Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.

Bill your argument remains - that the perfidity of the RCC in AUTHORING the Donation of Constantine (which in fact ALL historians AGREE that it is of Catholic origin NOT of Constantine's origin) - should have been EXTENDED to further "exploit the document" in the 15th century.

As "if" that logic is "proof" of something in your favor regarding the Title that the DOCUMENT uses (long before there was an SDA).


You simply seem to "fall off the train of thought" at that point.

I can not be blamed for that. In fact - I find your point to be "more mine" than "yours" in that regard.

Indeed "why did the church not behave even more badly than it did" - you keep asking the question -

I simply enjoy your willingness to do so.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

What about the popes pre Donation of Constantine. They are excused from all your nonesense.

 

Well - if you follow the argument... the Catholic authors of the Donation of Contantine in the 7th century were not "free" to make stuff up that nobody believed and have it "accepted as fact" by the population and by the Ten Popes that followed.

A Document that surfaced saying "I constantine think the Pope is really the Easter Bunny" would not have been "compelling".

The first Pope to claim to himself the title "Vicar of the Christ" - took the title in 1198. Almost five centuries AFTER the Donation of Constantine was produced and Catholics like to argue that this was the case long before the actual documented case as well.

Nothing in new in that regard.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Don't you know, mioque?

(Sarcastic mode on)That this devious, slandering, lying, cunning, whore of Babylon of a Church, melted it down so that the evidence is no longer there?

Satan has them so possessed that they could look ahead in the future and see the SdA's "whole cloth" construction of this myth!

Yet, at the same time, the only Church around, "Satan's Whore of Babylon Church," was somehow divinely inspired that it could assemble the precise and correct books in the New Testament, rejecting the following books that were in contention:

The Acts of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
The Acts of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The martyrdom of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The First Apocalypse of James
The Second Apocalypse of James
The Gospel of James
The Apocryphon of James
The epistle of James (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The first epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The second epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The third epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The Revelation of John (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of John
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Apocryphon of John
The Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Mystery of the Cross
The epistle of Jude (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Acts of the Apostles (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Mark.)
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Passing of Mary
The Apocalypse of the Virgin
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Matthew.)
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Corinthians
The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians
The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Thessalonians
The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Epistle of Paul to Titus
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon l
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Thought to be by Paul, but non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Revelation of Paul
The Vision of Paul
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The first epistle of Peter
The second epistle of Peter (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Revelation of Peter
The Gospel of Peter
The epistle of Peter to Philip
The Acts of Philip
The Gospel of Philip
The Revelation of Stephen
The Acts of Thomas
The Consummation of Thomas
The Apocalypse of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis
The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Second Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Epistle of Ignatius to Hero, A deacon of Antioch
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians
The Second epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
The Reply of the Virgin Mary to Ignatius
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
Community Rule
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia
Fragments of Papias
Justin on the Resurrection
Justin on the sole government of God
Justin's Discourse to the Greeks-1
Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks
Other Fragments from the Lost Writing of Justin
The Acts of John the Theologian
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Apocalypse of Sedrach
The Avenging of the Saviour
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar
The Death of Pilate
The Didache (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Adrian in behalf of the Christians
The Epistle of Antoninus
The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
The Epistle of the Apostles
The First Apology of Justin
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of the Lord
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor
The Martydom of Polycarp
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
The Revelation of Esdras
The Revelation of John the Theologian
The Revelation of Moses
The Revelation of Stephen
The Second Apology of Justin
The Shepherd of Hermas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle
The Three Steles of Seth

Now, is it not strange that all New Testaments of all denominations have exactly the same books?

And how is it that this same devious Church can produce a New Testament canon in the latter part of the 3rd century that all will agree is the true divinely inspired Word of God?

Do you see the inconsistancy here? (Not for you, mioque, necessarily, but for all who are reading this thread.)

In other words..........

How can anyone trust their very own bibles, it coming from the husbandry of the very Catholic Church they so distrust?

(Sarcastic mode turned-off once again!)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not
thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn
away his wrath from him.
Proverbs 24:17-18

 

Things aren't always as simple as they appear.

Maybe the Church in Rome is not responsible for the creation of this document after all.

"...that the forgery originated in the Frankish Empire has quite recently been ably defended by Hergenröther and Grauert (see below). They call attention to the fact that the "Donatio" appears first in Frankish collections, i.e. in the False Decretals and in the above-mentioned St-Denis manuscript; moreover the earliest certain quotation of it is by Frankish authors in the second half of the ninth century. Finally, this document was never used in the papal chancery until the middle of the eleventh century, nor in general is it referred to in Roman sources until the time of Otto III (983-1002, i.e. in case the famous "Diploma" of this emperor be authentic). The first certain use of it at Rome was by Leo IX in 1054, and it is to be noted that this pope was by birth and training a German, not an Italian. The writers mentioned have shown that the chief aim of the forgery was to prove the justice of the translatio imperii to the Franks, i.e. the transfer of the imperial title at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800; the forgery was, therefore, important mainly for the Frankish Empire. This view is rightly tenable against the opinion of the majority that this forgery originated at Rome."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

 

I think it is a study in the ridiculous to argue the merits of a given faith on anything but those merits. Creating "proofs" that the RCC is somehow a Satanic construct is silly and unneccesary. Worse, it makes those with valid concerns about the extraBiblical doctrines of the RCC appear unfairly silly.

 

FACTS OF FAITH
by Christian Edwardson

THE NUMBER 666 The Scripture gives us still another earmark of this power. We read: “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.” “The number of his name.” Revelation 13:17, 18. The note below the eighteenth verse in the Douay, or Catholic, Bible says: “Six hundred sixty-six. The numeral letters of his name shall make up this number.”

CATHOLIC AUTHORITIES In our examination of this subject we shall first consult Roman Catholic authorities to ascertain what sacred title they apply to the pope to denote his official position and authority. Any one at all familiar with authentic Catholic authors knows that their paramount and constant claim for the pope is that Christ appointed St. Peter to be His vicar, or representative on earth, and that each succeeding pope is the lawful successor of St. Peter, and is therefore the “Vicar of the Son of God” on earth. This official title in Latin (the official language of the Catholic Church) is “Vicarius Filii Del.” We find this title used officially in Roman Catholic canon law, from medieval times down to the present. In the earliest collection of canon law we read:

“Beatus Petrus in tetris Vicarius Filii Dei videtur esse con-stitutus”-” Decretum Gratiani,” prima pars, dist. xcvi. Translated into English this would read: “Blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God on the earth.”-’’ Decretum of Gratian,” part 1, div. 96, column 472, .first published at Bologna about 1148, and reprinted in 1555. Translation by Christopher B. Coleman, Ph.D., in “The Treatise of Lorenzo ValIa on the Donation of Constantine,” p. 13. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of Gratian: “He is the true founder of the science of canon law”-Vol. VI, art. “Gratian,” p. 730.

The same Catholic authority says: “The ‘Decretum’ of Gratian was
considered in the middle of the twelfth century as a corpus juris canonici, i.e. a code of the ecclesiastical law then in force.”-Id., Vol. IV, art. “Decretals,” p. 67I.

It further states: “It must be admitted that the work of Gratian was as near perfection as was then possible. For that reason it was adopted at Bologna, and soon elsewhere, as the textbook for the.study of canon law .... While lecturing on Gratian’s work, the canonists labored to complete and elaborate the master’s teaching.”-Id., Vol. IX, art. “Law, Canon,” pars. “D” and “E,” p. 62.

Different popes added their own decrees to the collection of Gratian, as the following quotation will show:

“Thus by degrees the Corpus Juris Canonici took shape. This became the official code of canon law for Western Europe during the Middle Ages, and was composed of six books, namely, the Decretum of Gratian (about 1150), the Decretals of Gregory IX (1234), the Sextus of Boniface VIII (1298), the Clementines of Clement V (1313), the Extravagantes of John XXII (about 1316), and the Extravagantes Communes, which contained laws made by succeeding popes.”-”The Papacy,” Rev. C. Lattey, S. J., page 143. Cambridge, England: 1924.

After the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V had this “Canon Law” revised.

“Pius V appointed (1566) a commission to prepare a new edition of the ‘Corpus Juris Canonici.’ This commission devoted itself especially to the correction of the text of the ‘ Decree’ of Gratian and of its gloss. Gregory XIII (‘ Cum pro munere,’ 1 July, 1580; ‘Emendationem,’ 2 June, 1582) decreed that no change was to be made in the revised text. This edition of the ‘Corpus’ appeared at Rome in 1582, in aedibus populi Romani, and serves as examplar for all subsequent editions.”-Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, art. “Corpus Juris Cononici,” pp. 392, 393. It was reprinted verbatim in 1613 and 1622.

This is the standard text of canon law for the whole Roman Catholic Church. Pope Gregory XIII wrote July 1, 1580, in his preface to this corrected edition:

“We have demanded care in rejecting, correcting, and expurgating .... The Dceree itself, without the glossse, exists now entirely freed from faults and corrected,... as much the one without the glossse as the entire one with the glossse... all recognized and approved... this body of canonical law firmly grounded and incorrupted according to this model printed at Rome by Catholic typographers .... We wishing to proceed opportunely, so that this canonical law thus expurgated, may come restored to all the faithful... kept perpetually integrid and incorruptible, motu proprio, and from our certain knowledge, and from the plenitude of the apostolic power to all and singly in the dominion of our sacred Roman Church.”-Preface to Corpus Juris Canonici, Gregorii XIII, Pontif. Max. Auctoritate; in editions of 1582, 1613, 1622, and 1879.

Of this corrected “Corpus,” or canon law, “published in 1582... by order of
.Gregory XIII,” and established by his authority, we read:

“The text of this edition, revised by the Correctores Romani, a pontifical commission established for the revision of the text of the ‘Corpus Juris,’ has the force of law.”-Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, art. “Decretals, Papal,” p. 672, par. 3.

Notice that this revised edition of canon law “has the force of law.” In this
canon law, which Pope Gregory XIII had corrected by “the plenitude of the apostolic power,” so that it is “entirely freed from faults,” we find the same statement: “Beatus Petrus in tetris vicarius FiIii Del esse videtur consti-tutus.”-”Corpus Juris Canonici, Gregorii XIII, Ponif. Max. Auctoritate,” Distinctio 96, Column 286, Canon Constantinus 14, Magdeburg, 1747.

“Moreover, custom has even given to several apocryphal canons of the ‘Decree’ of Gratian the force of law”-Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, art. “Corpus Juris Cononici,” p. 393.

In “Corpus Juris Canonici Emendatum et Notis Illustratum Gregorii XIII. Pont. Max.,” “Lvgdvn, MDCXXII,” or “the Canon Law of Pope Gregory XIII, of 1622,” with the Pope’s own “Preface,” in which he assures us of its being without flaw, we find the same: “Beatus Petrus in terris Vicarius Filii Del esse videtur constitutus”-Column 295.

We cannot see how any consistent Catholic can deny the authenticity of this title without denying the infallibility of the pope. What more authority can they desire?

Before going further let us apply the rule laid V = 5 down in the Ca.tholic Bible for counting the number i = 1 of his name. It says: “The numeral letters of his c =100 name shall make up this number.”-Note under a = 0 Revelation 13:18. In Bible times they did not use r = 0 figures. We can still see on dials of old clocks, i = 1 in numbers given above chapters in the Bible, u = 5 and in dates inscribed on cornerstones, certain nu- s = 0 tactical values given to some of the letters. In F = 0 Latin, I stands for 1, V for 5, X for 10, Lfor 50, i = 1 C for 100, D for 500, and M for 1,000. Originally we 1 = 50 had no U, but V was used for U, and V is often usedi = 1 for U today on public buildings, such as “Public i = 1 Library,” and our W is still written as a double V, D =500 not as a double U. e = 0 The next Catholic authority we shall quote is i = 1

F. Lucii Ferraris, who wrote “a veritable encyclo-pedia’’ in Latin, of which several editions have been 666 printed by the papal church at Rome. The American Catholic Encyclopedia says of Ferraris’s great work that it “will ever remain a precious mine of information”-Vol. VI, p. 48. From this unquestionable Catholic authority we shall first quote its Latin statement, and then give the English translation:

“Ut sicu! Beatus Petrus in tetris vicarius Filii Dei fuit constitutus, ita et Pontifices eius successores in tetris principatus potestatem amplius, quam terrenae imperialis nostrae serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur.” (“As the blessed Peter was constituted Vicar of the Son of God on earth, so it is seen that the Pontiffs, his successors, hold from us and our empire the power of a supremacy on the earth greater than the clemency of our earthly imperial serenity”)-”Prompta Bibliotheca canonica juridica moralis theologica” etc., Vol. VI, art. “Papa,” p. 43. Printed by the Press of the Propaganda, Rome; 1890,

Henry Edward Cardinal Manning of England, an extensive Roman Catholic writer, of high esteem in his church, applies the same title to the pope, only using it in its English translation. He says of the popes:

“The temporal power in the hands of St. Gregory I was a fatherly and patriarchal rule over nations not as yet reduced to civil order. In the hands of St. Leo III it became a power of creating empires. In the hands of St. Gregory VII it was a scourge to chasten them. In the hands of Alexander III it was a dynasty, ruling supremely, in the name of God, over the powers of the world .... So that I may say there never was a time when the temporal power of the Vicar of the Son of God, though assailed as we see it, was more firmly rooted throughout the whole unity of the Catholic Church.

“It was a dignified obedience to bow to the Vicar of the Son of God, and to remit the arbitration of their griefs to one whom all wills consented to obey”-” The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ,” pp. 231,232, second edition. London: Burns and Lambert, 1362.

The same year, this book was translated and published in Italian, with the sanction of the church attached to it. The title “Vicar of the Son of God” appears on pages 234 and 235 of that edition.

Philippe Labbe, “a distinguished Jesuit writer on historical, geographical, and philological questions” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, pp. 718, 719), in his historical work “Sacro-sancta concilia ad regiam editionem exacta,” Vol. I, page 1534 (Paris: 1671), uses “Vicarius Filii Dei” as the official title of the pope.

Coming down to our own times, we shall call to the witness stand a modern advocate of the Roman Catholic cause. Our Sunday Visitor, of Huntington, Ind., in its issue of April 18, 1915, gives clear testimony in this case. We quote it in full:

“What are the letters supposed to be in the Pope’s crown, and what do they signify, if anything? “The letters inscribed in the Pope’s mitre are these: Vicarius Filii Dei, which is the Latin for Vicar of the Son of God. Catholics hold that the Church which is a visible society must have a visible head. Christ, before His ascension into heaven, appointed St. Peter to act as His representative. Upon the death of Peter the man who succeeded to the office of Peter as Bishop of Rome, was recognized as the head of the Church. Hence to the Bishop of Rome, as head of the Church, was given the title ‘Vicar of Christ.’

“Enemies of the Papacy denounce this title as a malicious assumption. But the Bible informs us that Christ did not only give His Church authority to teach, but also to rule. Laying claim to the authority to rifle in Christ’s spiritual kingdom, in Christ’s stead, is not a whit more malicious than laying claim to the authority to teach in Christ’s name. And this every Christian minister does.”-” Our Sunday Visitor,” April 18, 1915, thirteenth question under “Bureau of Information,” p. 3.

Later, when Roman Catholic authorities discovered that Protestants were making use of the foregoing statements to identify the Papacy with the antichristian power of Revelation 13:18, they attempted to repudiate the contents of their former article. But that article was not written by some contributor to their paper; it appeared in the “Bureau of Information,’’ for which the editorial staff was responsible. And on page two of that paper appeared sanctions for the editor from Pope Plus X, dated May 17, 1914; from the Apostolic Delegate, John Bonzano, dated April 27, 1913; and from J. H. Alerding, Bishop of Fort Wayne, Ind., dated March 29, 1912. If statements made under such high authorities are not trustworthy, we would respectfully ask if their present denials are any more so?

To one versed in Catholic teaching and practice, there is nothing uncommon in such denials, where the interest of the Church is at stake. Cardinal Baudrillart’s quotation on pages 64 and 245 of this book shows that some Catholic authors “ask permission from the Church to ignore or even deny” some historical facts, which they “dare not” face; and we read in “History of the Jesuits,” by Andrew Steinmetz, Vol. 1, p. 13, that their accredited histories in common use, ‘with permission of authority,’ [are] veiling the subject with painful dexterity”-London: 1848.

We shall here refer to one other similar denial. In the Roman Catholic paper, Shepherd of the Valley, there appeared an article by the editor, in which he stated: “If Catholics ever attain, which they surely will, though at a distant day, the immense numerical majority in the United States, religious liberty, as at present understood, will be at an end.” A Protestant lecturer, who made use of this quotation, was bitterly arraigned in a double-column front-page article in the Catholic Standard and Times for his false statements regarding Catholics; for, it pointed out, if he had finished the quotation with the words which followed, “so say our enemies,” it would have reversed its meaning. The incident would have passed off at the expense of the Protestant lecturer, had not the Western Watchman of July 24, 1913, continued the quotation still further, declaring:

“The whole quotation should read: ‘If Catholics ever attain, which they surely will, though at a distant day, the immense numerical majority in the United States, religious liberty, as at present understood, will be at an end. So say our enemies; so say we.’ “-Quoted in “Protestant Magazine,” October, 1913, p. 474.

Why those who tried to deny their former statements should leave out the words, “so say we,” is very evident. But what can we think of those who publicly deny facts to screen their church from unfavorable public opinions, unless they act from the motive that “the end justifies the means,” and that “heretics” have no moral right to facts which they would misuse. (See also pages 64 and 65 of this book.)

We shall therefore continue to believe that the editors of Our Sunday Visitor, in its issue of April 18, 1915, page three, were perfectly honest and well informed on the subject, and that the later denials are of the same class as those mentioned above.

Our Sunday Visitor in the aforementioned quotation makes use of Vicarius Filii Dei and “Vicar of Christ” as synonymous terms, and Cardinal Manning does the same in his book, “Temporal Power of the Pope.” It cannot, therefore, be maintained, as some do, that Vicarius Christi is the only mode of spelling used as the title of the pope, although the shorter rendering is used more often for brevity’s sake. In fact Vicarius Christi is composite in its origin, Vicarius being Latin, while Christi is Latinized from the Greek. It would hardly seem probable that learned Romanists would adopt such a composite title to the exclusion of the pure, dignified, Latin title, Vicarius Filii Del, which has been in use among them forcenturies.

Of late, Catholic apologists have argued that the “name of the beast” in Revelation 13’ 17, 18 is a personal name of a single individual, such as Nero, and not the official title of a series of men: as that of the popes would be. But this would be entirely out of harmony with the context, for how could one man make war with God’s people, and overcome them in every country, so that he would have power “over all kindreds, and tongues,, and nations”? Revelation 13:7. Then, too, that power was to continue forty and two months (v. 5), which those apologists claim to be literal. But how could one man accomplish such a world task in forty-two literal months?

These forty-two months are twelve hundred and sixty prophetic.days (Revelation 11’ 2, 3), and in prophecy a day stands for a year (Ezekiel 4:6). (Even Catholics acknowledge that a day in prophecy stands for a year. See note under Daniel 9’ 24-27 in the Douay Bible. Father Reaves says: “The prophet’s weeks are, by all interpreters of the Holy Scriptures, understood to include years for days”-” Bible History,” p. 345.) The forty-two months, or twelve hundred and sixty days, of Revelation 13:5 are therefore twelve hundred and sixty years, during which, this power was to continue. But would not that period be quite a long time for one man to live? This attempt made by Roman apologists to screen the Papacy from being detected as the antichristian power of Revelation 13 appears too shallow to be seriously asserted by men who have made a thorough study of Bible prophecy.

TESTIMONY OF EYE-WITNESSES

That the title, Vicarius Filii Dei, has been employed elsewhere than in Roman Catholic canon law is also asserted by Rev. B. Hoffman:

“To Whom It May Concern:

“This is to certify that I was born in Bavaria in 1828, was educated in Munich, and was reared a Roman Catholic. In 1844 and 1845 I was a student for the priesthood in the Jesuit College in Rome.

“During the Easter service of 1845, Pope Gregory XVI wore a triple crown upon which was the inscription, in jewels, Vicarius FiIii Dei. We were told that there were one hundred diamonds in the word Dei; the other words were of some other kind of precious stones of a darker color. There was one word upon each crown, and not all on the same line. I was present at the service, and saw the crown distinctly, and noted it carefully.

“In 1850 I was converted to God and to Protestantism. Two years Iater I entered the Evangelical Church ministry, but later in life I united with the Presbyterian Church, of which I am now a retired pastor, having been in the ministry for fifty years.

“I have made the above statement at the request of Elder D. E. Scoles, as he states that some deny that the pope ever wore this tiara. But I know that he did, for I saw it upon his head.”

“Sincerely yours in Christian service,
(SIGNED) “B. HOFFMAN. “Webb City, Mo., Oct. 29, 1906.”

-”Review and Herald,” Dec. 20, 1906.
The author of this book has photostats of the papal passport held by Rev. B. Hoffman, and of a signed letter from him stating the same facts as are given in the above statement. His testimony is confirmed by that of M. De Latti and others.

Statement of M. De Latti to D. E. Scoles-”M. De Latti · . . had previously been a Catholic priest, and had spent four years in Rome. He visited me when I was pastor in St. Paul, Minn... : He stated that he had often seen it [the crown with this inscription] in the museum of the Vatican, and gave a detailed and accurate description of the whole crown ....

“De Latti... said the first word of the sentence was on the first crown of the triple arrangement, the second word on the second part of the crown, while the word Dei was on the lower division of the triple crown. He also explained that the first two words were in dark-colored jewels, while the Del was composed of diamonds entirely”-D. E. Scoles, in “Review and Herald,” Dec. 20, 1906.

Statement of Thomas Whitmore-”Some time ago, an English officer happening to be at Rome, observed on the front of the mitre which the pope wore at one of the solemnities, this inscription: “Vicarivs Filii Dei.” It instantly struck him-per-haps this is “the number of the beast.” He set to work: and when he had selected all the numerals, and added them up, he found, to his great astonishment, that the whole amounted to precisely six hundred and sixty-six. What stress is to be laid on this I cannot say.

“‘ Vicarivs Filii Dei
V 5 I I I) 500
I I L 50 I 1
C 100 I 1
I i I 1 501
V 5 112
53 53
112
666

“Thus it will be seen, that by taking from the title ‘Vicarivs Filii Del’ [Vicar of the Son of God], the letters which are commonly used as numerals, they make up the number of the beast”-”A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine,” p. 231. Boston: 1856.

Testimony of Dr. H. Grattan Guinness-” An English officer of high rank, who in the year 1799, by a special favor, was given the opportunity, while in Rome, to get a close view of the Pope’s jewels and precious things, discovered thereby, that the papal tiara bore this inscription: ‘Vicarivs Filii Dei.’

“When you take out the Latin letters, which have numeral value, and which still are used to represent numbers, and which are: V, I, C, L, and D, these letters form the number given below. In these Latin words there are two V’s, which letter denotes 5, six I’s denoting 1, one C, which denotes 100, one L, which denotes 50, and one D, which denotes 500, thus: V,V= 10; I,I,I,I,I,I = 6; C = 100; L = 50; and D = 500, the sum 666.” -” Babylon and the Beast,” p. 141; quoted in “Kyrkans Strid och Slutliga Seger,” Professor S. F. Svensson, pp. 126, 128. Stockholm: 1908.

OTHER PROTESTANT WITNESSES

Robert Fleming, V. D. M., wrote a book entitled “Apocalyptical Key. An
Extraordinary Discourse on the Rise and Fall of the Papacy.” It was published in London, 1701, 1703, and 1929. In the 1929 edition, p. 48, we read that an “explication may be found in the title which the Roman pontiff has assumed, and which is inscribed over the door of the Vatican, ‘Vicarius Filii Del’ (Vicar of the Son of God). In Roman computation this contains the number 666, as will be seen below.

“V 5 F 0 D...500
I 1 I I E... 0
C 100 L 50 I . .. 1
A 0 I 1
R 0 I 1 In all 666.”
I 1
V 5
S 0

TESTIMONY OF R. C. SHIMEALL
“It is to be observed as a singular circumstance, that the title, vicarius filii
dei (Vicar of the Son of God), which the Popes of Rome have assumed to themselves, and caused to be inscribed over the door of the Vatican,exactly makes the number of 666, when deciphered according to the numeral signification of its constituent letters, thus: Vicar of the Son of God

V I C A R I V S F I L I I D E I added to-
5 1 100 1 5 1501 1 500 1 gether thus:
V 5
I 1
C 100
A 0
R 0
I 1
V 5
S 0
F 0
I 1
L 50
I 1
I 1
D 500
E 0
I 1
666”

-”Our Bible Chronology, Historic and Prophetic, Critically Examined and Demonstrated,” R. C. Shimeall, p. 180. New York: A. S. Barnes and Co., 867.

Appended to the above is a footnote, giving the author’s reply to a correspondent:

“Answer to a Querist ....

“Sir,-In answer to your observation and queries, permit me to say-the things I have asserted are stubborn, clear facts, not mere suppositions or fancies.

“The inscription in question, was actually written over the door of the Vatican at Rome, in express Latin words and characters, as inserted in this publication, viz., VICARIVS FILII DEI; and those Latin words and characters contain Latin numerals to the amount of 666, exactly corresponding with the number of the beast.

“With respect to the supposition you have conjured up, that the Pope might be called Vicarius Christus, or Vicarius Christus Filii Dei (a sort of gibberish that is neither Latin, German. nor English), it is a matter I have nothing to do with. Mr. D. may adopt these or any other fancies to amuse himself, and to screen the head of his holiness, but when he has done all, this question will still remain to be answered: Have those inscriptions ever appeared over the door of the Vatican at Rome?

“As to Mr. D’s attempting to obscure the number of the beast 666, contained in the numerals of the words VICARIVS FILII DEI, by objecting to a V; however the Pope or his emissaries may be obliged to him for his kind exertions on their behalf, yet I presume neither of them will condescend to appear his humble fool in Latin, for the sake of sheltering themselves under his ignorance of the Latin alphabet and the ancient inscriptions.”-Id., p. 180.

Dr. S. T. Bloomfield gives us the following rule for finding the number:

“It means the number which is made up by reducing the numeral power of each of the letters of which the name is composed, and bringing it to a sum total”-” Greek Testament with English Notes,” Note on Rev. 13:17, Vol. II, p. 175.

Samuel Hanson Cox, D. D-”Can they [Protestants] accord to the present dominant Gregory, the pompous titles which he claims-VICARIUS FILII DEI, Vestra Sanctitas, Servus Servorus Domini, with other profane and blasphemous appellations without end?”-Introduction to Bower’s “History of the Popes,” Vol. I, p. x. Philadelphia: 1847.

The fact that some may have seen a crown at the Vatican which did not have the above inscription does not disprove the statements of the men who saw the crown that has the inscription; for according to a copyrighted news report from Milan, Italy, dated December 11, 1922, and published in the Des Moines (Iowa) Register, December 12, 1922, the pope has five crowns, the last one made being decked with two thousand precious stones. The important part is not that the inscription Vicarius Filii Dei is on the pope’s tiara, but that it is the official title of the popes, that it designates their official position, and is given to them at their coronation, just as the head of the United States government is called “President,” without it therefore being necessary for him to wear that title on his hat. Mr. H. S. Weaver, of Baltimore, Md., wrote to James Cardinal Gibbons, of the same city, under date of January 18, 1904, inquiring:

“Does the inscription, ‘Vicarius Filii Del,’ appear on the crown or mitre of the pope, or has it at any time in the past appeared on the crowns or mitres of any of the popes?”

“Yours sincerely, (SIGNED) “H. S. WEAVER.”

To this the Cardinal answered through his secretary:

“Baltimore, Md., Jan. 26, 1904.
“MR. H. S. WEAVER. “Dear Sir:

“In reply to yours of 18th inst., I beg to say that I can not say with certainty that the words, ‘ Vicarius Filii Del,’ are on the pope’s tiara. But the words are used by the cardinal who imposes the tiara at the coronation of a pope.

“Yours truly, (Signed) “Wm. T. Russut, Secretary.” -”Bible Footlights,” pp. 210, 211, edition of 1907.

The New Catholic Dictionary says:

“Tiara, papal crown .... It is placed on his head at his Coronation by the second cardinal-deacon, with the words: ‘Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Saviour Jesus Christ”-Tbe New Catholic Dictionary, art. “Tiara,” p. 955.

We have already seen that Catholics have several free translations into English of the Latin title, “Vicarius Filii Dei.” Some try to find in the Greek word Lateinos, or the Latin Empire of the Papacy, a fulfillment of Revelation 13:18 (see “Bishop Newton on the Prophecies,” pp. 548-550), but there is no need of going to the Greek. For while it is true that the apostles used mostly the Aramaic and the Greek, Latin was the official language of Rome, the world empire at that time. The Romans everywhere used Latin, all their laws were written in that language, and Latin has remained the official language of the Papacy to this day. The apostle was prophesying of a strictly Latin power, whose language was in use in his day, and it is quite common for Bible writers to borrow foreign words and phrases belonging to the subjects of which they are speaking. (John 19:20; Revelation 9:11; 16:16.)

Then, too, the power represented by Revelation 13:1-10, 17, 18, must not only have the name indicated, but must also fulfill all the other specifications in this prophecy, and the Papacy does this. M. James Durham, Professor of Divinity in Glasgow (1658), says:

“He that hath all the characters of Antichrist’s doctrine, and hath a name which, in the numeral letters, makes up 666, he is Antichrist But to the Pope both these do agree”-”A Commentary Upon the Book of Revelation,” Rev. 13:18, p. 491. Glasgow: 1680.

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

 

Someone may have already asked this, but using that logic, isn't it also possible to prove that Ronald Wilson Reagan is the antichrist?

Ronald=6
Wilson=6
Reagan=6

Hmmmmmmmmm...

 

Tragic,

If we're going that route, can I vote for

Hill'ry = 6
Rodham = 6
Clinton = 6

(What's a little abbreviation among friends?)

Mark

 

On top of all the other arguments in this thread, how is it that the (made-up) title of "Vicarius Filii Dei" can be considered a name?

 

And why isn't it "Vicar of the Son of God on Earth"?

Why the need to drop "on Earth"?

Because then it doesn't add up anymore?

 

I also love the way the Sunday Visitor becomes an offical infallible document.

 

Oh, I loved that!

And interestingly, the phrase "Vicar of Son of God" is quite good, theologically! It is an obvious extension from "Vicar of Christ" and certainly, Christ was the "Son of God." therefore, to say "Vicar of the Son of God" is, strictly speaking, quote a good "title" for the pope! It simply is not the official title.

People will do anything to besmirch the Catholic Church, it seems, T2U, and this is a sad, sad example of exactly that.

And here I said I was finished with this thread, but I just had to say something!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

Has anyone else here noted the glaring deficiency in the "Vicarius Filii Dei" = 666 thing?

"Vicarivs" is not a Latin word.

" U " is not a roman numeral.

To get this to work the " u " must be changed to a " v ".

One would have to be seriously lacking in critical thinking skills to buy into this whole thing.