Criticisms of the New Pope

So? RC canon law quotes a phrase from the "Donation of Constantine'.

Now you posting an un-photoshopped Roman Catholic picture of a piece of papal headgear with Ficarius Filii Dei on it, that would be something.

 

Having SHOWN the inconvenient historic FACT that the Title IS in Catholic Canon Law - (the very point Mioque claimed was not being posted) -- all we get in response to this "inconvenient fact" is ... "So?"

What a hoot!

Mioque - consistent to the LAST!!

I can't believe she has the courage to keep up the charade.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I never denied that, what I deny is that it is an official Roman Catholic title instead of a mere quoted sentence.

 

"a mere quoted sentence" from Catholic Canon law that "has the force of Law" is an "inconvenient fact of history" that PROVES acceptance of the "sentence quoted" -- ACCEPTANCE to the point of inclusion in official Canon Law.

As "inconvenient" as that historic fact may be to the story you seem content with -- it remains and it explains at least SOME of the quotes of that SAME title by OTHER RC sources which you have simply been bewildered about with every reference to them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Not every sentence in RCC canon law = an official title of the pope.

 

Let us review the "meaningless" statement once more... (Details you know)

Translated into English this would read: “Blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God on the earth.”-’’

Of course we "Expect" Mioque to take that "inconvenient fact of history" and cling to her stories 'anyway'.

Being "that kind of historian".

 

Greetings,

Currently the Church uses the 1983 Version of the Code of Canon law. If you read the contents of this code it says it replace and supplants ALL previous codes of canon law. This was also true of the 1917 code, and all the codes before this. Just because ONE version of the code happens to mention the name ONCE in 2000 years does NOT mean it is an official title of the Pope. Go to the catholic enclopedia and look up official titles of the Pope. Don't you think that catholics know what catholics believe.

peace

 

Bob,

I know you're not doing this research yourself. You quote obscure (to me) books, magazine articles, etc. So, who's research are you relying on? I'm curious to read more.

 

Are you saying that Canon Law of Catholics is obscure or are you saying that Gratian is an obscure source if one is looking for the title Vicarius Filii Dei in Canon Law?

I would think the "Significant" point to a Catholic would be "what is IN Catholic Canon Law".

You are saying the significant fact to a Catholic is NOT what does Catholic Canon Law say but rather HOW do Non-Catholics find out what it says??

I find that facinating!

In any case - one obvious source shows up repeatedly in my quotes - the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Greetings,

You keep saying this is in the Code of Canon law. Actually, it is NOT. The church uses the 1983 code of Canon law, and all previous codes are declared null and void, and are replaced by the current code. Secondly, assuming your quote is correct(LOTS of false, made up quotes are floating around), your quote did NOT say: This is a title of the Pope, rather it said this is his role. There is a difference between an Official Title and a role.

peace

 

FL Mike -- Here is a good site for this topic -- go here

http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/PF/cld.htm

Enjoy the links.

 

I have continuously criticized the new Pope???

I mentioned to Mioque that he bears and uncanny likeness to a Star Wars Character - but did not think I was being critical.

I also mentioned that his appointment to the prefect of Doctrines of the Faith is in fact the old "Office of the Inquistion" -- purely as a "historical note" a datapoint.

I don't know that I have ever said anything else specific to Ratzinger.

Do you have something specific in mind?

 

My posts to Mioque on the "content" of Catholic Canon law had nothing to do with Ratzinger. I was simply pointing out the fact that Canon Law "does have meaning" and that the content did support a claim I made for the VFD title being included in RC Canon Law.

The "inconvenient facts of history".

But I don't recall anything specific to Ratzinger.

 

Bob
You never post anything purely as a "historical note".
If you talk about the past it's always polemical.

 

ahh another general vagary from mioque given in the form of an accusation where "details are lacking".

What a wonderul thing to know that the world still works today as it did yesterday and the day before!

Many thanks!