Talk:Vicarius Filii Dei/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

title or name?

According to one Greek translation the word "name" is "onomatov". And according to a Bible commentary, the word "name" can refer to whatever a person is called, or even how a person is regarded by others.

name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc. http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3686&Version=kjv

So the argument about whether VFD is an official title or not is redundant. Patrick Madrid, an eloquent apologist for the RCC, made this comment: Similarly, the pope can indeed be described as the Vicar of the Son of God, even in official documents, for that is exactly what he is, yet this is not an official title. http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/goingthedistance.html

If Catholics believe the Pope can be described as the 'Vicar of the Son of God' (VICARIUS FILII DEI) then that is indeed a name in the sense the word is used in Revelation 13:7.Rev107 09:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an official title to me, found here in English: "The Triregnum (the Papal Tiara formed by three crowns symbolizing the triple power of the Pope: father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ)"; and here in Latin:"Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius et Procurator,".[2]: Amish 00:01, 25, August 2010 (UTC)

Cute Purple Dinosaur

It isn't difficult to develop your own Latin or English title containing sufficient C, D, L, X, V, and I's to add up to DCLXVI. As an example, take the following:

1.   Barney is a Cute Purple Dinosaur

2.   C U T E P U R P L E D I N O S A U R
     C V       V     L   D I         V

3.   100 + 5 + 5 + 50 + 500 + 1 + 5 = 666

4.   Barney is the Antichrist.  QED.

_________________________________________________________________

But is Barney associated with a city on seven hills! Rev107 09:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventists

Some phrases in this article seemed to suggest that the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches a link between the disputed inscription "vicarius filii dei" and the reference in the Bible to the number 666. This is not so. Some groups within the church still promote such a view, but the official teaching, as well as current academic studies, no longer promote that link. Rather, the number must be seen as symbolic.

With this in mind, I have edited some references in this article to reflect current Seventh-day Adventist teaching. I have also added a link to the official church website on the bottom. --Stefanbs 19:01, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it might be more accurate to say that some groups within the Seventh-day Adventist Church no longer connect Vicarius Filli Dei to 666 rather than that some groups still teach it. The majority, I would think, of those who have an opinion on the matter, still hold to that view. --DrPickle 04:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Another silly example

Here is another example of how easy it is to find 666:

• Ellen Gould White

E
L      –    50 
L      –    50 
E
N

G
O
U      –     5  (note that the Romans did not have the letter U, so it is rendered as V here)
L      –    50
D      –   500

W      – 5 + 5  (note that W is two Us or two Vs, therefore 5 + 5)
H
I      –     1 
T
E

TOTAL  –   666

--Eoghanacht 19:53, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

You are correct that it is a silly example, since Ellen White never wore her name in her forehead, and her name is not a Latin name. Thus it is silly to use Roman numerals on an English name.

It concerns me that this article comes across so biased. It isn't even accurate. Why does it make the claim that it was only in 1914 that Our Sunday Visitor said that the miter contained the title, when it clearly did so as well in 1915? Why doesn't it raise the question about why Our Sunday Visitor destroyed the very last copy of that issue in their archives? --DrPickle 04:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

It is evident that this page was written by someone less than objective who wants to present only one side of the issue. For example, the page states that the disputed title appears in a forged document and omits the fact that that forged document was then incorporated into Roman Catholic canon law.

Another example is how the page mistates and minimizes what Our Sunday Visitor actually published.

Yet another example I suspect is this statement: "Again the words do not seem to appear on any of the vast number of known mitres in existence in the Vatican." How does the author know? Has he checked? Is he guessing? Does he have some official pronouncement from the Vatican itself that he can quote? And if he has such a statement, how can he verify its accuracy since it is coming from a system that has no constitution, no freedom of information act, no free elections by its subjects, no checks and balances, and a history as checkered as it comes?

Would it not be appropriate to have a section devoted to the arguments of Catholic apologists and a section devoted to the arguments of those who are of another persuasion? --DrPickle 04:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you have been overdosing on the paranoia tablets again. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Pointing out the obvious bias and error on a Wiki page is evidence of paranoia? Your comment really sounds strange.

I see the external link I added got removed. Why was that? I tried to describe it in a way that didn't sound dogmatic. --DrPickle 13:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's get specific. The article says:

"The article was subsequently changed twice in issues of the magazine published in September 1917 and August 1941. ...

"Though no other evidence apart from one article in one magazine in 1914 (which subsequently stated twice that it had got its facts wrong) ....

"Additional claims have been made that the words Vicarius Filii Dei exist in Church documents, including supposedly in a book by Pope John Paul II. However every 'quote' produced from the book has supposedly proven to be a mistranslation of the original text."

Here are the problems I see:

1. The existence of the 1915 issue is thus denied by the article.
2. The 1917 and 1941 issues only said that the title never appeared on the tiara. They said nothing about the miter, contrary to the above assertion.
3. "Supposedly in a book." "Supposedly ... a mistranslation." Supposedly? That's objective? It's either a mistranslation or it is not. It's either in the book or it is not. And besides, what book is it supposed to be in?

I don't mind apologetics at all, since I engage in them myself. But my understanding is that the apologetics that appear in Wikipedia are to be objective and supportable by verifiable facts.

The fixing of this article requires such a change in tone that I felt that some discussion was in order before such attempts are made, since I'm but a newbie here. --DrPickle 02:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting in a link to your own website promoting a viewpoint is a big 'no-no' on Wikipedia. Those links always get removed.

Re 1915, it doesn't matter if it was republished in 1916 every second Tuesday. If it was wrong, and they said it was an error (anyone who works in the media like I do see errors like that made all the time when a writer writes something without checking and the editor didn't spot the error until the paper had been put to bed and it is too late to correct it), then it is wrong.

The JPII book is "Crossing the Threshhold of Hope". Some promoters of the myth mistranslated the English version into bad Latin (treating a verb as a noun) and produced "Vicarius Filii Dei" where it wasn't.

The bottom line in all of this is that there is more proof in the existence of the Lough Ness Monster than there is in the existence of Vicarius Filii Dei. At least Nessie had photographs (albeit dodgy ones). The VFD nonsense can't find a photograph, can't find a tiara, can't find a mitre, can't find a document and instead relies on hearsay from a badly written question and answer from a minor magazine ninety-one years ago, and a forged mediaeval document. Some evidence, Bob! It also relies on a witness statement from a supposed former Catholic student priest whose statement suggests that if he was really a student priest he really was the dumbest ejjit in the seminary as he has his basic facts wrong — going on his errors, he is most likely someone who had no links with Catholicism whatsoever but pretended to have them to bolster their claims (all sides had their 'witnesses': Christians claiming to be ex-Jews, Catholics claiming to be ex-Protestants, Protestants claiming to be ex-Catholics, etc. A quick glance at their statements shows it to be a complete cock-and-bull story, some wannbees who claim to know the 'truth' but who get the elementary facts wrong.)

As to the removal of the magazine from the archives — du'h! That is done all the time by everyone. If you publish something that is wrong the last thing you want to do for people years from now to keep finding your mistake. So you pulp the evidence of your mistake. It is more difficult to do now that stuff is microfilmed almost immediately, though many newspapers don't microfilm things for three months after publication to give them time to remove any libel, embarrassing errors, etc. Given how tough the Catholic Church is on people who get the facts wrong in official publications, Catholic magazines often pull screw-ups from the archives and bin them, not because they are right but because they are wrong and you don't want to get a belt of the proverbial crozier and be told "What are you writing such rubbish for? Idiots out there will now think it is true." Protestant magazine, Jewish magazines, Islamic magazines, etc do the same all the time. That is how the world works. Only in 99.99999% of cases you don't get nutty conspiracy theorists imagining some conspiracy when you bin something. Or else you bin something to stop giving the conspiracy theorists a field day. That is probably why that article was binned, to stop it being grossly mispresented as fact that rather being the work of some idiot of a priest who didn't check his facts, and thought that if they dumped the embarrassing dross of an article everyone would forgot about it. Except of course that that just fuels the conspiracy theorists and their paranoia.

The bottom line is: where is the shagging evidence? Where are the documents? Where are the tiaras with this written on them? Where are the mitres with it written on them? Where are the photographs? If Pius XII was crowned with a tiara with those words, why does none of the thousands of photographs of the event show the words? Why didn't the movietone film of the event show it? You can walk around the tiaras in the Vatican and see them from every side. Why has none of them Vicarius Filii Dei on them? Every tiara made or given was announced publicly. They all have paper trails. We can account for every tiara that has existed since 1800. We can even see in the archives which tiara was worn on which date, at which ceremony. Every single tiara worn since 1800 is accounted for without exception. We know their manufacturer. We know their jeweller. We know how many jewels were on each. We know every single mitre made for centuries. We know their cost, if they were a simplex mitre or a full mitre, if they were plain or jewelled.

There is no document, no photograph, nothing verified by historians or archives, nothing. All there is is a dodgy article in a magazine, a forged document, rumours, unsubstantiated claims, and nothing else, despite 160 years of searching for evidence. Even the Seventh-day Adventist Church has given up the ghost on the thing and realised that the claim is a phoney as a $3.50 bill. But conspiracy theorists need to have their paranoid dillusions — whether it is how Kennedy was killed by a UFO, how Nancy Reagan was a secret lover of Frank Sinatra, how the holocaust was a myth or how popes wear something on their heads that call themselves Vicarius Filii Dei. Maybe the believers in such crap need a dose of prozac. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl,

Have you have ever really objectively researched the matter?

The reason I ask is that you indicate that the 1915 issue "republished" the 1914 question and answer, which it most certainly did not. Have you ever read what that 1915 issue actually said?

You also still maintain that OSV later denied that Vicarius Filii Dei was on a miter, when they most certainly did not in 1917 and 1941. Please back up your claim with evidence, namely a clear quotation of a denial along with the exact date of its publication in OSV.

Christians that follow Scripture have nothing to hide, and aren't engaged in coverups by destroying evidence, including the very last issue they have in their archives. American publications print corrections after the fact. They never years later destroy the last issue they have on file. If you think I'm naive, then please cite specific examples of specific journals that would indicate otherwise.

You say that no one has ever been able to provide a photograph of a miter. The lady near here who saw the pope wearing such a miter when she was a young girl in Italy didn't know its significance, and didn't have a camera. But at any rate, if I called the Vatican today, would I be able to go there tomorrow and freely search through anywhere necessary to verify that there never was such a miter? Would I be given free access to anything and everything in what are offically called the "Secret Archives"? (A church organization with "Secret Archives"? What is going on?)

And since you maintain that it is an obvious fact that organizations like the Vatican would try to destroy incriminating evidence, how can you guarantee for me that the Vatican didn't also destroy the miter(s) that my friend here says she saw? --DrPickle 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl,

Could you please provide the actual wording of the priest who you claim said that he got miters mixed up with tiaras, or at least cite an authentic reference? If you actually have verifiable information to this effect, it would help convince me that you are trying to maintain a neutral point of view. --DrPickle 18:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl,

No, I don't think the tone of even your edited article is neutral. You state that it is fringe groups in Protestantism that taught that the popes are the Antichrist. So you are calling the LCMS to just a fringe? And the Wisconsin Synod? And the Lutheran Church of Australia until recently? And the Concordia Lutheran Conference?

I would think that if we examine other branches of Protestantism, we would find those not on the fringe that still hold to one of the only beliefs that Protestantism used to have in common, a belief proposed by Catholic leaders long before Luther, leaders concerned about what was going on in Rome. --DrPickle 19:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Jtdril,

Would you be so kind as to tell me why you reverted the text of the article to the inaccurate "fringe" version? And could you please tell me why you think the facts you presented about the priest and OSV's retraction are accurate when you haven't yet provided any verification for such claims? --DrPickle 00:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You may enjoy paranoid conspiracy theories but this is an encyclopaedia, not one of your POV websites. You offer no evidence to back up your claims.

• The supposed 1903/1914 photographic "evidence" can't be shown, hardly surpisingly as it is a myth. Photographic technology in 1903 and 1914 did not enable zoom photography from the back of St. Peters, where the press in those days were kept.
• The cameras (photographic and newsreal) at the 1939 coronation disprove the claims that that tiara used in that coronation had the words VFI on it. Yet the myth is still repeated even though thousands of photographs show it to be false.
• Millions of people have seen popes wear tiaras. Less than a handful, all aligned to one group pushing an agenda, claim to have seen VFD on a tiara.
• Of the thousands of photographs taken of papal tiaras since the creation of photography none show VFD anywhere.
• Proponents of the myth cannot make their minds up as to whether the words "appeared" on a tiara or a mitre. Their "sources" can't even agree on which supposedly had the words.
• All religions in the past (and Islam still) produced "converts" who claimed to reveal sensational claims about their enemies. Among the claims made were
  • Catholics who produced supposed Jews who supposedly murdered Catholic pre-baptism babies and burnt them to use their ashes in demonic services. It was bullshit. None of the supposed Jews were actually Jewish. The propagandists who travelled around Europe telling the "inside the Jews" story turned out never to have set foot in a synogogue. Their descriptions of Jewish rituals were bogus. Two of the "Jewish converts" accidentally showed that they weren't circumsized.
  • German Protestants claimed that convents were brothels, producing "ex-nuns" to tell the "true story". One of them got the location of her own supposed former convent wrong and when it was checked out, the convent she claimed was full of twenty year old prostitutes actually had 18 nuns in it, the youngest aged 71, the oldest 104.
  • English Catholics produced "Protestant converts" who claimed that various Protestant churches were used to celebrate Black Masses, at the highpoint of which Hosts were removed from the tabernacle and urinated on. Their story fell apart when it turned out thath all the churches they claimed this was happening in were low church not Anglo-Catholic and didn't have tabernacles. (Their stories were entirely made up. They even got the description of the churches wrong.)
  • Catholics claimed on the basis of torture that Europe was being overrun with Incubi (devils with icycle-shaped blue penises and ice-cold semen) who were supposedly producing devil's children. Though the Roman Catholic Church murdered tens of thousands of midwives whom it claimed to be in league with the Incubi, and claimed there were tens of thousands of Incubi, it could not produce a single Incubus or one of their millions of children.

Producing supposed "former Catholics" to give first hand testimony about the use of VFD is exactly the same scam. A former Catholic student priest would not get the names of Catholic rites wrong — he would have spent 20-30 years attending those ceremonies. He sure as hell wouldn't use Protestant rites terminology if he had once been a Catholic. They would not describe ceremonies that independent sources (such as the media who covered Vatican ceremonial) say never existed. The "supposed ex-Catholics" clearly knew so little about Catholicism that they could not possibly ever have been Catholics. They were just Protestants spinning a story, like the "ex-Jews" who weren't Jews, "ex-Protestants" who weren't Protestants, ex-Catholics who weren't Catholics. It is the oldest religious scam in the book, pulled by all sides.

Though this myth has been pushed for nearly 2 centuries, its pushers still cannot find photographic evidence, independently sourced evidence, anything to offer even the slightest evidence. The most they can find is a discredited magazine article (anyone who knows anything about the media knows magazines and newspapers get facts wrong all the time), claim about a supposed photograph that couldn't technologically have been taken at the time, claims about a coronation that all photographs taken by all photographers of all faiths disprove, dodgy claims from supposed "ex-Catholics" that are so littered with inaccuracy as to be comic (a student priest would not have been up close near a pope — only Protestant myth would think that — would not have been able to see words supposedly set in clear diamonds against a silver background, and because of the three golden ribbed crowns would not have been able to see writing in diamonds obscured by the angle by the crowns unless he too was being carried twenty feet in the air directly in front of a pope wearing a tiara being carried on the portable throne).

You can write as much POV conspiracy theory garbage as you wish on your own websites. But you can no more write it here without independent evidence than we can allow David Icke supporters write their belief that Queen Elizabeth and Bill Clinton as eight foot tall alien lizards (the actually believe that crap). There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the claim that VFD was written on tiaras or mitres. You can believe it all you want, but in the absence of any verifiable evidence you cannot push your religious theories as fact here. You have plenty of websites you push those theories as fact on. Keep your unverifiable claims there. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl,

You appear to be purposely ignoring my questions, and the discrepancies I have raised.

The Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) is a mainline denomination, not a fringe. "Fringe" under these circumstances is anything but a neutral word. It is inaccurate.

You have yet to provide a quote or reference from the priest you allege recanted his story. I am genuinely interested in seeing it. I did not run across this when I was looking through the issues of OSV at Notre Dame.

Ellen White was not the founder of the Seventh-day Adventist church. --DrPickle 02:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl,

I find this all so difficult to understand. Doesn't Wikipedia's NPOV policy require that both sides of the argument be fairly stated? Why then would you remove my verifiable references to Cardinal Manning's use of Vicarius Filii Dei as a title to refer to the pope?

There is a real difficulty here. If you say that the Catholic Church has denied that this title has been used as a title of the pope, what reference can you give to support such a claim?

Obviously, Catholic officials have more than once called the pope the Vicar of the Son of God. One might argue that a mere Cardinal or a priest doesn't consititute the church, and that only the word of the pope or the magisterium is authoritative. Yet if that be the case, what reference from the pope or the magisterium can you give that dismisses any of the disputed claims? Have they ever denounced the use of this title? Have they ever said that it never appeared on a tiara or a miter?

But as soon as we rely on the word of a lesser authority, we have folks like Cardinal Manning who demonstrate that our efforts to deny that such a title has ever been used of the pope are just plain wrong.

It was this kind of thing that made me question the NPOV stance of this article.

Dubious

Name of Journal

I've noticed, Jtdirl, that you are quite quick to delete info that presents the other side of the question, which violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I'm curious why you aren't as quick to provide evidence that you are referring to the right journal. It's been at least three days since I poin ted out that problem.

I contend that there is no journal by the name you have given that published anything remotely like what you are claiming was published. --DrPickle 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

RCC Dismisses Claim

I would like to see evidence that the RCC has ever dismissed the claim that Vicarius Filii Dei is a valid title for the pope.

Catholic apologists regularly deny that bishops and priests can speak on behalf of the church. Thus we either need a statement by the pope himself or by the magisterium denouncing and repudiating the use of Vicarius Filii Dei as a title for the pope, or we must acknowledge, as Patrick Madrid has done, that the title has been used in official RCC documents and by Catholic officials.

Which approach do you prefer, Jtdirlk? --DrPickle 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Priest Withdrew Statements in Article

I would consider your claim to this effect to be totally reasonable and possible, but your long delay in finding verification for your claim makes me wonder if it was just wishfuul thinking on the part of some apologist somewhere, and that perhaps you just copied his statement without first making sure it was true.

Hope you find some verification soon. --DrPickle 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

1917 & 1941 Issues

The 1917 and 1941 articles I have read say nothing about miters at all. They only speak about tiaras, and thus can't truthfully be said to withdraw or deny the 1915 article. But since my articles didn't come from Catholic Visitor, you be reading different articles than I am.

Why not post a scanned copy of the articles you claim deny the story? Or are you just relying on someone else's word about what they say? --DrPickle 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Scan of 1917 statement.

Scan of 1941 statement.

Neither says anything about the miter. They only concern the tiara.

(If the atrocities reported out of the Papal States during the 19th century are indeed true, then the latter part of the 1941 statement is an exageration, which calls into question the other info provided in this "unofficial" document.)

Does anyone have a scan of where the priest retracted his 1915 statements as claimed? Or a source where they are quoted? --DrPickle 17:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

1832 Claim

Got any support for your claim that a Protestant woman is said to have seen the title on the pope's tiara in 1832? I can't find any such thing. I think you got your facts wrong about what was actually seen, where it was seen, and who saw it.

But I don't mind being corrected, and so I eagerly await some sort of verification for this point. --DrPickle 04:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1845 High Mass

It may very well be true that the Presbyterian minister claimed to have seen the tiara with the disputed title on it during a Pontifical High Mass, but given the other problems with accuracy in this article, it wouldn't hurt to verify this point too.

The source in my possession says nothing about any mass at all. --DrPickle 14:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wording Never Contained These Words

I'd like to see evidence of this claim that the wording "never" contained the words in question, in contradiction to the letter that came from Cardinal Gibbon's residence. I'd also like to see some primary source that the Latin words you cite are really what is said at the coronation. --DrPickle 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How Important was the Donation of Constantine?

The papal apologists want to minimize the significance of the diputed title appearing in the Donation of Constantine by discounting that document as a forgery. Yet, as the quote in the next section from Schaff makes clear, the practice of crowning the pope with the tiara is based on that very document.

This fact raises several questions: The coronation words are said, according to "one old observer," to include the idea that the pope is ruler of the world. Is that idea based solely or in part on the Donation? Have there not been popes who based their claims to temporal power over the entire world upon that document?

Much of the discussion in this article is artifically made by the apologists to concern the tiara. Would the popes of modern times have worn a triple crown at all if it hadn't been for the Donation? It is the Donation that claims that Constantine gave the tiara to the pope, and thus I can't see how the custom of wearing the tiara can be anything but based on that document. --DrPickle 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Words Said at Coronation

I'm not saying that this fact is wrong. But I am saying that if you are going to try to refute the evidence for the opposing POV in the same section that that evidence is presented, you better have your facts straight.

In this case the only citation given is a Protestant professor who is quoting Philip Schaff, who is quoting someone else. Now how you can claim that a quote by a professor who never read the original can PROVE that the title in question NEVER was used in a coronation ceremony is beyond me.

But it is interesting to note what you ommited saying that the professor quoted from Schaff:

At the enthronization in St. Peter’s, the tiara was used which Constantine is said to have presented to Sylvester, and the words were said, "Take the tiara and know that thou art the father of princes and kings, the ruler of the world, the vicar on earth of our Saviour Jesus Christ, whose honor and glory shall endure throughout all eternity."

Thus Schaff links the Donation of Constantine to a key part of the coronation ceremony, and thus that forgery becomes even more all-important to the papal power itself during its history.

Given the all-importance of the Donation to the papacy, given its use during the coronation ceremony, as admitted by Schaff and you, given the fact that the Donation mentions both a tiara and a miter, given such a complimentary title (VFD) in the Donation, to be too quick to assume that the popes never used that title, or to be too quick to discount the eyewitness accounts of seeing VFD on miters and tiaras, appears a bit naive. --DrPickle 15:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I will add that the citation of the words used at a specific coronation, that of Innocent III, which is what this quote from Schaff is all about (bk. 5, ch. 5), cannot be used to prove that the disputed title NEVER was used at a coronation of a pope. --DrPickle 17:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Schaff used two sources. I have the one now, and have requested the other through my library. The words in Latin do not match what the source gives. Thus I wonder if these Latin words are a translation from the English, which was a translation from the German, which was a translation from yet another source in Latin.

Now here is a problem: If the Latin in this article really is authentic, which cannot be determined since no verification has been provided, though it was requested days ago, then we have proof right here that the Latin words differed from coronation to coronation, since the words in the article differ from the source used by Schaff's source.

Bear in mind that we still do not have proof that the title in question was NEVER used in a coronation of a pope, and we do have an official reply from Cardinal Gibbon's residence to the contrary. --DrPickle 14:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Previous Questions

I'd also like to see verification for the statement:

"All the other tiaras appear to have been displayed either separately or in groups, not just within the Vatican but even in the United States, where the 'story' first originated."

I'd like some concrete facts with sources for how many tiaras there really have been, how many tiaras still exist today, and how many tiaras have been displayed in the United States. "Appear" is too vague, and makes the article vulnerable to criticism.

We have to be objective. We can't sound like an apologist. --DrPickle 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Canon law

Dr. Pickle added a picture with the caption:

"Uicarius Filii Dei" is highlighted in this copy of columns 341 and 342 of the 1876 edition of Corpus Iuris Canonici. Canon Law collections like this one consist of the laws that govern the Roman Catholic Church.

The text shown therein is the Donation of Constantine, so this is no extra piece of evidence. If one cares to look up Canon law. one will see that a "1876 edition of Corpus Iuris Canonici" does not exist. The first codification of canon law was in 1917, the current CIC was promulgated in 1983. This picture is merely a section of a collection of canon issued throughout the centuries - and this canon quotes the Donation.

And BTW, the appearance of these words in the Donation quote do not make it a title of the Pope. It is a wording that the Pseudo-Constantine used. If I called Musical Linguist a "examplary proponent of the kindness campaign" (as she undoubtedly is) that wouldn't make it a title of hers. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind being corrected, Str1977. So you are saying that Gratian's Decretals is not an authoritative, primary source? And you are saying that a document that was considered genuine and was used as such for hundreds of years isn't evidence?

You are entitled to your opinion, but Wiki's NPOV policy requires that both sides of an argument be shown. And the reasonable person would consider a document deemed genuine for hundreds of years and incorporated into Gratian's Decretals to be evidence for one side of this debate, even if that side proves wrong in the end. --DrPickle 00:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I should have said the 1879 edition, but the title is spelled correctly. Go ahead and verify it if you want to at http://mdz.bib-bvb.de/digbib/gratian/text/@Generic__BookView;cs=default;ts=default?q=uicarius+Filii+Dei&DwebQueryForm=%24q --DrPickle 00:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I happen to be a canonist. We have been aware of forged decretals for many centuries now. In the former Corpus there was a rather sophisticated system of deciding what was valid and what wasn't. Not everything in Gratian was considered authentic much less infallible by canonists. While canonists routinely used documents to show the authority of the papacy they did NOT use any such title. If they felt it was valid and the Church had approved it they probably would have, but they didn't. The title is not an official title, it was not used by the Popes, it was not considered valid by canonists. Sorry, but you're in a bit of a pickle. Even the document Pastor Aeternis from Vatican I which highlighted papal infallibility did not cite the alleged title. The CIC 1917 and 1983 do not use it. There simply is no evidence for your pov.Cestusdei 00:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings.

So in your opinion, a forged document that was considered genuine for centuries and which was incorporated into collections of Canon Law would not be considered evidence by any reasonable person that the title in question coincides with the claims of the papacy? It seems to me that that is a stretch, to say that this cannot be considered evidence for the opposite point of view from what this article is obviously promoting.

When exactly was it decided by canonists that the quote in question from Gratian wasn't genuine?

You raise an interesting question. What evidence do you have that the title was never used by the popes? Do you have any statements by canonists or popes prior to 1450, say, that indicate that they did not consider this title a valid title? Do you have any statements regarding what they did consider valid titles?

I did a search for "vicarius christi" and "uicarius christi" and "vicarivs christi" in Corpus Iuris Canonici, and couldn't find a thing. --DrPickle 15:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That the Donation was a forgery was philologically proven in the 15th century.

You asked: "What evidence do you have that the title was never used by the popes?"

I have worked on various papal documents from the middle ages (so from a time when the Donation was considered genuine) and noe docment contain this title. I have never encountered anyone you had encountered that title (except in regard to SDA theories).

Hower the proper question to ask is: What evidence do you have that the title was ever used by the popes?

Answer this question first. No, wait, I'll answer it for you: none! You have no evidence.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that the work that proved to Donation a forgery was placed on the Index?

It is therefore true, according to your admission, that the Donation was considered genuine and therefore authoritative for centuries.

There is more than one question here. First of all, is the title a valid one that could appropriately be used of the popes. I think all will agree that it is a valid one, agrees with Rome's doctrines, and is complimentary rather than derogatory. Another question is whether the popes have ever used the title themselves.

As far as whether the popes have ever themselves used that title, we do have a number of eye witnesses claiming to have seen the title on a miter or tiara. That is evidence. Whether the evidence turns out to be valid or not is another question, but it is evidence nonetheless.

This happens in court cases all the time. Both sides bring their evidence, and the jury decides which side's evidence is really valid. --DrPickle 15:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

is the title a valid one that could appropriately be used of the popes That pretty much reflects your conspiracy theory style of contribution here. If it didn't exist, then it should have because it was "appropriate". Yeah, right. That sort of garbage thinking belongs on a blog or POV website, not in an encyclopaedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

We have 'evidence' that people have seen UFO's. Do they therefore exist? I saw a purple wombat today. Do you believe me? The old CIC was an amalgamation of documents and decretals from a wide array of sources. Canonists were trained to decide how to use them or if they should be used. We were the ones who discovered the forgeries and exposed them. The title simply hasn't been used and the evidence is self-serving fantasy. You are going to have to do the anti-Christ thing some other way. And btw we don't use the jury system. Our system is based on Roman law procedures. Basically the European civil code. VFD still wouldn't stand up. Sorry, those are the facts.Cestusdei 03:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The facts are clear.

• Millions of people over the years have seen popes wearing tiaras and mitres. Millions saw no mention of Vicarius Filii Dei. A handful, attached to the promoters of the claim that it exists, claim they did. No neutral sources claim it exists on a tiara.
• Tens if not hundreds of thousands of photographs have been taken of popes wearing tiaras and mitres. Not one shows Vicarius Filii Dei on any of them.
• Thousands of busts and paintings exist. None show the words.
• All the tiaras in existence are on display in the Vatican or internationally. None show the words.
• The only primary document to contain the words is a universally acknowledged forgery.
• The only sources proponents of the claim point to as evidence is 1 minor magazine that later withdrew the claim, and among the millions of books written by Roman Catholics, a handful of secondary claims without evidence.
• One of those claims is demonstrably rubbish. The words in the coronation never included the word.

It is hard to think of a conspiracy theory with less evidence and more unambiuous evidence that it is wrong. Issue closed. No case. QED. I'm taking those nonsensical disputed tags of the page, since the only dispute is from one user who promotes the claim on his websites. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be getting things mixed up, Jtdirl. There are multiple and different issues here.

1. Is the title in question a valid and appropriate title for the pope?
2. Is the title an offical title for the pope?
3. Has the pope ever used the title?
4. Has it been used by Catholics to refer to the pope?
5. Has it ever appeared on a miter?
6. Has it ever appeared on a tiara?
7. Has it ever been used in the coronation?

An affirmative answer to only one of the above questions is sufficient in the minds of those who hold to the view in question. In other words, it matters not whether it ever appeared on a miter or tiara or not. If Catholics have used the title to refer to the pope, then that is evidence in support of the view that Rev. 13:18 is referring to that title.

You have made it quite clear that there is a conspiracy going on. You and Str1977 have conspired together to lie on Wikipedia regarding the alleged 1832 visit to Rome by the Protestant woman, where there is no such source. The source actually says that a man at some point in time saw VFD on a miter, not a tiara. You know that is true, because I quoted the entire statement, if you read what I wrote. So we aren't talking about a conspiracy theory. We are talking about a conspiracy fact.

The two of you have also conspired to keep readers from knowing that Vicarius Filii Dei appeared in a document considered valid for centuries.

You state that no neutral source claimed it existed on a tiara. Where do you propose that we find a neutral source? Do neutral sources exist? You by no means are neutral, so whatever you say or claim to have seen couldn't be considered a neutral source. --DrPickle 15:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Issue closed. Mediation is not accepted as the only person who wants it is the author of websites who promotes the myth as fact and who has been trying to use Wikipedia as part of that campaign. POV garbage can be written on blogs and POV websites. It cannot be treated as fact in an encyclopaedia when there is no evidence to back it up. QED. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And that is my point exactly. You have a particular point of view that you are pushing, and to do so you are using unverifiable and false claims that are unsupported by the evidence. There are plenty of blogs and POV sites where you can do that, but it shouldn't be done here.

In case you've forgotten, I'll mention that I have already pointed out that the 1832 source does not say what you say that it says. And it is dishonest to merely say that the Donation of Constantine was a forged docuemnt without also informing the reader that it was considered genuine for centuries, was used by popes, and was included in Canon Law collections. Thus this article is pushing a particular POV, and was written by an apologist, not by someone laying out the facts in an objective manner. --DrPickle 19:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue has been debated. You have not produced any evidence whatever. All the evidence disproves your POV. Issue closed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

1. You have never debated the issue of what the 1832 source actually says.
2. I gave you the exact and full quote from the 1832 source, thus providing evidence to support my point that you were in error, and it was promptly deleted.
3. Whether all the "evidence" you allow to be posted disproves a particular POV isn't the issue here. The issue is that Wikipedia policy requires that both sides of the issue be fairly stated, and thus you are duty bound to allow the evidence presented by both sides to be posted, whether you personally agree with that evidence or not. --DrPickle 15:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Only if the source is legitimate. Therein lies your problem. You don't have one.Cestusdei 04:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the source you are calling into question, the Donation of Constantine, was considered extremely legitimate by the papacy, and thus is appropriate to be presented as the evidence in favor of one side of the question. --DrPickle 18:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I was able to secure a 1730's copy of Corpus juris canonici academicum. What is interesting about it is that it differs from the 1879 edition of Corpus juris canonici. In that edition it identifies Peter as being "Vicarius Filii Dei," using that exact capitalization. The 1879 edition didn't capitalize "uicarius," but the 1730's copy did capitalize "Vicarius." That indicates that the author/editor/compiler considered the phrase an actual title. --DrPickle 01:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to bet it quotes the sources you have already presented. That doesn't count. The Donation doesn't count since it is a forgery. If someone forges your will would you say it is legitimate? Give me a break.

Our Sunday Visitor is the name of the source

An error was introduced near the article's creation [1] The magazine in question has been incorrectly identified as Our Catholic Visitor. Since it commenced publishing in 1912, it has only been known as Our Sunday Visitor ISSN 0030-6967. [2][3] As far as I can tell no publication with the name of Our Catholic Visitor has ever existed.

It is interesting to note how often, and how far this error has propagated by looking at this google search "Our Catholic Visitor" Vicarius It will be interesting to see how long it will take the correction to be propagated to over 100 other web sites. patsw 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And this amply illustrates my point: This article was written by pro-papal apologists who 1) had no personal, working knowledge of the facts, and 2) wrote this article to push a particular POV. If they had bothered to read the original sources, it would be hard to imagine them making this sort of error.

Not having read the sources for themselves, it is then understandable why they would claim that OSV repudiated things they didn't repudiate in 1917 and 1941. It also makes sense why they would claim the existence of an 1832 source that put the title on a tiara, when in fact it put it on the miter.

It also explains why they would discriminate against my NPOV corrections of errrs in fact, and mydisclosures of all the facts concerned. To allow such corrections and disclsures goes contrary to the intended purpose of making this article serve an apologetic and one-sided purpose. --DrPickle 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Years ago OSV stated that this was a mistake by a uninformed staffer. They regretted the error. OSV is a weekly newspaper. It carries no canonical weight. NONE. It is not an official document or spokesman for the Catholic Church. You have to use official documents. Not some weekly that made a gaff years ago. Talk about grasping at straws.Cestusdei 22:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept what you say as being true, IF you can provide me the date of the issue in which they made such an admission.

And here is the problem: The claim has been made that they said such. I asked for verification. No verification was provided. I added dubious tags. No verification was provided. My tags were removed.

Either provide the verification for your claim, or quit making it. It's plain and simple. --DrPickle 14:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, but I overlooked something important that you said:

"It carries no canonical weight. NONE. It is not an official document or spokesman for the Catholic Church. You have to use official documents."

The article claims that the Catholic Church denies that this has ever been a title of the pope. What official document or spokesman, therefore, has made such a pronouncement? Jtdirl has admitted by his extended silence on this question that he knows of none. If he is correct that there really is none, how then can this article make such a claim? --DrPickle 15:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact day. Early 20th century. However, it is your burden to present it. Even so, if I find a church bulletin from your church that makes a mistake can I use it as evidence that your faith is in error? I doubt you would accept that. The Church has never used this title for the Pope. That is a fact not an opinion. No legitimate official source exists. The only reason you want to use it is because it serves your nefarious purpose of trying to add up 666. That's pretty much it. Just admit it and find some other way to attack the papacy.Cestusdei 23:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If claims regarding the RCC's views or OSV's statements can't be verified, they can't appear in this article as statements of fact.

The Donation of Constantine was considered so legitimate and so official that part of the coronation ceremony was based on it, according to the very source being cited in this article. And in Valla's critique of the Donation, he equated Vicarius Dei with Vicarius Filii Dei.

If you can demonstrate that Vicarius Dei is derived from some other source than Vicarius Filii Dei, I would be most interested in that. --DrPickle 16:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Our claims can be verified from our own documents. You must depend upon forgeries that everyone acknowledges are forgeries. Don't you get it? Vicar of Christ does not have any connection to VFD. You have no legitimate source that says it does. You can't prove your case. A critique means nothing in canon law and equating? Please you are grasping desperately. Face it. You have lost this one unless you come up with some new substantial evidence. Get over it.Cestusdei 04:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The pope wore a tiara because the Donation of Constantine said that Constantine had given him one, even after the Donation was admitted to be a fraud. The pope claimed to be the ruler of the world, though Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world, because the Donatin of Constantine said that Constantine had given the pope that kind of power.

Even after the Donation was proved a fraud, the popes kept on wearing tiaras and claiming to be the rulers of the world.

So by your silence to my question, are you admitting that Vicarius Dei is indeed derived from Vicarius Filii Dei? --DrPickle 18:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not derived from that title and I have seen no official evidence that it was. This is just a backdoor way of trying to prove it. Similiarity does not imply descent. Popes wore crowns because they were temporal rulers of the papal states. Actually then never claimed sole temporal rulership over the whole world. I assume you are speaking of Boniface VIII. In fact the Church was fighting to remain independent from state control.Cestusdei 23:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• You are avoiding identifying the source of the title Vicarius Dei.

• The historian quoted from by one of the editors here identified the tiara used in the coronation ceremony as being the one given by Constantine to Sylvester, and thus that part of the ceremony is a tradition based on the Donation of Constantine.

• They wore the tiara even when they no longer ruled the papal states, and according to the quote aforementioned, they wore them because of the Donation.

The source was a forgery, you are using a fraudulent document. There was no tiara for Popes back in the 4th century. The Popes were temporal rulers of the papal states later on and wore royal insignia. But that doesn't mean they wore them because of the donation of Constantine. There is no link.

• Again, the quote aforementioned said that the pope at his coronation was acknowledged the "ruler of the world." --DrPickle 00:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

Can some please explain the following passage, especially the bolded words:

Hoffman described the words as having been spelt out clearly in jewels. Given that the delicate papier-mâché tiara was no longer worn (He viewed the wearing of a papier-mâché tiara as embarrassing. It had only been created as a temporary crown in 1800 because no tiara was available in exile), of the other potential tiaras available, only the 1820 tiara had sufficient space between the three crowns to place lettering big enough to be read. No evidence exists that that tiara ever contained jewels outside the three crowns. Gregory's own 1834 tiara (image 3) had no room between the lower two crowns for any large lettering, nor was there any room at the top between the top crown and the monde to place readable lettering.

What's puzzling me most of all is this "He" in "He viewed ..." - who is "he"?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you refuse mediation?

Are you afraid of something, Jtdirl? If my questions and points are so off base and ridiculous, as you claim, why would you refuse mediation?

This all makes Wikipedia look like a big joke. Anyone can then hijack it to suit their own POV purposes. No accountability and no recourse. That's what it appears to this newbie.

I personally find it offensive and reprehensible that you would enlist others to help you revert my edits by calling me a fundamentalist Protestant spreading anti-Catholic ideas. Since when is being anti-papal supremacy automatically being anti-Catholic? Would you call all the Catholics who feel the same way that I do anti-Catholic? Was Lord John Acton anti-Catholic? Were all the 15th century cardinals and bishops who were trying to reign in the papacy anti-Catholic? Was Archbishop Eberhard before them anti-Catholic? Was L. Valla who showed the falsity of the Donation of Constantine, using such disrespectful language in the process, whose book was officially condemned, was he anti-Catholic? --DrPickle 15:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is evidence. This was a fraud from the beginning. I used to be a fundamentalist. But I looked at the evidence for stuff like this and found it lacking. This simply isn't a papal title and has never been. End of story. Why do you so badly want it to be one? Simply, because the title adds up to 666 and you can then use it to justify your view of Catholicism. You aren't interested in the truth at all. You just want your story to "add up". It doesn't. You can find better arguments for your pov then this one.Cestusdei 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're letting your POV blind you to the facts. Though it was a fraud, it was treated as genuine for centuries by the popes themselves, was the basis for some of their claims to power, and was incorporated into collections of Canon Law. And as the source referred to by the article makes clear, it was utilized in the coronations of the popes. If both sides are to be fairly stated in this article, as Wikipedia policy requires, this should be made clear.

My views of Catholicism are totally distinct from this question. This question has more to do with papal supremacy than Catholicism, as the long history of debate within Catholicism on this topic makes clear. Catholics have never been united on the question of papal supremacy. --DrPickle 14:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it was NOT used by popes. The only sources you can cite are forgeries that we ourselves discovered and rejected. It wasn't one of their titles. They never gave it a second thought. Popes have plenty of titles. You seem to have no interest in legitimate titles that are universally recognized. Gee, I wonder why? You POV is not distinct from the question at all. You are willing to bend historical facts to fit your ideology. The popes base their claim to power, in this case sacra potestas, to their position as Bishop of Rome and therefore Successor of St. Peter. That is the core of it and the rest is ancilliary. I am a canonist and refer you to canons 330-333.Cestusdei 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your statements are inaccurate. Since Lorenzo Valla an anti-papal Catholic, you can't rightly say that "we ourselves discovered and rejected." His work was condemned. It took more than a century before his opinion was universally accepted. The papacy thus strongly resisted de-officializing that forgery.

Have you read Valla's work?

What do you think of the fact that Valla equated Vicarius Dei with Vicarius Filii Dei? I know he isn't an official source, but do you have anything that would prove where VD came from, and that it wasn't a shortened form for VFD? --DrPickle 17:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Some argued one way and others another way. That's how law works. When it became evident it was a forgery it was noted as such. Why do you insist on using a false document? If someone filed a suit against you in court based on a false document and said "well okay it's forged, but in the beginning it was believed to be true" would you want it entered into evidence against you? Of course not! You would object and rightly so. There is no evidence that Vicar of Christ came from VFD. You could equate Christ with the Good Shepherd and then say that he is Vicar of the Good Shepherd. Oh, but that doesn't give you the result you WANT. Sorry bud, ain't gonna work. Seriously, is there no lie that an anti-Catholic won't use?Cestusdei 04:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You missed my points.

1. The Catholic Valla was caustic in his anti-papal language. He sounded like Luther. His work was condemned by the papacy. It wasn't until long after the Reformation that his opinion was adopted by Rome. Until that point, Rome treated the Donation as authentic, as it had for the 6 or 7 centuries before Valla.

1. The Donation was used for centuries as an authentic document as part of the basis for the papacy's claim to supremacy. That being so, the VFD theory can't be tossed aside by merely claiming that the DOnation is a forgery.

1. I didn't ask if Vicar of Christ was derived from VFD. I asked if Vicar of God was derived from VFD. Since Valla apparently thought it was, at this point I'd have to say it probably was, unless you can provide me with some evidence to the contrary. --DrPickle 18:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You missed my points.

1. The Catholic Valla was caustic in his anti-papal language. He sounded like Luther. His work was condemned by the papacy. It wasn't until long after the Reformation that his opinion was adopted by Rome. Until that point, Rome treated the Donation as authentic, as it had for the 6 or 7 centuries before Valla.

1. It was thought of as authentic for a long time. Yet the popes still did not use the title VFD. Interesting eh? They didn't use it afterwards either.

1. The Donation was used for centuries as an authentic document as part of the basis for the papacy's claim to supremacy. That being so, the VFD theory can't be tossed aside by merely claiming that the DOnation is a forgery.

2. The issue is the use of the title. The popes didn't use it. We are content with considering the document a forgery. You however argue that we should use a forged document as evidence to prove a papal title that popes never used. You are the one demanding we use a forgery.

1. I didn't ask if Vicar of Christ was derived from VFD. I asked if Vicar of God was derived from VFD. Since Valla apparently thought it was, at this point I'd have to say it probably was, unless you can provide me with some evidence to the contrary. --DrPickle 18:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Valla is not an official source. Though he did enter papal service AFTER he wrote the text you refer to. So I guess he had no problem with the papacy eh? You have nothing official. Only one guys opinion that is disputed by others. You are the one with the burden of proof, not us. You say "probably" because that's what you want. Truth means nothing to you. Here is an article on the donation. It frankly didn't mean as much as you think:

"Constantine, Donation of, Lat. Constitutum Constantini, forged document, probably drafted in the 8th cent. It purported to be a grant by Roman Emperor Constantine I of great temporal power in Italy and the West to the papacy. Its purpose was apparently to enhance papal territorial claims in Italy by giving them greater antiquity. The document also recognized the spiritual authority of the popes, but this statement had no weight, since at no time was it argued in the Roman Catholic Church that spiritual authority could emanate from the emperor. It was not, as a matter of fact, ever of great practical value, nor was it, as is sometimes asserted, universally accepted in the Middle Ages. It owes its great fame to the fact that the scholar Lorenzo Valla demonstrated the falsity of the document by critical methods that became the model for later textual criticism and are said by some to be the beginning of modern textual criticism.

See L. Valla, Treatise on the Donation of Constantine (tr. by C. B. Coleman, 1922; repr. 1971)."

For whose benefit was the Donation written, if not for the Pope? Santa Clause? If someone announces on a PA that the owner of the blue car come and pick it up, which someone does and drives off in, and is then stopped by a policeman, would he then tell the policeman that he is not the owner of the car? If the Donation gives certain rights to "Vicarius filii dei" and the Pope claims the said rights then he is claiming to be "Vicarius filii dei". Furthermore the fact that it is a forgery supports the Adventist position; to wit that the title is blasphemous. Nibblet (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, Nibblet, you have never read the donation. "Vicarius Filii Dei" was a later addition, made in the margin, and refering ONLY to Peter, not to all popes. That it was made for the benefit of the pope does not make it a title of the pope. "Farsight" was made for the benefit of retaining my anonymity, but it is not my name. Also, please take note of the times of the last posts. You are responding to things that are years old.Farsight001 (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Very slippery Mr. Farsight. I don't envy your precarious and undefendable position. You have admitted that that Vicarius Filii Deii refers to "Pope Peter". The Papacy is a successive office so anything that applies to one pope applies to his successors, unless he writes an official abdication of it. Please show me evidence that it was written as "a later addition, in the margin". The age of the discussion is irrelevant because it is unresolved and I would like to contribute to the tying up of loose ends. It is unfortunate that Dr. Pickles has left as he was an excellent contributer. Obviously I have not read the donation because I do not live in Europe and it is probably locked away in a secure facility anyway. What I do know is that the only thing that was forged was the attribution to Constantine, it was an original document and therefore not a forgery. Nibblet (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you on about? Being a successive office does not mean that anything that applies to one pope applies to his successors. If I tell you Peter had white hair, does that automatically mean that all subsequent popes had white hair? Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. As for being a later addition in the margin, I will simply tell you to look at a scan of the donation and it will be quite obvious. I'm not going to do your research for you. You could also just trust the experts to actually know what they're talking about. Perhaps you think it wasn't a forgery, but that doesn't matter. Every historian on the planet that knows about it does believe that it's a forgery. Why should we be listening to random Joe Nibblet, who admits to never having read it, over the words of every expert out there?Farsight001 (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Number

The following passage appears to have a missing word. "Beast" would be the obvious assumption, but I don't have access to the original... "The most plausible supposition we have seen on this point is that here we find the number of the[...] in question." Paul B 15:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A 1832 book claimed...

...that a gentleman had seen the pope wearing a miter at some unknown date;" it said in the article. I want to find out the actual claim. Before that we had:

"An 1832 book in which a Miss Emmons claimed that a gentleman had seen the pope wearing a miter with "VICARIUS FILII DEI" upon it in "full, blazing letters.""

and

"A Protestant woman visiting Rome claimed she witnessed Pope Gregory XVI wearing a papal tiara with the words on it in or around 1832;"

Dr P also provided a quote in a footnote:

"The following extract is from a work entitled The Reformation, bearing the date of 1832:-- ' "Mrs. A.," said Miss Emmons, "I saw a very curious fact the other day; I have dwelt upon it much, and will mention it. A person, lately, was witnessing a ceremony of the Romish Church. As the pope passed him in procession, splendidly dressed in his pontifical robes, the gentleman's eye rested on these full, blazing letters in front of his miter: 'VICARIUS FILII DEI,' the Vicar of the Son of God. His thoughts, with the rapidity of lightning, reverted to Rev.13:18." "Will you turn to it?" said Mrs. A. Alice opened the New Testament and read: "Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." She paused, and Miss Emmons said, "He took out his pencil, and marking the numerical letters or the inscription on his tablet, it stood 666." ' "--Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, p. 626."

Now it appears that the woman referred to in one version was the one who told the story to some other woman. The quote refers to "a person", so we don't know whether that means male or female from the quote. The quote also says "miter" instead of "tiara". Assuming that the quote is accurate, it should be "miter" in the text, IF (and that's the issue) that is how the proponents of the tiara claim have also said "miter". IF however they have referred to a tiara, incorrectly using this third hand witness as a reference, this should be made clear. In any case it is puzzling that an account about a miter is presented as evidence for a tiara claim. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You know I had a friend who years ago told me his second cousins best friends brother saw 666 on a picture of a baptist preachers hat. He was the real anti-Christ!Cestusdei 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Cestus, these claims are bullocks. However, even bullocks should be reported fairly and accurately on WP - people will see it for the bullocks it is if we do. So, my questions remain. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I want to say thank you. I don't care if we all differ on theology and what not. I personally don't mind backtracking and admitting where I am wrong. I just think the article should be as unbiased and factually accurate as possible. On that point it appears we may be on the same page.

I have requested the actual 1832 book on interlibrary loan, and should be able to provide a scan. We'll then be able to know on what page the quote is on, and exactly what was said. Maybe we'll have it next week. If not, I can drive an hour or so and read it myself, but I'd rather wait. --DrPickle 16:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Doctor. However, we need not only the 1832 book but also know what claims have been made based on it. I have never heard of a Miter claim, only of a Tiara claim. Of course, an account for a miter cannot serve as proper evidence for a Tiara claim. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct. If it does really say miter in the original, then it raises the question of when the miter claim first arose. 1915 would become a bit late. --DrPickle 17:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have two editions of Smith's Daniel and the Revelation. It may have first come out in 1897. I don't have that. Smith died in 1903. His wife came out with an edition in 1907, which I have in both book and digital format. It was revised in 1944, which edition I also have in both formats.

The 1907 edition contains the quote from the 1832 book, as well as a letter signed in 1906, all pertaining to this question of VFD. Smith therefore isn't responsible for everything in that edition, so I don't know if he was the one who included the 1832 quote or not.

The 1944 edition replaced the material from Scoles and Hoffman and Latti and the 1832 book with quotes from Manning, Gratian, Ferraris, and Labbe. Coleman's works are also referred to, works published after Smith had died.

According to the 1944 D&R's citation of Labbe, a church council is supposed to have "confirmed" the Donation. This is likely legitimate, since the RC author Gosselin, according to my copy of Gosselin, cites Labbe's work on the church councils as a source for the text of the Donation. I don't have easy access to Labbe, do you? I don't really want to drive to Winnepeg, which has a copy. --DrPickle 17:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The 1832 book finally came in on interlibrary loan around Monday. It says on the title page that it was revised. I am unclear as to whether it was revised prior to publishing in 1832, but that would seem a safe assumption.

The quote in question come from the end of the book. It is punctuated as if it is a quote from somewhere else, but otherwise it doesn't appear to be.

It definitely says "mitre," and thus the mitre claim was around by 1832. It is therefore inappropriate to use this quotation as evidence for the tiara claim. --DrPickle 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey pickle, what is your church or religion? I am sure that somewhere someone said something about it that is untrue, but in the interests of fairness and accuracy I want to include it in the article on YOUR religion. I am sure you will have no objection no matter how flimsy or non existent the evidence might be. I remember when I was just as bigoted towards Catholicism. Fortunately I began to use my intellect and investigate these kinds of claims. I look back in shame at my sheer ignorance. I will object to any addition to the article that is based on heresay or is not legitimate. Then it will be off to mediationCestusdei 04:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess: you are sda or jw? Maybe some brand of fundy. Even if you win you must realize that only anti-Catholic bigots believe this old canard? I suspect what you really want is to get it in and then quote wikipedia to unsuspecting people who might think that means it's true. They won't necessarily look at the whole article or check the facts. Just another example of deception. Do you think you honor God by bearing false witness or that the ends justify the means?Cestusdei 04:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a conspiracy promoter called Pickle
Who thought Wikipedia standards were fickle
So he pushed his agenda
To force an NPOV surrender
But support only came in a trickle.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Donation of Constantine

I removed the extraenous simplications of the Donation of Constantine in all instances. To call it "a forged medieval document" may be true in the most oversimplified sense, but for the purpose of this article, it is highly misleading. To say that it is forged implies that it was not a document used by the Church (i.e. that some Protestant crazy forged it) when in fact it was deployed by medieval popes regularly to increases their claims vis-a-vis the Byzantines. A link to the article should be sufficient to explain the exact nature of the document rather than such an oversimplified and POV "summary". savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I was reverted with the explanation "don't be silly. it's helpful to the reader." I think that misses the point. The implication of calling it a forgery (not just the first time, but every time it is mentioned, which is unencylopedic, anyway) is that the Pope's were never associated with this document, which is clearly the antithesis of "helpful". If you really want to be helpful to the reader, why not have a complete explanation of th history of the document in one place (i.e. one sentence) and after that a link to the article will suffice. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Your explantion for your edit was 'remove editorializing of "donation of constantine"'. Calling a forged document a forged document is conveying information, not editorializing. You removed all mention of that from the article, which is inappropriate, and probably equally deserving of the epithet "editorializing". How about leaving it in on the first mention instead of removing it completely. And no, calling it a forgery certainly doesn't mean that popes "were never associated" with it: popes were associated with a lot of forgeries. - Nunh-huh 09:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with saying that its a forgery on the first mention, but in the interest of giving a better context, would you be OK with "the Donation of Constantine, a forgery used by midevial Popes to justify territorial and titular claims" if we give any context at all. It just seems like so much of this article hinges on credibility that to use the term "forgery" by itself implies that it is on par with the internet rumors quoted later in the article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Except for the spelling of medieval, and the emphasis on titles, that seems like an informative summary of what's important about the Donation of Constantine. It was mostly used to justify claims of territorial dominion and secular power, not titles. - Nunh-huh 06:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Note the article I quoted above which says, correctly, that the donation was never really that important. The discovery that it was forged did not change Church teaching on the papacy. To label it a forgery is not only true, but in this context necessary.Cestusdei 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if a document is concerned with who owns a territory, it is a title by definition. I believe it will be obvious to all investigation that my reasoning here is flawless, therefore I can't take the credit. Hallelujah

Nibblet (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

I removed the two images of Pius for which no fair use rationale exists. They are fair use in an article about Pius, the papal tiara would be a stretch, but for this article they cannot be fair use because they are no illustrating "the object in question". Most of the other images would similarly not be fairuse. The one of the funeral is OK because there was a claim that VFD was visible in that photograph. Other than that, I would say stick to the free images, unless more rationales can be thought up.

Copyright issues aside, it seems kind of assine to have a dozen pictures of papal tiara's with the caption VFD does not appear in this image. Sorry for the equally asinine metaphor but that would be like having a dozen pictures of WWII and saying "the Holocaust is not visible in this picture". In fact, that seems to be a popular technique among Holocaust deniers. It seems like these images could be replaced with one image with the caption "Vicarius Filius Dei does not appear on any of the surviving papal tiaras" or something to that effect. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is simply wrong. Firstly it is standard professional layout to avoid unillustrated blocks of text. Secondly the images are all illustrative directly of relevant to the article. As to the number of tiaras shown, to use a Holocaust reference is deeply distasteful. One of the (lame) arguments made to justify this (nutty) conspiracy theory is to say "you aren't showing us the tiara with the writing, only the one that hasn't it". The images of the various tiaras are used to disprove the central claim of the theory. The show the traditional shape of tiaras (apologists for the nutty claims also come up with claims that they somehow saw tiaras in different shapes). They disprove the claim that "its the other tiaras that have the writing" by showing that none of them have the words on it. They show further that the design of tiaras didn't leave room for large letters spelt out in jewels. They visually demonstrate the sheer absurdity of the claim. Not having them would still give room to the pushers of the nutty claim to say "well why aren't you showing the other tiaras? It is because they have the writing and you are supressing the "truth"." Showing them clearly answers the critics and shows the emptiness of the claims and so is an important component of the article. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it's summs up to 671

Another point is, that since the Roman letter U is the same as V, and which was mostly pronounced quite like the W in english, that means, we must count also the U from "vicariUs". Thus we have to count to 671, not 666. So, IMHO it's just a hoax.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.186.150.77 (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Right, but wrong. Adventists and others know that U=V

V =   5
I =   1
C = 100
A
R
I =   1
U =   5
S

F
I =   1
L =  50
I =   1
I =   1

D = 500
E
I =   1
_______
    666

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.151.37 (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Uriah Smith quote

The Pope wears upon his pontifical crown in jeweled letters, this title, VICARIOUS FILII DEI, viceregent of the Son of God. The most plausible supposition we have seen on this point is that here we find the number in question. It is the number of the beast, the papacy; it is the number of a man, for he adopts it as his distinctive title; it is the number of a man, for he who bears it is the 'man of sin.'

Is this quoted accurately? If so, could we have a [sic] added to "VICARIOUS", since that's obviously not how it's spelled? 82.95.254.249 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately for you and this page, I live several hundred meters from the Avondale College library and Ellen White research center, the latter having three copies of the book! The quote was quite inaccurate, compared to the book I have in front of me, which is also the 4th edition. I have updated it to be verbatim. The book has a quirk that the title on the cover is different from the title on the inset, but I have left it as it stood. The "sic" I have inserted is to indicate the omission of a full stop in the original. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

Hey, I hear none of these tiaras have writing on them!

More importantly, the article told me this before it was significant, and continued to tell me it even after the issue was not being spoken of in the text.

This article is not about Vicarius Filii Dei. Its about how unfounded the accusation that Vicarius Filii Dei is indicative of a papal antichrist. Its completely one sided and even more importantly, it doesn't mention anything about the motto except the theological accusations surrounding it. Atropos 06:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns about POV and narrow focus of this article. Shouldn't it at least go into various theological reasons for a papal antichrist? Surely Catholics believe a few things most Americans consider strange, too. It should also mention that many, probably most present day Americans that believe in a papal antichrist believe this for reasons other than the whole tiara thing.

This article is being heavily guarded by one or more Roman Catholics. They should face the fact that the vast majority of the English-reading world isn't their religion, and that they have no right insist that a secular encyclopedia not use the word "church" to refer to a denomination besides themselves. It is a common usage of the English language. I'll even go so far to say that heretics have churches, too. I drive by them from time to time. Even St. John speaks this way in Revelation, when he says, "they are the synagogue of Satan"--sure they were from Satan, but at least they were from a real honest to goodness synagogue. Now, some of you reading this think I'm a heretic, too. That is your right, but goal tending an article to insist that a Baptist or a Presbyterian belongs to a "group" rather than a "church" is totally out of line.

If anyone wants to find such theological reasons why some Protestants believe the Pope is the Antichrist, a short summary is quoted in the Antichrist article.--Epiphyllumlover 03:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover

• This article is about the expression "Vicarius Filii Dei" and about nothing else, and the expression appears in exactly two contexts: a) in the Donation of Constantine for Saint Peter, b) in the Adventist Tiara-Antichrist claim
• It surely doesn't matter what Americans consider strange, especially about things beyond the article's scope. This article must adhere to NPOV, not to APOV or PPOV.
• Also, your insinuation about "church" and "group" is totally false - the word group is used not for some theological reasons but because not all the groups involved are churches. Your musings about Saint John and Synagogues are irrelevant.

All in all, this article will not serve as a place to "inform" the world about the "evil evil Popish Antichrist", as you seem to wish. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a certian Catholic user who goaltends this article and consistently edits out the word "Church" when it refers to non-Catholic Churches. This gives the article a Catholic POV slant, as it means that non-Catholic Churches are not Churches. Sure this is in accord with Rome, but it is not in accord to the traditional English usage, and is in fact highly insulting. Your assertion regaurding the word "Group" is merely a convenient excuse to continue this Catholic POV. If you want to prove me wrong on this point, name one "Group" not a "Church" that holds this. If you are a Catholic perhaps you can convince your fellow Catholic to repair his past errors. If you do this I will, in turn, drop my request for an expansion on the subject of why some churches hold that the Pope is the Antichrist. Deal? Thanks. --Epiphyllumlover 02:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that I need to prove anything to you. I think you need to WP:AGF. If your accusations were true, I would have to remove the word "church" from SDA "church". Also, I must say that you get the "Catholic POV" on this wrong: the 2000 document Dominus Iesus said (speaking from the perspective of Catholic ecclesiology) that certain churches are not churches in the full sense of the term as they lack certain features - it defined specific terminology, not colloquial usage outside of the bounds of Catholic ecclesiology. The word "church" has been used countless times even by Catholic bishops to refer to Protestant churches.

As for your request: the thing is that even the SDA church seems to have abandoned the VFD tiara claim - however some groups within it hold to the claim. In any case, groups - being the broader term - is certainly correct, while church isn't. Purely for reasons of size and self-identification.

There is certainly no deal at all, as THIS article is not about that topic. However, you can go and write "Protestant arguments for the Pope being the Anti-christ" elsewhere - in NPOV fashion of course. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of fair use images

I have removed the fair use images of papal tiaras from this article. They do not fall under the current community fair use standards, which have tigthened signficantly since the images were first added. The images must be held to a very high standard of replacability: if any free image of a tiara could be found, then there is no need to use a copyrighted image of a specific tiara. Their use here could only be described as "decorative". Savidan 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate View Source and Verifiable Documentation

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/666.htm [documented sources] http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/envoy.htm [email discussion with Patrick Madrid]

This article page needs to be seriously opened up to a counter-view as it is entirely one-sided, Pro-Catholic. Should the argument be so simple, then there would not be a need for such a long and drawn out process, which buries the facts amid the myriad of rhetoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.61.16 (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that new discussions are typically supposed to go at the bottom, which is why I moved it there. Also, your sources do not appear to meet WP:RS. They don't even come close. It appears to be very "Pro-Catholic", quite frankly, because the claim that the words are a title of the pope is simply so extremely outlandish. No written documentation of the title being used exists except in a forgery and in a quickly retracted magazine article. There are no photographs. As well, the personal accounts of these words being seen always come from one or two people who managed to see it when the thousands other present did not. Thus, it is very likely that these few are simply lying, or being tricked by a desired hallucination - something they want to be true so badly that they see it even when it is not actually there. As a result, the idea that it is a real title qualifies as WP:Fringe. So this "Pro-Catholic" stance that you see is actually perfectly NPOV, and thus the article is the way it should be. Perhaps it could use a tweaking here or there, but it's not exactly a high importance article, so its perpetually in need of that.Farsight001 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I also consider this article is well balanced. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Biblelight

Your recent edits have several things wrong with them.

• For one, you are using unacceptable citations. The citations that are acceptable are also misleadingly applied. Make sure that sources comply with WP:RS in the future.
• Second, that some member of the Catholic church once used "Vicarius Filii Dei" to refer to the pope does not mean that it is an official title.
• Third - you are applying intent to people where none is given.
• Fouth - they are extremely POV.

Also - you made a long string of edits, beginning with citation and content changes and ending with formatting and grammar fixes, suggesting that your intent was to hide your edits and hope no one noticed. I am supposed to assume good faith, but that seems intentionally dishonest at the very least. Please remember to comply with wiki policy in the future.Farsight001 (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

---

My most recent external links are to reputable scholarly Catholic documents that have a direct bearing on the topic. The Catholic Encyclopedia deems Leo IX's letter as an official act. I concur with them, but made no statement on the matter in my most recent post. I don't see how I could be more neutral in presenting this. I will not give up on this issue, and will pursue this with the powers that be at Wikipedia. I am willing to conform to standards, and I will be heard. I urge you to reinstate my last post.

Biblelight (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is actually untrue that the Catholic encyclopedia does that. Your quote is exact, but misleading. Go back to the Catholic encyclopedia and read the next few sentences where it expresses opposition to the idea. What you have inserted into the article is called a quote mine, and it is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. By the simple fact that it is a quote mine, it is also a POV edit - an extremely pov edit at that. In fact, as I investigate further, it seems that all of your quotes are intentionally misleading quote mines. So go ahead and take it to the powers that be at wikipedia, but you an I both know they're going to side with me already, so I suggest you not waste your time.

Also, sources such as http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/ and your other links, as well as texts by authors with no credentials whatsoever are not considered WP:RS and are invalid sources. I suggest you find other sources, which I highly suggest be in English. Being in English is not absolutely necessary, but it is very strongly suggested.Farsight001 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously asserting that the works by Migne, Mansi, and a Catholic canon lawyer are lacking credentials and are not valid? Are you also seriously asserting that when the topic is a Latin title (and virtually all Catholic documents from the Middle Ages are in Latin, and not translated into English) that you can disqualify all pertinent documents because they are in Latin? You really think that is sensible and fair? As I am sure you know, I run the most comprehensive, most well documented website there is on this general topic, and I get 30,000+ visitors to my site a month. By guarding this gate you are not shutting down the free access to the facts on this issue. I may well comment on my web site about how you as an obvious Catholic are flat out censoring this article to prevent the truth from being available here. I will make a suggestion. We divide the article in two. You take a Pro-Catholic half, and I will take a Pro-Adventist half, and we each agree to not revert, or edit the opposing sides posts. I will let you choose top or bottom of the article. Disputes as to standards or suitability of opposition posts to be discussed thoroughly before resorting to reverts. Deal?

Biblelight (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not saying that. I'm saying that you're intentionally misrepresenting the facts to your own ends. Like I said, foreign language sources ARE allowed, but strongly discouraged. You also might want to brush up on your Catholic documents, too. Because most of them HAVE been translated into English. But that doesn't matter. Primary sources are also unacceptable citations according to wikipedia policy. I actually don't like that rule, but it's there and it must be followed.

I did not know that you ran a website, as in all the edits in your edit history are to this article(and talk page), and none of them mention a website. It does suggest that your account is a single purpose account - another violation of wiki policy. Frankly, I don't care what you say on your website about me, but I will point out that threatening to "comment" on me on your website is ALSO a violation of wiki policy (no threats).

Your suggestion that the article be split in two is also in disagreement with wiki policy. Articles must be neutral. This means that we represent what the reputable 3rd party sources say. If 95% of them say that "Vicarius Filii Dei" is not a title of the pope, then 95% of the article is to be against the idea that it is. Since well more than 95% of reputable 3rd party sources consider it silly, this article is non-neutral in YOUR favor already, and you're asking for more. I don't think so.

I highly suggest that you read up on wikipedia policies regarding threats, civility, citations, reliable sources, and neutrality and then come back and try again. Your issue seems to be more with wikipedia policy than with what you think my faith is (Which frankly, is completely irrelevant and further suggests less-than-honest intentions on your part). Policy can be changed and I wish you the best of luck in doing so, but until then, we must follow, apply, and enforce those policies, which means that your attempted and proposed edits cannot be placed in the article.Farsight001 (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Catholic Encyclopedia, it says:

"The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood."

• Now you quote where it in any way reverses that statement, that in any way even suggests that Leo's letter was not an official act. It is not there. You deny such a thing exists, but when I present it, you will not permit it. How is that impartial?
• So, if 95% of 3rd party sources think this Latin title thing is silly, they are on my side? Really! That is simply amazing. How you figure?
• Show me where Migne and Mansi or Trionfo are available in English online. I will be happy to use them. There are books in English, that I could cite, that have the exact same Latin sentences in them, with the exact same reference to Mansi or Migne listed. Google them, you will find them, and my web site now. Will you permit them?
• I have been editing on Wikipedia for a grand total of 4 days. As I am somewhat handicapped, I am a slow typist. My editing only the one page in those 4 days is the result of the handicap, not because I intend to edit only one article.
• I don't see how I have misrepresented anything, when all I am trying to do is present factual documentation pertinent to the article, but you won't let the facts be presented.

Biblelight (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Sorry, you are asking for what I didn't say I could provide. I said the quote was out of context. That means that you need to read it again IN context, not that there is some specific sentence elsewhere that magically undoes the sentence you provided. Read the whole article all together and you should see what I mean. That wasn't the quote I was referring to anyway.
2. No, the sources are not on your side. I did not say that. The article, however, is biased in your direction. Like I said, if 99% of usable sources say one thing, then 99% of the article should say that thing. This is what wikipedia means by "neutral". Since this article is not 99% against the phrase as a title of the pope, it is slightly non-neutral in the direction you want it. To remedy the situation, we would have to suggest even more strongly that it is not nor ever was his title, which is the opposite of what you're trying to do.
3. Facts can still be misleading. I can tell you that Kirk Cameron has said "there is no God". That would be a fact. However, he obviously believes in God. To tell you only that without continuing to explain that he was trying to make a point in defense of God makes the provided fact misleading. This is what you are doing, whether intentionally or not.
4. Newness to wikipedia allows one some leniency, but it does not allow freedom to break the rules without recourse or to be uncivil or threatening. In some cases, ignorance of the rules will mean you get a second chance, but sometimes it's like the law - ignorance is not an excuse. In that light, I suggest again that you brush up on the rules (if you have not done so between now and my last post of course) Farsight001 (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• So you tell me which which quote of the Catholic Encyclopedia I cited that I need to reread for context.
• So, if 99% of third party articles on this topic are Pro-Catholic, then this wiki article should be 99% Pro-Catholic, and that is considered neutral. An amazing bit of logic.
• You didn't answer the question about English books with the same Latin sentences. Will you permit them? Let me guess, you will not, because they are not neutral by the Wiki rules, because they do not give the Catholic view.

Biblelight (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You should check them all for context.
2. Yes, 99% pro-Catholic is exactly what it would mean, though this article is not pro-Catholic, just "pro-notatitleofthepope". It's got nothing to do with logic. (well, everything has something to do with logic) It's just wikipedia policy. Look at the articles for Kent Hovind and Hilter - both presenting the usable sources accurately, resulting in a rather negative impression of the persons. Likewise, check out Mother Teresa for a likewise article, but with a positive impression of the subject. That's just how it works here. If you don't like it, then move to have the relevant policies changed. Until then, we're stuck with what we've got.
3. Will I permit them? Well, I'm not the boss. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort with no bosses. Can they be used as a source? It depends on the book. Primary sources are unacceptable and all sources must meet wikipedia's policy of reliability. If they do, are represented accurately, pertinent to the article, and the information for which they are used as a cite are notable enough, then there is no reason not to include them. It's got nothing to do with the Catholic view, and I find your insinuations that I am biased based on nothing more than that you think I'm Catholic to be rather uncivil. Like I said before - my religion is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who you are or what you believe. You can participate in any article. Were there an article about me, I would be high discouraged from doing anything other than fixing vandalism, but that is the only what-you-can-edit restriction wikipedia has. Catholics can edit this article just like SDA's. Atheists get to contribute to the Christianity article, Creationists to the evolution article, apple fans to the microsoft article, trekkies to the Star Wars article, etc, etc., provided those contributions are constructive and in keeping with wiki policies. My faith has no relation to my capacity to edit this article just like your faith has no relation to your capacity to edit the article. Stop bringing it up like it's something to accuse people of. They way you talk about it, you'd think there exists a jail sentence for being Catholic.Farsight001 (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• What makes your evaluation of context indisputable?
• Then there is good reason for the poor the poor reputation this site has.
• I frankly don't care what religion you are, but it is obvious that you will not allow anything you don't like to be posted, and that has apparently tolerated by Wikipedia. My previous post lasted 4 minutes before you removed it. You are simply unwilling to allow a fair presentation of facts, because in a level ground debate you don't stand a chance.

Biblelight (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Again, tell me which which quote of the Catholic Encyclopedia I cited that I need to reread for context. Biblelight (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1. My evaluation of the context? Your quote was de facto out of context. I suggested you read it with the rest of the article to understand the real intent. Context doesn't need "evaluation", so the question doesn't make sense. p.s. - I already said that all the quotes were out of context.
2. It seems to have a pretty ok reputation. Sure, journalists shouldn't be referring to it for their news articles like they sometimes do, and I am glad that teachers don't consider it a valid citation when writing papers, but saying it has a poor reputation tells me that you're just being pissy about not getting your way.
3. Obviously you do care what religion I am, as you have repeatedly "accused" me of being Catholic as though that meant I was automatically wrong. Your previous post only lasted 4 minutes because I just happened to see it 4 minutes later. It could have survived for hours if I had signed off of wikipedia and gone and done something else for a while. I am quite willing to allow fair representation of facts. You just don't have any. Even your own Seventh Day Adventist church has officially admitted that it concocted the whole thing, complete with 3 doctored photos. You're wrong. Get over it. You speak of facts, but don't seem to know the difference between truth and gibberish conspiracy theories and then accuse anyone with a differing opinion of being unwilling or blind or Catholic. This IS a level ground debate. You have just as much power here as I do, and you're getting your butt whooped. Learn from Christ and have a little humility and admit your faults. Right now, you're just being arrogant and condescending.
4. Which leads me to my last point - talk pages are for article improvement only. If all you're going to do is whine about how awful you think I am for not letting you have your way freely, then go somewhere else. Start a "biblelightpedia" if you want and make your own rules for it. If you can't contribute something of greater substance than a complaint that I would liken to a five year old's tantrum because mommy won't get him a candy bar, then stop posting here.Farsight001 (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I quote from near the middle of this page:

"While canonists routinely used documents to show the authority of the papacy they did NOT use any such title. If they felt it was valid and the Church had approved it they probably would have, but they didn't. The title is not an official title, it was not used by the Popes, it was not considered valid by canonists."

I have documented reliable verifiable scholarly sources, a Catholic Encyclopedia says Leo's letter was official, in it he did use VFD, and I have a canonist that several times applied VFD to the papacy in 9 editions for over 100 years. Why am I not allowed to post that in the article? Why is falsehood permitted to stand as neutral, and truth deleted because of alleged POV rule infraction? Biblelight (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I already explained why multiple times. I'm not doing it again. Since you clearly don't care to pay attention to what I write, you obviously don't care one lick about my view of this article and care only about making your perspective the prominent view of the article. I'll say it again - if you have a problem with wiki policy, then move to have it changed. Otherwise, go somewhere else. You're just wasting people's time right now.Farsight001 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does your POV, which you just admitted having, dominate this article? Isn't that a violation of the rules? I don't ask for prominence, I just want to contribute scholarly, verified, reliable facts, and you are not permitting me to do so. Biblelight (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, while I have a POV, I am not inserting it in this article. In fact, all I've done so far was revert your non-neutral additions to comply with NPOV policy. That I have a point of view does not mean that I am automatically inserting it in the article. You are not asking for prominence, but you are asking for more prominence than policy allows. I have explained this to you several times already. I also see again that you have added misleading information. Perhaps you didn't know it, but "Vicarius Filii Dei", as found in the donation of Constantine is in the side margin, is a later addition, and refers specifically to Peter and no one else. To suggest then, that because a pope referred to the donation in general in a letter is thus promotion of a title later added to refer to someone else is blatantly misleading. I do permit you to contribute scholarly, verified, reliable facts. The problem is that you have not done so yet, except in an extremely misleading manner.Farsight001 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean VFD "as found in the donation of Constantine is in the side margin, is a later addition,"? Biblelight (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

First let me say that Wikipedia has the right to run their site as they see fit, and if I want to participate, I agree to abide by the established rules.

There are two sides regarding this article, I will refer to them as follows: The claims side, who make assertions regarding VFD, and the denial side, who reject the assertions of the claims side. As a member of the claims side, I will concede that we are the minority from any perspective.

If from a community perspective the claims side is considered vastly limited, then the rules exclude it from appearing in Wikipedia. If the claims side is denied access because they are in the vastly limited minority, then the issue does not warrant space on Wikipedia, and the article should be entirely deleted. If the community thinks the claims side to be substantial enough to warrant an article on the topic, then we should be allowed to present (at a minimum) the strong points of our case unimpeded and unfiltered by the denial side. It is a distinct conflict of interest for the denial side to write (and perhaps misrepresent) the claims position, while at the same time denying claims advocates from presenting their own case. The claims side should also be able to present primary sources as WP:NOR states "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.", and it "allows for careful use of primary sources in addition to these; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia" (Identifying fringe theories).

I contend that the information I am trying to add to the VFD article falls well within the above Wikipedia rules. Biblelight (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained it all to you multiple times. I'm not doing it again. If you can't figure it out, you obviously don't belong here editing wikipedia.Farsight001 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)