Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.

Bob said
"And WHY all those obtuse conditions?

You claim that they must be met -- IN ORDER for the EXISTING historic Catholic documents that PREDATE the French revolution to be true when THEY speak of the title listed on this thread.

You say that these strange obtuse conditions must be met IN ORDER for the 10 Popes AFFIRMING that document to have actually KNOWN what it said and understood that it was declaring the Vicarius Filii Dei title to be ACCEPTED by Catholics as a "given".

A more absurd argument could hardly be made - and yet you "stick to it" as though "it makes sense"."

That is true - I have that document - we all have it. No secret archives hiding it. No need to go to some select source to get it.

We have that document AND other documents SHOWING the USE of that document by no less than 10 Popes. So it is in fact a "SET" of documents ALL pertain, endorsing, appealing to that initial ancient primal document that predates them all.

Outside "What?". We have BOTH the initial document AND OTHER documents attesting to its use and attesting to the RELIANCE upon it by no less than 10 Popes in making their arguments - the SAME as we find IN that document.

And interestingly - THAT document - uses the title and the privilege given to Peter thereby AS its salient starting point.

There is NO record of ANY Pope that USED that document - EVER saying that CHRIST is NOT the SON of God or that a Title that references CHRIST is competing/contrary/exclusive to a Title that references "The Son of God". You NEED such a statement of "clear contradiction" to make your case - and you have none.

#1. I have not been arguing the case for numbers. I have been sticking to the SIMPLE case of the existence of the name - and that it is CATHOLIC sources that are the OLDEST and most WIDELY available showing its origin.

#2. The ROMAN numbering system using LATIN names is FULLY consistent AND was IN practice IN the first century when John was writing to people UNDER the ROMAN rule. This is very much CONTEXT specific and context appropriate. Nothing outside the box in seeing ROMAN system used by readers in the ROMAN empire.

Even so - that has not been the focus of my argument. I have been sticking purely with the existence of the title as of purely CATHOLIC origin predating the 19th century by a millenium.

Your attempts to controvert these 7th-9th century SOURCE argument with 19th century tiara arguments are simply nonsequeters. You attempt repeatedly to inject a 19th century tiara argument INTO the existence of the name AS IF all the other Catholic documents evaporate into thin air - if the RCC elects to hide a tiara from the 10th century OR if the RCC does not have a tiara SURVIVE the 18th century that has the title.

That entire line of reasoning - is silly.

IF we could conclude that the RCC WAS divulging ALL artifacts in the form of mitre's and tiara's that it had in its possession at the time of the 19th century AND we did not find the title on any one of them - we certainly could conclude that any story claiming a 19th century tiara with that title on it existed - did not exist.

But obviously that is a "big if". And it would not be something we could rely upon UNLESS a licensed outside auditor conducted the search and had "believable" access to ALL RCC archives.

#1. No such agency exists.

#2. The RCC already admits that NOT ONLY does it not practice full disclosure of artifacts with NON-Catholics it ALSO does not have that practice of "full disclosure" with its own scholars.

The case could not BE worse for the kind of argument you are pursuing.

And - your argument has no bearing on the title in general - since the Catholic document "Donation of Constantine" is already available independant of any claims/arguments you make here.

Bob said
"Your only "help" here has been that your Catholic bretheren ignore the "details" and simply look for "yada-yada-something-bad-about--the-RCC" to oppose.

They join you - in their classic rejection of "the details" - but that is hardly to your credit."

Wrong. Those who ADMIT to the existence of the title in the Donation of Constantine, who ADMIT that this is a CATHOLIC document - not an SDA document, who ADMIT that it has Papal endorsement, who ADMIT that the document argues the title AS IF it is ALREADY accepted by the Catholic empire - are simply ADMITTING to the DETAILS of history.

The RCC has invented the tactic of charging anyone with catholic-bashing that does not either turn a blind eye to the facts of history (as you are doing in your argument) or does not revise history altogether.

That is hardly applaudable.

Your argument above is essentially "paying any attention to those FACTS of Catholic history is ANTI CATHOLIC".

How sad that you should feel compelled to go there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

One of those sticky little details, Bob.

The document gives the title to Peter, not any other Pope.

None of your claimed "endorsements" of the document by other Popes is framed as a claim to that particular title.

To be a "successor of Peter" is not necessarily to be a "sucessor of all the titles of Peter".

So my question to you, which really does deserve an answer is: Would you say that Peter is the person refered to by the number 666 since the offending title was originally and (to my knowledge) soley applied to him?

 

Why, thank you.

It's nice to be here.

Our friend, Bob, is an "interesting" fellow, isn't he?

 

Mioque said

Once again nobody on this thread claimed the Donation was a SDA document.

Ahh - then you simply have those "details" listed above to deal with.

Care to step into the light OR are you still bent on finding some historian that rejects those details as listed?

(Or are you still trying to avoid the details?)

Let me guess - I think I hear your next salient, obective compelling point and it sound like ... it sound like ...


Well I guess we both know how funny it sounds.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bumped for Bob Ryan.

 

Bob said of the details that all can see clearly ""who ADMIT that the document argues the title AS IF it is ALREADY accepted by the Catholic empire"

Which makes it "LESS" usefull as an artifact of Constantine and emminantly useful as a "Catholic" document with Catholic authors, intended for full acceptance by a Catholic audience based on its using arguments and title MOST likely to be accepted by them.

Its "catholic" usefullness is further enhanced by the fact that no less than Ten Popes endorse the arguments of the document publically.

No. Forged in the 7th-9th century by Catholics arguing for the civil powers and authority of the Papacy. And continued in that vein of argument for the centuries to follow.

And since it is THEY that came up with that title - long before the first SDA stepped foot on the planet - your efforts to revise history and stand it on it head - seem doomed from the start.

Care to have another shot at it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wrong. The Document argues FROM the titles and authority that IT CLAIMS for Peter. Saying that his SUCCESSORS deserve those same rights and SINCE they do - they ought to have the same right to claim worldy authority as the document claims for Peter.

That is not the same as the NT church making that claim for Peter or the Bible ever making it. It is purely a tool of the RCC in the dark ages.

If that case COULD have been made even once - it would have voided the continuation of the "chain" of support derived for Papal authority and civil powers forever afterward.

The RCC has not argued that point even ONCE! And for good reason.

But that would be "the details".

Well fortunately (or perhaps "unfortunately" for the RC argument in this case) the fact that Catholic Authors admit to this title being accepted by the Catholics of the 7th-9th century for Peter and his successors - does not make it a first century NT fact. Nor does it make Peter in any way connected to the errors of the RC leaders that came centuries later.

I am sure you understood that detail already - but perhaps you just wanted to see it posted here.

Happy to oblige.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Nothing but transparent and pathetic spinning.

The Donation applied the title to Peter and Peter alone.

 

Well fortunately (or perhaps "unfortunately" for the RC argument in this case) the fact that Catholic Authors admit to this title being accepted by the Catholics of the 7th-9th century for Peter and his successors - does not make it a first century NT fact. Nor does it make Peter in any way connected to the errors of the RC leaders that came centuries later.</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks Bob. Based on your own reasoning, none of the Pope's before the Donation of Constantine nor after it can be used in your little 666 game, since the ones before it and after it was shown to be a false have no endorsed it in any way, JUST LIKE ST. PETER. Thus, the best you can do is apply it to those popes who specifically endorsed it.

You said it in your own words. Thanks for that.

 

Notice that in the point made above the salient point is the title itself. In this case the historic fact of its being used in the Catholic Document the Donation of Constantine.

Mioque never tires of "inserting" the idea that the historic fact (and hence the historic problem for Catholicism) might go away if someone in the 19th century ALSO mentions a tiara that ALSO uses that title -- a tiara that Mioque can't find.

WHile that is a nice rant - it does nothing to the point I have made above. (yet you never tire of that red herring - as IF the historic facts of the VFD title might evaporate if given enough sidetracking).

Wrong. The title that the Catholic document uses did not "start adding up to 666" when Adventism was organized. The ROMAN system of government under which John wrote WAS ALREADY using that "number of the name" system long before Adventists came along.

But your constant sidetrack "as if " the numbering was created two centuries ago - is historically dishonest.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bobryan responds --

Well fortunately (or perhaps "unfortunately" for the RC argument in this case) the fact that Catholic Authors admit to this title being accepted by the Catholics of the 7th-9th century for Peter and his successors - does not make it a first century NT fact.

Nor does it make Peter in any way connected to the errors of the RC leaders that came centuries later.

True - if they are NOT Catholic.

But since the Donation of Constantine IS a Catholic Document.

Since it HAS papal endorsement of no less than ten popes.

Since the Popes ARE Catholic.

Since the ten Popes endorsing the document HAD the document and KNEW what they were endorsing..

Your red herring - must swim alone.

Have another shot at it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is the truly amazing part. In all this ducking, dodging and sliding trying to get the Catholic authorship of the title "Vicarius Filii Dei" to "unstick" from the Papacy - (a difficult task given the historic facts of the authorship of the Donation of Constantine) -- you have yet to make a single point stick!!

In such a long thread - surely could have at least one point!

Your coming up with a 19th century story about a tiara - can hardly have any weight at all on the 7th century documents and the 10-15th century documents that show recognition of the Donation - a document CLEARLY showing the title you are so opposed to.

Your claiming that the RCC is "under full disclosure policy with you" but not with its own scholars - is the kind of "non-credible" non-repsonse that you have built your entire camp around.

In Christ,

Bob