Follow
The Vortex is a video production of the Roman Catholic ministry called Church Militant, operated by Michael Voris. In his short eight-minute video from May 23, Mr. Voris briefly introduces, and then immediately sets aside, the question of whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God. He does this in order to address what he believes to be a much more pressing question: “Do Protestants and Catholics worship the same Jesus?” His refreshingly honest conclusion is, “Nope,” and such refreshing honesty finds a very welcome reception here at Out of His Mouth. We agree with him.
In his introduction, Mr. Voris notes that while Roman Catholicism and “heretical Christianity, which is to say, Protestantism,” disagree on a great many things, “Catholics need to understand this fundamental decisive issue: there is a Catholic Jesus, and a Protestant Jesus, and they are not really related” (The Vortex, the “Protty” Jesus, 1:15-1:43). First and foremost in Voris’ mind is this: “The ‘Protty’ Jesus is not really present in the Eucharist” (1:46). “In the Catholic Church,” Voris continues, “the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith. In the Protestant world, the denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is the source and summit of their creed” (3:05-3:15). What it really comes down to is that Protestants do not worship the Eucharist and sacrifice it to the Father:
“The Church … believes in a Eucharistic Jesus. The Protty Jesus has nothing to do with the Eucharist. How can it ever be said that these two groups worship the same Jesus? Protestant worship is not true worship at all. Protestant worship offers nothing to the father. Catholic worship offers the Son to the Father, the only pure and perfect thing that can be offered.” (3:16-3:42)
At this point in the video, Voris repeats Rome’s false claim that the Mass Sacrifice is the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11, which says that “in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” As we noted in our series, Their Praise was their Sacrifice, the Early Church did not believe that the Mass was the fulfillment of the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi, and they did not believe they were offering Jesus to the Father in the elements of the Lord’s Supper.
The first explicit statement to that effect regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass was from Gregory of Nyssa in 382 A.D. in On the Space of Three Days between the Death and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Oration 1. Before then, the thoughts, minds, prayers, supplications, psalms, worship, fellowship and care for the needy were considered the sacrifices of God’s New Covenant people—just as Romans 12:1-2, Philippians 4:18 and Hebrews 13:15-16 instruct us.
In order to illustrate just how far Roman Catholicism has fallen away from the Early Church, we provide this small sampling of quotes from the time before Gregory of Nyssa’s late 4th century novelty, showing what the Early Church identified as their pure, undefiled “victim,” or offering:
“[T]he victim fit for sacrifice is a good disposition, and a pure mind, and a sincere judgment. … These are our sacrifices, these are our rites of God’s worship; … But certainly the God whom we worship we neither show nor see.” (Minucius Felix, Octavius, chapter 32)
“Therefore, in each case, that which is incorporeal must be offered to God, for He accepts this. His offering is innocency of soul; His sacrifice praise and a hymn. For if God is not seen, He ought therefore to be worshipped with things which are not seen.” (Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book VI, chapter 25)
“[T]his is true worship, in which the mind of the worshipper presents itself as an undefiled offering to God.” (Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book VI, Chapter 2)
“ ‘…and in every place sacrifice shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering’ [Malachi 1:10-11] — such as the ascription of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book III, chapter 23)
” ‘…and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto my name, even a pure offering” [Malachi 1:10-11] — meaning simple prayer from a pure conscience…” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 1)
“Hear concerning the strength of pure prayer, and see how our righteous fathers were renowned for their prayer before God, and how prayer was for them a pure offering. [Malachi 1:11] … Observe, my friend, that sacrifices and offerings have been rejected, and that prayer has been chosen instead.” (Aphrahat, Demonstration 4:1,19)
“He says well on both these grounds, ‘And in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice.’ [Malachi 1:11] Now John, in the Apocalypse, declares that the ‘incense’ is ‘the prayers of the saints.’ ‘ (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 17.6)
“For, ‘from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;’ [Malachi 1:11] as John also declares in the Apocalypse: ‘The incense is the prayers of the saints.’ Then again, Paul exhorts us ‘to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.’ [Romans 12:1] And again, ‘Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.’ [Hebrews 13:15]” (Irenæus, Fragments, 37)
“Wherefore we ought to offer to God sacrifices not costly, but such as He loves. And that compounded incense which is mentioned in the Law, is that which consists of many tongues and voices in prayer, or rather of different nations and natures, prepared by the gift vouchsafed in the dispensation for ‘the unity of the faith,’ and brought together in praises, with a pure mind, and just and right conduct, from holy works and righteous prayer.” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 6)
Now, contrast these statements from the Early Church with Voris’ claim that the Church “offers [in the Eucharist] the Son to the Father, the only pure and perfect thing that can be offered” (3:16-3:42). The Early Church did not agree. Jesus had offered Himself so that we could offer a pure sacrifice of praise: prayer, thoughts, worship, psalms and deeds done with a pure conscience, just as the Scripture prescribes (1 Timothy 1:5,19; 3:9; 2 Timothy 1:3; Hebrews 9:14; 10:22), in fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. In his failure to understand early Christianity, Voris has essentially (and correctly!) relegated the entire first three centuries of the Church to “heretical Christianity, which is to say, Protestantism,” for it is clear that the Early Church worshiped “Protty” Jesus, too! Voris complains,
“The ‘Protty’ Jesus cannot be the fulfillment of this prophecy [Malachi 1:11] because there is no manner in which this can be fulfilled. How can Protestantism, which rejects the Eucharist, offer anything by way of worship to God? The only thing pure which can be offered to God is God Himself. Yet this fundamental understanding of God is completely lost on those who follow and believe in ‘Protty’ Jesus.” (3:58-4:25)
Well, if “the only thing pure which can be offered to God is God Himself,” then the Early Church was grossly heretical for offering its “pure mind,” “pure conscience,” and “pure prayer” to Him as the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. Voris’ Roman Catholicism would have been an entirely alien novelty to them. If “this fundamental understanding of God is completely lost” on Protestants, then it was completely lost on the Early Church, too, for they believed as we do that there is a manner in which Malachi 1:11 can be fulfilled apart from physical offerings of the elements of the Lord’s Supper. Malachi 1:11 is fulfilled not in the visible sacrifice of the Mass but in the invisible sacrifices of the minds, prayers, thoughts, fellowship, praises, psalms and supplications from the pure consciences of God’s people.
In sum, if the sacrifices of the Early Church were “not seen,” and the God they worshiped they “neither show nor see,” then the Sacrifice of the Mass was unheard of, and Eucharistic Adoration was right out, and therefore, the “Eucharistic Jesus” was not “the source and summit of the faith” of the Early Church at all. Indeed, they worshiped what Voris calls, “the ‘Protty’ Jesus,” which is to say, they worshiped the Jesus of the Bible.
In the conclusion of his video, Voris declaims against the rise and presence of “Protty Jesus” within the hallowed halls of Roman Catholicism, and insists that those within Rome’s walls who have accepted the heretical “Protty Jesus” ought to show some self respect and leave the Roman Catholic Church. We agree. And God calls to them as well, saying “Come out of her, My people” (Revelation 18:4). They should leave Roman Catholicism’s novel, late 4th century Mass Sacrifice, and their even more novel late-11th century Eucharistic Adoration, and return to the faith and worship of the Apostolic Church. Voris is right: they should repent of their false religion that was founded a full three centuries after Christ founded His, and become Christian.
As we noted above, Voris’ criticism of “Protty” Jesus really comes down to the need for Eucharistic Adoration and devotion to Jesus in the Eucharist. This was made explicit in another video production of Church Militant, the Download. In the June 1 episode, available here, Voris participates in a panel discussion about “all aspects of Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart,” and in particular, devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist. That devotion is made all the more relevant by the prevalence of Eucharistic Miracles in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Notably, in the various Eucharistic Miracles in which the wafer bleeds or turns to flesh, the blood is always type AB blood, and the flesh is always heart muscle:
“The Catholic Church teaches us the risen body of Jesus is really and fully present in Holy Communion under the appearance of bread and wine. But in eucharistic miracles, those appearances no longer veil Christ; this results in His Flesh and Blood appearing instead. … Whenever the blood type is examined in such miracles, as in the case of Argentina and Italy, scientific tests verify that blood is human and type AB … And whenever the flesh that has appeared in these miracles is examined, it is always shown to be tissue from the human heart.” (Church Militant, the Download, The Sacred Heart of Jesus, June 1, 2016)
As we noted in our recent article, “Asking the Wrong Questions,” Eucharistic Miracles often involve bleeding wafers, but also occasionally involve speaking wafers. The Scripture testifies that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11), and “A sound heart is the life of the flesh” (Proverbs 14:30). These bleeding wafers are coming to life and speaking. The Eucharist, according to Rome, is to be worshiped, and we agree with their persistent belief that their image comes to life and speaks.
We also note that the Eucharist is based on the unleavened bread, or Passover, feast of the Old Testament, which feast yields a mark on the forehead and hand (Exodus 13:7-9). We also acknowledge that the Albigensian “heretics” of the 12th century worshiped ‘Protty’ Jesus, but steadfastly refused to bow to the Roman Catholic bread Jesus in the Eucharist, and for this “crime” they were forbidden in 1163 to engage in trade:
“That the Albigensian heretics are to be shunned. … Commercial trade with them is forbidden; neither the sale nor the purchase of things may be undertaken with them, in order that that source of comfort to mankind might at least force them to see the errors of their lives to return to their senses.” (Pope Alexander III, Council of Tours (1163), Canon 4)
We also acknowledge that Eucharistic Adoration has made its historical advances by the occurrences of Eucharistic Miracles, and Pope Gregory IX interpreted just such a miracle in 1228 “as a sign against the widespread heresies regarding the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist” (Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association, Eucharistic Miracle in Alatri, Italy). What followed was the Papal Inquisition of 1230.
We also acknowledge, as we noted in our article, When “Mary” Got Busy, that the practice of Eucharistic Adoration has historically advanced at the urging of the false prophet known as the Apparition of Mary.
We also acknowledge that those Apparitions of Mary are known for working miracles, even to cause the sun to come down to earth in the sight of men, as in Fatima in 1917. We noted that particular phenomenon in our article, “Like The Sun Going Down On Me“.
We also acknowledge that Roman Catholics believe that “The Church receives the Roman empire” from its previous custodians (Taylor Marshall, Eternal City), and that it was by the fraudulent Donation of Constantine that the Roman Catholic Church received it. In that Donation, forged by Roman Catholicism to authenticate its claims, the pope is called the “Vicar of the Son of God,” or in Latin, VICARIVS FILII DEI. We will leave it to the reader to verify our math, but the name of the man, when the Roman Numerals are summed up, is 666.
To conclude, Mr. Voris is quite right when he says that the world must choose between two “Jesuses:” ‘Protty’ Jesus and the Roman Catholic Eucharistic Christ. Or to put it another way, the world must choose between the Jesus of the Bible and the Image of the Beast, and we have been warned not to worship the Roman Catholic bread idol:
“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. 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.” (Revelation 13:11-18)
The world is offered two Jesuses: the ‘Protty’ Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible Whom the Apostles and the Early Church and the Albigensians and Protestants have worshiped for two millennia; or the Image of the Beast that Roman Catholics worship.
“[S]moke and torment” are reserved for those who worship the Roman Catholic Eucharist, “who worship the beast and his image, and … receiveth the mark of his name” (Revelation 14:11). The richness of heaven is reserved for they who worship ‘Protty’ Jesus, those “which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands” (Revelation 20:4).
Choose wisely (Revelation 13:18).
Thank you – I listened to Michael’s latest diatribe against Protestantism. On one hand it is refreshing to hear this Council of Trent – Inquisition style rant rather than the ecumenical sugar coated rant we’ve been hearing since Vatican II of the 1960’s. Both versions are wrong because they disagree with Scripture – the ultimate authority of truth. The “evangelicals” of today tend to go with the sugar coated version of ecumenism because they like to go with the path of least resistance – especially when that path has all the right sounding “spiritual” words. Too bad these words are empty because they define them differently than Scripture does.
When Jesus died on the cross for our sin offering He bore our sins in His “Body”. There is no where in the bible that says Jesus bore our sins in His spirit. This was to be the final sacrifice. Not only did this mark the end of sacrifices but everything that the old temples ceremonial law and priesthood had to offer. Hebrews 10:10 “By which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Hebrews 10:14, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”. Hebrews 10:18: “Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” Jesus perfects for all time those for whom He died. The one sacrifice of Christ is blanket across history. Jesus’ priesthood, sacrifice, and altar are in heaven where He returned seated at the right hand of the Almighty. Jesus ripped the veil away and we go directly to the throne room in prayer and thanksgiving, making SPIRITUAL sacrifices to God and ending the OT system of external ceremonial symbolic worship. No more temples, priesthood, altars, Sabbaths, sacrifices, vestments, incents, candles. Now everyplace is a temple and every believer is a priest. Nothing external only internal to worship in spirit and truth.
Hello, you state that Scripture is the ultimate authority of truth. I’m attempting to locate the Bible passage that supports this statement. If you could share that I’d greatly appreciate it. Thanks and God bless.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
1 Corinthians 4:6, Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, 2 Timothy 3:16 &17…
Very interesting Timothy F.
Although you are poles apart, you agree with Michael Voris on “protty” Jesus. It is not surprising, though, because both of you show an intransigent attitude. According to him, I am one of those “nice” Catholics whom he advises to leave the Church, just as you do, for a different reason. Sorry, but I am going to disappoint both of you.
God bless you.
Tim,
You may enjoy this service as it provides an historicist interpretation on Rev. 11 prior to the NT reading portion of the service. For those struggling with believer only, or immersion only, baptism the Sermon is helpful. It also discusses the preparation period of Jesus Christ during his 18 years (from when he was 12 to 30 years old) prior to his ordination which started his earthly ministry.
Thank you, Walt. I’ll give it a listen.
Tim
Tim, here is something that you and your readers may want to read:
AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION
FIFTY-FIVE THESES AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION
Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee
https://feileadhmor.wordpress.com/2016/06/07/against-transubstantiation/
Thank you!
Thanks, Maria,
Tim
Maria, incredible list. I cannot imagine any Catholic refuting it.
Tim, would you agree with this statement by Rev. Lee?
“Fourteenth. I heartily agree that the Ante-Nicene Fathers with their high view of Holy Scripture taught the real presence of our Saviour at His Table. For they believed what Holy Scripture here teaches. The Ante-Nicenes, holding with Holy Scripture to Christ’s Spirit-ual presence, therefore denied His physical presence in the bread and the wine. Indeed, even no Post-Nicene Church Father advocated transubstantiation-until Radbertus in 831, and more particularly Lanfranc in 1049 A.D. Nor was this false theory ever Eastern-Orthodox theory-nor even official RC theory until it became so in 1215 A.D.”
“VICARIVS FILII DEI. We will leave it to the reader to verify our math, but the name of the man, when the Roman Numerals are summed up, is 666.”
I can’t see how those Roman numerals can be summed up to equal 666. Perhaps someone more literate can help?
Thank you, Dan F. If you take the Roman numeral value of each letter (i.e, I = 1, V = 5, L = 50, C = 100, D = 500, A, R, S, F & E being null), the name totals 666.
Best,
Tim
It seems to throw off the math if you treat the letters like actual Roman numerals (i.e. if you treat the IV as a 4, rather than as a 1+5). That would get you 664 which doesn’t quite make the point you were after. Alternatively you could realize that the second “V” is really a U and thus null like the other letters. That gives you 661.
Anyway, my point is that the math only works if you force it to fit your predetermined result that the Pope is the antichrist/beast/whatever. Basic knowledge of Latin and Roman numerals without the predetermined result provides a meaningless number.
Thank you, Dan F.
Treating the IV as 4 would actually be an anachronism, since that protocol was developed later. At the time of the writing of Revelation, the IV contraction for 4 was not in use. Arches 29 and 54 of the Roman Colosseum are enumerated as “XXVIIII” and “LIIII.” As this helpful historian notes, “The numbers [on the arches] do not use the contraction IV [for 4] or IX [for 9].” I also note that the Christians in the Catacombs used this same system, as evidenced by this touching epitaph:
In the Latin inscription, Aurelia’s age was listed as “ANN – XV – M – IIII” rather than “ANN – XV – M – IV”. Thus, your first objection is based an anachronism.
Your second objection—that the second “V” is really a “U” is also an anachronism. U did not enter into the Latin alphabet until around 1300 – 1600 A.D.. What you are calling a U was simply the way V was pronounced, as in APPIVS CLAVDIVS, which is “Appius Claudius” but nevertheless spelled with a V. Just like Y has different pronunciations depending on context, V did as well. But it was still a V.
Thus, your second objection, too, is an anachronism.
Nevertheless, I agree with you that “Basic knowledge of Latin and Roman numerals” is necessary to understand the number of the name. Basic knowledge of Latin and Roman numerals militate strongly against your anachronisms.
Thanks,
Tim
Another one drops by to argue and leaves speechless. You have to love the Romish training.
“the Jesus of the Bible Whom the Apostles and the Early Church and the Albigensians and Protestants have worshiped for two millennia”
The Albigensians? Really? The were essentially gnostic dualists who believed that everything material is evil and that Jesus couldn’t have taken on human flesh because it is evil. They also forbade marriage and thought suicide was commendable. You can see why this heretical group couldn’t survive. I hope this isn’t a foretaste of your tracing your “true church” back through history to Jesus.
Again I shudder at all this apologetics and all this theology it’s quite simple Roman Catholics are wrong no mater what the ancients say Well, if “the only thing pure which can be offered to God is God Himself,” then the Early Church was grossly heretical for offering its “pure mind,” “pure conscience,” and “pure prayer” to God all this theology is rubbish, here is what Paul the father of the church to us gentiles had to say 1cor [2:1] And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
[2] For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
[3] And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
[4] And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
[5] That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
That is the real church not controlled by a representative of Peter who had never been to Rome but by Paul who died there
Bruce,
The Scriptures say the provision of the Philippians to Paul were “a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God” (Philippians 4:18). We are instructed in Hebrews that the fruit of our lips is a “sacrifice of praise” we are to offer Him and that “to do good and to communicate” is a sacrifice with which God is well pleased (Hebrews 13:15-16). We are told in Romans 12:1-2 to offer our bodies a living sacrifice to God, and in 1 Peter 2:5 it says that we have been built into a spiritual house for the express purpose of offering “up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God.” The New Testament informs us that we have been formed into a spiritual house in order to offer spiritual sacrifices to God. That cannot be denied. Do you find such teachings heretical—a sacrifice of praise to God by Christ, the fruit of our lips, helping one another and doing good, as a praise offering to Him?
Since you mentioned it, Paul limited his preaching to “Jesus Christ and him crucified,” not because that is to be the sum total of all preaching (in fact, Paul himself does not even limit himself to that in 1 Corinthians—he teaches on a great many other things, like going to law against fellow believers), but because the Corinthians were so immature: “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able” (1 Corinthians 3:2).
Thank you,
Tim
Hi Tim,
Do you have any material regarding the Albigensians? All the Web stuff seems to be skewed because of their rejection of the RC worship. It reminds me of something j. H. Merle d’Aubigné said: that all but two books on Cromwell were written by RC authors, so it was hard to know what really happened with him. They hate Cromwell.
I’m finding the same thing with the Albigensians, which is why I wonder if you have some alternate links about them. Thx.
I think the thing that Tim has accomplished with this site, besides his work on eschatology, is to tangibly bring to light how Satan has used Rome to revise church history in its attempt to make the true church look like the heresy, when in actuality most of those condemned by Rome were the true believers and Rome was the false church. It’s has reinforced the ultimate supremacy scripture must have in the life of a believer. Jesus said ” if someone comes to you and says ” I am the Christ”, don’t believe him” He doesn’t say way it, he says reject it, and yet that’s the exact claim of Catholicism. That’s why we should reject it. It’s not Christ, and it substantiated by scripture.
Thx Kevin. I agree. The Lord through Tim has opened my eyes to so much of the Scriptures and history. It has helped me read the Scriptures with much better understanding.
AMEN, AMEN…
Tim, this is Patrick Madrid „refuting“ your claim. It looks like he made a good point. How would you answer to this?
————————————————————————-
But there are problems with this. The first is that Vicarius Filii Dei, or “Vicar of the Son of God,” is not now, nor has it ever been, a title of the bishop of Rome. The second problem is that virtually no one, including many unsuspecting lay Catholics, knows that this papal “title” is a fabrication. To an untrained ear, it sounds enough like one of the pope’s real titles, Vicarius Christi (Vicar of Christ), to pass the test. Unfortunately for those who traffic in this particular piece of pope fiction, the real title, Vicarius Christi, adds up to only a measly 214, not the infernal 666. In fact, none of the pope’s official titles, such as Servus Servorum Dei (Servant of the Servants of God), Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff), or Successor Petri (Successor of Peter), will add up to 666. That’s why you never see any of them used by anti-Catholics.
If the person making this claim disputes these facts, ask him to furnish even one example of a papal decree, ecclesiastical letter, conciliar statement, or any other official Catholic document in Which the pope calls himself or is referred to as the “Vicar of the Son of God,” He won’t be able to find one, because none exist. Vicarius Filii Dei has never been a title of the pope.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE Prayer for children to Our Lady of Perpetual Help
Poof! That part was easy, but some people, especially Seventh Day Adventists, will ignore the evidence (or lack of it) and hold tenaciously to the notion that “Vicar of the Son of God” is an official papal title and therefore identifies the pope as the Beast of Revelation. What else can be said in response?
Using the same math exercise we did above, point out that the name of the woman who started the Seventh-Day Adventist church, Ellen Gould White, also adds up to 666 in Latin. (L + L + V + D + V + V + I = 666). Then ask if this proves that she is the Beast. I can assure you the answer won’t be “yes.” If the answer is “no,” ask how this numbers game could possibly prove the pope or anyone else is the Beast. If you’re answered with silence, it’s a good bet that you’ve made some progress with the person.
The main fact to impress on someone who uses this argument is that a papal title had to be invented, one that could produce the magic number, in order to give this argument legs.
But we’re not quite finished cutting it off at the knees. The charge that the pope is the Beast because he wears a crown, and Revelation 13:1 says the Beast wears crowns and has “blasphemous names” written on his head, must also be answered. This we can do more quickly.
Since about the year 708, many popes have worn at non-liturgical ceremonial events a special papal crown called a tiara, but the stylized beehive-shaped papal crown of three diadems that we have come to know as a tiara emerged only in the early 14th century. Although it was customary for tiaras to be encrusted with jewels and precious ornaments, there is no evidence – no statue bust, painting, drawing or even written description of any of the many tiaras that were crafted – that any papal tiara ever had the name or title of a pope emblazoned on it.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE Testimony of Catholic Priest who saw Heaven, Hell and Purgatory
This is significant, because there have been medieval and Renaissance popes whose extravagant vanity prodded them to have lavishly ornamented, jewel-encrusted tiaras made for themselves. And we possess paintings and statues and other representations of them produced during their lifetimes that show these tiaras (we even possess some of the actual tiaras). If any popes in history would have been tempted to succumb to the bad taste of spelling out “Vicarius Filii’ Dei” in diamonds across the front of their tiaras, these men would have – but they didn’t. No pope did, One particular anti-Catholic tract I’ve seen shows a plain metal tiara with Vicarius Filii Dei written in diamonds across it. But it was a drawing – not a photograph of a museum piece or even a photo of a painting of a tiara.
It had to be drawn, of course, because the “666 papal crown” – as with all the other pope fictions – has only ever existed in the minds of those who perpetuate this fantasy.
By Patrick Madrid (Envoy Magazine, March/April 1998, p.27)
Alessandro, let’s review Patrick Madrid’s position point by point:
1) “But there are problems with this. The first is that Vicarius Filii Dei, or “Vicar of the Son of God,” is not now, nor has it ever been, a title of the bishop of Rome.”
That should not cause a problem for Madrid. For three hundred years after the apostles, Mary was not known, and had never been known, as “Mother of God.” And yet he believes “Mother of God” is an appropriate title, and he cites Cyril of Alexandria (427 AD) in support of the title: “I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the Holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the Holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?” (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1). (from Why is That in Tradition? Madrid, 2002). The logic is quite simple from Madrid’s perspective. Mary is the Mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore Mary is the Mother of God. It is a title that goes against centuries of tradition and ecclesiastical vocabulary, for Mary was unknown by that title prior to the late 4th century, but ok. Now let’s do the same thing. Roman Catholicism says the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Christ is the Son of God. Therefore the Pope is the Vicar of the Son of God, or in latin, the official language of Roman Catholicism, Vicarius Filii Dei.
2) The second problem is that virtually no one, including many unsuspecting lay Catholics, knows that this papal “title” is a fabrication.
The observation is more true than even Madrid realizes. The title is found in the Donation of Constantine, Constitutum domni Constantini imperatoris, in which forgery Constantine is alleged to have gifted the Western territories to the Vicar of the Son of God:
You may read more about the document in the Catholic Encyclopedia here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Donation_of_Constantine, and there is a matter quite significant in that encyclopedia entry: a host of popes and clergy relied on it as authentic in order to substantiate their claims of authority:
So here is the question we must pose to Madrid: If it is true that “Vicarius Filii Dei has never been a title of the pope,” then why did so many popes believe that the Donation of Constantine was evidence of papal power? I mean, “Vicrius Filii Dei” doesn’t even refer to the pope!
3) “If the person making this claim disputes these facts, ask him to furnish even one example of a papal decree, ecclesiastical letter, conciliar statement, or any other official Catholic document in Which the pope calls himself or is referred to as the “Vicar of the Son of God,” He won’t be able to find one, because none exist.”
In answer to this, see item 2, above. Popes Leo IX, Urban II, Innocent III, Gregory IX and Innocent IV all thought, for some reason, that “Vicarius Filii Dei” referred to them. What did they know that Madrid does not? Were they stupid? Ignorant? Misled? How is it that “ecclesiastical writers … quoted it as authoritative” evidence of Papal claims even though Constantine had apparently donated all those lands to “someone else” since Vicarius Filii Dei obviously doesn’t refer to the pope?
My final point is that everyone now believes it was a forgery, but why would the perpetator of the forgery use a title that doesn’t even refer to the pope in order to make it look like Constantine had donated the western territories to the pope?
As you can see, Madrid’s claims fall flat and are constructed as an elaborate distraction from the truth that for some CRAZY reason, everyone thought vicarius filii dei referred to the pope! Ellen G. White’s name may add up to 666, but Ellen G. White never uprooted three horns, told anyone to worship an image, or took counsel from a demon that made the fire of heaven come down to earth in the sight of men, or put men to death for not confessing the “real presence” of Christ.
Timothy, THANK YOU for your fast answer! I appriciate this really very very much. This was important, i was really nervous about it.