Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If Vicarius Filii Dei cannot be considered a valid title of the pope because it was never an official title of the pope because the pope never said it was, would it not be correct to say that your explanation cannot be considered the Catholic Church's position because it isn't official because we don't have the pope himself giving your explanation?Hope that cleared up the Catholic Church's position
Have you read the article from back then that B. referred to? It doesn't quite say what he wants it to say, from what I recall.I am sorry but we probably need to apologize to our Roman Catholic friends as Dr Sam B. has finally squashed all this talk about this issue.
...
As far back as the 1940's and 50's the GC told our evangelists not to use it as it cannot be established that it did ever exist.
Furthermore, protestants generally misunderstand and mistranslate the word 'vicarius'.English doesn't really have a proper word for it. It refers to positions in the past where someone would represent or speak for a person in their absence- such as an ambassador. It does not mean 'subsitute' or 'sits in the place of', because the representative can never substitute or take over that position. Rather, they help to speak for them in their absence. In this way, for Catholics, the Pope is the ambassador for Christ.
Does "takes the place" mean anything more than "ambassador" or "representative"? Or is that all it means within Catholicism and all it meant to John Paul?In "Crossing The Threshold of Hope", by Pope John Paul II: First Chapter: "The Pope": A Scandal and a Mystery, page 3, you will find:"The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity".
As far as the "fraudulent" picture goes, I seem to recall that there is more to that story as well. Yes, here it is:http://biblelight.net/EI-139+140.htm.
Michael makes clear that B. is incorrect about one of the pictures, since that picture dates back to 2002 and was not fraudulent.
We have an Italian immigrant here who as a young girl saw Vicarius Filii Dei on the pope's miter in Italy.
I'm glad you and I can have the same position about 666, Jim.I find it hard to accept something that was taught as fact for so long was actually a fabrication.
I find it hard to accept something that was taught as fact for so long was actually a fabrication.
I think our Catholic friends might find this statement somewhat ironic, coming from a Protestant.If the length of time that something is taught gives it credibility, then we would certainly have to give serious consideration to the Catholic claims of having preserved truth throughout the history of Christianity. Either they or the Eastern Orthodox would have the best argument for being the true church in that case.
I think that as Christians, we should be open to discarding even strongly held ideas if they are shown to be false, no matter how long we have believed them. Truth that stands the test of time can afford to be taught without the use of questionable arguments.
If you have time to read some interesting rhetoric on this here is some veggie burger to chew on.
http://remnantprophecy.sdaglobal.org/Librarypdf/RCC&history/Vicarius-Felii-Dei.pdf
I find it hard to accept something that was taught as fact for so long was actually a fabrication. According to the author of the article above the insignia was removed around 25 years ago. Why would they do that?
God Bless
Jim Larmore
If Vicarius Filii Dei cannot be considered a valid title of the pope because it was never an official title of the pope because the pope never said it was, would it not be correct to say that your explanation cannot be considered the Catholic Church's position because it isn't official because we don't have the pope himself giving your explanation?
Understand what I mean? If your explanation can be considered the Catholic Church's position, even though the pope has never, to my knowledge, made such a pronouncement, then cannot the use of Vicarius Filii Dei by Catholics as a title for the pope make it a title for the pope?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?