November 5th is traditionally remembered in England as the day that Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the British parliament. It is still common today, to see anti-Catholic and anti-Papacy symbols on this day because Guy Fawkes was a Catholic. In some towns in England people even burn an effigy of the Pope on the 5th. Therefore, it seemed fitting to do a list about the common myths relating to the Catholic Church and the Popes.
5. The Pope is the Great Beast
The charge that the pope is the beast of Revelation 13, because his tide adds up to 666, is especially popular with Seventh-Day Adventists, but it’s also widely repeated in some Protestant circles. In the case of VICARIVS FILII DEI, they do add up to 666. Isolate the numbers and this is what you get: 5 (v) + 1 (i) + 100 (c) + 1 (i) + 5 (V) + 1 (i) + 50 (L) + 1 (i) + 1 (i) + 500 (d) + 1 (i) = 666.
One of the many Papal Tiaras
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.
Pope Pius XII
Oh – and for the Seventh Day Adventists reading this who stubbornly refuse to believe that this is not an official title for the Pope (nor ever has been), using the same math exercise we did above, 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 + L + D + V + V + I = 666).
4. The Papacy is a Medieval Invention
Pope Linus (reigned after St Peter: 67 AD – 79 AD)
The earliest account we have of a bishop of Rome exercising authority in another diocese comes from Pope St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians. It was written by Clement, bishop of Rome, around the year A.D. 80. In it he responds to the Corinthians’ plea for his intervention. In the letter, he says: “But if any disobey the words spoken by Him [Christ] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in sin and no small danger” – clearly showing that he believed he had a special authority and demanded obedience.
Pope Clement I (reigned: 88 AD – 99 AD)
Pope Victor I (reigned 189-199) worked to settle a dispute among the bishops of the East and West over when to celebrate Easter – known as the Quartodeciman controversy. The other bishops recognized his unique authority when they followed his directive to convene local and regional synods to deliberate on the issue. Most of the bishops decided to adopt his proposal that the whole Church celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after Passover. Those who didn’t, he threatened with excommunication. The fact that no bishop in the world — not a single one — disputed his authority as bishop of Rome to carry out such an excommunication is a powerful piece of evidence that the early Church recognized the unique authority of the bishop of Rome.
Pope Victor I
St Irenaeus in the first century wrote of the Church in Rome: “For with this church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree; that is, all the faithful in the whole world, for in her the apostolic tradition has always been preserved for the benefit of the faithful everywhere”.
3. The Pope Cannot Make Mistakes
First Vatican Council
This myth has arisen from a misunderstanding of Papal infallibility. This is the actual definition of Papal Infallibility:
I. The Pope must be making a decree on matters of faith or morals
II. The declaration must be binding on the whole Church
III. The Pope must be speaking with the full authority of the Papacy, and not in a personal capacity.
Pope Pius IX (1846 – 1878)
This means that when the Pope is speaking on matters of science, he can make errors (as we have seen in the past with issues such as Heliocentricity). However, when he is teaching a matter of religion and the other two conditions above are met, Catholics consider that the decree is equal to the Word of God. It can not contradict any previous declarations and it must be believed by all Catholics. Catholics believe that if a person denies any of these solemn decrees, they are committing a mortal sin – the type of sin that sends a person to hell. Here is an example of an infallible decree from the Council of Trent (under Pope Pius V):
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.
The last section of the final sentence “let him be anathema” is a standard phrase that normally appears at the end of an infallible statement. It means “let him be cursed”. Catholics believe that the Pope can err in non-religious matters, and that he has done so on many occasions throughout history.
2. Pope Joan
But the facts of history show otherwise. The primary proofs that this is all just a fable are these: First, the earliest point that we can trace the legend to is the mid-13th century, but the legend didn’t really gain wide currency until the late 14th century. No evidence of any kind exists from the ninth century (when Pope Joan was alleged to have reigned), nor do we see any in the 10th through 12th centuries. None of the annals or acts of the popes that were written between the ninth and 13th centuries (and none after that, either) mention her.
It’s important to remember that even if there had been a female impostor pope, this would just mean that an invalid election had taken place, nothing more. Other invalidly elected claimants to the papal office have come and gone over the centuries, and the fact that a woman made that list would simply mean that a woman made that list. She would not have been pope – no one invalidly elected would be.
This is probably also a good time to point out that in order to be validly elected as Pope, you must be over the age of reason (generally considered to be 7 years old), you must be male, and you must be baptized.
1. Sedes Stercoraria
In the item above we discussed the Pope Joan myth, the is the first step of disproving the myth of the Sedes Stercoraria. If Joan never existed, the need to prove the elected Pope male also does not exist.
The thrones with holes in it at St John Lateran’s do indeed exist, and were used in the elevation of Pope Pascal II in 1099 (Boureau 1988). In fact, one is still in the Vatican Museums another at the Musée du Louvre. They do indeed have a hole in the seat. However, the reason for the hole is disputed, but as both the seats and their holes predated the Pope Joan story, and indeed Catholicism by centuries, they clearly have nothing to do with a need to check the sex of a pope. It has been speculated that they originally were Roman bidets or imperial birthing stools, which because of their age and imperial links were used in ceremonies by popes intent on highlighting their own imperial claims.
The humanist Jacopo d’Angelo de Scarparia who visited Rome in 1406 for the enthronement of Gregory XII in which the pope sat briefly on two “pierced chairs” at the Lateran, said: “the vulgar tell the insane fable that he is touched to verify that he is indeed a man”.
In Closing
To close this article, I thought it might be nice to have a little polyphonic music related to the topic of the list – so here is Tu Es Petrus (Thou art Peter) by Palestrina (probably the greatest writer of Ecclesiastical Music) – written during the 1500s as the 5th antiphon at Vespers on the Feast of S. Peter and Paul. Palestrina was appointed to the Julian Chapel by Pope Julius III. He could be considered to be the musical equivalent of Michelangelo.
Oh, organized religion and all its silly rules. I think a Top 10 list of failed coups would have been better.
Any myths about 666 are void, because the bible never mentions it, i think its 663
In relation to pope joan and seredas, isnt there another list on here about how a female became pope and for a while after cardinals had to look at the popes testicles and say something in latin
I havent heard of any of those myths before.
JMurf: its 616. Theres a funny story about a bus service in Moscow which changed its number from 666 to 616
JMurf: the bible refers to six hundred and sixty six in Apocalypse 13:18:
You can read it here: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/73013.htm
As for your other point, I have not done a list that includes Pope Joan – I have always known it was a myth so I wouldn’t have included it on anything factual
Cardinals have never had a ritual for looking at the testicles of the newly elected Pope.
Really? It’s 616? I had no idea? Also, the article was really informative and had some quite interesting bits of history. Incidentally, the area code just north of where I live, and a bit west as well, is 616! Ours used to be, but it’s been changed for a few years to 269. Funny coincidence.
StewWriter: it is 666
See my biblical quote in comment 4.
Jfrater: this is the quote from the King James translation:
“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.”
but it doesnt really matter anyway.
The number was changed to 616 after they found fragments of the new testament dating from the 3rd century.
Theres an article about it here:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11134/beasts-real-mark-devalued-to-616
Well technically Papacy is a Medieval Invention, many eastern churchs did not aknowledge the supreme rule of a roman pope, and instead remained loyal to their traditional beliefs.
Just because no bishop “disputed his [Pope Victor I] authority as bishop of Rome” this does not indicate that they accepted it, or aknowledged it, they simply could have dismissed the seemingly outragous claim.
The beleifs and practices of true christians lie with the early churches (Armenian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox).
dangironhide: I appreciate the age of the papyrus section found, but one piece of papyrus does not hold a lot of weight against the fact that virtually all other Greek texts from the early Christian era render it 666. Also, this codex is still a copy of a copy – and the difference between 666 and 616 in Greek is χξς (666) and χιϛ (616) – additionally, many people believed the section to be a reference to Nero – and his number is 666 not 616.
Also, prior to the discovery of this codex, we knew that there had been early references to the number as 616 – for example, 1 century before the presumed date of the writing of the codex you refer to, Saint Irenaeus (born in the second century) refuted it:
Raz: We should remember that when the Great Schism occurred, the majority of Christianity accepted the Western view that the Papacy was legitimate. And remember – Jesus said “Thou art Peter” not “You are all Peter”
Hey Raz, nice to see another Orthodox in here
jfrater: with regard to religion words like majority mean nothing to me, if the majority of the world converted to islam, it would not effect my beliefs, just as the MAJORITY of christians shunned the latter day saints movement, because it was ‘different’ and so outragous it was therefore deemed unacceptable, i shall choose to reject the catholic popes rule, becuase that idea and practice does not coincide with any bible teaching and is simply not necessary.
A true christian should know that power should not be an issue, nobody should be concerned with having a leader, and should lead themselves in their spirituality and closeness to god, and if help is required it lies within the bible, and with priests.
Raz: sure – I agree that majority does not make right – though I still think that the Catholic perspective does not require the removal or dispute of any of the early church father’s writings – whereas the Orthodox need to presume that there are certain errors in the writings of the Church fathers that did support the papacy.
jfrater: Amen, brother! Oh, wait…
It would seem (yet again) that I need to do more research into this. I wish I could remember where I first read about it being 616, as I remember it haveing a really convincing argument as to why it was 616.
jfrater: i wont go as far as making unsubstantiated claims, but from my perspective, it appears the early catholic church distanced itself from the rest, without the best intentions, but that is simply my opinion.
I respect all christians as they are my brothers, and im proud that christianity (in any form) is so widespread, but simply, i will stay true to my beliefs, while you stay true to yours…..
dnagonironhide: It is possible that when lightly covering the subject, the age of the document would make it seem a plausible argument in favor of 616, but a deeper look in to the Church fathers casts a very different light – in fact, the same is entirely true of the Nag Hammadi Library which many people take as gospel with little knowledge of its history.
Raz: I would expect nothing less and agree completely with you on the second point (obviously I don’t think the Catholic Church distanced itself from anything though)
The best thing about the List Universe is the fact that we can debate topics that are generally forbidden from polite conversation without it turning in to a fight! So, on that note, welcome to the site 
Lol thanks man, I appreciate that…Keep up the great listing work
The number of the beast is 666, the symbolism is as follows: 6 is the measure of man (7 being divinity), it is mocking the holy trinity, and is representative of the devil’s supposed “more human than human” mentality. I have heard the claims that the number is 616 or something else but there is no symbolism in the number then and all of these things in religions history have some sort of symbolic meaning, something to stay with us after we have heard it.
I heard about the whole 666 thing was that it was 616, but then some early monk either mistranslated or decided 666 would sound better. That’s just something I heard on TV though (And we all know how reliable that is).
I heard the 616 thing on the BBC programme ‘QI’ hosted by Stephen Fry.
Its a very intresting programme that explains all those myths but i can’t remember how it came to be 666
I must have read the testicle thing on another site
“I must have read the testicle thing on another site”
Cracked.com?
cracked did do a recent post on the papacy – that partly inspired me to write this one – to correct the terrible factual errors they made
Good call, they had me believing all of that.
Hobolad: I was horrified to see it reach the front page of digg – they even said specifically that the genital chair was true and cited another page as evidence – and they were pointing to something like the National Enquirer – I was stunned that diggers would let trash like that reach the front page.
Tu Es Petrus
finally got a ‘listen’…thank you. excellent choice to end this list w/.
JMurf: Thats where I heard it! I’ll have a read of ‘The book of general ignorance’ again & see what it says in there
most religions were simply practical jokes that got out of hand
The greek for 666 is εξακοσιοι εξηκοντα εξ literally six hundred sixty six.
I hope I’m not the only person who has the mental image of a potential Pope sitting on a chair with a guy laying underneath on his back, announcing “Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a new Pope!”
Drogo: until you said that – yes – you were
Here is the complete phrase of Apocalypse 13:18
The bold words mean six hundred and sixty six (as Hans has said above).
Raz: I thought you might be interested in this recent statement released by the Orthodox Church (though not accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church yet): http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2ZqiTV4s4gZzk49_TW4C9IrrgA
The joint statement by the Orthodox Patriarchs and Catholic Church states that the Pope (Bishop of Rome) is the first Bishop of the Church, with the Patriarch of Constantinople second. There is universal agreement (excluding Russia of course) that the Pope is the head of the entire Church, including the Orthodox, but there are still theological issues as to what that position enables him to do. With some luck they will be sorted out and the 1,000 schism will come to an end!
From the article:
Hmmmmm
Many biblical scholars believe (including myself) that the Catholic church is the mother of all prostitutes, as referred to in Revelation.
regardless of weather or not his title adds up to 666 all catholic church officials have offiacially condemmed themselves to hell for the crime of simony, and as for the complete misuse of religion, i could think of no-one more suited to being the anti christ than an official who would put money above god despite the fact that his job is to promote the opposite
5 (v) + 1 (i) + 100 (c) + 1 (i) + 5 (V) + 1 (i) + 50 (L) + 1 (i) + 1 (i) + 500 (d) + 1 (i) = 666.
This adding up to 666 is completly idiotic. In “VICARIVS FILII DEI” there’s 16 characters an they add only 11. And despite that, why first V is count as 5(v) and the second as 50(L)?
It’s probably because you never learned how anything about Roman Numerals.
I’d just like to say… I’m Lutheran, attending a Lutheran Bible school, and have been studying medeival history since I was ten… And I’m not HALF as nerdy as y’all.
I think Catholicism must be the most convoluted and complicated religion I’ve read about (Scientology may be worse but I haven’t read all that much about it). Why? Is it because it has such a long history? Or just because it can
What about the Sella Stercoraria. You’re mentinonig that one of them is in The Louvre in Paris. It’s not there or at least it’s not exposed. The chair in Rome is in the St. John of Lateran. That doesn’t mean (ofcourse) that the ritual was done the way the myth is telling. There is no doubt about the use of theese ‘pierced’ chairs in the ceremony of the new pope.
John: the chairs are not used now and there is no record of them ever being used.
I don’t want to live in a world where there is no testicle chair for me to believe in!
It was my belif that the beast (666) referred to in the bible was Nero? Have not got the chance to substantiate this, but I do believe it even says it in the bible, or perhaps a commentry to the bible? Has anyone else heard of this?
Just believe what you believe… respect others belief….
we have no right to judge others belief….
the beast refers to our sins…
On Pope Joan:
“According to certain ancient canons, only cardinals should be chosen pope. However, Alexander III decreed that “he, without any exception, is to be acknowledged as pontiff of the Universal Church who has been elected by two-thirds of the cardinals.” As late as 1378, Urban VI was chosen, though not a cardinal. A layman may also be elected pope, as was Celestine V. Even the election of a married man would not be invalid. Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void.” http://www.newadvent.com
The current practice, however, requires the Pope to be elected from the Cardinals, Archbishops or Bishops.
Sorry but the beast cannot refers just to our sins…
According to Daniel 7:17 and 23, in prophetic language a Beast is a political power. It’s a country! In Revelation 13 and 17, the beast and the ***** that sits on the beast, represent both the same power: The Roman Catholic Church. It’s the same power as the little horn power of Daniel 7. Martin Luther was just right on that point! Look at history, it had political and religious power over Western Europe between 538 and 1798 as the Bible describe it. (1260 days, 3 and half year, 42 months.. using the one day equal one year prophetic principle.) Then the deadly wound was healed… Read you Bible. The Antichrist is the Roman Catholic church
Please think carefully about the above information
Lmao. People’s rules, people’s myths. All created by lonely people. No God, the world is impartial. Jeez, just live your life, stop trying to write a fairy tale… =]=]=] I wonder how many theists are going to jump on me.
jfrater: i would really like to know what your religion is..
John: ” using the one day equal one year prophetic principle”
Who exactly made up the one day equals one year thing? It has absolutely no basis in the Bible or Christian history….
Spook: I was raised as a Catholic
John: You may also want to read Martin Luther’s work “On the Jews and Their Lies” – he is hardly to be considered an expert in anything to do with morality.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO DISQUALIFY LUTHER FOR NOT BEING PERFECT, AND BEING BADLY WRONG ON SOME ISSUES,YOU BETTER DISQUALIFY A BUNCH OF POPES TOO.
616 is the more accepted ‘number of the beast’ in these times
also, anyone putting much stock in bible quotations should remember that the official catholic stance now is that the old testament is vastly allegorical and written by men with no prophetic ability
personally, i might get round to reading the bible one of these days, but only as a work of fiction
This article is based on pure Catholic propaganda. There is no evidence of the word "papas" or "pope" being use before the third century and when it was used it was routinely used as an honorific for all bishops. It would not be until the reign of Constantine in the 4th century when the church became organized around the principles of the Roman army that "pope" became a metaphor for Caesar – the highest ruler. It was only after the 4th century after the church split between east and west did the concept of pope have any real meaning at all. In the east the emperor in Constantinople was the "pope" in the west it was an appointee of Emperor – of course with the idea that the Emperor was the supreme head of the church!
After the fall of Rome in 475CE the only real church was in Constantinople and virtually all real church documents come from there – not Rome. At this time, the western church – and it's list of popes – is a virtually blank. Documentation about the west picks up again about 600CE but only barely with nearly all of it coming from the east. Only with the rise of the "Holy Roman Empire" under Charlemagne did the church fully stabilize and get new power and authority.
It would be up to later medieval Catholic "historians" to manufacture the line of popes and declare all sorts of power and authority for them. Only lazy writers still use these sources. Historians long ago dropped them. However they still seem to show up (surprise, surprise) in Catholic propaganda!
You might want to check this list out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
It is an unbroken list of popes and certainly includes men in the period you refuse to accept. There are – connected to almost all the men there – biographies of their lives. Furthermore, extant documents exist from the majority of their reigns. Don’t believe me? Let us start with a document from the western Pope regarding papal infallibility – written on March 11 422 AD By Pope Saint Boniface I:
“We have directed such writings that all the brethren may know … that there must be no withdrawal from our judgement. For it has never been allowed that that be discussed again which has once been decided by the Apostolic See”.
Now, here is the name of one of many documents that disproves your bizarre theory that the Church ceased to exist in Rome from the fall of the Roman Empire:
Pope Gelasius I – who reigned from and died in Rome from 492-496 – extant document “Licet inter Varias” to Honorius Bishop of Dalmatia, July 28, 493 – regarding errors once condemned by the Holy See that must not be discussed again.
Perhaps the most damning phrase from that same letter is this:
“[T]he universal Catholic Church spread throughout the world has the one marriage of Christ, nevertheless the holy Roman Church has not been preferred to the other churches by reason of synodical decrees, but she has held the primacy by the evangelical voice of the Lord and Savior saying: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock…..’ [...] [A]nd equally they [(Sts Peter and Paul)]have consecrated the above-mentioned Church of Rome to Christ the Lord and have raised it above all other cities in the whole world by their presence and their venerable triumph.”
To read this – and many more documents from the period, grab a copy of Denzinger.
It is a shame there are many people on this forum who think this topic is a laughing matter.
The Last Supper is not the eucharist of the Roman Catholic church. In the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,John 6.63- “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life”. He also says that he will no longer drink of the fruit of the wine until he drinks it anew in His Kingdom. The Lord Jesus Christ also asks ALL to partake of the cup.This also is not so in the Roman Catholic church.
Meaning,that the bread and the fruit of the vine are symbolic of his body and his blood. This is confirmed by the apostle Paul in Corinthians (scroll below), where he refers to some as coming along because they are hungry and some as having become drunk, not recognising that the fruit of the vine symbolises the blood of christ and therefore should be taken with respect. He exhorts people to ‘examnine themselves’..
“examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner[e] eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s[f] body’.
Therefore, read and understand the proof from New Testament Scripture:
John 6.54-63
54. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Turn Away
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
Matthew 26.26-28;
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed[b] and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new[c] covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
Mark 14.22-25
22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat;[b] this is My body.”
23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new[c] covenant, which is shed for many. 25 Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 17.20, 17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you,[b] I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.
1 Corinthians 11.21-29: For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.
Institution of the Lord’s Supper
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat;[b] this is My body which is broken[c] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
Examine Yourself
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood[d] of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner[e] eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s[f] body.
I pray that the sight of Roman Catholics be restored.
In Jesus name, Amen
From a servant of the Lord
I can't believe it!!!!!!!!!!!!!These people are unbelievable!These people can beat you and then they can come to you and say in your face that you are wrong and you didn't get beat by they.This is so wrong!!!WRONG!!!!Come On!How stupid to be to believe that?!The Title "VICARIVS FILII DEI" was since the beginning of the papacy one o f the official title of the pope.To say now after so much history of the papacy that this title is not a title of the pope is purely a disgrace for humanity,a abomination lie.And the fact that the numerical value of the title means 666 is also true.But this has no importance now,but the fact that they negate their facts.Is like youa re the pope and then you come out here and you say outloud tha tyou are not the pope.It's true that another title for the pope is "VICARIVS CHRISTI" because the pope has more than one title.It is also called "DUX CLERI" which means "The Captain of the Clergy" and "LUDOVICUS" which means "Chief Vicar of the Court of Rome".Now let's see the numerical value of these titles.First "DUX CLERI" which in Latin is in fact "DVX CLERI":D(500)+V(5)+X(10)+C(100)+L(50)+I(1)=666.Now let's see "LUDOVICUS" which in latin is "LVDOVICVS":L(50)+V(5)+D(500)+V(5)+I(1)+C(100)+V(5)=666.
Furthermore the Vatican refers itself as "SANCTA LVX DEI" which has the numerical value of 666 as in the following:C(100)+L(50)+V(5)+X(10)+D(500)+I(1)=666.This is something that can't be negated.This is pure fact.And as you can see it's not just "VICARIVS FILII DEI".The Pope has more titles tha has the numerical value of 666.Also the title "REX LATINVS SACERDOS" which means "King of the Roman Priests" and the numerical value is:X(10)+L(50)+I(1)+V(5)+C(100)+D(500)=666.So you must be super stupid to negate these facts.There are not doubts in it because is like a math,1+1=2.You can't deny it.You only can't accept it because is the ugly truth.
Retard
Show me proof of where Catholics have called the Pope “DUX CLERI” or “LUDOVICUS”. I don’t think you can.
Ohai I'm jfrater. I'm going to be openly antagonistic towards anybody who says anything bad about my religion and at the same time badmouth everybody else. Could you do your Catholic lists just a liiiiiiiiiittle less pious? That way I won't have to imagine your smug face when I read your bull*****.
I wouldn’t put it that way, but yes, this list is full of opinions, and none of it seems to based upon fact. Also, Jfrater using Wikipedia to try and support his ‘facts’ is rediculous, Wikipedia itself being about as factual as a childs imagination
I’m warning all readers here: Myth No. 5 is a very false message. I’ve been more than 10 years in research about the papal nature, and the papacy is no other than the dragon of revelation 13, the beast that the world wonders at. Christ is the Son of God, and the name Vicar of Christ is the same as Vicar of the Son of God (which literally means the substitute of Christ, someone claiming to be God on earth). If you have a deeper study of prophecy, you’ll understand. I’ve tried to disprove what I’ve come up, but the facts just won’t allow me to. Hope you remember this when Judgment Day comes…
http://www.pacinst.com
One thing i believe is that,the popes craun is nt the symbol of antichrist as said by the seven days adventist church.christ gave the key and authority to st peter who the pope represent.
Jeeeez, I come on here just to try and find more than one side of joan, As I would love to point out to all you bible bashers, I am a atheist I do not care who said what I came to try and find facts and I have found the least out of all websites I have searched on.
Tell me if the bible was so glorious and should be followed then why was it written by man, I said man as it was not a women due to the very fact women are displayed as evil in the old testament which oh ho ho was the old believes that women were 2nd class property.
Mayby you guys should watch “what the bleep do we know?” its very hard to follow but everything should make sense once you have managed to get your head round it, which nobody can really as many have gone insane over it…
- Owl