vicarivs filii dei

Why are the "details" dropped so quickly by our Catholic bretheren on this topic?

The point has been shown from the historic document forged by Catholicism itself - that the Catholic church CHOSE the title "Vicarius Filii Dei" it was IN their OWN document "The Donation of Constantine" and NOT in the form of "Vicarius Filii Dei is NOT a title for the Pope but rather Vicar of Peter is the title". Such wording is nowhere in the entire document.

MULTIPLE titles have always been in use by Catholics for both Mary AND the Pope. That is not in dispute.

In Christ,

Bob

 

A little bit of history for those interested.

THE GREAT EMPIRES OF
PROPHECY
by Alonzo Jones page 391

15. In A.D. 321, to please the bishops of the Catholic Church, he issued an
edict commanding judges, townspeople, and mechanics to rest on Sunday.
Yet in this also his paganism was still manifest, as the edict required rest on
"the venerable day of the sun," and "enjoined the observance, or rather
forbade the public desecration, of Sunday, not under the name of
Sabbatum, or Dies Domini, but under its old astrological and heathen title,
Dies Solis, familiar to all his subjects, so that the law was as applicable to
the worshipers of Hercules, Apollo, and Mithras, as to the Christians." -
Schaff.
F531

16. "The same tenacious adherence to the ancient god of light has left its
trace, even to our own time, on one of the most sacred and universal of
Christian institutions. The retention of the old pagan name of "Dies Solis,'
or 'Sunday,' for the weekly Christian festival, is in great measure owing to
the union of pagan and Christian sentiment with which the first day of the
week was recommended by Constantine to his subjects, pagan and
Christian alike, as the 'venerable day of the sun.'... It was his mode of
harmonizing the discordant religions of the empire under one common
institution." - Stanley.
F532

17. The next day after issuing this Sunday law, that is, March 8, A.D. 321,
he published another edict, in which he "expressly ordains that whenever
lightning should strike the imperial palace or any other public building, the
haruspices, according to ancient usage, should be consulted as to what it
might signify, and a careful report of the answer should be drawn up for his
use." And by yet another "law of the same year, he declares also the
employment of heathen magic, for good ends, as for the prevention or
healing of diseases, for the protection of harvests, for the prevention of rain
and of hail, to be permitted, and in such expressions, too, as certainly
betray a faith in the efficacy of these pretended supernatural means, unless
the whole is to be ascribed simply to the legal forms of paganism." -
Neander.

Accordingly, now "his coins bore on the one side the letters of the name of
Christ, on the other the figure of the sun-god, and the inscription, 'Sol
invictus' (the unconquerable sun), as if he could not bear to relinquish the
patronage of the bright luminary which represented to him, as to Augustus
and to Julian, his own guardian deity." - Stanley.

31. "The lingering attachment of Constantine to the favorite superstition of
his earlier days may be traced on still better authority. The Grecian worship
of Apollo had been exalted into the Oriental veneration of the sun, as the
visible representative of the Deity; and of all the statues that were
introduced from different quarters, none were received with greater honor
than those of Apollo. In one part of the city stood the Pythian, in another
the Sminthian deity. The Delphic Tripod, which, according to Zosimus,
contained an image of the god, stood upon the column of three twisted
serpents, supposed to represent the mystic Python. But on a still loftier, the
famous pillar of porphyry, stood an image in which, if we are to credit
modern authority (and the more modern our authority, the less likely is it
to have invented so singular a statement), Constantine dared to mingle
together the attributes of the sun, of Christ, and of himself. According to
one tradition, this pillar was based, as it were, on another superstition. The
venerable Palladium itself, surreptitiously conveyed from Rome, was buried
beneath it, and thus transferred the eternal destiny of the old to the new
397
capital. The pillar, formed of marble and of porphyry, rose to the height of
a hundred and twenty feet. The colossal image on the top was that of
Apollo, either from Phrygia or from Athens. But the head of Constantine
had been substituted for that of the god. The scepter proclaimed the
dominion of the world; and it held in its hand the globe, emblematic of
universal empire. Around the head, instead of rays, were fixed the nails of
the true cross. Is this paganism approximating to Christianity, or
Christianity degenerating into paganism?" - Milman.

44. The only result which could possibly come from such proceedings as
these, was, first, that the great mass of the people, of the pagans, in the
empire, with no change either of character or convictions, were drawn into
the Catholic Church. Thus the State and the church became one and the
same thing; and that one thing was simply the embodiment of the second
result; namely, a solid mass of hypocrisy. “The vast numbers who, from
external considerations, without any inward call, joined themselves to the
431
Christian communities, served to introduce into the church all the
corruptions of the heathen world. Pagan vices, pagan delusions, pagan
superstition, took the garb and name of Christianity, and were thus enabled
to exert a more corrupting influence of the Christian life.
45. “Such were those who, without any real interest whatever in the
concerns of religion, living half in paganism and half in an outward show of
Christianity, composed the crowds that thronged the churches on the
festivals of the Christians, and the theaters on the festivals of the pagans.
Such were those who accounted themselves Christians if they but attended
church once or twice in a year; while, without a thought of any higher life,
they abandoned themselves to every species of worldly pursuit and
pleasure.” - Neander.
F617

63. Then came Constantine, the best imperial representative of the new
paganism, and the most devout worshiper of the sun as the supreme and
universal deity, with the avowed purpose, as expressed in his own words,
"First to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the
Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity." In Constantine then new paganism met its ideal, and the New Platonism - the apostate, paganized, sun-worshiping form of Christianity - met its long-wished-for instrument. In him the two streams met. In him the aspiration of Elagabalus, the hope of Ammonius Saccas and Clement, of Plotinus and Origen, and the ambition of the perverse-minded, self-exalted bishops, were all realized and accomplished - a new, imperial, and universal religion was created.
64. Therefore, "the reign of Constantine the Great forms one of the epochs in the history of the world. It is the era of the dissolution of the Roman Empire; the commencement, or rather consolidation, of a kind of Eastern despotism, with a new capital, a new patriciate, a new constitution, a new financial system, a new, though as yet imperfect, jurisprudence, and, finally, a new religion." - Milman.

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

 

This is too funny for words.

You cite quote after quote which use the words "Vicar of Christ" then tell us "Vicar of Christ = Vicar of Son of God".

Why don't you stick to the actual words used? Because they don't meet your 666 requirements.

Save yourself all the work and make up a quote where the Pope says, "I'm the antichrist."

It would be just as honest. (Or should I say dishonest)

 

Rak,

Have you come up with the scriptural support for using Roman numerals to make this calculation of who the anti-christ is? You know, interprut scripture with scripture. Sola Scriptura. Are you that willing to throw all that out the door to see the Pope hang as the antichrist. Seems that way to me.

Blessings

 

I have to agree. Are you saying that you actually think that "Christ" is really "The Son of God"??

Surely not!??

Mary is after all "The Mother of Christ"!! Not "the Mother of the Son of God"!!

Huge difference there while Jesus was on earth.

And so what if THEY THEMSELVES use the title "Vicar of the Son of God" in their document "Donation of Constantine" claiming that "Everyone recognizes this title for the Pope". I meann "so what" - it is only their document, endorsed by 10 of their popes, for a period of 3 centuries. Surely we can "pretend" that aint so.

And as for Rev 13 - and the "last sign" in a long list of signs identifying the beast power of chapter 13 - "surely we can ignore" that it is a "number to be calculated" and that "The number is the number of his name".

Please - lets just ignore that part of the Bible and get on with important things like - worshiping at Mary's altars and praying to the dead with incense and candles as do our other religious friends in other groups.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Just give the quote where any Pope has denied that Christ has come in the flesh.

Want my take on 666?

John 6:66

Seems to me that the very persons who have the most to say about 666 are ones who deny that Christ comes to us in the flesh in the Eucharist.

Ron

 

Ron,

AHAHAHA. That is the best. John 6:66 shows those leaving Jesus for lack of faith in His words.

And you keep on preaching whatever you want to, Rakka. You haven't shown the Pope or the Papacy denying Christ's coming in the flesh, so you have no argument, and never will. You are preaching to the choir.

As for Ron's statement about the Vicar of Christ and Vicar of the Son of God, he was CLEARLY not denying that Christ is the Son of God, and you are a liar for putting that forward. His point was clear: All of your quotes show "Vicar of Christ," and you use that as an accusation, yet "Vicar of Christ" does not equal 666.

Catholics: Please ignore Rakka until he shows the present Pope or the Papacy in general denouncing Christ's coming into the flesh.

God bless,

Grant

P.S. That John 6:66 is still the best thing I have seen on here!

 

"Catholics: Please ignore Rakka until he shows the present Pope or the Papacy in general denouncing Christ's coming into the flesh."

Hey move over buddy, my question is first. I am going to ignore him until he answers my question about where in the Bible we have instructions about using the Bible to prove the antichrist is the Pope using roman numerals. Then I will ignore him until he answers your question. Rak em up. I like Trying2's interprutation of the 666. Seems that is interpruting scripture with scripture.

 

How does this verse tell you how to assign Roman Numerals to a name to calculate 666?

 

How does this verse tell you how to assign Roman Numerals to a name to calculate 666? </font>[/QUOTE]Trying,

You stopped ignoring him. That's what he wants. As long as you keep responding, he doens't have to answer the question.

God bless,

Grant

 

Rakka commented:

&lt;Sigh!&gt; Rakka, prove to all of us that the pope was ever given the title "Vicar of the Son of God."

Show me one scrap, papal bull, decree, any document (not forgeries, of course) that indicate this.

Seeing my post on this nonsense, you replied naught, but insist on clinging onto this anti-Catholic garbage?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

 

if a = b & if b = c
then a = c

ring a bell? high school math? </font>[/QUOTE]Please, continue to insult my mathematical knowledge. I'm sure that is earning you high marks among your fellow Baptists.

While your mathematical property is sound, your usage of it is not.

Jesus = Christ = Son of God. This is true.
vicar of Christ = vicar of the Son of God. This is true.

I am not contesting these facts. However, the argument is not over the objective office of what, for your sake, the Pope "claims" to hold, but is rather that of his title. The argument is that his title is translated "666," and thus, whatever title is being used, only the title, not the type of office, must be translated into "666."

On that note, the title "Vicar of the Son of God" is not an official title of the Pope, and despite valiant efforts, it has not been proven on here. The Donation of Constantine, even if it was used on official capacity, is not official. If I used a fake ID to purchase alcohol, it would SEEM that I have the right to do so, but I really do not. Thus, even if used in official capacity, it is not official.

Even further, the word "vicar" in the Donation of Constantine was not capitalized as "Vicar;" thus, it was referring to the office, not the title of the office. Titles are capitalized.

So, for your argument to hold TRUE weight, an official title of the Pope would have to be translated into "666." What is unofficial cannot become official for one instance only. If the Donation of Constantine is a forgery, and you admit that it is, then it is not official, and you cannot use it for official purposes.

God bless you,

Grant

P.S. I would still like to see an official papal denunciation of Christ's coming in the flesh, TRUE proof of the antiChrist.

 

Just a little clarification, in case it arrises.

The reason why I say that the Pope's office cannot be used is because Scripture refers to the "name" of the antiChrist, not a position. Already protestants are taking the liberty that because the word "name" CAN refer to a "title," that in this instance it will be. From here, we cannot soundly move from "title" to "office."

If that doesn't make sense, lemme know.

God bless,

Grant

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ignore

btw: i already answered your question:

Rev.13
[18] Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. </font>[/QUOTE]So if you picked up a bible without your preconcieved notion of this calcualtion in their heads, they would say, Ah, I see from this verse in Rev 13 that I should go around searching for a person who when I apply roman numberals to their name and add them up then I find the antichrist? You gotta be kidding me. I'll stick with trying2's explanation.

 

Some of you are so focused on details that you've forgotten the basics. "antichrist" is used in 4 verses in the NT, 3 of which provide a definition. According to scripture (not math, not speculation, not some documents in some library), the definition of antichrist requires:

- denying that Jesus is the Christ
- denying the Father and the Son
- not confessing that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh

Once someone meets all those requirements, *then* it may be interesting to see what correlation their name has to 666. If someone does NOT meet all those requirements to start with, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

Wha...wh..what's that I smell? Oh my, it's a breath of fresh air!

Thank you for stating the fundamental truth of the matter, Brian.

God bless,

Grant