vicarivs filii dei

Note to all: Rakka has yet again ignored questions posed to him many, many times. Should we start to keep count?

And if the Donation of Constantine, the only place you find "Vicar of the Son of God" in reference to the Pope is "irrelevant," then why do you pick this one title, in this one instant, and apply it to the Pope? Desparation. What is widely used? Vicar of Christ. Do you apply your numerological method to it? No.

Why not? Not like a expect a logical answer.

Let me ask again for a statement that the Pope has met the Biblical criteria for being the antiChrist, as listed in the letters of John.

And as for this little quote of yours:

"it says "it is the number of a man" not the number of the offical title of a man..."

Now you're just disregarding the Word of God.

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
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.

The "number of a man," according to verse 17, is "the number of his name."

But, it would make logical in your "theory" that is people "unofficially" called me "vicar of the Son of God," even though that is not my title or name, that I would at that point be the antiChrist. I don't even get a say-so in the matter!

Of course, the website you pointed us to to back you up, states this:

It might be argued by some that 666 must be applied to one man's name, and that this will then help identify him as the antichrist. I would offer the following verse to show that 666 need not apply solely to a man's name:

Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

The same Greek word translated as name (onoma: G3686) that appears in Revelation 13:17-18 is also used in chapter 19:16, so clearly the word can also apply to a title, and not just one man's name.

So, now when you say it has nothing to do with his title, you're even contraditing your source.

Of course, I don't expect this madness to ever end, because you won't even acknowledge our questions to you.

God bless,

Grant

 

Keith,

I just wanted to let you know that I didn't forget about your posts (even though I think they are cut-and-paste).

The first large post does not answer my question, of asking for evidence of the Papacy denying that Christ came in the flesh. It was against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Disagree with it all you want, but it has nothing to do with Christ being fully human and fully God. The other long post also addressed nothing of this issue.

God bless you,

Grant

 

I think Ron has a point here.

The guys that go around "reading" - the Bible in Rev 13 should be smacked until they can figure out a way to get the John 6 discussion (that did NOT happen on Passover or at the Lord's Table -)edited in such as way as to make it BE about the Eucharist that happened some time AFTER John 6.

While they are at it - they should "edit" John 6 in such a way that instead of the faithLESS followers taking the RC position about literally biting Christ, - it should have been the faithFUL ones who remained - and bit.

Or maybe that whole thing about our "need" to ignore Rev 13 is not right?

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Hello GraceSaves.

I wrote the post about the Immaculate conception. The other post is cut and pasted historical quotes.

The doctrine of the Immaculate conception has everything to do with the fact that the church of Rome denies that Christ came in the flesh. There is only one kind of human flesh on this earth, and that is our flesh, sinful flesh. Christ’s father was God, and if his mother had no part in our sinful flesh, then Christ himself did not have our flesh. This is to deny that Christ came in the flesh.

Acts 2:29-30 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Christ was of the fruit of David’s loins, according to the flesh. David was a sinner like we are. Praise God that Christ crucified our flesh, that is sinful flesh, so that we might be saved. If he crucified some type of flesh that none of us even have, then how could we be saved? Or do you not understand the gospel, that Christ had to be crucified in order to save us. It is our flesh that needs to be saved, that needs to be crucified with Christ, not the flesh of someone who was never touched by original sin.

Rom 1:3 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Ditto.

Rom 8:3-4 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

It is only because Christ condemned sin in the flesh, our flesh, that he took upon him when here on earth, that the righteousness of the law can be fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit, and not the flesh. Since Christ died to the flesh, our flesh, he invites us all to do the same in him. This is salvation.

Rom 9:4-5 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Christ came from the Israelites, from their flesh.

2 Cor 5:16 16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Eph 2:14-15 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Again, it was the enmity between our flesh, sinful flesh, and the law that condemned us. Christ took this flesh upon himself, lived a life without sin in it, and then crucified it on the cross. This is our salvation. Since, by faith we can be in him when he was crucified, the just demands of the law, which demand our death, are met. Thus we are saved in Him. Surely you see that if Christ did not have our flesh, which is what the church of Rome teaches in the doctrine of the Immaculate conception, then we are not saved. If you do not understand these truths, then you do not understand the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Col 1:21-22 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

Ditto.

Heb 2:14-18 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Again, Christ was of the seed of Abraham, not of some kind of Immaculate flesh that separates him from those who need to be saved.

I Jn 4:2-3 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

II Jn 1:7 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

The church of Rome is a deceiver, and has the spirit of the antichrist, because she does verily deny that Christ has come in the flesh, our flesh.

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

 

A few more cut and pastes.

“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.

“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.

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.

“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,

“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.

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.

“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 offi
ce 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.

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

 

Keith,

Adam and Eve were completely human...but not according to you. Apparently when they were created, they were not yet human, since to be human, one must be sinful.

I'm sorry that I do not define humanity by sin, but rather by Grace.

Of course, if you looked further into the matter of the Immaculate Conception, you would understand that Mary was just like Eve, in that she had the capability of sin, but did not fall into it, and through her perfectly free consent, brought about the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, who is TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN. Christ was not a sinner, and that does not negate His humanness.

It's a valiant attempt, and frankly, the best support I've yet to hear from your side of the table, so much kudos for that.

I'll think on it some more, but for now, I must go to bed.

G'night, and God bless you,

Grant

 

Keith - another set of excellent quotes of "a title never used?".

Thanks!

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is not that multiple titles have not been used for both the Pope and for Mary. The point is that the Donation of Constantine - is a case where the RCC ITSELF is promoting this title as one that EVERYONE accepts - and is no less "officially" given then any other title.

Actually I think that is the point -the number of his name - that does not change when Pope after Pope takes the throne.

These are no less than TEN Popes reading that title and AFFIRMING it as they AFFIRM the contents of the document and promote it - as the RCC itself created that document WITH that title for that very reason.

You can't get more "official" than that.

The document takes the fact of this title as unniversal and fully accepted without dispute "As the Blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God on the earth"

It does not say " a few have claimed that Peter should be titled Vicar of the Son of God on Earth and possibly that is true for Some to think of him that way".

Rather it makes this point the "foundation" of the point driven in the document --

"so the Pontiffs who are the representatives of that same chief of the apostles, should obtain from us and our empire the power of a supremacy"

It is not a side note - but the primary basis of argument FOR "the Power of Supremacy" arguing that SINCE the title is fully valid "SO" all succeeding popes to that title SHOULD have the "power of supremacy".

There is no possibility of practicing revisionist history with the contents of the document - it is right there in black and white.

In Christ,

Bob

 

A few things on the quotes posted by Keith that Bob heralds so much...

The first three merely requote the Donation of Constantine.

Another one speaks of a quote, but does not provide it (the one about the Jesuit). Why not just provide the quote?

The "Our Sunday Visitor" quote was an error, and the author of it has thus asked that the Seventh Day Adventist stop using it as evidence of the truth of the matter:

Robert Lockwood has written a letter on behalf of Our Sunday Visitor explaining that the 1915 remark regarding the alleged inscription on the pope's mitre was an unintentional and unfortunate error that should not be used as "evidence" to support the Vicarius Filii Dei argument. A copy of this letter is being sent to the Seventh-Day Adventist headquarters, demanding that they stop using this episode as some sort of "proof" to prop up their argument. Let's hope that honesty and a desire to know the truth will compel Seventh-Day Adventists to stop using the illegitimate OSV quote.

http://www.biblelight.net/envoy.htm

That leaves only one quote, which is short, and I cannot even tell if it is written from a Catholic perspective or an opposing view. I've been searching for how to get a copy of the book online, but have been unsuccessful. Since you posted the quote, surrounding context would be appreciated.

God bless,

Grant

 

Bob,

I ask you to please make sense. The Donation of Constantine was used as a real document. Yes, that is so. But when you write "the RCC ITSELF is promoting this title as one that EVERYONE accepts," you are totally fabricating what is not there. First, it is not nor has been for a LONG time been "promoted." It is a well known fabrication, and thus is of course, no longer used. Second, the purpose of the document was not to promote a title, nor does the document "promote the title" - this is an outright lie on your part. It occurs ONCE in the article, and it references ONLY PETER, not his successors.

YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. To deny this is to beat a dead horse.

You are begging the question; the belief that the antiChrist will be a succession of people filling an office is not Scriptural, so that cannot be pre-assumed to be true.

Bob, you are still arguing under the pretense that an unofficial document becomes official simply because someone uses it in an official capacity. If I have a fake social security number, and I pass myself off as someone else, do I officially become that person, or officially now possess his social security number as my own? No, it is a forgery, and I will never truely be able to call myself the identity of this other person.

AN UNOFFICIAL TITLE CAN NOT BE MADE OFFICIAL ON YOUR PERSONAL WHIM.

So suddenly, "is seen to have been" now means "is universally accepted to be." I hope you're not an English teacher, if you think these two are equal.

That doesn't even matter when the document is false! AT BEST, your argument could be that these "10 POPES" who supported the document are the antiChrist. But seeing as this title is not in use today, current popes must not be the antiChrist.

Yes, Bob. This is based on the office, not the title. In fact, the document is speaking of an office, "vicar," and does not insinuate that it is a title, since in the document, "vicar" is not capitalized.

Bob, if they had said "the Vicar of Christ," the exact same thing would be true. Thus, the title is unimportant, and the argument is not based on the words "vicar of the Son of God," since different words would result in the same argument for supremacy.

Yes, with a big "forgery" stamp on it. Which you continue to ignore, as well as God's own criteria for what constitutes being an antiChrist, to prove your argument.

Kinda like supporting a quote that, by its very author, has retratcted as an error, to which your church has been asked to no longer use as truth, but to which you just advocated as truthful evidence?

Lying and deceitfulness don't bring souls to Jesus Christ.

God bless,

Grant

 

How does this verse tell you how to assign Roman Numerals to a name to calculate 666? </font>[/QUOTE]Raka, still looking for your answer as to how the Bible tells you to assign Roman Numerals to the letters and then what to do with them to get to 666.

Without this, the whole discussion is pointless.

 

Why doth the rakka rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

Rakka, *it doesn't matter* whose name or title or whatever adds up to 666 in whatever scheme imaginable, if that person doesn't meet the requirements of the definition of antichrist as laid out in 1 and 2 John.

I really am trying to understand where this unending "zeal" is coming from.

 

Two statements:

1) To answer Rakka Rage's original question, "Is the Pope the Vicar of Christ?" The answer is "Yes."

2) I can't help but feeling dooped here. Rakka Rage initially showed us a verse from Revelation, showed us how "vicar of the Son of God" adds up to 666 using the numeral method, and then asked us if the Pope was the Vicar of Christ. He never actually said that he believed he was. I do firmly believe that his intention was to stir us all up like we have been, although I, for obvious reasons, cannot prove it, because I do not know him personally nor can I know his internal motives. However, unless I missed it, he has not said that the Pope is the antiChrist, but only put the argument down on the table, in a manner that SEEMS to show his view, and yet withholds it (as evidenced by his last post to BrianT).

Rakka Rage, I don't know what your intent was, but your quesiton has been answered, from the Catholic perspective and the non-Catholic perspective.

I suggest we all watch more carefully his word usage so that we do not fall into this kind of frenzy again.

God bless,

Grant

P.S. I say all this, and then read in his other thread that the Catholic Church is the "satanic counterfit," which means that he DOES believe that the Papacy is the antiChrist. Thus, if he says above that he has not looked into the Scriptural evidence for being the antiChrist, there is no other conclusion than that his judgement is rash and uneducated, by his own admittance. Again, he claims to have NOT looked into the evidence of the letters of John, and yet already declares in the other thread that the Catholic Church is a satanic counterfit.

Case closed, folks. Please let this sad thread die.

 

You checked the Latin translation yourself, right? Thought so.

God bless,

Grant