Recently, I was asked by Michael Scheifler to announce that two apostolic constitutions of Paul VI apply the title "Vicar of the Son of God" to the popes. The relevant quotes can be found on this page (roughly, a quarter of the way down the page; look for the picture of Paul VI). He claims, "[Vicarius Filli Dei] can no longer be denied as an authentic papal title. The papacy is now deeply branded with it." He sums up the import of these statements in the following words: "The demise of Vicarius Filii Dei was greatly exaggerated."
I, for one, have never denied that "Vicarius Filii Dei" is an authentic papal title, and welcomed Bill Cork's defense of its authenticity almost three years ago on this blog. The fact the title appears in two 20th century papal documents is not surprising to me in the slightest. However, the claim that "the papacy is now deeply branded" with the title is exaggerative. The fact Michael must locate the title in obscure papal documents (both quite short, of limited provenance, and of minor import) is evidence enough it is one of the rarer papal titles, however legitimate. (It is certainly rarer than the "Servant of the Servants of God" boldly introducing apostolic constitutions, along with "x, Bishop" or "x, Pope" sealing these and other documents). Above all, however, the discovery of the title in these documents does nothing to commend the view (now abandoned by mainstream Adventist scholars) that the title Vicarius Filli Dei is "the number of the beast." The weaknesses of this interpretation are profound, as I have argued before:
1. The VFD view selects only one (relatively uncommon) title of the pope to fulfill a prophecy of the "number of the beast." With so many other titles, nearly all of them far more common and invested with an more official status, why would one select this one? Honestly, why this one? There is one reason: this title, unlike the others, can be manipulated to fulfill the prophecy. As I have stated in one of my essays: "The VFD view effectively argued from convenience: seeking what worked to satisfy the 666 prophecy, no matter how tenuous the connections."
2. Just as embarrassing, the VFD view selects a Latin title which must be interpreted using a system of Roman numerals to fulfill the specifications of a gammatria prophecy written in Greek for a Greek-speaking audience. This fact alone makes the entire enterprise appear far too suspect and tenuous. How would one know to look for a title in the Latin language, and interpret it according to a Latin gammatrial system? Again: the VFD grasps unto what is possible, however stretched. (Note: Michael claims this is legitimate insofar as the papacy issues its documents in Latin and "obviously" is the beast. I am unimpressed.)
3. Finally, the view never connects VFD (as "the number of the beast") to the "mark of the beast," despite the fact that the two are equivocal according to the prophecy (13:17).
Every Adventist should be glad mainstream Adventist scholars have dismissed this view. It is too tenous. Precisely for that reason, I find it unfortunate some Adventists are tenaciously championing the VFD as if it were the only acceptable option for Adventists. Much of this sentiment stems from a conservative Adventist traditionalism and a distrust of Adventist academia. As one individual informed me: "those 'scholars' have/had no authority to alter, redefine or dictate Adventist interpretation of scripture." I found this statement troubling. As I was compelled to remind him, what makes the VFD view the "Adventist interpretation of scripture"? The VFD view is not advanced or approved in the Spirit of Prophecy. Neither was it ever embraced by a decision of the General Conference in session (which the Spirit of Prophecy identifies as possessing doctrinal authority). How can one claim, then, that certain "scholars have/had no authority to alter, redefine or dictate Adventist interpretation of scripture" when the VFD view was never authoritatively promulgated as the "Adventist interpretation of scripture," but merely advanced as a plausible opinion by Adventist scholars a century ago, and circulated among Adventists in subsequent decades?
In response, he claimed "[the VFD view] need not have ever been 'officially' defined or decreed by the Adventist church to be true." I agree, and if he believes the VFD view is correct, he is welcome to defend it. However, he has no basis on which to champion any view as the "Adventist interpretation of scripture," which no one has a "right" to "alter."
In conclusion, I hope Adventists are open to other, better, more robust fulfillments of the "number of the beast" than VFD. This is, after all, an internal dispute between Adventists. As a Catholic, I embrace Pope Benedict as the vicar of Christ, who "feeds his sheep" on his behalf.
34 comments:
The view also shows an amazing ignorance of what how the term "vicar of Christ" can be applied. The pope is "vicar of Christ", and so is each and every bishop a "vicar of Christ" for his local Church, according to Lumen Gentium, reiterated in the Catechism and other documents.
I went to the page. The Latin used there is not a "title." It is not VFD as Adventists use it.
The phrases are:
Dei Filii Vicarius et Procurator which means "Vicar of God's Son and Caretaker"
and
Filii Dei hic in terris Vicarii which means "honorable Vicars of the Son of God upon this earth".
Neither says Vicar of the Son of God as a title. It is a descriptor and true, but it is not a title. It has not been used as an official title. I too argued this out once with Bill Cork.
The Pope has official titles which he uses. Canonically this isn't one of them. I am the vicar of the Son of God for my parish, but I don't get to use that as a title. Frankly I think Adventists always need to keep in mind that EG White's name adds up to 666. After all the number is that of a person not an office or institution. So I must disagree and argue that VFD is not a title for the Pope.
Fr. Jim
Of interesting note, the title that probably is considered the most "official" for the Pope of Rome is actually applied to the Coptic Pope as well, namely "servant of the servants of God". Thus showing that the Papal titles need not be understood as applying solely to the bishop of Rome. I believe the Orthodox would understand this as simply witnessing to the fact that all bishops, regardless of their particular geographic or administartive locality, all share the same sanctity as regarding the office of "bishop". Hence, Alan's point.
I do not think Adventist theology has sufficiently taken this into account, let alone the existence of the entire eastern Church.
Blessings!
Each one of us represent Christ--we are His BRIDE. That to me is just as exalted and an even more affectionate title than "vicar of Christ." If Adventists get so quirky about that title or description they should really freak about Christ saying we are HIS BODY, HIS BRIDE!
I am so overjoyed to know that Christ has left us a vicar in His behalf, just like He promised. We are not orphans, we can actually see and hear His appointed representative on earth. "Vicar of Christ" is a thrilling and exciting title and description of the person who is sitting on the chair of Peter.
I think this was an excellent response. Of those who uphold the VFD view, so much attention is focused on proving that the title exists. But that is to assume that it means anything. Well done.
"Servants of the servants of God" is a fun one, however. It's inspired the GC president to take on the title: "humblest of the humble".
:P
The eminent patristic scholar, Johannes Quasten, acknowledged that VFD was, in fact, a title, indeed, "very common as the title for the pope." http://biblelight.net/quasten.jpg
So, who you going to believe? One priest or the professor whose books he had to have studied?
Ellen White's name does not add up to 666 unless you turn one letter (W) into two (VV).
I think the point is that VFD has never, in modern times or ancient times, been used "officially" as a title for the Pope of Rome, at least not according to any official documentation. Therefore the burden of proof rests on those who advance the claim.
Furthermore, even "if" it could be shown that, yes, VFD has been used as an "official" title for the bishop of Rome; to Alan's point, it would apply to all bishops throughout the Church, simply because all bishops share in the sanctity of the bishopric equally, and not just the bishop of Rome. He does not exist in a vacuum after all.
Unfortunately, it would appear that those advocating this theological position are doing so out of ignorance of the Church (both east and west), her history, and possibly a deep-seated hostility and prejudice of it. May God have mercy on all of us!
Blessings!
And one thing about EGWhite's name and the number 666:
The "W" in her name actually is two letters put together. This is why we call it a "double-U", because it was originally two "U's" combined to make that letter. And since a "U" in Latin is a "V", the "double-U", "W", is counted as two "V's", and therefore, 10.
It was never meant as anything serious, but rather to show the Adventists how easy it is to apply their method to someone they trust as speaking for God, and that greater care should be exercised when they attempt to apply an "evil" characteristic to a person's position of another Church. Samuele Bacchiocchi was right to abandon this interpretation. I just wish all Adventists would see the wisdom in this.
Hope that helped! :~)
Hugo, that was a great essay!!
Anon, Quasten is not the one who gets to decide what titles the Pope officially has or uses. So try again. As David points out there is more evidence for White's name then for the papacy adding up to 666. I was always annoyed by this kind of eisegesis. It basically was "gee how can we show the Pope is the anti-Christ? I know, let's find some bogus title and try to make it add up to 666. If we can't find one then let's just make it up." That is NOT Bible teaching.
Fr. Jim
Incidentally, the Protestant doctrine of the Papacy as antichrist predates the identification of the number of the beast as Vicarius Filii Dei. The earliest Protestant commentators to focus on the number of the beast in relation to the papal antichrist always chose the Greek word "Lateinos" (the Latin one), which computes in Greek gematria as 666. See this page for a list of commentators who chose Lateinos as the number of the beast: http://www.prophecystudent.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22. I assume the reason that Adventists insist that Vicarius Filii Dei must be the number of the beast is that the title, unlike Lateinos, can be applied only to the Pope.
J. Muñoz
Very Good post Hugo.
Not to be outdone in the title wars, Matthew, I'm thinking of taking on the title 'wormest, worm of all worms.' I think its unbeatable - but what is the opinion of a worm worth? Not much in my estimation, in fact, even I don't consider my pronoucements of any worth being, as they are, the words of mere worm.
In great disappointment with myself, yours abhorrently
ant
I found this site using [url=http://google.com]google.com[/url] And i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!
Sorry for offtopic
666 has nothing to do the Pope nor has it anything to do with the six hundred and sixty six blasphemous names of God. The number 6 represents six day on which god created the world. The number three represents complete as in the completeness of God in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The repetition of the number six three times, represents the completeness of those six days of work, devoid of the seventh day of rest, which is Sabbath.
Working without rest represents slavery. Is it the life of employees. They labour without rest because what they labour for, they will never get from money. Fulfilment and eternal life are the fruits of God to those who fulfil their talents. The first beast in Revelation 13 to 18 is employement system which prevent people from fulfilling their talents, and the second beast is the financiers who force people to reject their talents because no one can buy or sell without money, and to get it people had to be employed, like Jesus would have had to reject His talent if He accepted Satan's offer for Him to rule the world if He worshipped Satan.
There is profound truth in the fact that VFD is symbolic of 666. Forget the numerous attempts to adding up and arguing this, refer to the Bible, the entire Chapter highlights the Catholic Church involvement. Refer William Branhams website.Those that have ears, let them hear.
Hi Antoinette
If VFD is symbolic of 666 then so is EGW and many other names.
I agree with Fr. Jim when he mentioned this is not a title but a descriptor and after reading Michael Scheiflers arguments I also don't see where it is applied as a title although the description is true.
I argued this once with Michael. He withdrew from the argument. I think even he knows it is a blind alley, but can't help himself. It was never used as a title for the pope.
Fr. Jim
Armando,
666 is just one of the clues given to identify the Beast. This is why you cannot just say it is EGW or someone else. The name has to fit but also the other details given in the Bible. If not, many people would fit for 666.
Still, it can and has been used to "fit" lot's of people. But it cannot fit the Pope. Not if you believe in the Bible.
Fr. Jim
As Fr. Jim points out:
The phrases are:
Dei Filii Vicarius et Procurator which means "Vicar of God's Son and Caretaker"
Suppose this is a title then why must you take out the second half of the it (et Procurator)?
and
Filii Dei hic in terris Vicarii which means "honorable Vicars of the Son of God upon this earth"
And I looked again and it actually says "Filii Dei hic in terris Vicarii Petrique" - how do you translate that? Wouldn't this say that the Pope is the Vicar of Peter who is the Vicar of the Son of God?
Ellen Gould White, adds up to 666: Ellen = 100, Gould = 555, White = 11.
Was she the Beast? If she was, we should tell this to all SDAs...
Whether it is VFD or EGW, isn't there something oxymoronic at the heart of Christians dabbling in numerology?
The author of sda2rc.blogspot.com has written an excellent article. You have made your point and there is not much to argue about. It is like the following universal truth that you can not argue with: The above two are not coincidences Thanks for the info.
http://lauknowhet.la2host.ru/lindi_24-03-2009.htm aleris bankruptcy http://samocon.la2host.ru/85-gerosio.html bankruptcy advice http://densrecan.la2host.ru/krediti-predprinimatelyam.htm xm radio bankruptcy http://tasnona.la2host.ru/traktor-iz-yaponii.html dallas bankruptcy attorney http://crysredto.la2host.ru/8-gerosio.htm questions to ask bankruptcy lawyer http://corfidow.la2host.ru/12-2008.html medical bankruptcy http://crysredto.la2host.ru/pagesto_148.html chapter 7 bankruptcy forms http://enrupme.la2host.ru/10-2008.html oregon bankruptcy http://crysredto.la2host.ru/05-2009.htm filing for bankruptcy
http://dropenpa.la2host.ru/prodam-avtokran-ural-avtokran-ural.htm law firms forced into bankruptcy http://samocon.la2host.ru/pagesto_21.htm aleris bankruptcy http://netpnichen.la2host.ru/86-gerosio.htm filing bankruptcy in california
My first test blog.
my first test blog
[url=http://tboardu.blog.hr] my first test blog [/url]
666 is not "the mark of the beast", rather it is "the number of the beast, which is the number of a man" and which we are instructed to "count", as in years.
It is amazing how the obvious solution is the first to be rejected. By the year 666 AD, Muhammad and Ali had already appeared ("And I will send my two witnesses"). Muhammad ascended to the next world in 632, and Ali was martyred/murdered in 661.
The Umayyad dynasty usurped the Caliphate and by 666 AD Mua'viyah had totally corrupted Islam. The dynasty controlled 7 kingdoms ("heads") and lasted through 10 leaders ("horns"). This is the "beast" with the "seven heads and ten horns".
And yet, many religious scholars continue to devise elaborate, fantastic and unattainable ways to fulfill this prophecy, so that when the fantasy doesn't come to pass, they can keep their claim to authority. Indeed, they claim to speak for Jesus, but lead others astray.
Jesus spoke of them when He said, "many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."
And they are willing to wait forever, even though Jesus says, in the very first verse, "these things which must shortly come to pass."
Dear Chosen Few,
It still alarms me that people are intent on identifying the antichrist in others, further that people are intent on identifying the antichrist in the religions of others. Examine the practice that you are engaged in and ask if it is not a shamefully uncharitable activity. ...And if you find that your religion promotes such activity then ask yourself if your interpretation of your religion and your will to damn others can be reconciled with your religion's position on charity.
Yours Charitably,
A Heathen
An interesting post from "Anonymous". You call yourself "a heathen" and purport to offer spiritual advice ... yet you call yourself a heathen, an unbeliever. Interesting, indeed.
George said...
An interesting post from "Anonymous". You call yourself "a heathen" and purport to offer spiritual advice ... yet you call yourself a heathen, an unbeliever. Interesting, indeed.
Hmm, this reminds me of something:
"Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt..." (Luke 18:9).
Yeah, that's it! Viewing others with contempt. Interesting indeed. Now who was it in the parable that viewed others with contempt?? Hmm...
-justanotherperson
I am not sure... perhaps it is thee??
It 'twas not for he, but for thee, the sarcasm was meant. For it 'twas thee, and not me, who viewed the heathen with contempt.
-justanotherperson
Sarcasm?? Contempt?? Self-righteousness?? But what proof dost thou offer ... or dost thou merely hurl the accusations? Methinks it is mere conjecture.
Indeed, the point was to expose the obvious iniquity of one who purports to give spiritual advice yet admits to being a heathen, i.e., one who rejects his Lord, and thus strays far from the path of righteousness and truth into the wilds of error. Hardly the stuff of contempt.
Or is it that the original comments rang true, and this diversion seeks only to keep the truth hidden?
georgevia said...
But what proof dost thou offer
georgevia also said...
the point was to expose the obvious iniquity of one who purports to give spiritual advice yet admits to being a heathen,
And there the proof positive sits, spoken so calmly from your contemptful lips. Truly did the Gospel record thy heart, in the story of the man born blind who was forced to depart!
-justanotherperson
This is a wonderful post! Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us! I hope to read more of your post which is very informative and useful to all the readers. I salute writers like you for doing a great job!
Prophecy
Post a Comment