Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
I "suppose" we "could" consider them to be a "cult" if only they would...

Alright, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you believe the Catholic Church does all of the below.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
pray to their ancestors,

I am unaware of this practice, either in teaching or in practice. If it is practiced, therefore, it is against teaching.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
pray to their dead,

We pray to our dead? I don't think so, Bob. We pray FOR our beloved dead, but not TO them.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
pray to church leaders or prophets that have died,

No. We pray to those identified as saints, ie, those who are alive in Heaven, but not to just any church leader or "prophet."

Originally posted by BobRyan:
declare Ellen White to be "co-redemptrix" or "Queen of Heaven" or worship her by adoring her at her altars

Last I checked, Ellen White was not the mother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the most instrumental human creation of God in bringing about the cause of our salvation. I mean, Ellen White is a false prophet anyway. And, of course, co-redemptrix is not the same as redemptrix, Queen of Heaven is subordinate to the King of Heaven, and she is not worshipped or adored, unless you are imploying archaic meanings of the word that are rather veneration.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
or even making altars to their dead, their leaders etc.

Alters TO the dead, hmm? Nice try.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Or if they called their church leaders by the title "The Holy Father"

A title given by virtue of his office, not his person. Fundamental misunderstanding on your part, that it seems you will never relinquish in this lifetime.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
or if they practiced Bible Burning

Any Bibles that have ever been burned by the Church were errant version, which we shouldn't WANT to keep around!

Originally posted by BobRyan:
or if they made up things like "Indulgences" for the dead etc,

Oooh, Bob threw out a "key word" that "sounds scary and evil" to "incriminate" the Church without providing any kind of "proper understanding." Nice work.

That's like me saying "Baptists are a cult because they made up things like "alter calls." It's an unfounded and unsupported statement that I'd just be throwing out there.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
if they declared holy wars on opposing Christian denominations

Unspecific, at best. And the fact that you wrote "opposing Christian denominations" is quite telling, since Jesus prayed that we should all be as one...but you seem to think division is a great idea.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
or held to a denominational policy of "extermination" and refused even to this day to renounce such a horrible idea.

Oh really? Have you read Vatican II's document on religious freedom? I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and guess...NO. You are apparently incapable of understanding "context of the times."

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Or if they boldly declared that "Billy Graham himself would be burned at the stake if he preached then what he preaches today" speaking of some time when they were in the supposed majority.

Nice false quote, Bob. You are the master of libel. I didn't realize that Dr. Carroll is a "they." Brilliant logic. Just brilliant. Oh, and I forgot that he's the pope and makes infallible pronouncements for the Church. I guess I need to be studying like you, Bob, since you are on another plain of thinking.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
I 'suppose' if they did that you "might" consider them a cult.

I don't think you have the slightest idea of what the word even means.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
But then people are usually generous enough so that EVEN if a denomination goes to such extremes - they are still not regarded as a cult. (MAybe there needs to be a "line" that we as Christians will not cross).

Like having modern prophetesses and preaching on "Soul Sleep?" Oh my, the SDA is a cult! And according to your own thinking style, simply spouting that makes it so!

Try again.

 

[mioque]

I'm jealous of you Bob, somehow your posts are much better at soliciting responses than mine are . One of these days you must show me how you do that .
Still, tomorrow afternoon I'll post how the visit went down and afterwards I'll let this monstrosity of a thread die a merciful and long overdue death.

 

[mioque]

The great outing.

11.00 We arrive at the museum
The staff of this fine institution look a little shocked at the sight of 30 underage visitors.
The catharijne Convent is in the middle of a huge reorganization, so large sections of the museum are closed down. Many of the pupils are rejoicing at that bit of news.
11.05 I have great difficulty convincing anybody that the first tiara they see is a real one, it apparently doesn't look expensive enough. (and where are the words that are supposed to be on it)
11.10 me and the kids are on the whole suitably impressed by the grandeur of the items on display, everybody else thinks it is pompous kitsch.
11.15 Diane (7) is so impressed when I explain to her what a monstrans is for that she is ready to convert, the adults in our group are getting more nervous every minute.
11.20 we see one of the shoes of pope Leo XIII and find out that the heads of convents visiting the Vatican were supposed to kiss his foot.
11.25 one of the other tiara's in the exhibition is spotted, the one that looks like a spaceship.
Once again it is decided that it is not a real one. In a sense that is true, it is a replica of the original that can be seen in Washington D.C.
11.30 we get to see the hammer that is used to find out if the pope is truly dead (yes they hit him on the head with it if they need to find out)
11.35 the last tiara in the exhibition is finally found, according to the kids there can be no doubt it's the real one. No Vicarius Filii Dei on it alas. A small riot breaks out. I get blaimed ofcourse

11.50 I have relocated myself with some of the minors to a quieter section of the museum, there is a section where you can listen to fragments of sermons from famous Dutch preachers, but the replica of a Dutch living room from the 1950's one half filled with protestant furniture and items the other half filled with the Roman Catholic equivalent is considered more interesting.
11.55 the relic chamber, bits of dead saints wrapped in reliquaries, always fun.

12.00 I'm in the middle of telling the tale of how Leo XIII cocaine use influenced Rerum Novarum, when I hear we are leaving.
All in all I and the youngsters thought it was a successfull visit, sadly enough some of the grownups are less pleased and for some reason are blaming me

 

[BobRyan]

GraceSaves -- Alright, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you believe the Catholic Church does all of the below.

Correct.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
pray to their ancestors,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GraceSaves said --
I am unaware of this practice, either in teaching or in practice. If it is practiced, therefore, it is against teaching.

Why "sure" you are aware of it - you say as much in your comment below!!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
pray to their dead,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grace Saves said -- We pray to our dead? I don't think so, Bob. We pray FOR our beloved dead, but not TO them.

1Thess 4 calls them "the DEAD in Christ" who "have fallen asleep". And you DO pray to them as your own prayers show. The one TO St. Francis is quoted in this area of the board.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
pray to church leaders or prophets that have died,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grace Saves said --

No. We pray to those identified as saints, ie, those who are alive in Heaven, but not to just any church leader or "prophet."

Ahh "The DEAD in Christ" that Paul identifies in 1Thess 4. you admit you DO pray TO them.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
declare Ellen White to be "co-redemptrix" or "Queen of Heaven" or worship her by adoring her at her altars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grace Saves --
Last I checked, Ellen White was not the mother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ

Never said she was.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
or even making altars to their dead, their leaders etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GraceSaves said --
Alters TO the dead, hmm? Nice try.

Already quoted on this section - showing prayers TO Mary that speak of adoring her with incense on HER altars. Do you 'need it quoted again'?

In any case - you could consider coming into the light and leaving the dark ages with all its superstitions and practices borrowed from paganism - behind you.

I think you will like it. I encourage you - embrace the light - the Bible - the truth. It is very liberating and you will be surprised at how libedrating it is to leave supertition behind you.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

mioque said --
I'm jealous of you Bob, somehow your posts are much better at soliciting responses than mine are . One of these days you must show me how you do that .

Simple! Details. Follow the argument and follow the details. IF you really have more real "detail" that can hold up under review - than the opposing side - then all they have left is "ranting" (which of course is endless).

You see, "if" you actually "had" the details that could find no answer from them - then "ranting" would be the "Source" they would draw from - and that of course is endless.

In the case of Vicarius Filii Dei - you "needeD" to show that there is "NO" historic source/authority/endorsement by the RCC.

But instead of "Showing that" you merely show that the "detail" that AMONG the Tiaras you DO have access to - none of them uses the title. And the reponse of your critics (me being one)? "Detail ACCEPTED!".

But in answer to the "Detail" that the Donation of Constantine is reviewed and approved by NO LESS than 10 Popes - and IT provides a CATHOLIC historic source for the title -- your only reponse is "THAT CATHOLIC source is not a ROMAN EMPEROR" - a pointless "detail" if the ISSUE is "what was the CATHOLIC VIEW" not "What was the Roman Emperor's view".

So by your non-response - to the "detail" you leave that subject "alive and well".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

Bob
This thread was primarily intended to be about the sundayschool of my church visiting a certain museum, starting with the reason for that visit.
You basically hijacked my thread and turned it into a debate about the merits of a different version of the myth that made me arrange that visit.

 

[dumbox1]

Mioque,

I'm glad to hear that the visit to the museum went well!

If any of your kids want an "eyewitness description" of the tiara that's in Washington D.C., let me know. (No "Vicarius" on that one either ... and not very attractive, either.)

In Christ,

Mark

 

[mioque]

Mark we all saw a replica of the Washington D.C. one as it was part of the exhibition (we also saw a video of Paulus VI being crowned with it).
It is indeed an unusual specimen.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mioque:
Bob
This thread was primarily intended to be about the sundayschool of my church visiting a certain museum, starting with the reason for that visit.
You basically hijacked my thread and turned it into a debate about the merits of a different version of the myth that made me arrange that visit.

It never occurred to me that this thread was NOT about the historic evidence for the RC title "Vicarius Filii Dei".

Bob

 

[mioque]

Bob
I didn't mind you hijacking the thread, because that helped keep it going untill the day of the visit came along. To be honest I thought 666=icarius Filii Dei had basically died out and that our sundayschool teachers were simply using very oldfashioned material (they were, they used the tiara version and never even mentioned your 10 popes and the donation of Constantine version).

 

[BobRyan]

I readily agree that often times people use the WEAKEST link to make their case for 666 and ignore the STRONGEST one altogether. (As you have pointed out)

What actually happened is that people are turning a blind eye to historic CATHOLIC documents like "The Donation of Constantine" - with little or no "logic" to support them.

Efforts are made to obscure and ignore the clear teachings EVEN of the RCC itself as IT made them in the dark ages.

YET - scripture speaks to that 2000 year history of the Christian church - and for those who choose to leave their eyes open - EVEN a subject like this - is full of meaning.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is not very "logical" to say "ignoring the word of 10 popes and historic documents such as the Donation of Constantine --- we find no existing Tiaras with the tital Vicarius Filii Dei available to us today so stop appealing to that fact of history recorded by other sources".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

Bob
You do realize that a descriptive phrase for one person used in one supposedly non-churchdocument, that later turns out to be a forgery is not a very solid basis for a name that has to apply to a lineage of people? Those 10 popes endorsed the political claims of the document not every turn of phrase in the text. They never added Vicarius Filii Dei to the list of official pope titles, despite the fact that the Donation of Constantine would be the perfect excuse to do so. The related title vicarius Christi applied to every bishop in Christianity untill the pope reserved it for him self centuries after the Donation was written.

Getting back to the tiara's for a minute I'm something of an expert on those, they are very well documented items, I've seen all those that survived after Napoleon's plundering of the Vatican and the earliest date of an eyewitness account seeing Vicarius Filii Dei on a tiara is takes place decades after Napoleon did his thing.
To quote you.
" AMONG the Tiaras you DO have access to - none of them uses the title. "
I have had access to all of them.

 

[BobRyan]

To put your point in a much more revealing way that perhaps will help expose the flaw in your statement above ...

Miogue said -- You do realize that a descriptive phrase for one person used in one supposedly non-churchdocument, that later turns out to be --a CHURCH document forged BY the church FOR the CHURCH so that its ONLY significance is that IT DOES represent the CHURCh and not the NON-CHURCH source it was supposed to have been h -- is not a very solid basis for a name -- that the CHURCH would have for ITS popes

No I guess I do not see your point SINCE the supposedly NON-CHURCH document turns out to BE a church document BOTH in ORIGIN and in ENDORESEMENT at the HIGHEST levels of the catholic church.

IF you had made the more logical and "consistent" argument that this NO LONGER can be used to represent the non-CHURCH views of Emperor Constantine - I would agree in a heartbeat.

But the non-sensical statement that it can not be used to represent its TRUE Authors and its TRUE historic endorses - is merely the wrong-headed (and obviously silly ) attempts that have been tried in recent years to deal with that historic document.

Why is that obvious point so hard to understand for our Catholic friends?

Somebody please spell that one out. Why is their wrong-headed approach so quickly swallowed on this one?

Mioque said --
Those 10 popes endorsed the political claims of the document not every turn of phrase in the text. They never added Vicarius Filii Dei to the list of official pope titles, despite the fact that the Donation of Constantine would be the perfect excuse to do so.

Is it really your claim that you HAVE all artifacts from the 9th century on??


Is it "really" your claim that the FORGED document authored BY Catholics FOR Catholics - contained titles for the Pope that Catholics REJECT?

Is it "really" your claim that the Popes themselves EVER pointed to ANYTHING in the content of the document as "objectionable" or "not true"??

Is it "really" your claim that the VERY HEART of the document is NOT in the TITLEs and Priviledges given to Peter that are EXTENDED to his successors and that THEREFORE they SHOULD be given that SAME right of ownership as the CLAIMS that are made for PETER (the key and central one being VICARIUS FILII DEI)??. Have you read the document?

There is no question today that Vicarius Christi was ALSO used and commonly accepted AND that the RCC would have seen NO DIFFERENCE between Jesus as CHRIST and Jesus as The Son of God. So the argument "YES Christ but NEVER the Son of God" would NEVER have held true At ANY point in history.

Mioque
Getting back to the tiara's for a minute I'm something of an expert on those, they are very well documented items, I've seen all those that survived after Napoleon's plundering of the Vatican

But when dealing with a 7-9th century document - you exhaustive list comes way too late to be "conclusive" on "what they had" then.

AND - given that it was a forged document that was DESIGNED to be "ACCEPTED" by those alive at the time - rather than REJECTED OUTRIGHT (and given that it's history shows great success in that regard) and GIVEN that NNE ever questioned the CONTENT of the document, AND given that the RCC itself EVEN argued AFTER finding it to be forged that the CONTENTS ARE STILL TRUE and should be relied upon -- how in the world can youd "suppose" that it is the CONTENTS that are in fact most objectionable to the Catholic church?

Your assumptions are not supported by what you claim to have as "evidence".

Mique said -- and the earliest date of an eyewitness account seeing Vicarius Filii Dei on a tiara is takes place decades after Napoleon did his thing.
To quote you.
" AMONG the Tiaras you DO have access to - none of them uses the title. "
I have had access to all of them.

Wrong by your OWN statement you ONLY have access to some group that survived many centuries AFTER the Donation was written AND EVEN THEN - you have no reason to believe that the Vatican is sharing with you - MORE than it shared the "secret files" with the blue ribbon study group on the subject of atrocities in the dark ages.

Any church that has an open policy of "secret files that its OWN scholars are not allowed to see" can not be considered to have a policy of "FULL disclosure".

You simply "assume" too much AND ignore the historic compelling evidence.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

"You simply "assume" too much AND ignore the historic compelling evidence."

Being a historian twice myself, I'm a decent judge of what is compelling historical evidence.

Once more with feeling.
The earliest account of Vicarius Filii Dei on a tiara dates back to after Napoleon plundered the Vatican. All tiara's that either survived or where created after that attack still exist.
They are stored in the Papal sacristy in the Vatican. The sole exception being the one on public display in Washington D.C. (I saw that one about a decade ago).
I got a private tour of the Papal sacristy by the Dutch Augustine monk that was the caretaker of the sacristy together with the head of the Jesuit order (also a Dutch citizen), because I had done a couple of favors for the latter and I was there as his guest. I was there as a simple tourist who was getting a treat from his influential host.
I've seen the lot.
Now if you want to convince anybody that there ever was a tiara with you know what on it. You have to either find an account or a picture with the offending text placed on a papal tiara dated to the 1800's or earlier.
Shouldn't be to hard. Good luck

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mioque:

Once more with feeling.
The earliest account of Vicarius Filii Dei on a tiara dates back to after Napoleon plundered the Vatican. All tiara's that either survived or where created after that attack still exist.

Once more - hoping you will pay attention to the historic "details".

The CATHOLIC document -- The Donation of Constantine - was authored CENTURIES BEFORE Napoleon was born.

The POPES that ENDORSED that document lived - CENTURIES BEFORE Napoleon was born.

The tiaras YOU have seen are ALL many CENTURIES AFTER the Donation of Constantine was authored.

(Is any of this sinking in???)

The Vatian ADMITS that IT HAS secret documents that ITs OWN SCHOLARS have not seen. (see the thread on the RCC exterminating). So when YOU claim that the RCC is an organization practicing "full disclosure" your claims are "dubious" EVEN for artifacts AFTER Napoleon lived.

Mioque
I got a private tour of the Papal sacristy by the Dutch Augustine monk that was the caretaker of the sacristy together with the head of the Jesuit order (also a Dutch citizen), because I had done a couple of favors for the latter and I was there as his guest. I was there as a simple tourist who was getting a treat from his influential host.

At BEST (if we ignored the practice of SECRET files already published as fact by the Vatican) - you COULD have seen those existing MANY CENTURIES too LATE for relevance to the discussion but you have NOT seen those AT THE TIME or even within 3 centuries of the writing of the Donation of Constantine -- so your "research" is a bit late.

Mioque
I've seen the lot.

And Elvis?

Mioque --
Now if you want to convince anybody that there ever was a tiara with you know what on it. You have to either find an account or a picture with the offending text placed on a papal tiara dated to the 1800's or earlier.

Again - your approach is historically "backward". The point is the CATHOLIC document and CATHOLIC endorsement of the title LONG BEFORE the 18th century that you claim to have had exhaustive access to (if we were gullible enough to swallow that).

Your "claim" that no artififact will be found earlier than the ones you saw - is "wishfull thinking" but not "proof" of anything.

Given that we HAVE a historic document - AUTHORED by the Catholic church that DENIES your assertion that such a title could not exist before Napoleon's day - your argument here seems to have been void before it got started.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

Bob
I know Napoleon came after Dark Ages.
You have a document. Now you have to link the text in the document to the tiara's. This is actually important, because it would proof the title was actually used.
Let's face it. All you have now is one document, that contains a claim that a bunch of popes* found conveniant.
You have a gap of many centuries between the Donation and the earliest known report of Vicarius Filii Dei on a tiara.


*Could you do me a favor and give me a list of those 10 popes?


"Given that we HAVE a historic document - AUTHORED by the Catholic church that DENIES your assertion that such a title could not exist before Napoleon's day - your argument here seems to have been void before it got started."
I deny the existance of reports placing the text on the tiara prior to ca. 1830. I don't claim the title can't have existed. I also claim having seen all tiara's still in existance in the year 1800 and all the ones created later.

By the way, do you think we are setting some kind of record? Longest lasting thread on the BB.

 

[BobRyan]

You have a document. Now you have to link the text in the document to the tiara's. This is actually important, because it would proof the title was actually used.

Wrong "again".

The Donation of Constantine was not "given the title by some anti-Catholic". Rather the document was authored by Catholics FOR Catholics. We do "need them to ALSO plaster the titles on the tiaras" before we are allowed to read and accept their terms as real terms really accepted by those that read the document.

The Catholic Authors of the "Donation" did not claim that the title was ALSO available on the local Roman Tiara.

So even if we DO uncover a tiara BEFORE the late 18th century with the Vicarius Filii Dei title on it - it does not make the Donation "any better" - cause it already STANDs as a Catholic document known and read by laity and leadership alike for centuries.

Mioque --
Let's face it. All you have now is one document, that contains a claim that a bunch of popes* found conveniant.

Known as "the smoking gun".

All YOU have is the determined effort to IGNORE historic Catholic documents PREDATING your own "non-findings" of the late 18th century.

Basically your "argument" is not compelling.

Bob said --
"Given that we HAVE a historic document - AUTHORED by the Catholic church that DENIES your assertion that such a title could not exist before Napoleon's day - your argument here seems to have been void before it got started."

Mioque said --
I deny the existance of reports placing the text on the tiara prior to ca. 1830. I don't claim the title can't have existed.

Congratulations!

Mioque--

I also claim having seen all tiara's still in existance in the year 1800 and all the ones created later.

Why? The RCC has already delcared itself NOT to be in the business of "full disclosure" hiding "secret documents" from even ITS OWN theologians (as was noted on the thread about extermination and the Vatican's panel).

So what makes you think you have seen all they have? What would give your claim credibility?

The fact that whatever they are hiding from you - they are also hiding from me?

What is your "logic"?

mioque

By the way, do you think we are setting some kind of record? Longest lasting thread on the BB.

o

Well we are given them a run for their money!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

"So what makes you think you have seen all they have?"
Because I trust my friend Hans, because I have no reason to mistrust the sacrista (the keeper of the papal sacristy) mgr. van Lierde, because I saw no funny beehive shaped open spaces in the thoroughly filled cabinets of the sacristy, because I know the Vatican bureacracy (I did some research for both my doctorates in Vatican City) and I usually know when, how and why they are stonewalling.

"What would give your claim credibility?"
I told you what would give your claim credibility, please return the favor.

I am by the way still interested in those 10 popes of yours.

"The fact that whatever they are hiding from you - they are also hiding from me?"
In the mind of the run of the mill inhabitant of Vatican City, you are a Seven Day Adventist, a member of a branch of Christianity known for it's rabid hatred of most other branches of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.
I on the other hand am a baptist, just like Martin Luther King...

"What is your "logic"?"
1. Papal tiara's are highly visible and as actual physical items have been in use from +/- 710 untill 13 november 1964. That's a 1200+ year period.
2. In those 1200 years a great many texts about tiara's, replica's of tiara's, items featuring tiara's, pictures of tiara's and ofcourse tiara's itself have been created.
3. Much of the material mentioned in point 2 was never even in the hands of the Catholic Church.
4. A coverup is only possible if you have control of the information you want to hide.
5. During the Reformation, large numbers of Protestants came to the conclusion the pope was the Anti-Christ. A significant amount of the material, mentioned in point 2 was created by men supporting the Reformation. The tiara's featured in this material never have Vicarius Filii Dei.
7. First mention of Vicarius Filii Dei on a tiara? Eyewitness-accounts published in the USA during the 19th century by the SDA's. Eyewitness-accounts that claim they saw Vicarius Filii Dei on the tiara after Napoleon had plundered the Vatican.
8. The Vatican sources of what tiara's they have and when they received them line up perfectly with the non-church sources on the tiara's. You see, the pope doesn't visit a jeweler and order a tiara. All the Papal tiara's still in existance are gifts.

 

[BobRyan]

The RCC has already stated that it is keeping secrets from ITS OWN top theologians. It is saying that it is NOT in the business of FULL disclosure "So what makes you think you have seen all they have in ALL ages or EVEN in the ages following Napoleon?"

Originally posted by mioque:
Because I trust my friend Hans, because I have no reason to mistrust the sacrista (the keeper of the papal sacristy) mgr. van Lierde

As I am sure all the Vatican's theologians do and STILL the Vatican OPENLY claims SECRET files that THEY have not seen.

Is any of this sinking in?

In other words the BEST you can get is to believe "based on your own friendship" that he has told you all HE knows - and "maybe" you could convince me he had done that - "after enough time".

But that changes nothing when the salient points are:

The RCC says it is keeping secrets from it's own.

The Catholic document AFFIRMING the title - PREDATES all of your late 18th century non-findings of a tiara that ALSO contains the title.

mioque -- because I know the Vatican bureacracy (I did some research for both my doctorates in Vatican City) and I usually know when, how and why they are stonewalling.

ahhh - the illusive and yet long sought after "Vatican truth dector" is found at last. You "instinctively know" if the secrets they claim they are not telling you - are one of these tiaras.

Wonderful!

Why didn't I think of that before??

I see it now clearly.

Hold it -- you started using logic...

Mioque said --
[1. Papal tiara's are highly visible and as actual physical items have been in use from +/- 710 untill 13 november 1964. That's a 1200+ year period.

Hmmm - and you have ALL the tiaras from ALL 1200 centuries??

OR (by contrast) you have seen SOME of those tiara! ONLY from among those that survived the French attacks of the late 18th century!!

hmmm Now "Which was it"???? Let me think.

Oh yes! I remember now.

Mioque said --
4. A coverup is only possible if you have control of the information you want to hide.
5. During the Reformation, large numbers of Protestants came to the conclusion the pope was the AntiChrist. A significant amount of the material, mentioned in point 2 was created btement supporting the Reformation.

The term "AntiChrist" applied to the Pope was NOT something invented by Martin Luther. RATHER the Popes said that about EACH OTHER BEFORE Luther considered that as an option.

And the RCC had FULL control NOT only of RC church documents BUT ALSO of civil authorities - libraries and records. IT CLAIMS to have held control to a more perfect extent that the pagan Roman empire.

And as you continue to say "tiaras STILL in existence" -- a continual reminder that you know full well you have NOT seen all there have been in history.

In Christ,

Bob