Vicarius filii Dei is still making the rounds apparently.

Bob
I'm correcting the following inaccuracies in your statements not in a bout of pettifoggery, but to prevent you from abusing them in your next point if I don't correct them.

"The RCC has already stated that it is keeping secrets from ITS OWN top theologians."
You mean historians. And what the Curia is keeping away from them is the content of the private archives of the recent popes.

"I trust my friend Hans, because I have no reason to mistrust the sacrista (the keeper of the papal sacristy) mgr. van Lierde"

"As I am sure all the Vatican's theologians do"
The relationship between prominent theologians like Schillebeeckx and Curia cardinals like Ratzinger is one of mutual distrust. I'm surprised you missed something as basic as this. :confused:
Not that it is relevant, we are talking about historians not theologians here.

"The Catholic document AFFIRMING the title -"
Creating the title.

"PREDATES all of your late 18th century non-findings of a tiara that ALSO contains the title.'"
You mean 19th and 20th century non-findings.

"PREDATES all of your late 18th century non-findings of a tiara that ALSO contains the title.'"
Sure, meanwhile neither you nor I have found any evidence 'glueing' V.F.D. to a tiara prior to the 19th century. And that evidence turned out to be falsified.

"And the RCC had FULL control NOT only of RC church documents BUT ALSO of civil authorities - libraries and records. IT CLAIMS to have held control to a more perfect extent that the pagan Roman empire."
Utter nonsense, the RCC did not have the influence to arrange the sort of coverup you imply here. Especially not after the Reformation get's started. And there is no reason to hide anything untill somebody claims that 666 means V.F.D. and that doesn't happen before the 19th century. At that point it would not have been possible to hide over a 1000 years of pictures and texts spread all over Christendom.

"The term "AntiChrist" applied to the Pope was NOT something invented by Martin Luther."
Did I say that? No. Did lot's of early Protestants believe it? Yes. Did they draw pictures with the pope as the Anti-Christ? Yes. Did the tiara"s on those pictures have V.F.D. written on them? Never.

"RATHER the Popes said that about EACH OTHER BEFORE Luther considered that as an option."
Proof please and while you are at it, I'd still like the names of those 10 popes endorsing the Donation of Constantine.

 

As an attorney, I'd like to say how pleased I am to see this word used other than in reference to us. Thanks Mioque!

Mark

 

Bob said --

"The RCC has already stated that it is keeping secrets from ITS OWN top theologians."

Wrong. If you read the article you will see that the events of the dark ages, specifically 13th-16th centuries were the target and focus.

Or is that what you mean be "recent popes".

The article listed them as "theologians" not just "historians that we keep secrets from".

(Detail you know)

So they "trust" the non-Catholics (like you) but not their own scholars and "THAT" is the premise that you want to argue as to why your exhaustive research was not tampered with by the non-dislcosure "public" policy of the RCC?

Surely you are kidding!


Bob observes --
"The Catholic document AFFIRMING the title -"

Bob said -- "PREDATES all of your late 18th century non-findings of a tiara that ALSO contains the title.'"

1798 The French clobbered the Pope - I was giving you credit for going back at least that far in recent history - but if you say it is not even that far --- so beit.

Bob said -- of that late 7th-10th century Catholic Document and AFFIRMATION by no less than 10 popes ...

"PREDATES all of your late 18th century non-findings of a tiara that ALSO contains the title.'"

Case closed.

No objection there - we have not found a post 18th century "leftover" tiara that the RCC would allow us to see (in its stated policy of holding SECRET documents/artifacts) - that had the title.

I agree completely.

Bob said --
"And the RCC had FULL control NOT only of RC church documents BUT ALSO of civil authorities - libraries and records. IT CLAIMS to have held control to a more perfect extent that the pagan Roman empire."

 

My English teacher, would be so proud if he ever found out I can use pettifoggery in a meaningfull fashion.

 

Bob
"If you read the article"
What article? And why are you using an example out of the 13th-16th centuries, if you can use one taking place now? I do.

Bob I am not going to great lengths to research your positions, I have a job, a family, hobbies and even the occasional article to write. You better spoonfeed me, because I have other things to do besides verifying each of your claims. And I don't have a photographic memory, so yes sometimes I'll ask for verification on points that in a perfect world I would have known by heart.

"So they "trust" the non-Catholics (like you) but not their own scholars and "THAT" is the premise that you want to argue as to why your exhaustive research was not tampered with by the non-dislcosure "public" policy of the RCC?"
No, what gave you that idea?

"Bob said -- "PREDATES all of your late 18th century non-findings of a tiara that ALSO contains the title.'"
quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mioque --
You mean 19th and 20th century non-findings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1798 The French clobbered the Pope - I was giving you credit for going back at least that far in recent history - but if you say it is not even that far --- so beit."
Those non-findings are indeed 19th and 20th century non-findings. The tiara's in existance now are except for one(created in the 16th century) all 19th and 20th century beehive crowns.

"But even the RCC's own historians claim that the ZENITH of their power was in the 13th-15th centuries."
I would start that zenith 1 or 2 centuries sooner and end it a century earlier, but that's a different debate (and no there is no perfect consensus among historians on this point).

 

Mioque - it is on the "Papacy speaks out on Extermination" thread.

However - I will post it here as well - if that is needed.

The Vatican sources quoted - show that the existence of secret files and the practice of withholding evidence EVEN from Catholic scholars - is well publicized.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is an Outstanding group of Catholics that did not simply "continue to turn a blind eye" to history.

They are to be commended. (by contrast to the dodge, duck and defend policies you could find among other groups of Catholics on this specific subject)

Interestingly - the RCC is fairly blantant in its confession about having "Secrets" from its own scholars.


Consider the following news stories from Vatican City.

How refreshing that there are some Catholics willing to place the atrocities in a distinctively "Christian light" rather than a distinctively partisan light or trying to defend or minimalize monstrous acts of atrocity - or worse - continuing to demonize the victims in "true dark ages" spirit.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob
I have read through the extermination thread twice and didn't find anything there about the Vatican hiding stuff from their theologians in the late middle ages (or at any other time). Clearly I am missing something.

"The Vatican sources quoted - show that the existence of secret files and the practice of withholding evidence EVEN from Catholic scholars - is well publicized."
I have never denied that, I have denied that they could have withheld information in a meaningfull fashion in the V.F.D. case if they wanted too. I also claim that there are no hidden tiara's.
On top of that I am claiming that outside of the USA there is virtually nobody in the Catholic hierarchy who realizes that there even is a V.F.D. controversy.

 

Since the "extermination thread" review seemed to be asking too much --- I included the quote from it in the post above.

Since you are not quoting from the salient section specific to our discussion - I am repeating that part again - here.

The quote "demonstrates" a policy of non-disclosure when it comes to things that "are not pleasing to the RCC". It is too late to deny it.

Once that is observed you "hopes" that you have full disclosure AFTER the start of the 1900's is hope but not "verification" in a system claiming to censor historic documents artifacts as it finds that useful.

The childish like faith you adopt for "full disclosure" is amusing but is not warranted by the public statements of non-disclosure already on record.

AND as we see - these documents are FROM the dark ages. AND as we see SO was the protestant reformation AND so was the Catholic authorship of the Donation of Constantine AND so would be any Tiara from that period.

So your "claim" that the RCC disclosure on "that period" has resulted in a completed and exhaustive set of artifacts revealed to YOU in terms of tiara's is merely "hopefull" at best.

Anyone observing the salient point that the secrets identified above were witheld EVEN from Catholic Cardinals, theologians, scholars until a few years ago - can not go on in gullability to suppose that you now have exhaustive - auditing of the RCC on the subject of ANY artifact from the dark ages.

Any way - I think the point is clear and I understand your inclination to hope that you truly have been given the no-secrets-withheld view of the tiaras. But since you are not the custodian of all artifacts and can only make the claim "by trusting" the system of self-proclaimed secrecy is NOT being secretive when it comes to you.... I suppose we agree to "differ" on how "exhaustive" your findings could possibly be.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob
These are the truly relevant parts to you right?
"Etchegaray said the conference could also draw on examples that scholars had been able to examine since January, when the Vatican opened secret files. "
Despite Etchegaray being a theologian, they were hiding stuff from historians not theologians in this case.
For a theologian it has always been easy to own forbidden theological texts, you only had to claim you were combatting heresies contained within. Historians digging up primary source material on the inside goings on of the Vatican machinery are the ones being stonewalled. That is because that information is only available in one place. And that makes it possible to control.

"The archives also opened the infamous Index of Forbidden Books which Roman Catholics were not allowed to read or possess on pain of excommunication. Even the bible was on the blacklist."
All books on the Index have always been available through outside sources. It was the risk of being prosecuted for owning them that was the problem. The list itself has always been widely available. In fact there has been no Index of Forbidden Books since the 1960's. It was disbanded during Vatican II. So this is purely bad journalism. I suspect the court transcripts of people tried for reading books on the Index were finally being released. Once again an issue of interest to historians not theologians.
Personal anekdote.
When I helped move the contents of Jean Eyckelers personal archive to the KDC, I found several books that were on the index. Eyckeler a Monfortian monk, was one of the translators of the Petrus Canisius Bible, the first Dutch RC Bible to be translated from the original tongues. Among his books where texts of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, a Statenvertaling (basically the Dutch answer to the KJV) and works from a number of prominent German protestant theologians. All on the index and all bought in the 1920's to help facilitate his part of the translation. No way he could have hidden ownership of these books from his superiors. He was living in a convent after all.

 

You missed the point and have confused TWO different subjects here. ONE is the artifacts of the RCC "The SECRET DOCUMENTS" and the SECOND subject is the list of forbidden books.

The censorship in terms of forbidden books was NOT a case of the RCC having the documents and not allowing others access to them. RATHER it was that OTHERS had the documents and the RCC sought to punish those who had them. VERY different from the practice of keeping "SECRET FILES".

I can't imagine why you would mix those two together.

 

Bob
"I can't imagine why you would mix those two together."
I don't, I am working from the assumption you are.

"The journalists were not arguing that the forbidden books were secreted and owned by the RCC. Rather it was just another example of censorship, control and abuse in the dark ages."
That journalist was claiming,
"The archives also opened the infamous Index of Forbidden Books"
Sounds like that journalist is claiming the release of hidden information to me.

"In any case - the atrocities and perfidity of the RCC of the dark ages -- as listed in that Vatican news article -- seems to hold up. Even the RC leadership quoted there seems to agree to that the problem was severe."
Yet again not claiming that it was otherwise.

"- keeping secrets from its own scholars - as well as from you."
The Curia aren't keeping a secret from me.
Let's face it, they would have to know there is a secret.
Your church came up with 666=Vicarius Filii Dei somewhere in the 1800's and it never got taken seriously outside the circles of certain American (influenced) churches who had already decided the church of Rome was evil.
As far as the Curia is concerned 666 means probably Caesar Neron.
Vicarius Filii Dei is the mistaken phrase of somebody wanting to say Vicarius Christi to them.
The Donation of Constantine is a frightfully inept forgery to them and those 10 popes endorsing it of yours (still haven't got that list by the way) are a mild embarassment.

And you still haven't explained how a 1000 years worth of records spread all over Europe proving the pope walked around with Vicarius Filii Dei on his head, could have disappeared.
And you need to...
Because in this case, the RCC is hiding them is not a believable explanation.
One painting that can be reliably dated back to any period before 1800, featuring Vicarius Filii Dei on a papal tiara is all I ask.

 

Bob points out -
"The journalists were not arguing that the forbidden books were secreted and owned by the RCC. Rather it was just another example of censorship, control and abuse in the dark ages."

Obviously not. Since the list includes ALL Bibles and books printed by those publishers, all books written by those authors etc. We have no reason to believe that only the RCC HAS those books.

Rather - we suppose that ONLY they burned the ones they came across.

Bob said --
"In any case - the atrocities and perfidity of the RCC of the dark ages -- as listed in that Vatican news article -- seems to hold up. Even the RC leadership quoted there seems to agree to that the problem was severe."


"- keeping secrets from its own scholars - as well as from you."

I rest my case. You suppose that they give to non-Catholics WHAT they admit they hide from their own scholars.

You have lost all credibility on that point.

Someone would know - according to the article that "someone" is not necessarily all scholars in the RCC.

Nope. The RCC came up with Vicarius Filii Dei - in the 7th century.

No less than ten RC popes AFFIRMED the CONTENTS of that document until the 15th-16th century.

The fact that the Latin title happen to have a Roman (latin) numeral totalling 666 is not "my fault" nor something "invented" later.

The idea that the Popes and the Catholic authors of the Donation -- knew less about the title for the Popes accepted in THEIR day - than you do - is hardly credible.

I am sure. But they are not my popes. I did not elect them nor did I ask that they author that document NOR did I ask that the RC leaders URGE that the document CONTINUE to be used (at least its contents) even AFTER it was found to be a forgery.

Your imagination in blaming ME for the actions of the RCC is "laughable" - but we need a good laugh now and then - so thanks.

That is where you are wrong. YOU don't have the exhaustive list of artifacts from that age and neither do I.

My argument is that the title was known and used.

YOUR argument is that it could ONLY be used on a Tiara that STILL SURVIVES the 18th century.

That would be "YOUR" argument not mine.

Why do you find that so confusing???

And when the RCC ADMITS to hiding artifacts from ITS OWN scholars -- why do you Suppose "yes they hide from their OWN but not from ME"??

Your position here is not believable. Say something that is possibly true.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob
Read the following closely!
"Since the list includes ALL Bibles and books printed by those publishers, all books written by those authors etc. We have no reason to believe that only the RCC HAS those books."
We are making progress I see. The same concept applies to books containing pictures of tiara's, books describing tiara's, paintings of tiara's and woodcuts depicting tiara's. There are none around prior to the 19th century featuring a tiara that has Vicarius Filii Dei on it.

 

""- keeping secrets from its own scholars - as well as from you."
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mioque --
The Curia aren't keeping a secret from me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I rest my case. You suppose that they give to non-Catholics WHAT they admit they hide from their own scholars."
You have lost all credibility on that point."
:rolleyes: I am not known to any member of the Curia personally. So no they are not actively keeping a secret from me. You read to much into that statement.

"I said -
Let's face it, the Curia would have to know there is a secret.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Someone would know - according to the article that "someone" is not necessarily all scholars in the RCC."
That someone in the first sentence seems to be you. Pity you don't have a contract with the RCC.

"quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your church came up with 666=Vicarius Filii Dei somewhere in the 1800's and it never got taken seriously outside the circles of certain American (influenced) churches who had already decided the church of Rome was evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. The RCC came up with Vicarius Filii Dei - in the 7th century. "
I always claimed it was someone on the churches payroll, allthough somebody made a strong claim it was the Frankish court not the church who invented the description.
I claim your church came up with 666=Vicarius Filii Dei somewhere in the 1800's.

"No less than ten RC popes AFFIRMED the CONTENTS of that document until the 15th-16th century."
List of those popes please.

"The fact that the Latin title happen to have a Roman (latin) numeral totalling 666 is not "my fault" nor something "invented" later."
According to the bible 666 is a name not a title and the book of Revelations is in Koine Greek not Latin.

"quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the Curia is concerned 666 probably means Caesar Neron.
Vicarius Filii Dei is the mistaken phrase of somebody wanting to say Vicarius Christi to them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea that the Popes and the Catholic authors of the Donation -- knew less about the title for the Popes accepted in THEIR day - than you do - is hardly credible."
In those days every bishop was a Vicarius Christi, Vicarius Filii Dei was apparently used to specifically describe the bishop of Rome. When centuries later the pope decided that he needed a unique title stressing his status, he claimed Vicarius Christi for himself instead of doing anything with Vicarius Filii Dei.

 

Oops
last bit should have been.

The idea that the Popes and the Catholic authors of the Donation -- knew less about the title for the Popes accepted in THEIR day - than you do - is hardly credible."
In those days every bishop was a Vicarius Christi, Vicarius Filii Dei was apparently used IN THE DONATION to specifically describe the bishop of Rome. When centuries later the pope decided that he needed a unique title stressing his status, he claimed Vicarius Christi for himself instead of doing anything with Vicarius Filii Dei.

 

"And you still haven't explained how a 1000 years worth of records spread all over Europe proving the pope walked around with Vicarius Filii Dei on his head, could have disappeared.
And you need to...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is where you are wrong. YOU don't have the exhaustive list of artifacts from that age and neither do I."
You might be wrong here, I am an art-historian as well as a church-historian. (no I didn't make that up just yet, read my bio somewhere earlier on this thread*) I don't know what exhaustive is to you, but you would be surprised at what I can dig up if you give me a reasonable definition of that exhaustive list.

*And I've mentioned it in posts even before that.


"And when the RCC ADMITS to hiding artifacts from ITS OWN scholars -- why do you Suppose "yes they hide from their OWN but not from ME"??"
You quoted proof of documents not artefacts. The Vatican archives (caretakers of documents) are infamous when it comes to stuff they consider private information. The Vatican museums (caretakers of artefacts) are notoriously difficult when it comes to borrowing material from them, they are not difficult when it comes to showing the objects in their care.

 

"Your position here is not believable."
The vast majority on this board no doubt agrees with me. And that vast majority is the core audiance of the tall tale your church has been telling for over a century.

"Say something that is possibly true." o.k.
I'll speculate on your motivation throughout this thread. You cling to your position with a fanaticism I usually only get to see around here in deniers of the Shoah. I think that Vicarius Filii Dei on the pope's crown is a Dogma to you. Something on par with the virgin birth, the resurrection and Young Earth Creationism.
Now, let's look at my position. Why am I still around 14 pages into this thread?

 

Mioque - you need to turn to reason to be benefitted by it.

Your irrational position is that a tiara with VFD on it HAS to have survived the French AND HAS to have survived the published practice of the RCC in "secreting" artifacts of the dark ages from its OWN scholars AND must have been made available TO YOU.

And WHY all those obtuse conditions? You claim that they must be met -- IN ORDER for the EXISTING historic Catholic documents that PREDATE the French revolution to be true when THEY speak of the title listed on this thread. You say that these strange obtuse conditions must be met IN ORDER for the 10 Popes AFFIRMING that document to have actually KNOWN what it said and understood that it was declaring the Vicarius Filii Dei title to be ACCEPTED by Catholics as a "given".

A more absurd argument could hardly be made - and yet you "stick to it" as though "it makes sense".

Your only "help" here has been that your Catholic bretheren ignore the "details" and simply look for "yada-yada-something-bad-about--the-RCC" to oppose. They join you - in their classic rejection of "the details" - but that is hardly to your credit.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Your irrational position is that a tiara with VFD on it HAS to have survived the French AND HAS to have survived the published practice of the RCC in "secreting" artifacts of the dark ages from its OWN scholars AND must have been made available TO YOU."
No, my position is that all claims of a tiara with VFD on it can be traced to after the French destroyed a bunch of tiara's and that the one tiara that survived and all the other tiara's created later don't have VFD on them, meaning that those claims are fraudulent.