Anti-Catholic Friend wrote this - Help me

[Eden]

ceasar:

what if they’re all right lutherans/methodist/baptist/catholic etc…on terms of salvation…but its the minute doctrinal differences that seperate us???..and i admit some are larger than others…but ultimately we believe that christ died for our sins…and that to receive salvation we must believe in christ… i mean…we all believe in christ don’t we???..

Ceasar

I understand what you are saying. But as Catholics we believe that Lutherans, Baptists, etc. have some truth but only the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. Remember that Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church. The truth that Christ died on the cross for their sins was a truth that they inherited from Christ’s Church. All truths found in a Protestant faith are found in the Catholic Church. It is the doctrinal differences of these other Christian churches that remove them from the “fullness of truth”.

 

[John_Henry]

Regarding various uses of the word “saint” in the bible, here is a cut and paste from Jimmy Akin’s blog:

**Uh, yeah. Right. That’s the biblical definition. **

So when Matthew 27:52 says that at the Crucifixion “The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised” (NASB), what it means is that many of the Christians who died and were buried before Christ came back to life.

And when Daniel 4:13 says that a saint (or “holy one”; same word in the original) came down from heaven and appeared in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, it means that a Christian came down from heaven.

And when, in John 6:69, Peter calls Jesus the Saint of God (or “Holy One”; again, same word in the original), he means that Jesus was "a Christian, called and holy not because of what he has done, but because of what Christ has done for him."

Further, when Ps. 71:22 calls God the Saint of Israel (or “Holy One” of Israel; again the difference exists only at the fiat of the translators), it means that God is "a Christian, called and holy not because of what he has done, but because of what Christ has done for him."

**Yah. It’s not like there are multiple different uses of the word “saint” to be found in the pages of Scripture and we need to be sensitive to their nuances. We can speak univocally about “the biblical definition of a saint”–to be found in Book of Definitions, located just after the Book of Revelation.

jimmyakin.org/noncatholic_apologists/index.html

 

[Vitae_Lux]

Here’s more

The first is that Vicarius Filii Dei, or “Vicar of the Son of God,” is not now, nor has it ever been, a title of the bishop of Rome. The second problem is that virtually no one, including many unsuspecting lay Catholics, knows that this papal “title” is a fabrication. To an untrained ear, it sounds enough like one of the pope’s real titles, Vicarius Christi (Vicar of Christ), to pass the test. Unfortunately for those who traffic in this particular piece of pope fiction, the real title, Vicarius Christi, adds up to only a measly 214, not the infernal 666. In fact, none of the pope’s official titles, such as Servus Servorum Dei (Servant of the Servants of God), Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff), or Successor Petri (Successor of Peter), will add up to 666. That’s why you never see any of them used by anti-Catholics.

source: envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/mar_apr98_coverstory.html

While I agree that this is not a common title of the pope, to say that it is a fabrication is maybe inaccurate. There was a specific document from Decretum Gratiani which was called “The Donation of Constantine”. In this Constantine hands over a great deal of wealth, property and power to the Church. The document has been shown to be a forgery, but certainly if it was forged, it was forged in the interests of the Church, not Constantine.

From the “Donation”:
“Utile iudicavimus una cum omnibus satrapis nostris, et universo senatu optimatibusque meis, etiam et cuncto populo Romanae gloriae imperio subiacenti, ut 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, concessam a nobis nostroque imperio obtineant, eligentes nobis ipsum principem apostolorum vel eius vicarios firmos apud Deum esse patronos.”

The text in English and Latin:
history.hanover.edu/texts/vallapart1.html

An article about the “Donation” in Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

An article about the claim of this title in WIkipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius_Filii_Dei

I agree 100% that this title is not one that the pope uses today, and also that it doesn’t appear on his tiara. I also agree that this business of adding up the letters to make 666 is ridiculous. But, all of that said, the title itself is not incorrect through simple logical deduction:

The pope is the Vicar of Christ
→ Christ is the Son of God
–>The pope is the Vicar of the Son of God.

I think it is important to argue against this claim by Protestants in a more direct way, which is to say that the title is correct in meaning but never used by any pope. Further, claims from Protestants saying that it is printed on one of the papal tiaras have never been substantiated. And finally, that the only known source of this statement is a document which has been proven to be a forgery.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A very angry friend send me something today and I can usually answer and defend what I believe but she had a name in Latin I do not know. You perhaps can help - anyone? She said this:
"The Preferred Deception of New Age Thought! - The Roman Catholic definition of a saint is not the Scriptural definition of a saint. A saint is NOT a lesser god that you pray to.

We know this: & we know very well that God is not like His creatures; they are like Him; a very different thing.​

The Pope’s Latin title, FILII VICARIVS DEI, literally means a substitute god, and the word Vatican in classical Latin means divination or witchcraft!

A look at Lewis and Short, or at Latham, or at Du Cange’s Glossarium, or at any other standard Latin dictionary, would blow this myth to bits:​

• [Vates (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=#50255) = “prophet” - vat-icanus mons] = “mount or hill relating-to-a/the-vates” ; hence, the Vatican Hill.
• [Vaticanus (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bi...9;query=entry=#50258;layout=;loc=vatica herba)
• [Vaticinatio (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059;query=entry%3D%2350259;layout=;loc=Va_ti_^ca_nus)
• [Vicarius (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bi...um;doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=#50826)
  Some people need to brush up their Latin. ##

Clearly, a false, occult god (NON-god!) is attracting the leaders of states and religions to itself."​

What does Filii Vicarivs Dei translate as and is it indeed the name of the Pope. I have seen this answered somewhere - probably Keating? Can you help me? Thanks so much. I just call him Papa.

VICARIVS FILII DEI = Vicar of-[the]-Son of-God.​

A vicar is a proxy or deputy - not a substitute, ***if ***by “substitute” one means “replacement”. For example: a vicar forane does not replace the bishop who has made him a vicar forane; he exercises a certain degree of authority which is properly episcopal, on the bishop’s behalf, as though the bishop were doing so in person, where the bishop cannot himself do so.

The VF does not, as it were, make the bishop surplus to requirements; his entire status as a vicar is built on the fact that the bishop is exercising authority in the diocese; it presupposes episcopal authority - it does anything but destroy it.

The vicariate of the Pope is similar to that - it presupposes that Christ is the Head of the Church, & its Eternal Shepherd, in every respect. The last thing it does is replace Christ, or make Him unnecessary, or His Spirit either. (See also: John 10.34 & 2 Peter 1.4)

 

[Love_is_Patient]

Great question and sad to say we used to teach the same Bible Study (Protestant) and were best friends - this has been so difficult for her. If I say to you that she likes those angry Chick tracks, will that help you understand this? She is truly anti-Catholic although she did not seem to be until my husband and I became Catholic. It is sad. God is doing a work in this but I may not live (here on earth) long enough to see her change. At least she is communicating. In the beginning she said she would never talk to me about the Catholic Church and we have gradually come back to the communicating table.

Thanks much!

God bless you for trying to lead her to truth. It’s tough, isn’t it? My boyfriend was extremely anti-Catholic when I met him…the first chink in the armor was when he realized that if he took the entire Bible literalistically, why in the world did he take John 6 symbolically? He now believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist within the Catholic Church, has come to accept infant baptism, condemns contraception and about a week ago, mentioned that he might just convert.

This from the guy who once called the Church “pharasaic.”

Don’t give up. Even if it gets too hard to talk, keep praying.