Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.

[mioque]

"And WHY all those obtuse conditions? You claim that they must be met -- IN ORDER for the EXISTING historic Catholic documents that PREDATE the French revolution to be true when THEY speak of the title listed on this thread. You say that these strange obtuse conditions must be met IN ORDER for the 10 Popes AFFIRMING that document to have actually KNOWN what it said and understood that it was declaring the Vicarius Filii Dei title to be ACCEPTED by Catholics as a "given".
A more absurd argument could hardly be made - and yet you "stick to it" as though "it makes sense"."
Bob
You have one document, that is quoted and endorsed a number of times and that contains a phrase that might grow into a title. But there is no outside evidence it ever did. In fact a competing title with the same content was adopted.
You have some 19th century stories that claim that the phrase is the name of the Beast of Revelations, using a form of pseudonumerology that only works if you use a different language than what the book was written in. Those same 19th century stories place the phrase on a tiara during that same century, we know that isn't true. Because those crowns still exist.
That's it. No texts, items or pictures dating back before the 1800's place VFD on any tiara's or make the claim 666=VFD. Despite the fast amount of Anti-Catholic material still in existance that can be dated to before 1800.

"Your only "help" here has been that your Catholic bretheren ignore the "details" and simply look for "yada-yada-something-bad-about--the-RCC" to oppose. They join you - in their classic rejection of "the details" - but that is hardly to your credit."
On the other hand, one could say that everybody who supported your side of the argument jumped on the bandwagon for the same reason. They just happen to be anti-Catholic instead of pro-Catholic.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
"And WHY all those obtuse conditions?

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

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

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

Mioque said --

Bob
You have one (ancient, historic, catholic) document, that is quoted and endorsed a number of times (by the highest Catholic authority - its Popes) and that contains a phrase (the VERY phrase in question here) that might grow into a title (but quotes it AS fully accepted by Catholics).

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

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

Mioque said --
But there is no outside evidence it ever did.

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

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

Mioque said --
In fact a competing title with the same content was adopted.

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

Mioque said --
You have some 19th century stories that claim that the phrase is the name of the Beast of Revelations, using a form of pseudonumerology that only works if you use a different language than what the book was written in.

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

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

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

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

That entire line of reasoning - is silly.

Mioque -- Those same 19th century stories place the phrase on a tiara during that same century, we know that isn't true. Because those crowns still exist.
That's it.

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

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

#1. No such agency exists.

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

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

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

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

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

Mioque said --
On the other hand, one could say that everybody who supported your side of the argument jumped on the bandwagon for the same reason. They just happen to be anti-Catholic instead of pro-Catholic.

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

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

That is hardly applaudable.

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

How sad that you should feel compelled to go there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[trying2understand]

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

One of those sticky little details, Bob.

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

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

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

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

 

[mioque]

Bob
"You have one document, that is quoted and endorsed a number of times and that contains a phrase that might grow into a title. But there is no outside evidence it ever did. In fact a competing title with the same content was adopted."
"Outside "What?"."
There is no mention of VFD outside the context of the Donation of Constantine, all those other RC documents contain direct quotes of the Donation. There is no use of VFD as a title the way Pontifex Maximus, Vicarius Christi and servant of the servants of God are used.

"In fact a competing title with the same content was adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------
There is NO record of ANY Pope that USED that document - EVER saying that CHRIST is NOT the SON of God or that a Title that references CHRIST is competing/contrary/exclusive to a Title that references "The Son of God". You NEED such a statement of "clear contradiction" to make your case - and you have none."
There are however thousands of official churchdocuments using the title Vicarius Christi as a title as opposed to VFD that shows up less than 20 times, each time as a quotation of the first document and each time VFD refers to Peter and not to the person who was the current pope when the document was written.

 

[mioque]

"Those who ADMIT to the existence of the title in the Donation of Constantine, who ADMIT that this is a CATHOLIC document - not an SDA document,"
Once again nobody on this thread claimed the Donation was a SDA document. All those eyewitness accounts placing VFD on a tiara are SDA documents. And all of those accounts are completely fraudulent.

"who ADMIT that it has Papal endorsement"
past tense.

"who ADMIT that the document argues the title AS IF it is ALREADY accepted by the Catholic empire"
Remember Bob it is a forgery

"- are simply ADMITTING to the DETAILS of history."

Try finding a serious historian who agrees with you.

 

[mioque]

"and that it is CATHOLIC sources that are the OLDEST and most WIDELY available showing its origin."
Most widely available are those 19th century SDA created forgeries not that one used by the RCC during the middle ages.

"#2. The ROMAN numbering system using LATIN names is FULLY consistent AND was IN practice IN the first century when John was writing to people UNDER the ROMAN rule. This is very much CONTEXT specific and context appropriate. Nothing outside the box in seeing ROMAN system used by readers in the ROMAN empire."
Except that the text was written in and adressed to places within that part of the empire that used Greek not Latin as it's language (details Bob). And ofcourse Roman numerals were used for crunching numbers and not for numerology.

Me -- "Those same 19th century stories place the phrase on a tiara during that same century, we know that isn't true. Because those crowns still exist.
That's it."
---------------------------------------------------------------
"IF we could conclude that the RCC WAS divulging ALL artifacts in the form of mitre's and tiara's that it had in its possession at the time of the 19th century AND we did not find the title on any one of them - we certainly could conclude that any story claiming a 19th century tiara with that title on it existed - did not exist."
Nonsense, you would be forced to conclude that those stories were forgeries, not that they did not exist!

"But obviously that is a "big if". And it would not be something we could rely upon UNLESS a licensed outside auditor conducted the search and had "believable" access to ALL RCC archives. "
Let's face it the moment such a hypothetical auditor showed up, you would claim he was a Roman Catholic mole.

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

"The case could not BE worse for the kind of argument you are pursuing."
Well if there were thousands of paintings out there, created between the start of the Dark Ages and 1964 all with popes with tiara's that say Vicarius Filii Dei, that would be a worst case scenario. That not being the case makes my argument very compelling to most people.

"And - your argument has no bearing on the title in general - since the Catholic document "Donation of Constantine" is already available independant of any claims/arguments you make here. "
And all those other documents&items you would normally use to prove your case don't exist.
If I wanted to use Roman numerals to point an accusing finger at the pope, I would be using a real papal title like Servus Servorum Dei and not something never used to address a pope.

 

[mioque]

trying2understand
Nice of you to drop by.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by mioque:
trying2understand
Nice of you to drop by.

Why, thank you.

It's nice to be here.

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

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mioque:
[QB] "Those who

--ADMIT to the existence of the title in the Donation of Constantine,

-- who ADMIT that this is a CATHOLIC document - not an SDA document,"

"who ADMIT that it has Papal endorsement"
past tense.

"who ADMIT that the document argues the title AS IF it is ALREADY accepted by the Catholic empire"
Remember Bob it is a forgery

"- are simply ADMITTING to the DETAILS of history."

Mioque said

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

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

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

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

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

it sound like ...

Well I guess we both know how funny it sounds.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

""who ADMIT that the document argues the title AS IF it is ALREADY accepted by the Catholic empire"
Remember Bob it is a forgery"
Forged by people who wanted the pope to have the right to crown the next Roman emperor. So that would be either, the Church, or the Franks doing the forging in this case.


Now those eyewitness accounts, were forged mid-19th century by the SDA. Also a forgery, different forgers, different reasons.

 

[trying2understand]

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

Posted by trying2understand:
One of those sticky little details, Bob.

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

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

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

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

Bumped for Bob Ryan.

 

[mioque]

trying2understand
"Our friend, Bob, is an "interesting" fellow, isn't he?"
Interesting indeed.
Where I am from, you don't find many people who cling so tenaciously to the products of 19th century xenophobia.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Originally posted by mioque:

Remember Bob it is a forgery"

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

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

Forged by people who wanted the pope to have the right to crown the next Roman emperor. So that would be either, the Church, or the Franks doing the forging in this case.

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

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

Care to have another shot at it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

Posted by trying2understand:
One of those sticky little details, Bob.

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

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

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

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

T2U --
To be a "successor of Peter" is not necessarily to be a "sucessor of all the titles of Peter".

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

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

But that would be "the details".

T2U said --

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

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

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

Happy to oblige.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

Bob
"And since it is THEY that came up with that title - long before the first SDA stepped foot on the planet - your efforts to revise history and stand it on it head - seem doomed from the start.
Care to have another shot at it?"
Placing that 'title' on the tiara is a SDA fabrication. Having that 'title' in common use is a SDA fabrication.
Linking that 'title' to 666 is a SDA fabrication.
For a church without political cloud that has been around for less than 2 centuries, they have done quite a lot of lying, with very little incentive except for spite, xenophobia and laziness.

 

[trying2understand]

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

Nothing but transparent and pathetic spinning.

The Donation applied the title to Peter and Peter alone.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So my question to you, which really does deserve an answer is: Would you say that Peter is the person refered to by the number 666 since the offending title was originally and (to my knowledge) soley applied to him?

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

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

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mioque:
Bob
"And since it is THEY that came up with that title - long before the first SDA stepped foot on the planet - your efforts to revise history and stand it on it head - seem doomed from the start.
Care to have another shot at it?"

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

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

Placing that 'title' on the tiara is a SDA fabrication. Having that 'title' in common use is a SDA fabrication.

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

Mioque
Linking that 'title' to 666 is a SDA fabrication.

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

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

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

Bobryan responds --

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

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

GraceSaves said --
Thanks Bob. Based on your own reasoning, none of the Pope's before the Donation of Constantine nor after it can be used

True - if they are NOT Catholic.

But since the Donation of Constantine IS a Catholic Document.

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

Since the Popes ARE Catholic.

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

Your red herring - must swim alone.

Have another shot at it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

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

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

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

In Christ,

Bob