Error, Tradition and the sinful nature

Knowing how particular Mioque is that no history should be brough out which appears now to be in any way unfavorable to the RCC - I thought it necessary to provide the document and the wording - so that we might not simply "guess" as to the intent of the author to show titles and priviledges for Peter - as extending to his successors.

Now of course this point was obvious to the RCC when she used this document in courts of law - and is also obvious to historians today - - but for some it is still difficult to accept.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I appreciate your admitting that.

By contrast to science -- here is the "claim" that evolutionists make for evolutionism.

Dawkings said --
The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth.


Paul of Eugene said --
Evolution speaks to what happened after life came along.


Evaluating the "difference" is left as an exercise for the reader.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes - the article does argue FIRST from the titles for Peter AND THEN extends all those rights and priviledges to the successors by saying that JUST as the rights and titles were accorded Peter "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

The argument the document makes - could not
"be" any clearer.

You have to "Want" to remain in the dark to avoid it.

And that gets us to our argument about Mark 7 and tradition - and the way that error springs up EVEN though the evidence is clearly stated as we see in this document.

Yet some will come along claiming - "I can't see the problem". or maybe "you made it all up"...Rather than simply dealing with the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well - that is a big change for you from claiming that "I made it up for Catholics". And the claims that Christ is God -- is nothing new for the RC so Vicar of Christ and Vicar of God are not opposite ideas. It is no wonder that the title used in the DoC was never questioned in all of time by RC popes promoting its contents in courts of law AND by those inserting that title into Canon Law.

Basic - but it needed to be pointed out here.

But the point remains - the document uses the title and it is included into Canon Law centuries later. It is also argued for even after the document is found to be of Catholic origin/purpose/intent and not of pagan Roman authorship.

You are correct that the published title today is Vicarius Christi EVEN though Vicarius Filii Dei is STILL in canon law. Perhaps the fact of canon law explains the use of this title by RC publications like "Our Sunday Visitor" saying that it applies to the successors of Peter.
Ya think?


Certainly the Donation of Constantine makes that "Peter had it SO we must also accord this to his successors" type of argument.

But trying to fabricate the idea that non Catholics "made them do it" or non-Catholics made this up and inserted it into Canon Law for Catholics to believe, or for "Our Sunday Visitor" to publish -- is a kind of RC-at-all-costs position that most people are uncomfortable with. It goes wayyyy too far off the deep end.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Although not wanting to disturb the snide remarks above with this post of actual historic fact - I will run the risk involved in introducing some actual facts as a follow-on to Neal's post.

#1. It was Innocent III that was “the First Pope to take to himself the title Vicar of Christ” (A Concise History of the Catholic Church pg 114) elected in the late 12th century (1198). This is 4-5 centuries “after” the Catholic author manufactured the Donation of Constantine.


#2. 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.

Inserted it into Catholic canons? Not likely! Not if Mioque has anything to say about it.

Of course he did - after all (according to Mioque) he was inclined to believe whatever Bob told him.

Why "of course they did"!! And why not?? According to Mioque Bob TOLD them to believe it - and what good pope would not listen to whatever Bob says? (at least according to Mioque).

#5. And DID they argue FROM the authority, title and priviledges of Peter TO the authority of all his successors???

It was a document created entirely for the purpose of granting to successors - those rights, honors and titles held by Peter.

But WHEN the Catholics found out that they were just believing "whatever Bob told them to believe" -- what then?

Notice that when the Pagan Roman origin is fully refuted - and the RC origin purpose and function of the document fully known -- they DO NOT simply abandon the CONTENTs as "just more things that Bob told us that we no longer believe in".

Though - apparently in more recent times they have given up on it - altogether. But one can not blame "Our Sunday Visitor" if they concluded that these "Catholic Canons" DID have historic value. Though we now know (as Mioque has informed us) that they were only believing whatever Bob told them to believe!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

see the reference I gave above

This is 4-5 centuries “after” the Catholic author manufactured the Donation of Constantine.

But also from the RC encyclopedia quoted also above ... we have this regarding the donation

I am guessing you think that in both cases all the bishops were claiming these titles for themselves and the Popes were the last ones to come to the party in these cases.

Fascinating Mioque!

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1. It was Innocent III that was “the First Pope to take to himself the title Vicar of Christ”

(A Concise History of the Catholic Church pg 114) Innocent III --elected in the late 12th century (1198).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is an interesting twist in Mioque's post to claim in effect "ALL Popes prior to that ALSO claimed the title but they did not claim that it applied exclusively to Popes until Innocent III. They allowed that it applied to BOTH Pope and Bishops until Innocent III started RESTRICTING it to the Pope"..

Or did you mean to say that Innocent III "was the first Pope and everyone before that only held the title of Bishop"???

Mioque - your speculations about the RCC are more fascinating all the time. Thanks for sharing them and I hope you will elaborate.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Neal - you need to follow the points so far.

#1. The FORGED Donation is NOT a forgery of some Catholic document - RATHER it is a CATHOLIC forgery of a PAGAN ROMAN document.

#2. This means that they ONLY thing that makes it RC instead of Pagan Roman - is the FACT that it IS a forgery. It was written BY Catholics FOR Catholics.

#3. As ALREADY pointed out - the RC encyclopedia shows HISTORIC proof that Catholics argued FOR the contents of the document EVEN after they all agreed it was a forgery.

#4. The RC documents listed SHOW that the VERY TITLE Vicarius Filii Dei was INCLUDED into the Catholic Canons themselves.

#5. IT is this incorporation into the Catholic Canons themselves that lead to the normal and logical inclusion of this fact by "Our Sunday Visitor".

Pretending that all these Catholic documents were "written by Uriah Smith" or "invented by me" or "written at my direction" is simply a testament to how far off the factual track some arguments go.

Better to stick with the truth of history.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"#1. The FORGED Donation is NOT a forgery of some Catholic document - RATHER it is a CATHOLIC forgery of a PAGAN ROMAN document. "

AND it IS included in a number of Catholic Canons. Trying to misdirect this as "not really catholic" or "not really official" utterly fails the test of history. Catholic Canons ARE Catholic and ARE official.

And yet some will seek to misdirect and revise that history with ...

"#2. This means that they ONLY thing that makes it RC instead of Pagan Roman - is the FACT that it IS a forgery. It was written BY Catholics FOR Catholics."
''

Here again the point is made that the RC purpose, RC origin and RC continuaion (in Catholic Canon) is undeniable.

Yet some will seek a kind of revisionist history and misdirection with...

We note - that the Catholic Canons NEVER seek to make a king emperor in their quotes of that document.


"#3. As ALREADY pointed out - the RC encyclopedia shows HISTORIC proof that Catholics argued FOR the contents of the document EVEN after they all agreed it was a forgery."
''


This "shows" the "official" CAtholic ENDORSEMENT of the Content (not merely its historic AND intended use) -- even at a time when ALL who read it would know it was a forgery.

So "again" -- this it "Bob making things up for Catholics to believe"???

Hard to believe one could stand in the RC corner that long inspite of historic fact.


"#4. The RC documents listed SHOW that the VERY TITLE Vicarius Filii Dei was INCLUDED into the Catholic Canons themselves."


And yet some will respond to this fact with a mere ...

EVEN while they admit

Ok Catholic Canon - that you don't want to call Catholic, or official, or Canon...


"#5. IT is this incorporation into the Catholic Canons themselves that lead to the normal and logical inclusion of this fact by "Our Sunday Visitor"."

Here we have CENTURES of RC use of this CONTENT in courts of law AND centuries of time where it was being included in Catholic Canon ALL in FULL agreement with the article in our Sunday Visitor IN FULL agreement. (And I propose that this massive historic fact is claimed as the "Source" for the Sunday Visitor's information -)

But if you are used to revisionist histories - it is probably easy to turn a blind eye to this historic fact. Here we notice Mioque claiming the Catholics are likely reading much more SDA literature than seeing this CENTURIES long tradition of th title and the document USED in official RC Canons.

Mioque Claims RCs are looking reading SDA literature INSTEAD of Catholic Canons ...

Ahhh. Another insightful historic perspective. Thanks again for that contribution Mioque.

"Pretending that all these Catholic documents were "written by Uriah Smith" or "invented by me" or "written at my direction" is simply a testament to how far off the factual track some arguments go."

Well then Mioque "must be right" when she says that I have made up the Donation, its inclusion in Catholic Canon, its title for the popes, its argument FROM Peter TO his successors...

She is right if history really is as easy to revise as she apparently is willing to do in this case.

And that brings us back to the point of the thread. The ease with which error finds its way into church teaching - a kind of willing revisionism "no matter what the facts".

In Christ,

Bob