Does 'VICARIUS FILII DEI' exist and can '666' be applied to it?

[Cliff2]

That gives a just a little background into some of the findings that Dr Samuele Bacchiocchi has made in recent times.

We may agree with them or we may not.

I am not pushing it down anyones neck, read it through and make up your own mind as to what you believe.

 

[Cliff2]

Below are his four points.

1. John’s use of numbers in Revelation. This is the key to understand the meaning of numbers in Revelation. Very little attention has been paid in Adventist studies to the symbolic use of numbers, especially in the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation.

2. The importance of the number 666 in the pagan worship of Babylon and ancient Rome.

3. The symbolic meanings of 666 in the Bible.

4. The relationship between the mark of the beast and the number of the beast

 

[Pickle]

Hope that cleared up the Catholic Church's position

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?

 

[Pickle]

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.

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.

Honestly, he hasn't squashed much at all. If Aaron the high priest in the OT wore a miter, not a tiara, with God's name on it, then it's the miter we should be looking at, not the tiara.

Still, we do have eye witness accounts of seeing it on a tiara anyway.

 

[Pickle]

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.

 

[Pickle]

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.

Regarding the following quote from John Paul II's book:

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".

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?

 

[Cliff2]

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 heard Dr Sam B. talk about this issue in Australia and he is certain that his side of the story is correct.

Just to make sure I went and checked it out and found it in the Review & Herald just as he says it was.

This was more than 100 years ago that the Review came up with how it was never on the Pope's tiara.

It is not Sam B. making it up, he is taking from from the Review.

 

[Jimlarmore]

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

 

[Pickle]

Can you provide a link to the article? I'm not certain that's the article I was thinking of.

If Aaron's miter was something worn only for religious purposes, and since the tiara is not worn for religious purposes but the miter is, that could be a reason to look at the miter rather than the tiara. Indeed, Our Sunday Visitor said it was on the miter rather than the tiara, and they have never repudiated that claim, to my knowledge, despite some people's claims out there.

Yet we still have folks who claim to be eye witnesses who say they saw it on the tiara too, so I don't know what to think on that one.

 

[Pickle]

I just looked at http://biblelight.net/Sources/Ministry-Nov-1948-pg35.gif, and that may have been the one I remember. It points out that "There is [no picture] definitely known to exist. It nowhere states that Vicarius Filii Dei = 666 is the wrong interpretation of the text. Correct?

 

[Pickle]

Take a look at http://biblelight.net/Sources/ARSH10-Jul27-1905.gif and http://biblelight.net/Sources/ARSH11-Jul27-1905.gif.

In this article Everson says he couldn't find Vicarius Filii Dei on the tiara(s) available at that time, but he states emphatically at the end of the article that that doesn't affect our interpretation of the text, and that he will write "another article" proving "that also upon the tiara was found the inscription Vicarius Filii Dei at one time."

Dr. B. doesn't give the impression that these articles ended this way, does he?

Scoles' article or letter on this topic can be seen here: http://biblelight.net/Sources/ARSH10-Dec20-1906.gif. His statements must have been added into Uriah Smith's book in an edition published after Uriah died, given the dates of it all.

 

[Pickle]

I find it hard to accept something that was taught as fact for so long was actually a fabrication.

I'm glad you and I can have the same position about 666, Jim.

 

[reddogs]

Commercialism....., hmmm, as the whole world is being tied together with WTO and NAFTA and other agreements...., so we would be subject to control worldwide, interesting thought but is there anything to give us more comprhensive light on this?

 

[Pickle]

Look at all the references to merchandise in Rev. 18. Compare that to the amount of time spent talking about the kings of the earth. Merchants and merchandise is the clear item of emphasis.

Then compare the language there to that concerning Tyre in Ezek. 27 and 28. Ezek. 27 also emphasizes trade and commerce.

Notice how there are two characters in Ezek. 28: the king of Tyre and the prince of Tyre. The king is an anointed cherub that was in Eden, and the prince is someone who is a man who thinks he's like God. The two of them parallel the dragon and beast of Rev. 12 and 13.

Of the king of Tyre it is said,

Eze 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
​

Thus we again have commercialism being emphasized as a major factor in the last day apostasy.

 

[Sophia7]

Please keep in mind that Rule 1.4 prohibits those who are not Seventh-day Adventists from debating or teaching in this congregational forum. We have generally allowed other Christians to post clarification statements when they feel that their beliefs are being misrepresented. Beyond that, the forum rules limit what they can say here.

So please do not ask questions of Catholic visitors to our forum in a manner that would cause them to break the rules by answering. If you wish to discuss the Catholic position on this in a place where they can respond more freely, you are welcome to ask questions in OBOB, or you can start a discussion in Denomination-specific Theology, where debate is allowed from both sides.

 

[Sophia7]

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.

 

[OntheDL]

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.

The biblical model is with two witnesses there shall establish a fact. I think in this case, there are more than enough evidence to link the title "Vicarius Filii Dei" to the pope. Just examine the quotes in the earlier posts and thread. The proof of such inscription on the pope's mitre or tiara is not essential.

 

[OntheDL]

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

Hi,

Here is an article written by a friend of mine in reply to S. Bacchiocchi's End Time Issue Newsletter titled "The Saga of the Advenstist Papal Tiara".

http://cherrypicker.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/tiara.htm

 

[stray bullet]

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?

My explanation only covers relevant facts, not positions. I removed any opinions or beliefs from it.

Only the Pope determines his title and Vicarius Filii Dei was never one of them. The official title of the Pope is the Bishop of Rome- which does not add up to 666.

What you are doing is taking a phrase in Latin that was never a title of the Pope, but perhaps what some people phrased him as, counting the numbers in Latin and applying them to a prophesy in Greek. Even Ellen Gould White, her actual name, adds up to 666 if you count the numbers right.

It's just a numbers game a matter of finding a phrase that adds up to 666 and applying it to the pope. Even Bill Gates, if you count in ASCII, adds up to 666. These are people's actual names, not obscure phrases for the Pope.

 

[Pickle]

stray bullet,

I would think that for a Latin name one should use Roman numerals, for a Greek name Greek numerals, for a Hebrew name Hebrew numerals, and for an English name English numerals.

One thing about Ellen White is that, as far as I know, no one ever claimed that she wore her name on her forehead or was a high priest or wore a miter.

But I confess, though I did read the epistle for mass, I've never seen a photograph.