...
The papacy was corrupt. So what? The Vatican got rid of that tripe with Trent. Get over it.
So what? Lets list:
1) Crusades
2) Inquisitions
3) False Doctrines
And much more. And I'm noting here that you're saying that the papacy was corrupt.
As the State didn't have a role until Constantine, your objection is invalid.
I was pointing out that Domitian had nothing to do with the election of the popes or any church office. So, no, my objection is not invalid. The Church had no place ruling kings and the kings had no place bringing their politics into the Church.
Because of this political struggle, millions of people have been carried away into committing unholy and unloving acts that were not characteristic of Jesus or his disciple Peter. They killed in the name of God, purchased salvation offered by priests, covered up sexual abuses, abused their power in the Inquisition, and much more (to include rounding up the Jews into the slums of Rome and handing them over to Hitler.) I can't tell any person about the goodness of the Church without them throwing these things back in my face.
Jesus said it clearly, "You'll know them by their fruits." The Vatican did not bear very good fruit. It has had to admit its mistakes. My purpose in posting the Vicarius Filii Dei was not to bash Catholics. It was to point back in time and show the fulfillment of prophecy.
The problem is, since the Donation of Constantine is a forgery (which the Vatican admits today), then it never was true to begin with then, is it?
The point isn't whether or not it was true to begin with. The point is whether or not the title Vicarius Filii Dei was used by the popes, which it was.
Therefore, since its use finds itself first in the Donation, therefore, it is invalid.
Then the popes used an invalid title. It made their claims, which derived from the forgery, invalid as well. That means that there was a long succession in history in which their entire papacies were invalid. That, of course, is going by your state logic on the subject.
Thanks for proving yourself wrong for me. Now please apologize to the Vatican Catholic Church and its members for spreading lies.
Interesting. You're asking me to apologize to the Vatican Catholic Church, and not the Roman Catholic Church. I will not apologize to an entity whose claims of primacy come from forgeries (and a long tradition of using those claims) and whose influence had made the world mad with her lust for authority, primacy, and glory. I will not apologize. I will instead quote John Foxe from his book of Martyrs:
"In our fortunate country (England), the power of the Romish church has so long perished, that we find some difficulty in conceiving the nature, and still more in believing the tyranny of its dominion. The influence of the monks and the murders of the Inquisition have passed into a nursery tale; and we turn with a generous, yet rash and most unjustifiable scepticism from the history of the Romish authority.
..."It (Romish Church) might have spread literature, peace, freedom, and christianity to the ends of Europe, or the world. But its nature was hostile; its fuller triumph only disclosed its fuller evil; and, to the shame of human reason, and the terror and suffering of human virtue, Rome, in the hour of its consummate grandeur, teemed with the monstrous and horrid birth of the INQUISITION!"
That saints and witnesses reside in Rome is beyond doubt. But I think the Lord is calling them out so that they don't share in her judgments:
Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes. Give back to her as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Pour her a double portion from her own cup. Give her as much torment and grief as the glory and luxury she gave herself. In her heart she boasts, I sit enthroned as queen. I am not a widow;I will never mourn. Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her: death, mourning and famine. She will be consumed by fire, for mighty is the Lord God who judges her."
Except such views were declared to be heretical in the end by either universal acclaim or Ecumenical Council.
Was it declared heretical to deny apostates the priesthood or the communion? I recall it being the latter.
Furthermore, a person is not the office; the office is the office. Just because one pope is corrupt doesn't mean the entire papacy is. Did it lead to corruption? Yes, but it wasn't originally so.
You just told me the papacy was corrupt. Now you're telling me that one person was corrupt. The tradition is corrupt, the teachings are corrupt, the claims are corrupt. The whole system is corrupt.
My objection to it isn't based on some ridiculous renaissance-age spat long since corrected; my objection to the papacy is based on simple matter of history. Just because many popes were corrupt doesn't mean the office of the Bishop of Rome is.
I agree. But, as I said, my claims aren't to discredit. They are to point toward the fulfillment of prophecy. Even many Roman Catholics believe that this papacy will not last long and that, according to the third letter of Fatima, there will come a time when Rome will be conquered and the pope will leave the Vatican by stepping over dead bodies, being lead to his place of execution. The prophecies of St. Malachy point toward the destruction of Rome during the reign of the pope after Pope Benedict XVI. And Revelation 13's time restraint on the dominion of the pope was given 42 months, which are prophetic years equaling 1260 years. From 756, when the pope received the Papal States to rule until 2016, when the time ends. All these times, though too spectacular to even believe, line up very close and obviously. I don't count reputation, nor to I count tradition. I count the fruits, and the Vatican has more bad apples than good.
Also...VICarIVs fILII DeI would be:
VI=6
C=100
IV=4
I=1
L=50
II=2
D=500
I=1
664
In Latin, it is VicarivsFilii Dei...no u's. Also, IV is always 4.
Once again, language wins over nonsense theology.
Perhaps, but even Catholics admit that it adds up to 666. Below is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia at
CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Quick Questions (1992)
"Let's consider this accusation. Latin, Greek, and Hebrew have numerical values assigned to various letters in their alphabets. In Latin the values are: I=1, V=5, X=10, L=50, C=100, D=500, M=1,000. By extension W=10 (because W=VV, or two Vs together), and U=V (because there was no letter U for the Romans; where you see the letter U in modern writing, use the letter V instead). As you can work out for yourself,
Vicarius Filii Dei does add up to 666 in Latin:
Vicarius=112;
Filii=53,
Dei=501. (Ignore letters which are not assigned a numerical value.) The problem is that
Vicarius Filii Dei is not a title of the pope. One of his titles, in fact his chief title, is
Vicarius Christi (Vicar of Christ), but, unfortunately for Seventh-Day Adventists and other anti-Catholics who attempt to use this ploy,
Vicarius Christi adds up to only a measly 214, not the infernal 666"
Here, the author does not deny that the numbers add up to 666, but sticks with your original argument that the title was never used. As I showed, the title was used and originated from a forgery that many (not one) popes used to support their claims for both papal primacy to combat Byzantine influence and to end simony and the Investiture Controversy. In its struggle to become the prime and supreme authority over the Catholic Church and over the Catholic kings, Rome had committed many appalling deeds, such as have already been mentioned.
Rome has a lot to answer for. But that is the crux of the matter, and it shows in the increase of people leaving the Catholic church. Rome must never admit its faults. When it does, then it must counter the claims and bulls assigned to other popes (which would claim them as antipopes), which would be hard to do since some of the popes have already been canonized and some saints. Furthermore, it would divide the Catholic Church, which is supposed to be impossible (since Catholic means universal.)
Now, you went after me from the get go when I was merely presenting the possibility of the counting of Vicarius Filii Dei. I never said I was completely arriving to that conclusion. I would like a respectful discussion with you, but I won't participate in baiting, slandering, or playing the victim of anti-(whatever.) We have historical facts and much commentary on those events. Let them speak more loudly.
