 of Daniel seven says that the fourth beast made war with the saints and prevailed, so also this first beast in Rev. 13 is said to do the same," Rev 13:7 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindred's, and tongues, and nations."

Verse 20 of Daniel seven says that the fourth beast had a mouth that spoke very great things. So also the first beast of Rev. 13 has a mouth speaking great things," Rev 13:6 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven."

The fourth beast of Daniel seven also came out of the sea. This sea is a place of peoples, and nations, and tongues. It is what we now refer to as Europe. The fourth beast of Daniel was Rome, and as is made obvious by all of the similarities, the fourth beast of Daniel, and the first beast of Rev. 13 are one and the same. That is to say Rome, in her pagan and papal forms.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

I can't believe you keep bringing up this "u" and "v" argument.

I thought Catholics were supposed to have "some history" regarding latin.

What am I missing? Must I continually be the one "stating the obvious"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since the shallow attempts continue to be made to the effect that the 7th century CATHOLIC authors of the The Donation of Constantine" -- A Genuinely Historic Document

(albeit genuinely CATHOLIC and not genuinely CONSTANTINIAN using Vicarius Filii Dei as a title for Peter and his successor)

- was in fact a myth authored by 19th century Adventist
(as if such a chronology could ever be plausible)
- I thought I would then quote some "more Adventists" of similar non-SDA ilk as those supposedly 19th-century-Adventist Catholics in the 7th Century.

This is actually a lot more fun than I had anticipated thanks to the 19th-century-myth idea being promoted here.

Thanks again.

In Christ,

Bob