Vicariius filii dei?

[The_One_Duck]

Hello everyone, I am new here. I understand the whole shenanigans about “Vicarius filii dei”. I know it is NOT a real title of the Pope etc. However, I came across new info on a certain website that said this:

The ***[Donation of Constantine]
is the most famous forgery in European history, and was discovered in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals in the 9th century (c. 847-853). The forger is thought to have been [Johannes Hymonides] ( John the Deacon of the 9th century). The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are fictitious letters alleged to be from early popes [Clement (A.D. 100) to Gregory the Great (A.D. 600)], collected by Isidore Mercator in the 9th century. Since the scholarly criticism of the fifteenth century they have been known to be forgeries and have been called “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals” or False Decretals, to acknowledge that they are fraudulent.

The donation reads in part as follows in Latin: (caps added for emphasis) -

… 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, conscessam a nobis nostroque imperio obtineant…

In English that is-

… as the Blessed Peter is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God on the earth, 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 greater than the clemency of our earthly imperial serenity is seen to have conceded to it,
(continuing beyond the Latin above)
choosing that same chief of the apostles and his vicars to be our constant intercessors with God. And to the extent of our earthly Imperial power, we have decreed that his holy Roman Church shall be honored with veneration, and that more than our empire and earthly throne the most sacred seat of the Blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted, we giving to it power, and dignity of glory, and vigor, and honor imperial. And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as well over the four principal seats, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth. And the Pontiff, who at the time shall be at the head of the holy Roman church itself, shall be more exalted than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world, and according to his judgment everything which is provided for the service of God and for the stability of the faith of Christians is to be administered.

I really don’t understand this, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks,
The Duck

 

[GLam1761]

MY understanding of this Title is that in
the Body of Christ, the Church, the Pope
the successor of St. Peter is the Visible
FACE of the Son of God to the world.

 

[The_One_Duck]

Wow, I was not expecting a reply so soon! thanks a lot. I would agree, however, this text appears to be clear in what it is saying: that “Vicarius filii dei” IS a valid title of the pope, and any reasonable arguments that us Catholics have become invalid, which greatly concerns me. I appreciate your answer, and I SUSPECT that this website which I got this text from MIGHT be withholding key points of info, as many anti-Catholic sites do.

Thanks, The Duck

 

[porthos11]

Wow, I was not expecting a reply so soon! thanks a lot. I would agree, however, this text appears to be clear in what it is saying: that “Vicarius filii dei” IS a valid title of the pope, and any reasonable arguments that us Catholics have become invalid, which greatly concerns me. I appreciate your answer, and I SUSPECT that this website which I got this text from MIGHT be withholding key points of info, as many anti-Catholic sites do.

Thanks, The Duck

First off, the title “Vicarius Filii Dei” is not a title of the Pope, as you already correctly state.

However, the Pope, as a point of fact, is the vicarius Filii Dei. It is indeed the vicar of the Son of God. That’s not a title, just a statement of fact.

The thing is, so what? Anyone could take a word or phrase and apply whatever calculus they will to come up with 666. The name of the Seventh-Day Adventist founder, Ellen Gould White adds up to 666. The name of Bill Gates adds up to 666. And I’m sure there are tons of other people, famous and non-famous, whose names can add up to 666 using some numeric system out there.

The only real decent response to the claim is: Yeah Right, Big Deal.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

If you take the Greek form of the name of the Emperor Nero, the Roman emperor around the time of Revelation, and write it in Hebrew, the letters, which can also have numeric values, “add up” to 666.
Also, textual variants find that 616 could also be the number. Nero Caesar in Hebrew can also make 616.

 

[Willing_Spirit]

Why do you think a forged document is proof of anything and what is wrong with the title?

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Hello everyone, I am new here. I understand the whole shenanigans about “Vicarius filii dei”. I know it is NOT a real title of the Pope etc. However, I came across new info on a certain website that said this:

The ***[Donation of Constantine]
is the most famous forgery in European history, and was discovered in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals in the 9th century (c. 847-853). The forger is thought to have been [Johannes Hymonides] ( John the Deacon of the 9th century). The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are fictitious letters alleged to be from early popes [Clement (A.D. 100) to Gregory the Great (A.D. 600)], collected by Isidore Mercator in the 9th century. Since the scholarly criticism of the fifteenth century they have been known to be forgeries and have been called “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals” or False Decretals, to acknowledge that they are fraudulent.

The donation reads in part as follows in Latin: (caps added for emphasis) -

… 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, conscessam a nobis nostroque imperio obtineant…

Mt. 17:24-25 - Peter is asked for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

 

[Fauken]

Vicarius Filii Dei- Latin for vicar or representative of the Son of God.

Also the Roman numerals in this can add up to 666. Really it does.

I view that argument the same as do this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Cruciferi]

So true…

 

[The_One_Duck]

Yes that is what I was thinking. One other thing, and feel free to call me stupid or whatever, but wouldn’t that add up to 664, because of VICAR IV S? Do you see what I am saying? Thanks a bunch for your answer, I really appreciate it.

 

[The_One_Duck]

I was thinking about that as well, and doesn’t it also say that the beast whose number is 666 will also persecute God’s followers? Thanks for your help

 

[The_One_Duck]

Why do you think a forged document is proof of anything and what is wrong with the title?

Well, I didn’t think that it was “proof”. I was just a little confused on why Catholics said that it was not a title of the pope when it is used in this document as well as the Vatican website. Thanks for you reply

 

[The_One_Duck]

I view that argument the same as do this:

Ha ha, that is GREAT. I love it! Thanks for this!

 

[porthos11]

Yes that is what I was thinking. One other thing, and feel free to call me stupid or whatever, but wouldn’t that add up to 664, because of VICAR IV S? Do you see what I am saying? Thanks a bunch for your answer, I really appreciate it.

Yes I do. The same logic used to “add” up to 666 can just as easily be twisted to come up with something else.

It’s really nonsense. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Yeah St. John the Apostle did say that which fits nearly perfectly with Nero

 

[otjm]

This is not in reference to any of the posters herein, but rather to the “666” issue; one can begin to get a glimpse of why the Church was so reluctant, for so long, to encourage laity to read the Bible.

It is not that I agree with that emphasis (or lack thereof), but rather that one can begin to see that totally unguided reading of the Bible (in a multitude of parts) can set people off down a path that has no relationship whatsoever as to what Scripture is intended for.

 

[The_One_Duck]

This is not in reference to any of the posters herein, but rather to the “666” issue; one can begin to get a glimpse of why the Church was so reluctant, for so long, to encourage laity to read the Bible.

It is not that I agree with that emphasis (or lack thereof), but rather that one can begin to see that totally unguided reading of the Bible (in a multitude of parts) can set people off down a path that has no relationship whatsoever as to what Scripture is intended for.

Wow I actually did not know that the Church was reluctant to allow lay people to read the Bible, although that actually does make sense.

 

[Godfollower]

The Church was never reluctant to let lay people read the Bible. That’s a myth. Spending time reading Scripture is actually a blessed event — a good thing to do. The Church has always encouraged reading Scripture.

 

[Gorgias]

I really don’t understand this, but any help would be appreciated.

So… let’s see if I understand you: you’re asking whether a document which is known to be spurious can be trusted as an implicit claim that the pope is the Anti-Christ?

Umm…

 

[The_One_Duck]

So… let’s see if I understand you: you’re asking whether a document which is known to be spurious can be trusted as an implicit claim that the pope is the Anti-Christ?

Umm…

Ha ha, well not when you put it that way. That is a really good point, if one follows THAT logic, anyone could be the anti-Christ. I admit, before I saw all your answers on this I WAS a little skeptical, but definitely not anymore. The entire argument does not mean anything, as the Pope does not follow the other characteristics of the anti-Christ. Thanks for your answer, I really appreciate it.