Fodder for thought

[David Koot]

OTOH the beast can be wily. The teachings are what are determinative, I would say. And, the teachings about the pope's claim to infallibility, and to being God on earth, God in the flesh, Christ in the flesh, 'alter Christus' are well-documented.

[Bravus]

Can truth be founded in lies? Those self-apponted investigators lied directly to a bunch of kind, helpful Catholic people. The 'admission' they gained seems like fruit from a poisoned tree to me. And there seems to be little else apart from statements from those with an interest. Nonetheless, my mind is not made up, and I look forward to the results of Dave's (meticulous as always) investigation with interest.

[Dr. Shane]

The pope's historical name adding up to 666 is not the most convincing evidence the Bible offers that the papacy is the anti-Christ. A lot of Adventist evangelists do not even use it.

[David Koot]

Interesting question. In the law of evidence, there is the doctrine of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' That is, evidence in a criminal case which has been obtained illegally, is inadmissable. The issue does not always have to do with reliability of the evidence. Often, it is the rights of the accused that must be protected.

Now, in the case at bar, I am not particularly interested in hearsay statements made by lay individuals, but with evidence from more authoritative sources. I am not particularly concerned with HOW the evidence was obtained (perhaps with a Minox camera after hours LOL) but in how reliable the evidence is. We shall see!

Dave

[Stan]

re "Vicarivs Filii Dei"

We were not honest as a denomination on that one, but, WOW , we had enthusiam.

[David Koot]

Well, let's see how it goes. Okay, the title does occur in the Donation of Constantine. Setting aside for now the issue of it being a forgery, the more significant evidentiary question for me would be the fact that the title was used at all. If it was used, and the document claimed to be valid for hundreds of years, then that goes to the issue of impeachment of the denial. IOW the evidentiary issue is NOT whether or not the Donation document is authentic, but the fact that the title was KNOWN to the church and that no denial of it was made, NOR has been made, that I am aware of it. Here is its occurrence in that document:

"... sicut B. Petrus in terris VICARIUS FILII DEI esse videtur constitutus, ita et Pontifices, qui ipsius principis apostolorum gerunt vices, principatus potestatem amplius quam terrena imperialis nostrae serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur, conscessam a nobis nostroque imperio obtineant..." (emphasis supplied)

Here is another reference, from Gratian's Decretals of the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, published in Bologna about 1148:

"Beatus Petrus in terris vicarius filii Dei videtur esse constitutus." (Decretum Gratiani, prima pars., dist. 96.)

In the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, the article, 'Donation of Constantine,' we find reference to the papacy's reliance on it, for example:

"The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood."

Another reference to the title may be found in Lucius Ferraris' Prompta Bibliotheca, 1858 Paris edition, vol. 5, column 1828. I wish to point out that this work is recognized and accepted by the Roman Catholic church, AND BEARS THE PAPAL IMPRIMATUR. I submit that, under that circumstance alone, the church would be estopped from denying the application of the title to the pope.

A couple more references. This one from 'Our Sunday Visitor,' April 18th, 1915, Rev. John F. Noll, editor, p. 3, section entitled, 'Bureau of Information':

"What are the letters supposed to be in the Pope's crown, and what do they signify, if anything?

The letters inscribed in the Pope's mitre are these: Vicarius Filii Dei, which is the Latin for the Vicar of the Son of God. Catholics hold that the church which is a visible society must have a visible head. Christ, before His ascension into heaven, appointed St. Peter to act as His representative. Upon the death of Peter the man who succeeded to the office of Peter as Bishop of Rome, was recognized as the head of the Church. Hence to the Bishop of Rome, as head of the Church, was given the title "Vicar of Christ."

Finally, a letter from the secretary to Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore, dated Jan. 26th, 1904, appearing on the letterhead of the Cardinal's residence:

"Dear Sir,

In reply to yours

of 18th inst., I beg to say that I

cannot say with certainty that the

words "Vicarius Filii Dei" are on

the Pope's Tiara. But the words

are used by the Cardinal who im-

poses the tiara at the coronation of a

Pope.

Yours Truly,

Wm. F. Russell

Well, enough for a start. So far, there appears to be a prima facie showing of the use of the referenced title.

Dave

[bevin]

Wow - this has all the deceit and intrigue of "The DaVinci Code".

http://biblelight.net/vicarius-filii-dei-documentation.htm

Of course, trying to prove this rehersal of events in authentic is a challenge in its own right - the whole thing could be a fun fraud

Samuele Bacchiocchi seems to accept it as genuine...

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_139.htm

Bacchiocchi writes

Quote:

The first attempt to compute the numerical value of the letters VICARIUS FILII DEI, which yield the number 666, was made by Master Andrews Helwig or Helwich (c. 1572-1643). Helwig was a professor of classic Greek literature and wrote an Etymological Greek Dictionary. In 1612, at the close of his rectorship in Berlin, he wrote his Antichristus Romanus—The Roman Antichrist.

In his book Helwig explains how he tried to solved the riddle of the number of 666 by computing fifteen different names in three different languages. He finally decided on VICARIUS FILII DEI because he felt it was a legitimate expansion of the actual historical title of the Pope, VICARIUS CHRISTI.

But others oppose the whole concept

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/goingthedistance.html

The real summary seems to be

(a) The phrase is used once in a frequently quoted document, but the quotes are not explicitly aiming at the title

( It was never an OFFICIAL title of the Pope

© A few Catholic slips have happened where someone who should have known better said that it is a title

(d) There are no known instances of it actually being used as an official title

In short - as the MythBuster's say - "BUSTED"

[David Koot]

Speaking of MythBusters . . . I have Peter's sailboat. He had acquired a midship cockpit sailboat designed and built for extended ocean cruising. Then, he had to leave for Australia, so I got it! A fine vessel, indeed--one of the best.

As for the isse here, however, let's take a look . . .

(a) The phrase is used once in a frequently quoted document,

[bevin]

Let us see

(a) There is no solid evidence that the phrase is on any piece of papal jewelry

( There is no solid evidence that the phrase is spoken in any papal ritual

© It isn't in the list of official titles, and there is such an official list

(d) Bacchiocchi tells us that the phrase was invented by someone writing a piece called "Antichristus Romanus—The Roman Antichrist"

Yep. I can see why you think the evidence is overwhelming.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

There is no solid evidence that the phrase is on any piece of papal jewelry

[Bravus]

David: each of the four pieces of evidence you cite has been impeached as false or forged, or in the case of the Quasten document, obtained under false pretences. I ask again, can truth have its foundation in falsity?

[David Koot]

David: each of the four pieces of evidence you cite has been impeached as false or forged,

[Bravus]

You replied to the stem without replying to the question. The Donation document is a forgery, hence false. The Our Sundy Visitor article was obtained by SDAs through falsehood, as was the Quasten document.

The reference in the canon law is not to a title (and your case is that it's a name), but to a role. It also turns on your reading of 'vicarius' is 'replacement' rather than 'representative'.

The letter from the Cardinal's secretary is of similar status to the Our Sunday Visitor piece: not an official Catholic document, but a harried person of relatively low authority dashing something off and repeating some hearsay. Those who have investigated the issue have confirmed that the phrase is *not* part of the ordination of the pope, so this person mistakenly saying so does not make it so.

As for Dr Bacchiochi, he has a large barrow to push and often pushes it hard. And from what I see there he has relied on all the same flawed sources that you have in his analysis.

But leaving all these issues aside, my question (which you've chosen not to answer twice now) was 'can truth find its foundations in falsity?'

[David Koot]

Ahhh, I edited apparently after you had replied. As to the merits of your question . . . defining 'truth' as the facts, it is quite immaterial as to the veracity of those facts, HOW they are determined. Investigators use questionable tactics all the time. Their findings can still hold up in court (although the accused may claim entrapment in some circumstances.)

[David Koot]

The Donation document is a forgery, hence false.

[LifeHiscost]

Well, true, if you took all the verbal titles....but as one person I know says, "tain't so if it's verbal. Need something written down. " And I have yet to see some tiara or Miter hat that says those famous latin words...Christ's substitute.

I suppose the safest place to get any information would be from those who are practicing what the information describes. If the catholic system sees the taking of the wafer and wine as eating the very body of Christ and drinking His blood, is it such a stretch to see a person, who administers those rituals recognized as sacraments, as the vicar of Christ?

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." Matt 23:9 NASB

Regards!!

[Bravus]

I don't have the patience to pursue this any further. Clearly those who obtained the Quasten document had zero qualms about 'lying for God'. Those who are convinced will remain convinced, despite the quality (or lack thereof) of the evidence. Bacchiochi is extremely biased, and his argument boils down to "The Catholics say it's not a title, but we all know Catholics lie."

I'll keep listening and watching for some real evidence, but all I'm seeing so far is desparate clinging to what I will continue to name as an 'old fib' in the absence of real evidence (ideally uncontaminated with lies) that that characterisation is wrong.

[David Koot]

all I'm seeing so far is desparate clinging to what I will continue to name as an 'old fib' in the absence of real evidence (ideally uncontaminated with lies) that that characterisation is wrong.

Speaking as one who has some familiarity with evidentiary issues, the points I have made in regard to the evidentiary value of the listed items, would pass muster. They would stand up under test. So far, they have not been rebutted or refuted. Only abstract, conclusionary statements with no evidentiary value, such as cited above, have been made in response. IOW the response has been absent real evidence. I would be interested to see a credible, documented response to the documentary evidence which this student has presented.

[Bravus]

How does one prove a negative? If I were to bring cites they would likely be of Catholic scholars stating that this title is not used. If the presumption is that Catholics lie about this issue, where does that leave us.

But nonetheless, let me try to take each of the four pieces in turn:

(1) The Donation of Constantine is a forgery, as is agreed by all authorities on all sides. You have made the comment that it was nonetheless a forgery that was used. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is likewise a forgery that has been used (albeit against rather than by those it is about). Does that give it veracity? As a piece of evidence, a forgery does not stand. The claims about use apply to the whole document, which is large, not to a specific line.

(2) The book of canon law - my Latin is non-existent, but I read that phrase is 'Holy Peter constitutes the visible, earthly Vicar of the Son of God'. Unless we then move on to identify all popes as Peter, then this applies to Peter and not to the Pope.

(3) The Our Sunday Visitor article. This was likewise obtained under false pretences. The magazine is published by a not-for-profit publishing company: http://www.osv.com/AboutUsNav/AboutUsHome/tabid/83/Default.aspx It is not a formal doctrinal organ of the Church but a 'Christian life' magazine, something like Signs Of The Times. 'Signs' is not the official organ for dissemination of theology in SDAism, and Our Sunday Visitor is not in Catholicism. This article was not making a pronouncement of doctrine, and was likely not 'vetted' by the church's theologians. The article is all about the letters on the pope's crown, which do not exist. The author was clearly not well informed.

(4) The Quasten document. Read the tale of how it arose again, carefully (this is my cite on this point, from those who were there when it was written and signed). Bacchiochi quotes it as though it were a formal statement of church doctrine, but it's clear that it was a hurried response to a couple of importunate (and dishonest) people in a professor's office one afternoon. I would really hate for my whole denomination to be held responsible for something I dashed off under pressure and without time to think when someone just knocked on my door.

The bottom line is that there is no credible evidence that this is a formal title of the pope, nor a name he adopts. It may have been used as an alternative to or mistranslation of the Vicarius Christi title, which we know does exist. But that one doesn't have the convenient numerology.

Look, I *agree* that the papacy and priesthood make claims to surrogacy for Christ that we consider blasphemous. I'm not arguing that point. What I'm arguing is the reality and status of this particular old fib.

And now I have a chapter on science education and citizenship to write.

[Bravus]

Read this page, please: http://www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-18675.html

(or at least, the first couple of pages and as much as you have time for - it's *big*!)

[bevin]

Quote:

The Quasten document. Read the tale of how it arose again, carefully

I have be thinking more about that tale - and I suspect it is a hoax!

There are parts of it that don't ring true - with the part most suspicious being the section about birthdays and being given the 2nd copy of the Our Sunday Visitor by the nun

Read it again with a sceptical eye - two young inexperienced guys do the previously impossible in a miraculously short period of time - it doesn't ring true

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Do you have an alternative explanation for the documents the GC has?

[David Koot]

I did, indeed, read it. So, two sides are presented. The argument in regard to the RCC's authorship of the DOC, and that the church has not denied the issues about the pope's alleged status, certainly make sense to me. Like I said, I would immensely enjoy cross-examining some of the church dignitaries.

I must head out for the night, will be out of town until tomorrow evening, and then I shall look forward to a more detailed analysis of the issue.

Dave

[bevin]

Quote:

Do you have an alternative explanation for the documents the GC has?

One claim of one person telling another isn't enough for me, and it is possible that SamB's CD copy is from the internet rather than from an original document

I did find a reference to a book that one of the two young men later published, so their existence seems plausible

The LDS was victim of a series of forged documents in the 1970's, so we know it can and does happen

The first thing to verify is that the whole record of the event is above board, and not some internet fake

1: verify whether the GC has such documents

2: see if any of the GC people left written evidence of the event

3: find the minutes of the committee meeting

After that

4: verify, if possible, the visit of these two young men to Dr Quasten

5: verify the handwriting is Dr Quasten's

And, of course, after that we still have the fact that these men asked Dr Quasten a loaded question after deliberately creating a very false impression of why they were asking it

/Bevin

[Clio]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Ronald Wilson Reagan = 666

six letters in each world

Too bad he died before he could pass the Sunday laws.

Yes .... but what he did was to establish a nation wide religion. The Catholic Church is the ONLY church recognized by the United States. And Reagan was the one who established relations with the Vatican in order to do this.

Reagan did more than just "establish relations". In 1980 he went so far as to send a "plenipotentiary" ambassador who recognized the Vatican as a "sovereign entity" with all the rights and appurtenances thereto...

Meaning, they have the right to field an army and enforce their sovereignty anywhere they deem they have it, through force of arms, just like any other nation state.

The Vatican has also been granted UN rights to vote in some areas and to sit as an observer and advisor to the Security Council although without a vote in that arena.