vicarivs filii dei

That is because we don't subscribe to such superstitious nonsense, Bob! Such numerology has been discounted, including this nonsense that there is a special "bible code" that contains messages, which can be demonstrated as well by using any city phone directory!

Actually, there is really no difference between caling the pope either way. The problem is, the first construct is false simply to derive the famous "666" which cannot be done with his real title, "Vicar of Christ."

Did you see my post earlier in this thread? Please go back and read it...

Claimed what, that such a title would be plausable, but then later on, found that it was a construct to force the numerology?

See link at the end of this reply...

Documentation please.

Actually, what I found was a concerted effort to slander the Church by false accusations, including forgeries!

Actually, I was going to ignore this whole thread, until I read your message here!

An interesting read for you:

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

Is is the "wascally ole' Catholic Church" trying to wiggle out of the "facts," as some claim?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Gloria in excelsis Deo"

(Intoned by the celebrant of the Mass.)

(The choir response.)

Et in terra pax homininus
bone voluntatis
Laudamus te
Benedicimus te
Adoramus te
Glorificamus te,
Gratias agimus tibi propter
magnum gloriam tuum.
Domine Deus, Rex Coelestis,
Deus Pater omnipotens
Domine Fili unigenite
Jesu Christe Domine Deus
Agnus Dei Filius Patris
Qui tollis peccata mundi
miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi,
suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dexteramPatris,
miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus,
Tu solus Dominus
Tu solus Altissimus
Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu
in gloria Dei Patris
Amen.

- The Ambrosian Gloria -


http://www.solesmes.com/sons/gloria.ram

(Real monks chanting....)


Gregorian Chant - God's music!

 

Bill,

Should have made your point with the document -

Instead it only confirms what I have stated (and how could it do any other?)

Notice what your own source said of this document crafted by the Catholic church between the 7th and 9th century


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


Your document - goes on to show the various sources that endorsed the "donation" in centuries prior to 1440.

Case closed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Isn't it "odd" that the RC position on this thread is "at times" some of the following?

#1. We don't care about "Calculating the number of his name" it seems silly to us and we pay no attention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So that would be ..
Rev 13:18
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.


hmmm do you really think God's Word means..

either the name of the beast or the number of his name.[/b]
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.

Ahhh I get it. Its the old "Hey mahn we don't need no stinking Rev 13 telling US what to do"



quote:Bob says of the RC posts so far
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2. We are shocked that anyone would accuse us of ever endorsing "Vicar of the Son of God" for the Popes since they are absolutly NOT that - they are the "Vicar of Christ".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed. Those sources prior to the 15th century quoting the Donation of Constantine had NO REASON AT ALL to object to the title it CLAIMED everyone was using.

I see - but if you want to claim that "you pay no attention to that anyway" how is it a problem?


quote:Bob says of the RC posts so far
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only really anti-Catholic people would accuse us of ever doing such a thing. No loving Catholic would.

#3. OOPS the editors of Our Sunday Visitor claimed it - but we got them to take it back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No - the Article did not say "would be plausible".

However YOU have admitted "there is NO DIFFERENCE" so in fact - I suppose they "Could" have said "would be plausible" and STILL fit with your OWN statement here.

But that is not what they claimed. THEY CLAIMED it was engraved on the Pope's Mitre instead of using the words "Plausible" and instead of LATER discovering that that might have some risk when seen by non-Catholics -- here is the quote THEY give.

Are you following this so far?

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob says of the RC posts so far
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooops - The RCC Authored this again in ITs OWN creation "the Donation of Constantine" - please pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure enough the link at the end DID show that this document - authored by the Catholic church was used by it over a period of about 5 centuries with undeniable Papal use no later than the 11th and 12th centuries.

I assume you just wanted to get that fact "rock solid"?

quote: Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OOPs - the content of that document was relied upon by the RCC for centuries - and used by no less than 10 Popes to argue their case in court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again - trying to make sure we have the RCC Encylopedia's quote here?


quote:Bob claims the RCC posts - claim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How non-Catholic of all of them!"

#4. Anyone that notices the historic pattern here - and begins to put 2-and-2 together instead of "ignoring the skeleton in the closet" is not a friend of Catholics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the RCC makes up the document and USES the document - and "How Dare non-catholics see that! and how Dare non-Catholics observe HOW it was used and WHAT that would mean about recent RC claims to the contrary".

I think I get it.


quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just wondering if anyone else noticed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glad you decided to join.

Your document is very helpful It has some of the best material on this subject yet!



In Christ,

Bob

 

So revisionism seeks to bait-and-switch and "imagine" that instead of this title being carefully crafted INTO the Donation of Constanting BY the RCC and USED over a period of 8 centuries by no less than 10 popes IT was REALLY a NEW title thunk up by "anti-Catholics" in the 20th century!

Yep! We go for that!

In Christ,

Bob

 

So anti-Catholics like Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion, have INVENTED a NEW title for the Pope, Vicar of the Son of God (Vicarius Filii Dei) because those letters do add up to the number of the beast.

?????????/



And those innocent old forgers of the document Donation of Constantine and those 10 popes all fell for the trick of anti-Catholics who invented a NEW title???

And then the editors of Our Sunday Visitor started believing in those mean old anti-Catholics for a minute there. ??

It's just a big conspiracy by anti-Catholics that goes back about 12 centuries!! Those mean old anti-Catholics!!! What will we do with them!!

Lets ask them to stop inventing NEW titles that the RCC must then adopt for CENTURIES and have no less than ten of her popes endorse!!

I am with you on this one!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Reading through your replies to my last message had me realize that you did indeed, recognise the Donations of Constantine a forgery. It serves me right not to look throughly through this thread to notice that. I am rather late in coming into this thread.

But there is something that you repeat time and time again, that "10 popes" used this forged documents to their advantage. So far, I count only two (from the original link I provided) being Leo IX and Urban II. Other popes, it seems, may have taken the document for granted. A close read of the discussion from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia does not paint such a grim picture you have portrayed so far. Therefore, your hysterics over how good this link makes your case falls flat. It does nothing of the kind, sir!

Finally, if you clain that the "Catholic Church perpetuated the forgery" (in so many words) why then the discovery of the false nature by at least two Catholic clergy?

Or will you make the assertion that "The Catholic Church knew the jig was up" so let it be refuted. Would that be your position, sir?

But I am getting a bit ahead of myself...

The problem is, did these popes know it was a forgery and referred to them deliberately or innocently in assuming it was valid? Popes are not infallible in that they can discern between an authentic document and one that is forged, Bob, so please don't make the claim that their "use" or possible "accepting at face value" an infallible declaration that the document is true and valid. Papal infallibility is far more restictive, which I may explain sometimes.

In any case, could you please document those "10 Popes" you keep talking about? Also, please put some meat on your assertion that the "Catholic Church perpetuated" this forgery, as you seem to imply.

I will ignore the rest of your post, noting that there are so many other good refutations in the thread that I need not repeat here, as I get the sense that the thread is nearly through anyway.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

 

You can not establish your point about a document about which "NO one had ANY doubt" according to yuor OWN source - for over 700 years - with the "other popes may have taken the document for granated".

Those two statements are hard to swallow even by Catholic standards.


The Donation of Constantine is cited in writing by no less than 10 Popes as proof of their civil authority and sovereignty over Rome, and what came to be known as the Papal States, which included a large portion of Italy. It was eventually exposed as a pious fraud in 1440 by ~Laurentius Valla who proved it had to have been written several centuries after the death of Constantine (337 A.D.)

The RCC forged the Document, they crafted the language and there was "NO DOUBT" about accepting the document until the 15th century AND we have WRITTEN promotion of the Document from no less than 10 Popes.

You argue that if only TWO Popes affirmed "What NOBODY DOUBTED" during that time - that the CASE about the document fails in showing it to be an accurate reflection of what they were fully ACCEPTING in those centuries. But your argument falls flat when even you must admit to papal promotion and your own documents admit NOBODY doubted the document in those 7 or 8 centuries.

As for the Catholic Encylopedia minimalizing the evidence -- Admittedly - they seem to severly restrict the evidence.

On the contrary - you admit papal acceptance and your own source DENIES that there was ANY DOUBT at all about accepting the document until the 15th century. It is therefore YOUR case that falls flat.

Nope.

My position is that the RCC created the document -carefully crafted the wording to be fully accepted
(and its success is measured by the 10 popes and 15th century duration period). It therefore reveals what THEY THOUGHT was the MOST acceptable positioning for the Papacy. The perfidy of the authors is not the point. NOR is it my point that the Popes that used the document knew their own church had forged the document. My point is that they NEW OF ITS CONTENT AND they endorsed it.

Instead of standing back with shocked face saying "HEY some Anti-Catholic must have invented a NEW title for the Pope here" - they themselves PROMOTED the document to support their own claims to civil power.

Again - red herring!

The document's value is in the clear and undeniable fact that its CONTENTS were clearly known and read. The argument that the RCC seeks to make today is that the CONTENTS (regarding the title for Peter) would ONLY BE acceptable to an ANTI-CATHOLIC seeking to MAKE UP that Title for the Pope.

The document is therefore devastating to that RC argument.

This is simply a rabbit trail you have come up with. There is no emphasis AT ALL on successive users of the document "thinking it was a fake".

The point is that the CONTENT of the document was easily "read" by the successor. IF they were supposedly "adverse" to the CONTENTS (as the RCC claims today when the topic of Vicarius Filii Dei comes up) they would take the same "anti-Catholics did this" approach to it SINCE they supposedly would view that TITLE as utterly false and NOT an accepted title for Peter OR for his successors (as the modern RC tactic has been suggesting).

This document is not only AUTHORED by RCC sources its CONTENTS were cleaverly crafted for maximum acceptance and clearly "promoted" IN WRITING by the Papacy. The success of that initial venture is measured by the fact that the Catholic Encyclopedia admits the document was "NOT doubted by ANYONE" prior to the 15th century.

Impossible to escape or obfuscate. The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

[ June 15, 2003, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

It amazes me that after 2000 years the gates of hell are still trying to prevail. And in their minds they think they have proven the Catholic Church wrong. That is the only place anything has been "proven".

 

Ummm...Thes:

It ain't the Catholic Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against.
There were already churches established when Jesus issued that popular
statement that Catholics claim as pointing His finger at them. Why would
Jesus have had the apostles establish beginning churches only to intend
their demise with the appointment of yet another church (Catholic) ??

 

What amazes me is that Jesus said those words to Peter when he was in Caesarea Philippi, a town just north of the Sea of Galilee, no where near Rome. In fact there is no evidence that Peter spent any appreciable amount of time in Rome at all. Legend has it that he may have died there. That's about all.
As far as there being a church in Rome?? Well, Paul writes to one. But it had nothing to do with Peter. It no doubt met in the house of Aquilla and Priscilla.

Rom.16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

But there are others mentioned in Romans 16 that had churches in their houses also.
As time went on, and persecution intensified, the Roman believers met in the catacombs. There were no church buildings, as such, until about 250 a.d.
About 100 years after that it was the Catholic Church joining hands with the government in persecuting the true believers in Christ, as it always has been through out history. No wonder Revelation 17 is so interesting. Now I can understand Revelation 17 describing Rome, but Matthew 16?? No, Jesus was just speaking to his disciples in a small town north of the Sea of Galilee.
DHK

 

BobRyan replied, where I last said


But there is something that you repeat time and time again, that "10 popes" used this forged documents to their advantage. So far, I count only two (from the original link I provided) being Leo IX and Urban II. Other popes, it seems, may have taken the document for granted.

Bob, I am not trying to establish a point at all, but only trying to see where your "spin" lies in all of this, and so far, you would beat the best of the "spin doctors" of Bill Clinton and company!

Seemingly to you, all the cardinals and bishops in Rome jumped with glee at the knowledge of this document, and while I see at least two who cited it in their persuasions concerning the temporal right of the papacy, I so no mass movement to declare the thing almost as if it were "scripture" even! My source comes no where doing such a thing, else my eyes fail me as I read it over and over and over again.

What two statements? And what do you mean by "Catholic Standards"? So far in my nearly 20 years of Catholic apologetics, Catholic Standards of scholarship far exceed what I have seen in Protestant/non-Catholic literature. But then that is my opinion and my opinion only. And speaking of opinions, that is exactly all I see coming from you - opinions without a whit of good documentary proof that supports your assertions.

You then provided the following statement:

Who says this about the "10 popes," Bob? From what source do you derive the above? And to what degree do these "10 Popes" employ the Donation of Constantine in support of a given contention?

I am not denying that popes could have cited it, but to what extent did they use it to whatever advantage you seem to think

I last said:

A close read of the discussion from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia does not paint such a grim picture you have portrayed so far.

The RCC forged the Document, they crafted the language and there was "NO DOUBT" about accepting the document until the 15th century AND we have WRITTEN promotion of the Document from no less than 10 Popes.

Bob, look, I have no real idea exactly how many popes may have used the Donation of Constantine to their advantage, going on what I see in what is usually a very reliable old encyclopedia. The problem is, was it used in what range:

1.)From the innocent quoting of it to...

2.)A "nefarious" use of it to their advantage, seemingly to know, deep down in their hearts, that it was a false document!

Methinks you tend heavily on 2, that it was a "nefarious" act on their part, even claiming that the Catholic Church was the very author of the document (through one or two well-coached writers, I suppose) which is something you fail to prove, giving all of here in this thread, simply your biased opinion.

If this is so, please provide further evidence - good evidence from well documented sources with well documented references.

I last said:

Therefore, your hysterics over how good this link makes your case falls flat. It does nothing of the kind, sir!

What I will admit to is the fact that it was accepted by at least popes in there writings in defense of their positions, and others who simply took it for granted. The problem is, to what extent were these popes, and also the fact that no one recognized it as a forgery until the 15th century, doing so by some nefarious purpose? Can you identify the individual or individuals who forged this document, Bob? If so, name them sir! The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to have a very difficult time in pinning this down, coming up with many theories as to the time it was done, where it was done and by who.

Can you pin this down with better sources this I have provided, Bob?

I am not trying to make a case, sir, just trying to find the veracity in the one you are making.

Finally, if you clain that the "Catholic Church perpetuated the forgery" (in so many words) why then the discovery of the false nature by at least two Catholic clergy?

Or will you make the assertion that "The Catholic Church knew the jig was up" so let it be refuted. Would that be your position, sir?

OK, we finally get to the nitty gritty here, don't we, Bob?

It is surely is your position for which I would suggest you provide far more proof then you have managed to do so far. And here we go again, with that "10 popes" thingee! They are so, so guilty, aren't they; how dare they use a false document (innocently or not). Oops, I forgot! You are claiming that the Catholic Church created it! That must means that these "10 popes" knew deep down in their satan-darked hearts of the deception and perpetuated the document to their own nefarious desires!

Am I getting close here, Bob?

Ah, those mean wascally popes! Deep down, You seem to think Satan drove them to do this, the "anti-Christs" that they are!

And lookee here, they PROMOTED the document! It sure would be nice if you could provide the documents that showed to what extent they did this, from the range of a benign reference to the degenerate and depraved depth you seem to think they sank to.

I last said:

The problem is, did these popes know it was a forgery and referred to them deliberately or innocently in assuming it was valid?

Bob, in all of my years of apologetics, I have seen valid questions, tendered in honest inquiry, get sluffed-off or simply ignored, but never in the manner I see here! WOW! Can't answer that question, can you? But let's see your follow-up:

But it does not give you a clue as to what extent the popes exploited this document, but in fact, seems to indicate that it was not done so in the way you suggest. In fact, there are several theories of how/why the document was created; for the acquisition of the papal states "against the Frankish Government, then solidly established in Italy," or simply an attempt to "elavate the papacy in general"? In my opinion, there seems to be a lack of cohesion of exactly how the papacy may have used this document to their advantage. Note, I said opinion, not something I can prove as a fact, Bob.

Or can you provide better documentation from what I have given you here?

What argument? This whole thing was brought up to indicate some entitlement of the pope by the title, "Vicarius Filii Dei" which has been well proven (in my humble opinion, of course) to be a total and complete farce! And the admission that the document is a fake certainly destroys that argument, does it not, Bob?

Sir, I cannot deflect your heart and mind from spinning this issue to that of some grand conspiracy on the part of the Catholic Church for some nefarious purpose with the Donations of Constantine, a document well refuted, denied and proven a forgery, even by at least two Catholic clergy!

I last said:

Popes are not infallible in that they can discern between an authentic document and one that is forged, Bob, so please don't make the claim that their "use" or possible "accepting at face value" an infallible declaration that the document is true and valid. Papal infallibility is far more restrictive, which I may explain sometimes.

"Rabbit trail" or not, I think it forestalls any attempt you may attempt to make the argument I speak of, doesn't it, Bob?

Bob, I don't care how many times the comment "Vicarius Filii Dei" may have been used in the document, this is not the title of the pope! You have not produced one official bull, decree or otherwise official Church Document that is signed by a pope that uses that as his title, not one whit!

We have explained to you that certainly, "Vicar of the Son of God" is a good derivation from the title "Vicar of Christ" simply because Christ is the Son of God! But in Latin, that is not his title, Bob! But now I am ranting, sorry…

There is no reason for a pope to be "adverse" to the comment, "Vicarius Filii Dei" simply because of it's simple and obvious derivation from his offical title, "Vicar of Christ." The point continues to be, "Vicarius Filii Dei" is NOT the official title of the pope! There has never been produced, a picture, drawing (except by Jack Chick!) of a papal mitre showing such an inscription upon it.

So saith Bob!

Nice "spin" work, Bob, but we Catholics totally and completely deny it simply because you cannot prove your "spin" any more then I can prove that Abraham Lincoln is not the man buried in the grave with his epataph.

Your opinion is noted, and rejected, sir……………………

Did you say "obfuscate"? Hum, yes, that is employed by many "spin doctors" as well, sir.

God bless,

PAX


Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

Bill your post is more defensive that it is objective. Once you concede to Papal endorsement AND your own document refutes ANY incling you have to suggest that "anyone doubted" the document prior to 1440 - your entire "the title was a NEW one Invented by Anti-Catholics" completel collapses.

How in the world does 2 Popes improve that argument for you vs 10 Popes??

What are you thinking??

It is EITHER a title (as your first source stated) that is "A New title INVENTED by anti-Cahtolics" OR it is a WELL known title in a well known document that HAS Papal endorsement and WAS NOT DOUBTED by "anyone prior to 1440" as your OWN source says.

What is the "hard part" to get in that simple statement of the obvious facts??

Where are you actually "making a case"??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob replied, where I last said:

Seemingly to you, all the cardinals and bishops in Rome jumped with glee at the knowledge of this document, and while I see at least two who cited it in their persuasions concerning the temporal right of the papacy, I saw no mass movement to declare the thing almost as if it were "scripture" even! My source comes no where doing such a thing, else my eyes fail me as I read it over and over and over again.

Of course I am being defensive! You are attack the leadership of my Faith with what I consider a serious example of pure anti-Catholicism!

And here you go again, seemingly wanting to see "papal endorsement" as a purposeful and nefarious perpetuation of a falsehood!

I have not denied that the clergy of the Church fell for a well-prepared fraud! The popes cannot discern well-written falsehood from that which is the truth, just like you and I are often led by falsehood, only later to be proven false. But to the extent you seem to think? I need some testimony from those "10 popes" you have been harping on...

Arguent for what, Bob?

What I am "thinking" is, you making an enormous issue (called "spinning") out of what we both should be seeking as the basic truth on the issue.

I think that the Donation of Constantine had the clergy of the Catholic Church fooled for a while.

You seem to think that it was some grand conspiracy way out of porportion of what really occurred, in my opinion. And all I am doing is insisting you document this argument with well documented facts.
That is you have failed to do, sir.

It is a new title "invented" by anti-Catholics when it is not the official title at all! When they pull this out of a document that has been proven to be a forgery, make something out of it that has never been done in the official writings of the Catholic Church, and especially when they canot find one whit of an example of "Vicarius Filii Dei" being used as a title for the pope, it's called "spinning!"

The obvious facts are, the Catholic Church has never used the title "Vicarus Filii Dei" as the title for the pope. You have never produced proof of it, and neither have your compatriots who stand with you on this issue. On the other hand, others, and lately myself, have challenged you to support your spin which you have yet to do. Who are the "10 popes," Bob? Document exactly what they said about the document in question.

And while you are at it, please produce for all to see a "picture" (a link would do) of the very papal mitre that shows "Viocarius Filii Dei" in jewel-studding as has been claimed by the SDA's

And no, a drawing of this fictitious mitre from a Jack Chick comic book will not do...

I am not making a case for anything at all!

What I am trying to do is get you to adequately defend yours!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

 

My point is so obvious it is impossible for even the most casual reader to miss - and I am using YOUR SOURCES to boot!

Your OWN Sources claim on the one hand "It is a NEW title INVENTED by Anti-Catholics" - then your OWN sources admitted to "PAPAL endorsement" of the CONTENTS of the Donation of Constantine AS WELL AS the obvious fact that "NOBODY doubted the document" prior to 1440.

So that leaves with the title "Vicarius Filii Dei" ACCEPTED by the Popes - (content of the document clearly visible AND clearly argued for) -
EVEN in your OWN argument.

And FAR from being a heavily disputed document that only TWO Popes accepted - your OWN sources declare that the document was not "doubted by anyone prior to the 15th century".

Finally - your OWN sources admit that the PURPOSE of the document is obviously, blatantly and HISTORICALLY - to PROMOTE the expansion of civil powers by the Papacy. (Another dirty trick of anti-Cathlics Bill???)

Your OWN source is arguing against your every turn in this case.

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Donation of Constantine is cited in writing by no less than 10 Popes as proof of their civil authority and sovereignty over Rome, and what came to be known as the Papal States, which included a large portion of Italy. It was eventually exposed as a pious fraud in 1440 by ~Laurentius Valla who proved it had to have been written several centuries after the death of Constantine (337 A.D.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well there you have it.

Read your OWN source to see exactly "What arguments were made FROM that document".

Your own source is very explicit and clear on that point.

How in the world can this be laid at MY feet??

quote:Bob says of Bill's argument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You argue that if only TWO Popes affirmed "What NOBODY DOUBTED" during that time - that the CASE about the document fails in showing it to be an accurate reflection of what they were fully ACCEPTING in those centuries.

But your argument falls flat when even you must admit to papal promotion and your own documents admit NOBODY doubted the document in those 7 or 8 centuries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point. WHAT if they were saying "hey we found this old historic document from Constantine and clearly it is full of rubbish. For instance it has this title Vicarius Filii Dei attributed to Peter and then inherited by his successors. What rubbish!! Only an ANTI-Catholic would invent such a thing. Though we freely admit - there is NO DIFFERENCE between that title and the various ones accepted today."

(Recall that you yourself admitted there is NO Difference to what is being claimed - but then went on to provide your first source showing that ONLY anti-Catholics would "invent that NEW Title" as if no centuries long HISTORY of that title IN one of the most well known documents in history - existed)

1 - is the one I have been promoting.

You keep suggesting number 2 AS IF my point is "Papal promotion of this was to further foist their own forgery".

Far from it. I have been arguing that the Popes, peoples, magestrates, civil courts, Catholic church viewed the contents as LEGIT!

So when recent efforts are made to say "ONLY ANTI-CATHOLICS would believe that title" - the entire case - falls flat.

Again - this has been such an explicit and blatant statement my posts - what part of it is "hard to get"?

Why not argue against the main point I have been repeatedly posting??

In Christ,

Bob

 

That the Roman Authors of this obviously pro-Catholic document WERE anti-Catholic or "were NOT Catholic" - is an argument you will have to "build from scratch" since even your own sources "do not go there". Feel free to start the ball rolling on that one.

My argument is that these Catholic authors in the HEART of Rome were indeed providing a document from the very START to be used by the RCC in promoting its argument for civil powers for the Pope.

I am NOT arguing that the entire RCC new it was forged from the start.

The same Perfidy of the Catholic Authors is not something I am attributing to the entire Church as if they called a huge meeting and all forged the document as one man. I do not doubt that it was handed to leadership "As if a genuine document" not forged and authentic.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary - you admit papal acceptance and your own source DENIES that there was ANY DOUBT at all about accepting the document until the 15th century. It is therefore YOUR case that falls flat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nefarious? (as in seeking to merge church and state and grant civil powers to religious authorities - yes). But Nefarious as in knowingly promotint a Forgery - no!

You are obfusacting again Bill because the salient point is that EVEN the Encyclopedia does NOT attribute the document to NOn-Catholic or to ANTI-Catholic sources as you seek to do.

Once we admit the obvious - Catholic origin - there is no way to pin this as a "NEW Title INVENTED by Anti-Catholics" - and that is "extremely obvious".

Lets not dance around it in the posts.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.

My position is that the RCC created the document -carefully crafted the wording to be fully accepted

(and its success is measured by the 10 popes and 15th century duration period). It therefore reveals what THEY THOUGHT was the MOST acceptable positioning for the Papacy. The perfidy of the authors is not the point. NOR is it my point that the Popes that used the document knew their own church had forged the document. My point is that they NEW OF ITS CONTENT AND they endorsed it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong again - I am not arguing their OWN perfidy in using a false document or in KNOWINGLY using a false document.

Far from it. I am arguing that the document APPEARED TO THEM to be reasonable, fully acceptable and NOT filled with "ANTI-Catholic titles INVENTED by Anti-Catholics".

Stay with the point please. (Though I admit - the point is devastating to your case.)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Not even.

You keep bringing up this red herring hoping to sidetrack the main point.

But I have not made ONE SINGLE statment accusing the 10 Popes - (or even two popes if you prefer) of knowing anything "evil" about the document. In fact I have been making the OPPOSITE point. That the document was seen to be PERFECTLY ACCEPTIBLE when in fact - your OWN source claims it was centered on "A title that is NEW and INVENTED by ANTI-Catholics".

(How many times to make this one point until you respond to it?)


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of standing back with shocked face saying "HEY some Anti-Catholic must have invented a NEW title for the Pope here" - they themselves PROMOTED the document to support their own claims to civil power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. That would be "your red herring". You are the only one promoting that idea as a possibility.

I on the other hand - have been making the OPPOSITE point as my own quote above shows.

Why not respond to my point?

Why spend so much time inventing a debate - and suggesting that I take a position (that if I ever took) would only destroy the main point I am trying (but failing) to get you to respond to??

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The document is therefore devastating to that RC argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT Argument!???

your OWN post stated that it was a "A NEW Title INVENTED by Anti-Catholics" and YET we see by your OWN reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia that in fact "The DOCUMENT promoting that title was PERFECTLY acceptible".

Obviously it does not!

THE ONLY way it would destroy the argument is IF we could prove TWO things. (asking for one single moment of clarity in your response now).

#1. The Document was truly an ANTI-CATHOLIC text invented by anti-catholics AFTER the fact AS IF historically it was accepted when it was NOT.

#2. The HISTORY was also forged - so that in fact NO Papal endorsement of the document were found NOR civil court acceptance NOR endorsement of the church in general. IF THAT entire history were ALSO to be found to be an INVENTION of ANTI-Catholics - then clearly neither the anti-Catholic DOCUMENT or the ANTI-CATHOLIC history that supposedly went with it - could be used - for they have been found to be purely of anti-Catholic orgin.

However your OWN sources deny BOTH of those KEY points to that argument.

How you get out of that - will be a wonderful sight to see.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have been thinking about that last point.

Actually adding the evil motive of foisting a forgery to gain civil power - (if I were to ever argue that case by first finding that such was the position of the Popes) it would not destroy the point that EVEN THEN - they would still have considered the "arguments" made in the document regarding Papal authority, title and civil powers of Peter to be correct.

The only point "I need" is that whatever they may have thought about Constantine writing the letter - the contents OF the document still constituted arguments that they wanted to promote. (Constantine or no Constantine).

Having a civil authority like Constantine to back up that argument and set legal precident - obviously makes the document "useful in civil court" but it does not change the key arguments of the document.

The words still don't change in the document.

So until we find a way for Popes historically (pre-1440) to say "HEY this title stinks! Who put this in here! Must be a NEW title invented by Anti-Catholics" - I would find their historic use of the document extremely helpful in making the point for the content THEY endorse.

The other way "you could get out of this sticky wicket" would be to find them saying "Well yes we do think it was written by Constantine - but from what he said in the document - he apparently does not know up from down when it comes to the authority and title of Peter. In fact he is using a very anti-catholic title".

Yes that's IT! A quote of the form "Hey look at this! This is a good example of just how ignorant and anti-Catholic that pagan emperor Constantine really was! After becoming a Christian and still held to so many pagan ideas that he comes up with this very anti-Catholic title for Peter and tries to claim that because of THAT the successors of Peter should be given civil powers! Oh the ignorance of these pagan rulers! How much we have to teach them!!".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob replied, where I last said:

But then that is my opinion and my opinion only. And speaking of opinions, that is exactly all I see coming from you - opinions without a whit of good documentary proof that supports your assertions.

I tire of this!

Have a nice day, and remember, today is the "Lord's day"!

We are getting nowhere, so I will stop here...

God loves you and yours, Bob.

Please pray for me, a sinner!

PAX

Bill+†+


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

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is so obvious it is impossible for even the most casual reader to miss - and I am using YOUR SOURCES to boot!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would too if I were in that position.

It only serves my point better to point out that your own sources undermine your own argument.

Trying to redirect the dicussion to (was it 10 popes or 2, 10 popes or 2) does not help your argument at all since you can't show that this makes any difference given your "own" source's statment "nobody doubted this document before the 15th century".

Case closed.

By the way - today is Monday.

In Christ,

Bob