Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.

[BobRyan]

And why isn't it "Vicar of the Son of God on Earth"?

Why the need to drop "on Earth"?

Because then it doesn't add up anymore?

As has been noted - the title is reference in Cannon Law. It is referenced in the Catholic document "The Donation of Constantine" (A genuine CATHOLIC document but not a genuine Constantinian document as it turns out).

NONE of these are Anti-Catholic "sources" as much as "revisionist history's" like the one Bill published "want" to make it appear as "a NEW title recently invented by anti-Catholics".

(His repeated efforts to make it such - not withstanding).

Even "Our Sunday Visitor" is "magically coming up with that title" without any "help" from anti-Catholics.

The RC position seems to be "anybody that actually pays attention to any of these historic RC-sources and does not devoutly turn a blind eye is creating the title used by the RC sources - on their own".

A fascinating and wrenching kind of logic - but it appears to be a "favorite" on this topic.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The original version of the Vicarius filii Dei myth originated with the Seven Day Adventists in the 2nd half of the 19th century.

Mioque's revisionism is a refreshing kind that is bold enough to come right out with a fallacy and hold it up as though "true".

Now - the "Catholic source" writing the "Donation of Constantine" in the 7th Century is "actually a 19th century Adventist".

How refreshing!

How original!

How down right "entertaining"!

I like it.

More -- please.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Mioque said,
The Bob version of the myth using the donation of Constantine was invented after 1940

Did I say the Donation's history was being reworked by Mioque so that now it was originated by some in the 19th century?? Oh no! I believe mioque has updated that to the "20th".

Ahh the joys of freewheeling revisionism. But you don't get a chance to read the really good stuff like this - very often.

Thanks again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

mique said -
The Book of Revelations was originally written in Koine Greek, ergo any and all numerology in the book ought to be interpreted with this in mind.

Now lets try to fully understand the problem (so difficult to grasp "apparently").

John was writing during the time of the "Roman" Empire. hmmmm "What language" would their "titles" be in?? What system of "assigning the number of a name" would have been used "during the days of the Roman Empire".

Now remember "this is supposed to be hard" according to mioque. Is it "supposed" to "appear" that during the Roman empire the "number of the name" would have been assigned using the Greek text of the previous empire (as if the Greeks were doing that-- ever).

Using that unknown-RC-skill "Exegesis" - is it possible that the context has John's "readers" fully understanding "how the number of a name is assigned for those living in the Roman Empire" - even though it appears like greek to mioque 2000 years later?

Surely this is not the "hard part" for our Catholic bretheren.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
"The Donation of Constantine" (A genuine CATHOLIC document but not a genuine Constantinian document as it turns out).

I'd sure love to hear how a forgery can be a genuine document, and I'm sure you, Bob, are just the one to explain it to me!

 

[BobRyan]

Mike - you needed "to read" the previous posts.

The point was already made that the only thing FORGED was CONSTANTINE's supposed part in that REAL GENUINE Catholic document.

If you are "The church of Constantine" then the document is useless to tell you about your history - since Constantine knew NOTHING of that document.

If you are "the CATHOLIC church" then that historic genuin CATHOIC document is VERY useful and genuine - because it IS A REAL CATHOLIC document REALLY written BY Catholics really FOR Catholics and really used BY no less than Ten Popes.

ONLY those members of "the Church of Constantine" (were there ever to be such a denomination) would find it "less than helpful".

What part about that is "so hard to get"??

ooops - don't answer that. I already know the answer - you're suppose to "pretend" that you don't see how a catholic document forged to appear as if it WERE NOT catholic, but was a emperial document of Constantine, is LESS of a historic document telling us something about Constantine - and MORE of a historic catholic document telling us about the RCC itself and HOW it used it in history.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Mike - you needed "to read" the previous posts.

OK, let's try another tack. How can a forgery be a valid Catholic document.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Things aren't always as simple as they appear.

Maybe the Church in Rome is not responsible for the creation of this document after all.

"...that the forgery originated in the Frankish Empire has quite recently been ably defended by Hergenröther and Grauert (see below). They call attention to the fact that the "Donatio" appears first in Frankish collections, i.e. in the False Decretals and in the above-mentioned St-Denis manuscript; moreover the earliest certain quotation of it is by Frankish authors in the second half of the ninth century. Finally, this document was never used in the papal chancery until the middle of the eleventh century, nor in general is it referred to in Roman sources until the time of Otto III (983-1002, i.e. in case the famous "Diploma" of this emperor be authentic). The first certain use of it at Rome was by Leo IX in 1054, and it is to be noted that this pope was by birth and training a German, not an Italian. The writers mentioned have shown that the chief aim of the forgery was to prove the justice of the translatio imperii to the Franks, i.e. the transfer of the imperial title at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800; the forgery was, therefore, important mainly for the Frankish Empire. This view is rightly tenable against the opinion of the majority that this forgery originated at Rome."

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

Hello, Bob.

I think you missed this.

Just because you keep saying over and over that the Donation of Constantine is a "Catholic Document" don't make it so.

Given the above, you need to prove it.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
As has been noted - the title is reference in Cannon Law. It is referenced in the Catholic document "The Donation of Constantine" (A genuine CATHOLIC document but not a genuine Constantinian document as it turns out).

NONE of these are Anti-Catholic "sources" as much as "revisionist history's" like the one Bill published "want" to make it appear as "a NEW title recently invented by anti-Catholics".

(His repeated efforts to make it such - not withstanding).

Even "Our Sunday Visitor" is "magically coming up with that title" without any "help" from anti-Catholics.

The RC position seems to be "anybody that actually pays attention to any of these historic RC-sources and does not devoutly turn a blind eye is creating the title used by the RC sources - on their own".

A fascinating and wrenching kind of logic - but it appears to be a "favorite" on this topic.

In Christ,

Bob

Studied a lot of Latin have you, Bob?

This whole things is pointless because "Vicarivs" is not a word at all. It's "Vicarius".

That would be with a "u" not a "v".

Here is the sentence with the offending title, in Latin, from the document.

"Petrus in terris vicarius Filii Dei esse videtur constitutus, ita et Pontifices, qui ipsius principis apostolorum gerunt vices, principatus potestatem amplius quam terrena imperialis nostrae serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur, concessam a nobis nostroque imperio obtineant, eligentes nobis ipsum principem apostolorum vel eius vicarios firmos apud Deum esse patronos."

So either show how "Vicarius Filii Dei" adds up to 666 without changing the "u" to a "v", or just quietly drop it.

 

[tragic_pizza]

OK, OK, OK, let's get back to basics, shall we?

The point Bob seems to be worrying is that this title is proof that the Pope is the Antichrist. That he has to become creative in spelling and rely on a single forged document is instructive, but almost a side issue.

Parenthetically, ever read the PC(USA)'s "Book of Confessions?" Some of the "Confessions" that we include aren't very current anymore, but show a historical progression in the development of current doctrine in the PC(USA). No one expects a Presbyterian to know and abide by, say, the Second Helvetic Confession, and then if some arcane reference is found to thus be condemned by it.

In any case, it's interesting to look at the chapter of the Book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ to Saint John in question, and ask these questions: What in this chapter looks at all like a Christian, or even quasi-Christian, group rather than a group of secular or occultic origination? Under what circumstances would a religious leader of, oh, let's say Catholic origin, aw, heck, let's say the Pope, become so powerful as to wield the influence of either Beast mentioned in Revelation 13? Let us discuss the passage in terms of what it says, not in terms of some extraBiblical and disputed document.

Again, remember that I am not a fan of the RCC. I simply believe wholeheartedly that confronting any religion on the basis of hearsay and theory is at least obfuscative and poor apologetics.


Revelation 13 (NASB) (I have removed footnote references to aid in reading)


The Beast from the Sea

1 And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.
2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority.
3 I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast;
4 they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?"
5 There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven.
7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear.
10 If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints.


The Beast from the Earth

11 Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon.
12 He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed.
13 He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men.
14 And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life.
15 And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.
16 And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,
17 and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.

 

[mioque]

The reasons my churches elders are a bit worried about me.

1. I'm not the only one in my church who went to university, I am however the only who studied something "guaranteed not to get you a job".
2. The last time I filled in for the couple that teaches our sundayschool (they were on vacation), I was asked to cover the last chapters of Mark. Not only did I bring up the notion that some of it was possibly written later, I also borrowed some (non-poisonous by the way) snakes from an old acquaintance...
3. That acquaintance is a holdover from my university days, when I ended up fighting along side in battles against the Dutch riotpolice (Mobiele Eenheid).
4. And let's not forget that one time I was supposed to deliver one of the lectures on the origins of the baptist movement as part of a studyday of Evangelical women on the subject. Mine was on the violent part of the ana-baptist movement culminating in the siege of Münster. A very juicy and relevant episode no doubt, but in retrospect maybe not what they were looking for.

 

[trying2understand]

Vicarius Filii Dei = 666 ?

Radicitus ridiculum!

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Posted by Mioque:
The original version of the Vicarius filii Dei myth originated with the Seven Day Adventists in the 2nd half of the 19th century.

Mioque's revisionism is a refreshing kind that is bold enough to come right out with a fallacy and hold it up as though "true".

Now - the "Catholic source" writing the "Donation of Constantine" in the 7th Century is "actually a 19th century Adventist".

How refreshing!

How original!

How down right "entertaining"!

I like it.

More -- please.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, you really need to "read more carefully".

Mioque said the "myth" originated with the SDA.

To be so smarmy, when you are so wrong, just looks "plain foolish".

 

[mioque]

I have finally gotten around to reading the article posted by Kamoroso.
The section one EYE-WITNESSES is the interesting one.

“During the Easter service of 1845, Pope Gregory XVI wore a triple crown upon which was the inscription, in jewels, Vicarius FiIii Dei. We were told that there were one hundred diamonds in the word Dei; the other words were of some other kind of precious stones of a darker color. There was one word upon each crown, and not all on the same line. I was present at the service, and saw the crown distinctly, and noted it carefully."

There are 2 problems with this statement.
First of all the tiara is never worn by the celebrant during churchservices. In fact in those days it was often worn exactly once by a pope during his 'term of office'. To be precise, during the ceremony that starts his reign.

Second problem.
There were only 4 tiara's in existance at the time.
One was an ad hoc creation quickly made by amateurs out of papier-mache, so that can't be it.
An other one is the first one shown on this page.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Tiara#List_of_Papal_Tiaras_still_in_existence
Number three was a gift from Napoleon to the pope. It was intentionally created to be impossible to actually wear. (Unless the pope in question has the headsize of a 4 year old).
The following link contains a photo of a replica of it.
http://www.crownminiatures.com/vatican-pillpot.html
Leaving number 4. Pope Clement VIII is wearing it in this mosaic.
http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/oz1435.html

 

[mioque]

“The inscription in question, was actually written over the door of the Vatican at Rome, in express Latin words and characters, as inserted in this publication, viz., VICARIVS FILII DEI; and those Latin words and characters contain Latin numerals to the amount of 666, exactly corresponding with the number of the beast."

This is probably the earliest version of the myth. The text is written on THE door of the Vatican. This makes one wonder what door is THE door

"The fact that some may have seen a crown at the Vatican which did not have the above inscription does not disprove the statements of the men who saw the crown that has the inscription; for according to a copyrighted news report from Milan, Italy, dated December 11, 1922, and published in the Des Moines (Iowa) Register, December 12, 1922, the pope has five crowns, the last one made being decked with two thousand precious stones."

Actually in 1922 the pope had 10 tiara's at the time, twice the number mentioned in the article.
This is the real problem of American anti-catholicism, nobody bothers to do real research.

 

[mioque]

And yet another link to the exhibition we are visiting.
http://www.prachtenpraalvandepaus.nl/downloads/en/en.pdf

 

[mioque]

I'm going to do something original, I'm doing Bob a favour.
You see before the 10th century u and v were the same letter. So yes Vicarius Filii Dei is the same as Vicarivs Filli Dei.

 

[Kamoroso]

Rev 13:1-2 1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

The first beast rises up out of the sea. Water, in prophetic symbolism, represents peoples and nations and tongues. "Rev 17:15 15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." This beast arises in the midst of multitudes, and nations and tongues.

Verse two says that the beast has different body parts from the leopard, the bear, and the lion. the dragon is the one who gives the beast his power and authority. The leopard, the bear, and the lion, are the same three animals that depicted beasts, or kingdoms in the book of Daniel. We know that these three beasts represented Babylon, Medo Persia, and Greece. The next major kingdom or power in the earth was Rome. The fourth beast of Daniel 7 was Rome, in both it's pagan and papal form. This first beast of Revelation is also Rome, for it rises out of these other nations, and tongues, and peoples that we already know to be the same as those in the book of Daniel 7.

The fourth beast of Daniel 7 was also dreadful and powerful. It also had ten horns just like this beast does. Verse 21 of Daniel seven says that the fourth beast made war with the saints and prevailed, so also this first beast in Rev. 13 is said to do the same," Rev 13:7 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindred's, and tongues, and nations."

Verse 20 of Daniel seven says that the fourth beast had a mouth that spoke very great things. So also the first beast of Rev. 13 has a mouth speaking great things," Rev 13:6 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven."

The fourth beast of Daniel seven also came out of the sea. This sea is a place of peoples, and nations, and tongues. It is what we now refer to as Europe. The fourth beast of Daniel was Rome, and as is made obvious by all of the similarities, the fourth beast of Daniel, and the first beast of Rev. 13 are one and the same. That is to say Rome, in her pagan and papal forms.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

[BobRyan]

Trying 2 Understand --
"Petrus in terris vicarius Filii Dei esse videtur constitutus, ita et Pontifices, qui ipsius principis apostolorum gerunt vices, principatus potestatem amplius quam terrena imperialis nostrae serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur, concessam a nobis nostroque imperio obtineant, eligentes nobis ipsum principem apostolorum vel eius vicarios firmos apud Deum esse patronos."

So either show how "Vicarius Filii Dei" adds up to 666 without changing the "u" to a "v", or just quietly drop it.

I can't believe you keep bringing up this "u" and "v" argument.

I thought Catholics were supposed to have "some history" regarding latin.

What am I missing? Must I continually be the one "stating the obvious"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since the shallow attempts continue to be made to the effect that the 7th century CATHOLIC authors of the The Donation of Constantine" -- A Genuinely Historic Document

(albeit genuinely CATHOLIC and not genuinely CONSTANTINIAN using Vicarius Filii Dei as a title for Peter and his successor)

- was in fact a myth authored by 19th century Adventist
(as if such a chronology could ever be plausible)
- I thought I would then quote some "more Adventists" of similar non-SDA ilk as those supposedly 19th-century-Adventist Catholics in the 7th Century.

:

It has been argued that the title of the popes should be reckoned according
to the Greek gematria, since John wrote in Greek, but since the title appears
in Latin, and Latin is the official language of the Church of Rome and the
language of its adopted Bible, the Vulgate, such a procedure would destroy the
numerical value of that title in its own language. It would seem reasonable
that a Latin title should exhibit its Latin numerical values rather than Greek
values.

Matthew Henry, Commentary, Vol. III, p. 1065, note on Revelation 13:18


"Representing numbers by letters of the alphabet gave rise to a practice
among the ancients of representing names also by numbers. Examples of this kind
abound in the writings of heathens, Jews, and Christians."

Adam Clarke, Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. II, p. 1025, note on
Revelation 13: 18.

"It was a method practiced among the ancients, to denote names by numbers:
as the name of Thouth or the Egyptian Mercury was signified by the number 1218.
. . . It hath been the usual method in all God's dispensations, for the Holy
Spirit to accommodate His expressions to the customs, fashions, and manners of
the several ages. since then this art and mystery of numbers was so much used
among the ancients, it is less wonderful that the beast also should have his
number, and his number is 666."

Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, Vol. II, p. 298, 299.

This is actually a lot more fun than I had anticipated thanks to the 19th-century-myth idea being promoted here.

Thanks again.

In Christ,

Bob