All of them are "accepted by the RCC" for the pope during the time that the document is "NOT QUESTIONED by ANYONE" which the actually history of the matter EVEN from RC historian's viewpoints.
The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century.
As one example of the Donation of Constantine being incorporated into Catholic canon, in Gratian's Decretals of the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, published in Bologna about 1148, the following is found: "Beatus Petrus in terris vicarius filii Dei videtur esse constitutes Decretum Gratiani, prima pars., dist. 96.
In Christ,
Bob
Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by mioque, Aug 28, 2003.
Page 2 of 14
-
-
The argument is sometimes made that no one actually appealed to the content OF the donation of Constantine when arguing that the content of the document supported their case for secular powers of the Pope (as irrational as that logic is - we will pursue it).
though Baronius and later historians acknowledged it to be a forgery, they endeavoured to marshal other authorities in defence of its content, especially as regards the imperial donations.
... for your reading enjoyment.
Bob -
-
Bob&Bill
Let me guess, you 2 are restarting one of your old debates all over my thread :eek:
That's fine, but do try to finish it before late september.
To return for a moment to my own reason for starting this.
It does not say Vicarius Filii Dei on the tiara of the pope, 'proving' that the popes are the beast of Revelations. And a certain sundayschool class is going to visit a certain museum to see that with their own eyes. That's what this is all about.
It is probably worth noting that I have a degree in church history. I know what the number of the beast actually means, and I know why the Vicarius Filii Dei fable was created. I even know why it says Vicarius Filii Dei in the donation of Constantine. I might even have to explain it to keep this thread alife long enough.
;) -
mioque -
As the references above show - the personalities using that title for the Pope - are more than one and all of them I gave - were RC - not protestant.
As has also been pointed out on this thread - all agree that there has been MORE than one Papal tiara in the passage of time so the statement that the Sunday Visitor made about WHERE the title is found - can be "changed" with the very next one.
The "point" is whether or not this title was used for the Pope - as the Donation of Constantine used it AND whether the CONTENT of the Donation of Constantine was argued favorably by RC Popes and leadership. The historic documents provided SHOW - the USE not only of that document BUT ALSO of the TITLE in various OTHER RC documents, laws, legal arguments etc.
The "fact" of history does not change - because the current Tiara does not have the title. It is the title itself - not the Tiara that is of issue.
"your thread" was specifially about the TITLE being used to support the claim for 666. If you wish to state that you are not doubting the use of the title - just "where" it is to be found - then by all means proceed - but it "appeared" that your effort was to claim that the 666 calculation could not be used for the Title since the Title was never approved/used/accepted/known in Catholicism as an accepted title for the Pope.
In "that case" Enjoy.
In Christ,
Bob -
"As the references above show - the personalities using that title for the Pope - are more than one and all of them I gave - were RC - not protestant."
Using some of the references you gave, would virtually guarantee a failing mark in the average community college course on the history of religion (I especially like the one where an english language dictionary is used to find out what the meaning is of a word in latin). -
"As has also been pointed out on this thread - all agree that there has been MORE than one Papal tiara in the passage of time so the statement that the Sunday Visitor made about WHERE the title is found - can be "changed" with the very next one."
One of my readers contains an annotated list of all beehive tiara's made since the late middle ages.
They can be divided into 2 groups, the ones that where melted down (by Napoleon among others) before the Vicarius Filii Dei story came into existance and the 12 still around including the one used to crown Pius VII in 1800. That last one was made out of papier-mâché by some kind Venetian noblewomen, because nothing else was available at the moment.
I have seen all 12 of them with my own eyes. 1 in the shrine of the immaculate conception in Washington and 11 others in the papal sacristy in Rome (doing a favour to Hans Kolvenbach can be extremely usefull).
No Vicarius Filii Dei on any of them. :cool: -
Bob replied, where I last said (in italics):
Bob. you have it shown to you that not one official document of the Catholic Church indicates that "Vicar of the Son of God" (in Latin)
Simply because the Church was bamboozled into thinking this document was authentic for a while does not make it's contents any more valid, including the so called titles given to the pope (and there were several, as my last link pointed out) until and unless you were to see that title repeated in an official document of the Church, and the Donations of Constantine was certainly not an official document of the Church, it being thought to be official from the emperor Constantine
No, you are so right, I am not following your point at all! But now that you elaborate it, I reject it as complete nonsense!
We both know that the document is a forgery. And as I recall, it was Catholic scholars who discovered this:
Quote…
This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850. As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known and demonstrated. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (De Concordantiâ Catholicâ, III, ii, in the Basle ed. of his Opera, 1565, I) spoke of it as a dictamen apocryphum. Some years later (1440) Lorenzo Valla (De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio, Mainz, 1518) proved the forgery with certainty. Independently of both his predecessors, Reginald Pecocke, Bishop of Chichester (1450-57), reached a similar conclusion in his work, "The Repressor of over much Blaming of the Clergy", Rolls Series, II, 351-366. Its genuinity was yet occasionally defended, and the document still further used as authentic, until Baronius in his "Annales Ecclesiastici" (ad an. 324) admitted that the "Donatio" was a forgery, whereafter it was soon universally admitted to be such. It is so clearly a fabrication that there is no reason to wonder that, with the revival of historical criticism in the fifteenth century, the true character of the document was at once recognized. The forger made use of various authorities, which Grauert and others (see below) have thoroughly investigated. The introduction and the conclusion of the document are imitated from authentic writings of the imperial period, but formulæ of other periods are also utilized. In the "Confession" of faith the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is explained at length, afterwards the Fall of man and the Incarnation of Christ. There are also reminiscences of the decrees of the Iconoclast Synod of Constantinople (754) against the veneration of images. The narrative of the conversion and healing of the emperor is based on the apocryphal Acts of Sylvester (Acta or Gesta Sylvestri), yet all the particulars of the "Donatio" narrative do not appear in the hitherto known texts of that legend. The distinctions conferred on the pope and the cardinals of the Roman Church the forger probably invented and described according to certain contemporary rites and the court ceremonial of the Roman and the Byzantine emperors. The author also used the biographies of the popes in the Liber Pontificalis (q.v.), likewise eighth-century letters of the popes, especially in his account of the imperial donations.
Unquote…
From the link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm
Notice further that some resisted the claim of forgery. That does not make it an "official Catholic document," does it, Bob?
I don't care if it was a Catholic, Hindu, Moslem, Shinto, whoever who wrote it, it is no more a "Catholic Document" unless it were written as such, and you have yet to produce the evidence. So please do it now, Bob…
Does that make it an official document of the United States of America, Bob?
Please give me a break!
Prove this conspiracy, Bob, as that is the only thing I can think of that is lodged in your mind...
Did Ellen G. White originate this nonsense, Bob?
I last said:
And incredibly, even if the Donatation of Constantine were not a forgery, the fact that the author of this document may have called the pope as "The Vicar of the Son of God," does not in and of itself make it an official title!
It suited your purpose, I suppose…
Even if the document was absolutely true - not a forgery - the fact that the author, Constantine (we continue to assume here), used that title does not make it an official title of the papacy! If Constantine has said, as a title, Your supreme Grace of the Entire Universe does not an official title make!
It is what we see on official Church documents, decrees and papal bulls that we note the official title of the pope. Show me one where any pope has used the title you suggest, Bob.
(Continued in next message) -
(Continued from previous message)
Does that apply to their husbanding of holy Scriptures as well, Bob? Will you address that dichotomy later on in your response here?
Again, show me the proofs of Church documents that demonstrate the papal title you claim, Bob…
http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/vicar.html
And notice the color coded parts of the document that indicates possible papal titles. (the one that says "Vicar of the Son of God" is intentionally left uncolored, since it is the phrase in contention.) These are the many superlatives that could have been lifted and considered, "yea, that's a pretty good title, so let's use it on official documents," including the phrase in question (not colored) but do we see that done, Bob?
And in doing so, they used it as a defense of the Church's claim, including pope Leo IX whose infallibility does not include the charisma of discerning the veracity of the document in question. But did Leo IX cop a title for use by himself and all popes after him from that document, Bob? He sure has a lot to choose from in that document, doesn't he? Show me one case where the title, "Vicar of the Son of God" (in Latin) was applied with the papal signature. Show me also where it was applied to a mitre, tiara or papal crown, Bob, please.
Perhaps repeating myself over and over again will make this point to you, Bob!
I don't give a hoot if 100 popes took the Donation of Constantine as fact, from the hand of Constantine, lock stock and barrel, and ran with it! The point is, you cannot document one instance where the title "Vicar of the Son of God" was ever used as an official title in any Document perpetuated by the Church herself.
(Continued in next message) -
(Continued from previous message)
Secondly, this Philippe Labbe has a little blurb on him in:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08718b.htm
And there is no way I can verify what he may have wrote in his papers. But one thing is for sure: That any priest, bishop of otherwise cleric may write about the pope and give him all kinds of kindly adjectives that can be construed as titles, such as the one in question. That does not ipso facto make any of those titles an official title, period!
For the umpteenth time, produce one official document of the Church that has a papal signature on it that also imposes the title, in Latin, "Vicar of the Son of God." Produce just one, Bob, please!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06048a.htm
For the Umpteenth time + 1, The above document, written by a Franciscan priest, is (gulp!) NOT an official church document! It may be an "authoritative Catholic source" for many things, Bob, but that does not make the term "Vicar of the Son of God" (which I take at face value as being contained within) an official title of the pope in official Church documents. Do you get it yet, Bob?
Only in your own mind can you "force" this title simply because of the mathematical coincidence that has it spell out the awful "666." And by golly, nothing is going to deter you from that conclusion, right, Bob?
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15) -
I could add it to my arsonal of rebuttal on this nonsense!
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
- Anima Christi -
Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen. -
"The "fact" of history does not change - because the current Tiara does not have the title. It is the title itself - not the Tiara that is of issue."
There is no current tiara, in fact the term 'current tiara' has no meaning. In the days the pope used a tiara there usually were a number of tiara's available and one was chosen for the occasion.
""your thread" was specifially about the TITLE being used to support the claim for 666."
No it is not. Kathryn is the person who understands best what this thread is all about. Reread her posts to find out.
If you don't want to dig up those short posts, you can read the following longer explanation
When I started this thread I assumed nobody around here believed in that Vicarius Filii Dei nonsense. I was surprised that our own sundayschool teacher taught it and saw the expo in the Catharijne Convent as a little 'Divine' intervention helping me to correct this problem in a playfull fashion.
I figured that this board could use some lighter subjectmatter. So I started the this thread about the incident and it's future resolution. -
Mioque:
I have to admit I have enjoyed reading your posts in the Baptist History forum, and knew where you were coming from. I especially found interesting your understanding of the Waldensians.
Not to change the subject here, and I am no historian, but I have been reading a book called the Waldensian Dissent Persecution and Survival c.1170- c.1570 by Gabriel Audisio, published by Cambridge University Press. I don't know if you are familiar with this author. He is a professor of Early Modern History at University of Provence. He seems to be saying much the same that you say in the Baptist History forum regarding the Waldensians. In any case it is great to see some objective history on this forum for a change.
Kathryn -
To all interested in this thread:
I stumbled upon this link which I think all will be interested in reading:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius_Filii_Dei
EDIT: And just for the fun of it, I will add this link:
http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/666.html
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15) -
To all!
Since we are on a conspiracy run, here is a good one for all of ya: (NOT!)
http://www.crisismagazine.com/feature1.htm
Sorry, it's off-topic, but I don't start threads as a personal rule...
There is no doubt which is the true Church of Jesus Christ, as all you have to do is look for the one most maligned... :(
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis! -
"Not to change the subject here, and I am no historian, but I have been reading a book called the Waldensian Dissent Persecution and Survival c.1170- c.1570 by Gabriel Audisio, published by Cambridge University Press."
I'm the proud owner of a copy of that book. -
When I started this thread I assumed nobody around here believed in that Vicarius Filii Dei nonsense. I was surprised that our own sundayschool teacher taught it
Hmm.
I was "surprised" that the RCC taught it in the Donation of Constantine.
I was "surprised" that "Our Sunday Visitor" would promote it.
I was "surprised" that Ten Popes ENDORSED the Content of the Donation of Constantine - That "taught it".
I was "surprised" that Cannon Law contained it.
I was "surprised" that after all these (and more) RCC sources promoted it - there was "still anyone" who doubted it as a historic fact.
I guess you learn something everyday!
In Christ,
Bob -
Or were you speaking of the JW's?
Surely you were not speaking of the most popular church in the dark ages and in America today as "the most maligned" were you?
Are you sure you are using that word right?
In Christ,
Bob -
Bill is always lots of fun when it comes to this topic. Notice how his web site quotes ignore the RC document "Donation of Constantine" - that was endorsed by no less than Ten Popes and DOES serve as the earliest "source" for the title Vicarius Filii Dei?
Wonder why?
No wait - let me guess. Its because it is of RC origin and it is the oldest source AND it is endorsed by no less than Ten Popes and that is a "PROBLEM" FOR THE RC view that only anti-Catholics would "make up" the name.
No wait - that's not it. I am sure that part does not bother Bill a bit. :D
In Christ,
Bob -
BobRyan,
I always know when my last messsage, in three parts, goes unrefuted, as you end it in a whimper, not once refuting the most devasting point I have made a message I composed before my last: That if the Catholic Church is so devious, so cunning, so subversive, that she could officially write the Donations herself (it seems you are claiming) and then turn around when the "jig is up," exposed by some of her own clergy, and then you turn right around and seemingly accept the canon of the New Testament that was cast by the very Church you have so much credibility with.
Just think of the opportunity the Catholic church had in "altering" the text of scripture and no one would be the wiser...
Have I nice day, Bob; it's been fun...
I'm through with this thread...
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
Page 2 of 14