Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.

[BobRyan]

Bill said --
Bob. did you happen to notice all of the other surpurlatives and niceties give to the pope in that paper, that not one of them is an official title?

All of them are "accepted by the RCC" for the pope during the time that the document is "NOT QUESTIONED by ANYONE" which the actually history of the matter EVEN from RC historian's viewpoints.

The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century.

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.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The argument is sometimes made that no one actually appealed to the content OF the donation of Constantine when arguing that the content of the document supported their case for secular powers of the Pope (as irrational as that logic is - we will pursue it).

though Baronius and later historians acknowledged it to be a forgery, they endeavoured to marshal other authorities in defence of its content, especially as regards the imperial donations.

The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the "Donatio" acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power. Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit inserted it in their collections of canons. Gratian, it is true, excluded it from his "Decretum", but it was soon added to it as "Palea".

The ecclesiastical writers in defence of the papacy during the conflicts of the early part of the twelfth century quoted it as authoritative (Hugo of Fleury, De regiâ potestate et ecclesiasticâ dignitate, II; Placidus of Nonantula, De honore ecclesiæ, cc. lvii, xci, cli; Disputatio vel defensio Paschalis papæ, Honorius Augustodunensis, De summâ gloriæ, c. xvii; cf. Mon. Germ. Hist., Libelli de lite, II, 456, 591, 614, 635; III, 71).

St. Peter Damian also relied on it in his writings against the antipope Cadalous of Parma (Disceptatio synodalis, in Libelli de lite, I, 88).

Gregory VII himself never quoted this document in his long warfare for ecclesiastical liberty against the secular power. But Urban II made use of it in 1091 to support his claims on the island of Corsica.

Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV) took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro, in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24; Potthast, Regesta, no. 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced its evidence in favour of the papacy.

The medieval adversaries of the popes, on the other hand, never denied the validity of this appeal to the pretended donation of Constantine, but endeavoured to show that the legal deductions drawn from it were founded on false interpretations.

The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century. It was known to the Greeks in the second half of the twelfth century, when it appears in the collection of Theodore Balsamon (1169 sqq.); later on another Greek canonist, Matthæus Blastares (about 1335), admitted it into his collection. It appears also in other Greek works. Moreover, it was highly esteemed in the Greek East. The Greeks claimed, it is well known, for the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) the same honorary rights as those enjoyed by the Bishop of Old Rome. By now, by virtue of this document, they claimed for the Byzantine clergy also the privileges and perogatives granted to the pope and the Roman ecclesiastics. In the West, long after its authenticity was disputed in the fifteenth century, its validity was still upheld by the majority of canonists and jurists who continued throughout the sixteenth century to quote it as authentic. And though Baronius and later historians acknowledged it to be a forgery, they endeavoured to marshal other authorities in defence of its content, especially as regards the imperial donations. In later times even this was abandoned, so that now the whole "Constitutum", both in form and content, is rightly considered in all senses a forgery. See FALSE DECRETALS; SYLVESTER I; STATES OF THE CHURCH; TEMPORAL POWER

Some RC sources I have found that do something "other" than claim the title is "of anti-Catholic origin"

... for your reading enjoyment.

“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.

In Christ,
Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Lucius Ferraris' Prompta Bibliotheca, 1858 Paris edition, a Catholic theological encyclopedia, in which the title VICARIUS FILII DEI appears in volume 5, column 1828, under "PAPA" (Pope), "Article II."


Prompta Bibliotheca, according to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, is "a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge" and "will ever remain a precious mine of information" and is quoted frequently as an authoritative Catholic source.

Vicarius Filii Dei also appeared repeatedly in Catholic canon law for hundreds of years (Anselm's, Cardinal Deusdedit's, and Gratian's Decretum also known as Concordia Discordantium Canonum), in quotes of the Donation of Constantine which contained the title and was considered authentic by the Church for many hundreds of years, having been cited by as many as 10 Popes as proof of their temporal authority.
One 1879 edition of Corpus Juris Canonici containing VICARIUS FILII DEI is presented in the article above.

In "Crossing The Threshold of Hope", by Pope John Paul II: First Chapter: "The Pope": A Scandal and a Mystery, page 3, you will find:
"The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity".

If you directly translate "represents the Son of God" into Latin, the official language of the Church, you get "Vicarius Filii Dei".

A claim that is "not supposed to exist" except in the minds of anti-Catholics according to some - modern day Catholic revisionists.

 

[mioque]

Bob&Bill
Let me guess, you 2 are restarting one of your old debates all over my thread

That's fine, but do try to finish it before late september.

To return for a moment to my own reason for starting this.
It does not say Vicarius Filii Dei on the tiara of the pope, 'proving' that the popes are the beast of Revelations. And a certain sundayschool class is going to visit a certain museum to see that with their own eyes. That's what this is all about.

It is probably worth noting that I have a degree in church history. I know what the number of the beast actually means, and I know why the Vicarius Filii Dei fable was created. I even know why it says Vicarius Filii Dei in the donation of Constantine. I might even have to explain it to keep this thread alife long enough.

 

[BobRyan]

mioque -

As the references above show - the personalities using that title for the Pope - are more than one and all of them I gave - were RC - not protestant.

As has also been pointed out on this thread - all agree that there has been MORE than one Papal tiara in the passage of time so the statement that the Sunday Visitor made about WHERE the title is found - can be "changed" with the very next one.

The "point" is whether or not this title was used for the Pope - as the Donation of Constantine used it AND whether the CONTENT of the Donation of Constantine was argued favorably by RC Popes and leadership. The historic documents provided SHOW - the USE not only of that document BUT ALSO of the TITLE in various OTHER RC documents, laws, legal arguments etc.

The "fact" of history does not change - because the current Tiara does not have the title. It is the title itself - not the Tiara that is of issue.

"your thread" was specifially about the TITLE being used to support the claim for 666. If you wish to state that you are not doubting the use of the title - just "where" it is to be found - then by all means proceed - but it "appeared" that your effort was to claim that the 666 calculation could not be used for the Title since the Title was never approved/used/accepted/known in Catholicism as an accepted title for the Pope.

In "that case" Enjoy.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

"As the references above show - the personalities using that title for the Pope - are more than one and all of them I gave - were RC - not protestant."
Using some of the references you gave, would virtually guarantee a failing mark in the average community college course on the history of religion (I especially like the one where an english language dictionary is used to find out what the meaning is of a word in latin).

 

[mioque]

"As has also been pointed out on this thread - all agree that there has been MORE than one Papal tiara in the passage of time so the statement that the Sunday Visitor made about WHERE the title is found - can be "changed" with the very next one."
One of my readers contains an annotated list of all beehive tiara's made since the late middle ages.
They can be divided into 2 groups, the ones that where melted down (by Napoleon among others) before the Vicarius Filii Dei story came into existance and the 12 still around including the one used to crown Pius VII in 1800. That last one was made out of papier-mâché by some kind Venetian noblewomen, because nothing else was available at the moment.
I have seen all 12 of them with my own eyes. 1 in the shrine of the immaculate conception in Washington and 11 others in the papal sacristy in Rome (doing a favour to Hans Kolvenbach can be extremely usefull).
No Vicarius Filii Dei on any of them.

 

[WPutnam]

Bob replied, where I last said (in italics):

Bob. you have it shown to you that not one official document of the Catholic Church indicates that "Vicar of the Son of God" (in Latin)

Bill - sidestepping the point again?

The obvious fact is that the "Donation of Constantine" was NOT CLAIMED by the RCC as "ITS official document" - RATHER it claime that it was "CONSTANTINE's official document".

Claimed by who? That some in the Catholic Church thought it was genuine? Yes, I think many thought, in all innocence, that it was an official document from Constantine. But suppose someone were to "forge" a document written by Bill Putnam giving all of his estate to the Catholic Church, in that fake document, I was alleged to have call the pope by a title, King of Heaven? Some Catholic officials think it is authentic, and this goes on for several years, and low and behold, it is found to be a fake. Does the title I allegedly given the pope King of Heaven an official title, Bob? Even if a pope or two is taken in by this fake document does not in and of itself make that title official!

WHEN proven to be a forgery of CATHOLIC origin and NOT of Constantine's origin IT BECOMES a Catholic document - NOT the Emperor's document.

Total and complete hogwash, Bob! The guy who forged my fictitious document could have been a Catholic too, even a priest or (gulp!) a bishop, fooling some in the Vatican, even a pope or two, does not make that little title I coined "official." Unless and until you see that title on an official document of the Church, you will have a case. Even if the Donations of Constantine were to be brought fourth as a "proof of possession" (of what Constantine was supposed to give to the Church) does not make the superlatives said of the pope, even to call him the "Vicar of the Son of God" does not make that title official.

Simply because the Church was bamboozled into thinking this document was authentic for a while does not make it's contents any more valid, including the so called titles given to the pope (and there were several, as my last link pointed out) until and unless you were to see that title repeated in an official document of the Church, and the Donations of Constantine was certainly not an official document of the Church, it being thought to be official from the emperor Constantine

When PROVEN to be prmoted by no less than Ten popes it THEN becomes "official".

Please show me that the popes extracted from that document, the title "Vicar of the Son of God" from that document, Bob. Show me where they turned-around and used that title in any official document.

And when shown to be IN Latin AND to contain THE VERY Title that Catholics "now" want to assert that "ONLY ANTI-Catholics would use for the Pope" - your only response is that no OTHER Catholic document ALSO does the SAME?

Show me the other documents that use that title, Bob…

Are you following the point at all?

I am now, and I reject it on it's face! Here we have a forged document which snookered the higher-up's in the Church, even some popes, and somehow, thinking that the document was authored by Constantine, with all of the marvelous "titles" given to the pope, titles not seen in official documents of the Church, yet you think this authenticates those titles as being official?

No, you are so right, I am not following your point at all! But now that you elaborate it, I reject it as complete nonsense!

Why is it "so hard for catholics to understand" that by declaring the document to be NOT of Constantine's origin BUT rather of GENUINE CATHOLIC origin - we thereby declare it to be a FORGED document that CLAIMED to be of Constantine's origin and NOT of Catholic origin.

Excuse me but when did the Church ever declare it as of "CATHOLIC origin"? Did I miss something here I our exchanges? If so, would you please document where the Church may have done this, Bob?

We both know that the document is a forgery. And as I recall, it was Catholic scholars who discovered this:

Quote…

This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850. As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known and demonstrated. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (De Concordantiâ Catholicâ, III, ii, in the Basle ed. of his Opera, 1565, I) spoke of it as a dictamen apocryphum. Some years later (1440) Lorenzo Valla (De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio, Mainz, 1518) proved the forgery with certainty. Independently of both his predecessors, Reginald Pecocke, Bishop of Chichester (1450-57), reached a similar conclusion in his work, "The Repressor of over much Blaming of the Clergy", Rolls Series, II, 351-366. Its genuinity was yet occasionally defended, and the document still further used as authentic, until Baronius in his "Annales Ecclesiastici" (ad an. 324) admitted that the "Donatio" was a forgery, whereafter it was soon universally admitted to be such. It is so clearly a fabrication that there is no reason to wonder that, with the revival of historical criticism in the fifteenth century, the true character of the document was at once recognized. The forger made use of various authorities, which Grauert and others (see below) have thoroughly investigated. The introduction and the conclusion of the document are imitated from authentic writings of the imperial period, but formulæ of other periods are also utilized. In the "Confession" of faith the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is explained at length, afterwards the Fall of man and the Incarnation of Christ. There are also reminiscences of the decrees of the Iconoclast Synod of Constantinople (754) against the veneration of images. The narrative of the conversion and healing of the emperor is based on the apocryphal Acts of Sylvester (Acta or Gesta Sylvestri), yet all the particulars of the "Donatio" narrative do not appear in the hitherto known texts of that legend. The distinctions conferred on the pope and the cardinals of the Roman Church the forger probably invented and described according to certain contemporary rites and the court ceremonial of the Roman and the Byzantine emperors. The author also used the biographies of the popes in the Liber Pontificalis (q.v.), likewise eighth-century letters of the popes, especially in his account of the imperial donations.

Unquote…

From the link:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

Notice further that some resisted the claim of forgery. That does not make it an "official Catholic document," does it, Bob?

However that "claim" is shown to be false - it is SHOWN that in fact it is of Catholic origin INSTEAD - because it IS a forgery of something supposedly of Constantine's origin.

What "claim"? That a Catholic wrote it? Name the culprit, Bob, name him!

I don't care if it was a Catholic, Hindu, Moslem, Shinto, whoever who wrote it, it is no more a "Catholic Document" unless it were written as such, and you have yet to produce the evidence. So please do it now, Bob…

The VERY CLAIM of forgery is what clears the smoke of anything to do with Constantine and lays it PURELY at the door of CATHOLIC origin - all agree.

All agree to what, Bob? If I, a Catholic, were to write such a forgery, is that what you consider to be of "Catholic origin"? Even if I were a bishop, and I were to write such a thing, it is no more an official Church document so long as we see no official signature of a pope with a plethora of witnesses of a few bishops/Cardinals in attendance.

So when you say "it is, something constructed out of whole cloth, clinging to a document that is a fraud, false, a forgery."

You merely RE-EMPHASIZE that it is in fact - of genuine historic CATHOLIC origin and NOT of genuine historic Constantine's origin.

Bob. read my lips, it is a fake, forgery, a worthless piece of paper other then the historical evidence of some skullduggery attempted in early times. Because it has been deemed to be a fake does not an official Catholic document make, Bob. Suppose we were to find a document supposedly written by John Adams, on of our country's founding fathers, a document believed to be true and good history until it was found to be a fake. Why even presidents quoted for it! Yet it is a fake!

Does that make it an official document of the United States of America, Bob?

What part of that point is so hard for some of our Catholic friends here?

What your question demonstrates, Bob, is our talking past one another. But for your information, this Catholic fails to understand how in the world you can make the claim of some nefarious "official church action" that, perhaps in the catacombs of St. Peters, no, wait, let's say the basement of St. John Lateren Church, where a bunch of black hooded monks conspired to create this document and claim it is an official donation by Constantine, the pope gleefully and with evil intent, goes along with the ruse, and claim it as "official," and yet when caught by their own clergymen in the forgery, wash their hands of it immediately!

Please give me a break!

I save the rest of the points for another post since this ONE point seems to be so difficult for the Catholic responders to comprehend in their posts.

I just don't see what is so hard to get. - What is the problem?

What is so hard to get is your insistence on there being some sort of conspiracy in the writing of the donations by officials of the Church. If I were to tell you that horns grow out of the head of Catholic priests, would you believe it, Bob? I actually heard this to be believed in the "Bible Belt" South many years ago…

Prove this conspiracy, Bob, as that is the only thing I can think of that is lodged in your mind...

Did Ellen G. White originate this nonsense, Bob?

I last said:

And incredibly, even if the Donatation of Constantine were not a forgery, the fact that the author of this document may have called the pope as "The Vicar of the Son of God," does not in and of itself make it an official title!

Agreed. ONE catholic person living in the 7th century that "thinks maybe Peter held that title" would not be "compelling" for a Catholic - or for a non-Catholic.

Including all of the other superlatives that are lavished on the papacy in this forgery. I wonder why you SdA group landed on the one out of several, Bob?

It suited your purpose, I suppose…

But TEN POPES that READ that document and concluded that IT IS telling the TRUTH -- the TRUTH NOT JUST about its origin being from Constantine BUT ALSO the TRUTH about the points it makes IN FAVOR of the Papacy - then the ENDORSEMENT "is as infallibly official" as the RCC knows how to get!

Telling what truth, Bob? That Constantine donated to the Church as claimed? Can you show me one of these ten popes who zerioed-in on the Latin phrase, "Vicar of the Son of God" as an adopted title to be used officially in their documents? If so, please produce those decrees and papal bulls that use that title, Bob, show me one from the hand of any pope!

Furthermore when we LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE of the document (which is EXACTLY what the Popes were doing) and SEE that the ARGUMENT FOR the secular powers of the Popes WAS derived from the aspects associated with the Title - THEN it becomes in fact THE KEY SALIENT POINT of what the Popes were arguing from.

Yes, that is perhaps true, since the papal states was a controversial adjunct of the papacy for a while, Bob, but that is not the issue. The issue is, out of several very colorful "titles" given to the papacy in this forgery, including the one in question, show me one example of where it was used officially in any Church document?

Even if the document was absolutely true - not a forgery - the fact that the author, Constantine (we continue to assume here), used that title does not make it an official title of the papacy! If Constantine has said, as a title, Your supreme Grace of the Entire Universe does not an official title make!

It is what we see on official Church documents, decrees and papal bulls that we note the official title of the pope. Show me one where any pope has used the title you suggest, Bob.

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

Again - the fact that you pretend that this basic logic of the document is so hard for a Catholic to "get" is beyond me.

The fact that you have not produced, one whit, good documentation of a pope, decree of papal bull, the findings of an Ecumenical Council, or otherwise official Church document using that title - Vicar of the Son of God - is beyond me, Bob. Yet you insist that the Donation of Constantine, a forgery that it is, declared so by Catholic officials, is a "Church document." In other words, you insist that it is not beyond the Catholic Church to produce forgeries.

Does that apply to their husbanding of holy Scriptures as well, Bob? Will you address that dichotomy later on in your response here?

I just don't understand how it can be that confusing EVEN if you ARE already Catholic when you discover it.

Even when I was not a Catholic, I rejected it, Bob. That and so many other lies I had to wade through to get to the truth. There is nothing confusing at all, Bob, as I see it very clearly that you have latched onto a totally and completely unsubstantiated lie that you have yet to prove!

Again, show me the proofs of Church documents that demonstrate the papal title you claim, Bob…

Can someone please explain that RC confusion on the salient point OF the document AND its use by the Popes?

Show me a pope that extracted this one title out of this forgery and used it in any official document, Bob? And when you consider that, review once again, the following link:

http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/vicar.html

And notice the color coded parts of the document that indicates possible papal titles. (the one that says "Vicar of the Son of God" is intentionally left uncolored, since it is the phrase in contention.) These are the many superlatives that could have been lifted and considered, "yea, that's a pretty good title, so let's use it on official documents," including the phrase in question (not colored) but do we see that done, Bob?

The argument is sometimes made that no one actually appealed to the content OF the donation of Constantine when arguing that the content of the document supported their case for secular powers of the Pope (as irrational as that logic is - we will pursue it).

Bob, all you have to do is consider for the moment, what if the Donation of Constantine was not a forgery. Let us presume for the moment, that Constantine actually had the instrument struck in his name, giving that secular power to the Church. It's content can then be accepted without having to assume that every little colorful and complementary "title" given to the pope by Constantine is an official title of the pope! You would make your case if you could demonstrate this in any official document produced by the Church. Please do that, Bob, please…

though Baronius and later historians acknowledged it to be a forgery, they endeavoured to marshal other authorities in defence of its content, especially as regards the imperial donations.

Demonstrate this, please. Show me where persons revealed it to be a forgery, and then turned around and attempted to use it for the reasons you state. There were indeed some holdouts who believed it was a true document, but eventually, the Donation of Constantine was completely discarded as a forgery, and again, by Catholic clergy at that.

The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the "Donatio" acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power. Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit inserted it in their collections of canons. Gratian, it is true, excluded it from his "Decretum", but it was soon added to it as "Palea".

Again, as I have already said, the Church was snookered into believing the forgery!

And in doing so, they used it as a defense of the Church's claim, including pope Leo IX whose infallibility does not include the charisma of discerning the veracity of the document in question. But did Leo IX cop a title for use by himself and all popes after him from that document, Bob? He sure has a lot to choose from in that document, doesn't he? Show me one case where the title, "Vicar of the Son of God" (in Latin) was applied with the papal signature. Show me also where it was applied to a mitre, tiara or papal crown, Bob, please.

The ecclesiastical writers in defence of the papacy during the conflicts of the early part of the twelfth century quoted it as authoritative (Hugo of Fleury, De regiâ potestate et ecclesiasticâ dignitate, II; Placidus of Nonantula, De honore ecclesiæ, cc. lvii, xci, cli; Disputatio vel defensio Paschalis papæ, Honorius Augustodunensis, De summâ gloriæ, c. xvii; cf. Mon. Germ. Hist., Libelli de lite, II, 456, 591, 614, 635; III, 71).

So what, Bob? Even if the document were not a forgery, to use the document as proof of what Constantine intended is not to pick out every little nicetie, Constantine uses adjectively to describe the person of the pope, as an official title of the pope!

Perhaps repeating myself over and over again will make this point to you, Bob!

St. Peter Damian also relied on it in his writings against the antipope Cadalous of Parma (Disceptatio synodalis, in Libelli de lite, I, 88).

Gregory VII himself never quoted this document in his long warfare for ecclesiastical liberty against the secular power. But Urban II made use of it in 1091 to support his claims on the island of Corsica.

Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV) took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro, in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24; Potthast, Regesta, no. 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced its evidence in favour of the papacy.

The medieval adversaries of the popes, on the other hand, never denied the validity of this appeal to the pretended donation of Constantine, but endeavoured to show that the legal deductions drawn from it were founded on false interpretations.

Show me one place, on any official Church document, where a title was lifted from the Donation of Constantine and applied, Bob. That is all I am asking. Look at all the documents extant from the official hand of the Church, look at the title used for the pope and compare it with the Donation of Constantine and find a match for me, please. If you cannot, then the claims made for the title, "Vicar of the Son of God" is whole cloth, a lie, a fabrication from the mind of one who is so obsessed against Catholicism as to drive me into the arms of Holy Mother Church herself!

The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century. It was known to the Greeks in the second half of the twelfth century, when it appears in the collection of Theodore Balsamon (1169 sqq.); later on another Greek canonist, Matthæus Blastares (about 1335), admitted it into his collection. It appears also in other Greek works. Moreover, it was highly esteemed in the Greek East. The Greeks claimed, it is well known, for the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) the same honorary rights as those enjoyed by the Bishop of Old Rome. By now, by virtue of this document, they claimed for the Byzantine clergy also the privileges and perogatives granted to the pope and the Roman ecclesiastics. In the West, long after its authenticity was disputed in the fifteenth century, its validity was still upheld by the majority of canonists and jurists who continued throughout the sixteenth century to quote it as authentic. And though Baronius and later historians acknowledged it to be a forgery, they endeavoured to marshal other authorities in defence of its content, especially as regards the imperial donations. In later times even this was abandoned, so that now the whole "Constitutum", both in form and content, is rightly considered in all senses a forgery. See FALSE DECRETALS; SYLVESTER I; STATES OF THE CHURCH; TEMPORAL POWER

Who cares, Bob?

I don't give a hoot if 100 popes took the Donation of Constantine as fact, from the hand of Constantine, lock stock and barrel, and ran with it! The point is, you cannot document one instance where the title "Vicar of the Son of God" was ever used as an official title in any Document perpetuated by the Church herself.

Some RC sources I have found that do something "other" than claim the title is "of anti-Catholic origin"

... for your reading enjoyment.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"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.

</font>[/QUOTE]Bob, even I could sit down and give the pope the title, "Vicar of the Son of God" and find absolutely nothing wrong with it! You see, if the pope is the "Vicar of Christ" which is an official title, and since Christ is the Son of God, then yes, the title, "Vicar of the Son of God" would be most appropriate. But it is not the official title of the pope! If you think so, produce the proof that it has been officially used in that manner! Do you get it yet, Bob?

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

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 office 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.

First of all, I speak of this April 18th, 1915 article in one of my first replies here.

Secondly, this Philippe Labbe has a little blurb on him in:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08718b.htm

And there is no way I can verify what he may have wrote in his papers. But one thing is for sure: That any priest, bishop of otherwise cleric may write about the pope and give him all kinds of kindly adjectives that can be construed as titles, such as the one in question. That does not ipso facto make any of those titles an official title, period!

For the umpteenth time, produce one official document of the Church that has a papal signature on it that also imposes the title, in Latin, "Vicar of the Son of God." Produce just one, Bob, please!

Lucius Ferraris' Prompta Bibliotheca, 1858 Paris edition, a Catholic theological encyclopedia, in which the title VICARIUS FILII DEI appears in volume 5, column 1828, under "PAPA" (Pope), "Article II."

Bob, I don't give a hoot if the pope is called that 100 times, it does not make it an official title for the pope! Produce that title, please, in any official Document of the Church! An Encyclopedia is not an official Church document, unless it is produced by the Church. And that also goes for the famous 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia as well.

Prompta Bibliotheca, according to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, is "a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge" and "will ever remain a precious mine of information" and is quoted frequently as an authoritative Catholic source.

For others reading this, the full quote can be found in:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06048a.htm

For the Umpteenth time + 1, The above document, written by a Franciscan priest, is (gulp!) NOT an official church document! It may be an "authoritative Catholic source" for many things, Bob, but that does not make the term "Vicar of the Son of God" (which I take at face value as being contained within) an official title of the pope in official Church documents. Do you get it yet, Bob?

Vicarius Filii Dei also appeared repeatedly in Catholic canon law for hundreds of years (Anselm's, Cardinal Deusdedit's, and Gratian's Decretum also known as Concordia Discordantium Canonum), in quotes of the Donation of Constantine which contained the title and was considered authentic by the Church for many hundreds of years, having been cited by as many as 10 Popes as proof of their temporal authority.
One 1879 edition of Corpus Juris Canonici containing VICARIUS FILII DEI is presented in the article above.

For the Umpteenth time +2, so long as you do not see the title "Vicarius Fillii Dei" applied in any official Church document as a title, i.e., that place where the pope signs at the end of a document the Church promulgates, it is not an official title!

In "Crossing The Threshold of Hope", by Pope John Paul II: First Chapter: "The Pope": A Scandal and a Mystery, page 3, you will find:
"The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity".

If you directly translate "represents the Son of God" into Latin, the official language of the Church, you get "Vicarius Filii Dei".

The pope's official title is "Vicarius Christi" (Vicar of Christ). If Christ is the Son of God, then indeed, strictly speaking, the pope is the Vicar of the Son of God. I can accept that as an extension of who the pope is vicar of - Christ. But that conclusion does not make it an official title of the pope!

Only in your own mind can you "force" this title simply because of the mathematical coincidence that has it spell out the awful "666." And by golly, nothing is going to deter you from that conclusion, right, Bob?

A claim that is "not supposed to exist" except in the minds of anti-Catholics according to some - modern day Catholic revisionists.

Really? I first encountered this claim back about 1947! Was it a "modern day Catholic Revision" in those days as well, Bob? What does exist are others who happen to call the pope "Vicarius Filii Dei" that has yet to be proven to be an official title, embossed on all Catholic Church documents with the pope's signature, where we only find "Vicarius Christi."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by mioque:
Bob&Bill
Let me guess, you 2 are restarting one of your old debates all over my thread

That's fine, but do try to finish it before late september.

It kinda looks that way! But notice I finished my reply in early September!

To return for a moment to my own reason for starting this.
It does not say Vicarius Filii Dei on the tiara of the pope, 'proving' that the popes are the beast of Revelations. And a certain sundayschool class is going to visit a certain museum to see that with their own eyes. That's what this is all about.

That is something I have not gotten into really, but the evidence would be in the pudding, wouldn't it? All bob needs to do is show is a mitre, tiera or otherwise papal triple crown that has those words! All he can find is simple ones,all the way up to the more elaborate ones in designs, patterns and even some jewels, but no words, not nary a one!

It is probably worth noting that I have a degree in church history. I know what the number of the beast actually means, and I know why the Vicarius Filii Dei fable was created. I even know why it says Vicarius Filii Dei in the donation of Constantine. I might even have to explain it to keep this thread alife long enough.

Gee, I would love to see this, mioque!

I could add it to my arsonal of rebuttal on this nonsense!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

[mioque]

"The "fact" of history does not change - because the current Tiara does not have the title. It is the title itself - not the Tiara that is of issue."
There is no current tiara, in fact the term 'current tiara' has no meaning. In the days the pope used a tiara there usually were a number of tiara's available and one was chosen for the occasion.

""your thread" was specifially about the TITLE being used to support the claim for 666."
No it is not. Kathryn is the person who understands best what this thread is all about. Reread her posts to find out.
If you don't want to dig up those short posts, you can read the following longer explanation


When I started this thread I assumed nobody around here believed in that Vicarius Filii Dei nonsense. I was surprised that our own sundayschool teacher taught it and saw the expo in the Catharijne Convent as a little 'Divine' intervention helping me to correct this problem in a playfull fashion.
I figured that this board could use some lighter subjectmatter. So I started the this thread about the incident and it's future resolution.

 

[Kathryn]

Mioque:

I have to admit I have enjoyed reading your posts in the Baptist History forum, and knew where you were coming from. I especially found interesting your understanding of the Waldensians.

Not to change the subject here, and I am no historian, but I have been reading a book called the Waldensian Dissent Persecution and Survival c.1170- c.1570 by Gabriel Audisio, published by Cambridge University Press. I don't know if you are familiar with this author. He is a professor of Early Modern History at University of Provence. He seems to be saying much the same that you say in the Baptist History forum regarding the Waldensians. In any case it is great to see some objective history on this forum for a change.

Kathryn

 

[WPutnam]

To all interested in this thread:

I stumbled upon this link which I think all will be interested in reading:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius_Filii_Dei

EDIT: And just for the fun of it, I will add this link:

http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/666.html

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[WPutnam]

To all!

Since we are on a conspiracy run, here is a good one for all of ya: (NOT!)

http://www.crisismagazine.com/feature1.htm

Sorry, it's off-topic, but I don't start threads as a personal rule...

There is no doubt which is the true Church of Jesus Christ, as all you have to do is look for the one most maligned...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

[mioque]

"Not to change the subject here, and I am no historian, but I have been reading a book called the Waldensian Dissent Persecution and Survival c.1170- c.1570 by Gabriel Audisio, published by Cambridge University Press."
I'm the proud owner of a copy of that book.

 

[BobRyan]

When I started this thread I assumed nobody around here believed in that Vicarius Filii Dei nonsense. I was surprised that our own sundayschool teacher taught it

Hmm.

I was "surprised" that the RCC taught it in the Donation of Constantine.

I was "surprised" that "Our Sunday Visitor" would promote it.

I was "surprised" that Ten Popes ENDORSED the Content of the Donation of Constantine - That "taught it".

I was "surprised" that Cannon Law contained it.

I was "surprised" that after all these (and more) RCC sources promoted it - there was "still anyone" who doubted it as a historic fact.

I guess you learn something everyday!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

There is no doubt which is the true Church of Jesus Christ, as all you have to do is look for the one most maligned...

gasppppp! You mean the Mormons are the "true church"?????

Or were you speaking of the JW's?

Surely you were not speaking of the most popular church in the dark ages and in America today as "the most maligned" were you?

Are you sure you are using that word right?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bill is always lots of fun when it comes to this topic. Notice how his web site quotes ignore the RC document "Donation of Constantine" - that was endorsed by no less than Ten Popes and DOES serve as the earliest "source" for the title Vicarius Filii Dei?

Wonder why?

No wait - let me guess. Its because it is of RC origin and it is the oldest source AND it is endorsed by no less than Ten Popes and that is a "PROBLEM" FOR THE RC view that only anti-Catholics would "make up" the name.

No wait - that's not it. I am sure that part does not bother Bill a bit.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[WPutnam]

BobRyan,

I always know when my last messsage, in three parts, goes unrefuted, as you end it in a whimper, not once refuting the most devasting point I have made a message I composed before my last: That if the Catholic Church is so devious, so cunning, so subversive, that she could officially write the Donations herself (it seems you are claiming) and then turn around when the "jig is up," exposed by some of her own clergy, and then you turn right around and seemingly accept the canon of the New Testament that was cast by the very Church you have so much credibility with.

Just think of the opportunity the Catholic church had in "altering" the text of scripture and no one would be the wiser...

Have I nice day, Bob; it's been fun...

I'm through with this thread...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)