quote: Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Actually I think that is the point -the number of his name - that does not change when Pope after Pope takes the throne.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant said --
You are begging the question; the belief that the antiChrist will be a succession of people filling an office is not Scriptural, so that cannot be pre-assumed to be true.
Details - pay attention to the details.
We are talking about a "Beast Power" in Rev 13. That power Just like the Woman of Rev 12 and Rome in Rev 12 - goes on for many generations.
The word "AntiChrist" is not listed in Rev 13.
However - if you go to 1John - you see that "MANY AntiChrists" are predicted.
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
These are no less than TEN Popes reading that title and AFFIRMING it as they AFFIRM the contents of the document and promote it - as the RCC itself created that document WITH that title for that very reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant --
Bob, you are still arguing under the pretense that an unofficial document becomes official simply because someone uses it in an official capacity. If I have a fake social security number, and I pass myself off as someone else, do I officially become that person, or officially now possess his social security number as my own? No, it is a forgery, and I will never truely be able to call myself the identity of this other person.
Details - you have to pay attention to the Details.
In the case of The Donation of Constantine - it is not like "3 dollar bill" once proven to be bogus you can not use it any more.
INSTEAD of "currency" or even a "social Security number" it is a written discussion - argument - that SHOWS the thinking of those doing the writing AS WELL AS the thinking of those that AGREE with the writing.
This is to put it bluntly - "devastating" to the RC case when it comes to seeing WHAT they were "Agreeing to".
This was NOT a document "INTRODUCING a Title" and tryhing to get people to "Agree to it". But had it been doing that - EVEN at that - it would have had civil courts, 10 Popes and the entire RCC of those centuries - AGREEING.
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
The document takes the fact of this title as unniversal and fully accepted without dispute "As the Blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God on the earth"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More later ..
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
It does not say " a few have claimed that Peter should be titled Vicar of the Son of God on Earth and possibly that is true for Some to think of him that way".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant said --
That doesn't even matter when the document is false! AT BEST, your argument could be that these "10 POPES" who supported the document are the antiChrist.
Wrong. The details show that the document is NOT making an argument for INTRODUCING a title - it is carefully crafted by the Catholic church itself appealing to what is ALREADY accepted about the Authority of Peter and TRYING to argue that what is ALREADY accepted for Peter SHOULD BE EXTENDED to all of the successors of Peter.
The is entirely DIFFERENT than your revisionism of this document (that is not about to change in content) trying to get it to introduce the titles that it claims are " A Given" that ALL already accept. The Catholic church worded it this way and crafted the language to MEET expectations of the Popes, people, and civil courts as they viewed the Papacy. ITs success is measured in centuries and 10 Popes all signing up to make the SAME ARGUMENT in their own appeals.
Grant --
But seeing as this title is not in use today, current popes must not be the antiChrist.
The adding up to 666 is only "one of many attribtues" that would have to match. This one alone is not sufficient to identify the Pope as the beast power in Rev 13.
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Rather it makes this point the "foundation" of the point driven in the document --
"so the Pontiffs who are the representatives of that same chief of the apostles, should obtain from us and our empire the power of a supremacy"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant --
Yes, Bob. This is based on the office, not the title. In fact, the document is speaking of an office, "vicar," and does not insinuate that it is a title, since in the document, "vicar" is not capitalized.
The Document USES the Title to MAKE the point that the Peter HAS the Authority and Power "on EARTH" as "The Vicar of the Son of God" - being the "Vicar of Mickey Mouse" would not carry the argument. IT has to show a higher authority.
quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
It is not a side note - but the primary basis of argument FOR "the Power of Supremacy" arguing that SINCE the title is fully valid "SO" all succeeding popes to that title SHOULD have the "power of supremacy".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant said --
Bob, if they had said "the Vicar of Christ," the exact same thing would be true.
NOW we are getting somewhere. You are right - the document could have been crafted by the RCC to say "Vicarius Christi" JUST as easily. But the document is not "INTRODUCING" the title - it is merely appealing to existing ACCEPTANCE. The point of the document is to "Be accepted" and then be used in civil courts to argue the case for the Papacy holding civil titles.
If they just "make up titles" that nobody accepted - they would first have to "make the case for the title" which they do not do in the document. RATHER they appeal to what is ALREADY accepted Catholic doctrine/practice. Hence "Vicarius Filii Dei".
Thus the title IS VERY IMPORTANT - as it reflects the thinking of the authors AND its acceptance by the entire Catholic church ALONG WITH the Popes - reflects the thinking of the entire church.
NOTE: They do not come along 3 centuries later and say "HEY WAIT A MINUTE! He is NOT the Vicar of the Son of God!! Who put that in there!"
The title is never questioned by the church in regard to that document -- ever.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
There is no possibility of practicing revisionist history with the contents of the document - it is right there in black and white.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant --
Yes, with a big "forgery" stamp on it. Which you continue to ignore,
Again - you are not following the details.
The forgery only STOPS the document from being used as a legal document in court (AND should cause us to go back and REVOKE any civil authority given to the RCC during those centuries and is STILL in place due to arguments won on the basis of that document).
However it REMAINS most devasting as a historic document that reveals the thinking of its authors (the Catholic church) and of the Peoples, Popes and civil authorities who endorsed its contents - its assertions - it arguments - its view of the Papacy.
Grant said --
Kinda like supporting a quote that, by its very author, has retratcted as an error, to which your church has been asked to no longer use as truth, but to which you just advocated as truthful evidence?
Wrong again.
Iit is like finding "The Constitution" that everyone signed up for - base laws on - was not "made up" in the 1700's by Americans but was "made up" by the Spanish. Though the REAL "authors" are now revealed - the more SIGNIFICANT fact of the document is ALL the laws and people that AGREE WITH THE CONTENT as SHOWN in their LEGAL arguments and LAWS passed based on the REASONING of the document.
Else you would find the RCC revoking ITS OWN established position to hold both religious and civil office.
Follow the details.
In Christ,
Bob