Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.

Game over.

In the quotes I gave - I accidentally included evidence of about half a dozen popes providing their endorsement. My intendid purpose was not to provide ANY until you had the intellectual integrity to pony-up some commitment on your own part. I was hoping you could make a legitimate objective argument.

But since your stuck playing games rather than having a real interest in the historic endorsement issue -

game over.

Then my accidental slipping of some of the names should serve to intertain you for your purposes. And you can continue to "ignore the detail" of what that means for the historic position of the RCC regarding that title that they keep quoting in Cannon Law! Wow! you must be having a field day with that game!

In the mean time - "the smoking gun" is of the form of historic evidence available to ALL - instead of the "cloistered" variety that you had hoped could only be had in dark-places.


"Avenues available to ALL to show a title's use by the RCC."

I love it -- Cannon law is "obscure" but a cloistered set of filtered artifacts now THAT's "public"!!

You have proven to be no end of entertainment Mioque - thanks!

Your blind-eye to public documents of history - approach and the implication of the Papacy, Cannon law and published quotes - is most "impressive" if not "compelling" in the least.

You are too much Mioque - thanks again!

Wake me when you make a salient point.

Wake me when you respond to the "details".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

1)The Donation applied the title to Peter.
If you do not accept this, then the you cannot say the Popes are successor to the title.

Which way are you going to go on this?

2)If you decide that the title did apply to Peter, where is your documentation that this particualr title is passed on?

You continue to evade even the most simple questions with reams and reams of meaningless utterances repeated ad nauseum.

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

 

Trying,

On behalf of myself and attorneys in general, I ask that you please not associate us with the form of argumentation seen on this thread.

Sincerely yours,

Mark

 

Opps.

Sorry, Mark. No harm intended.

 

Hopefully someone has already mentioned that using the Latin "Ellen Gould White" = 666

 

I for one - was not even aware that that was latin.

You learn something every day!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Perhaps if you chose to follow the salient point in that regard it would not be repeated here - "still waiting for the Catholic response".

The Donation argues FROM the authority of Peter - claiming that WHATEVER IT assigns to Peter is ALSO inherited by all Peter's successors. It argues that SINCE Peter is the Vicar of the Son of God - and the Son of God own ALL things - then Peter has the right to ownership and by extension so do ALL those holding that title as his successors.

The point could not "BE" easier to follow.

The document is arguing FROM a position about Peter that is assumes to be fully accepted by the Catholics of the 9th century.

But "wait!!"

That is the VERY point - the RCC members here want to "deny". !! They want to assert that the title for Peter was the very thing that Catholics of the 9th century would MOST object to!!

Which effectly guts the very HEART of the document for its baseline salient point is supposedly REJECTED by Catholics of the 9th century (according to the ploys Mioque is trying to foist).

Now see! That point was not really hard to follow was it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Trying" as hard as you can to turn a blind eye to the point just made here - just isn't working for you.

It is the CATHOLIC document that is ASSERTING the title as IF it would be readily accepted by Catholics - and NOT controverted.

It CATHOLIC Papal leadership that ADOPTS the document's arguments WITHOUT complaint about the title.

It is CATHOLIC Cannon Law that QUOTES the TITLE - that Catholics are "supposed" to blame Adventists for inventing.

It is - PRE-SDA CATHOLIC Historic documents available to ALL - that establish the case LONG BEFORE I came along to read them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, I know you would have just gotten lost in translation, why bother?

Ellen Gould White, LLVLDVVI, see I can play number games and sound just as senseless as you. Why does the SDA cult follow the teachings of a woman who carries the mark of the beast?

You windows of non-truth keep getting better, and the SDA cult is a perfect example of non-truth.

 

Bob's case works totally...if we follow all of Bob's rules, which he (or his denomination, or the source of this theory) set up.

If the Mark of the Beast is referrering to a successive leader of an apostate Christian Church, which happens to be the Catholic Church, and if this title is not an official title, but one that is used in a document that is a forgery, and accepted by only ten popes, in which the document is endorsed, but not the title specifically (and the title is to be subsequently applied to all of the popes, not just the endorsers or even St. Peter, to whom it is given in this document), AND, if the title must be derived using the Roman Numeral system and it must rely only on Roman words (even though other languages share the same alphabet), then YES, Bob is correct!

Whew. Now all we have to do to seal the deal is to get all these rules from Scripture, since the Word of God IS Scripture (according to Bob), and Bob believes in Sola Scriptura. Happy hunting.

P.S. Be sure to rely heavily on "The Two Babylons," since most of this nonsense is derived from his work, which has been deemed as faulty scholarship.

 

Bob likes to keep anticatholic threads going.

He has one going where he alone has made the last 14 posts.

That's ok though because I enjoy Bob's "Slip Mahoney" style of speech (for those of you familiar with that old TV series - The Bowery Boys).

Slip used to use large words (inappropriately and incorrectly) while holding himself out as a self styled intellectual. His only followers where those who had less of a clue than he did.

 

If the Mark of the Beast is referrering to:

1) The Mark of the Beast refers not to a name, but a title for a man
2) The man is a successive leader, not one single person
3) This leader is of an apostate Christian Church
4) This Church is the Catholic Church
5) The title is not an officially recognized title
6) The title originates in a forged document
7) The title was only "endorsed" by ten popes
8) By endorsed, the document was endorsed, but not the title exclusively
9) The title is given to Saint Peter, but must apply to his successors
10) It applies to ALL of the successors, not just the ones who "endorsed" it, much less used it
11) The Mark of the Beast, which is 666, must be derived from Roman Numerals
12) The title must be Latin itself, even though other languages share the same alphabet and still use Roman numerals

I state again: All of the above must be true for this theory to be true, and since Scripture is the only basis, then these must be present in Scripture. Because if they are not in Scripture, then it is purely the guessing of the individual.

 

Well - I guess if that is your way of proving your silly claim that "WHITE" is a "Latin" word/name/title - then you did exactly what you intended to do in "sounding senseless".

I applaud your success!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ahhh - an even "more" objective, compelling case is made by Grace than by Justified.

The "rules" were "again".

#1. "Pay attention" do the DETAILS of history available to ALL.

#2. "OBSERVE" that the CATHOLIC documents are quoting the title (and even authoring it) LONG before anyone in the 19th century.

#3. ADMIT that Popes are indeed the LEADERSHIP in the RCC.

#4. ADMIT that Cannon law is ALSO quoting the name so horrific to late commer Catholics.

#5. REFUSE to play the "artifacts in a closet" game with Mioque.

So if you do all the above - THEN you leave the dark ages realm of the RC retorts here. And of course we would hate to do that.

So let's trash, sound objective compelling arguments and settle what what passes as a "response" from our Catholic bretheren on this thread so far.

I can't believe you guys actually buy your way of dealing with hard questions.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Having floundered on the facts and lost the debate - our Catholic bretheren seem content to wade in the whining that remains.

But in the end "I win" on this thread because the title is "Vicarius Filii Dei" and I have remained focused on that (despite the efforts to misdirect by my opponents) and it is THAT title that I have shown to be rife in historic Catholic documents from the dark ages.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yeah, Bob, you can win all you want, because you make up the rules as you go. No one can even touch you, because its impossible to even stay in the same game, because you are "so focused" that you don't even listen to responses; repeating the same things over and over again to you means that you are "staying focused" and allow you to "win." Bob, take a look around; no one is even playing the "game" anymore.

 

No, Bob you misunderstand. I never said anything about it making sense. You are absolutely right, it is silly!(i.e. the Vicarius filii Dei argument) Why else would it be on this thread? Again, I am only using your(SDA) methods and reasoning to open the window of nontruth. I guess it can't get much sillier than that!

Well, I guess then the pope has a partner in crime.