The Papal Visit

[Ted]

xyz

Your point?

Shalom
Ted

[spot]

Originally Posted by xyz

If we do not think him to be the Vicar of Christ, as he claims, we have no option but to regard him as a deceiver, a person who has no socially acceptable agenda to offer [...] There are millions around the world who say they consider the pope to be the vicar of Christ on earth.

Firstly it's hundreds of millions, secondly it's a title that's been continuously in use for over a thousand years and thirdly it's a form of language, it's communication, it's symbolism. The Napoleon in the mental ward is there because he has no social recognition, the Pope sits on the Vatican's throne wearing the triple tiara using the language he uses because several percent of the population of the planet for the last fifty generations have wanted him to sit there. It's all down to group consensus. I don't think he's God's one personal representative on earth and neither, I'm sure, does he, but I'm perfectly happy that he's using the language he uses. Anyone who claims that a religious vocabulary is a sign of mental breakdown is going beyond the conventions of polite discussion.

[xyz]

Originally Posted by spot

Anyone who claims that a religious vocabulary is a sign of mental breakdown is going beyond the conventions of polite discussion.

Quite so. It is for that reason that the claim must be a lie. (And argumentum ad numerum is a classic false argument, even if it applies, which it doesn't.)

[Uncle Kram]

The Popes supersonic fly-past was a real crowd pleaser.

[spot]

Originally Posted by xyz

Quite so. It is for that reason that the claim must be a lie. (And argumentum ad numerum is a classic false argument, even if it applies, which it doesn't.)

I wasn't arguing that numbers make truth, I was simply correcting your facts.

[xyz]

Originally Posted by spot

I wasn't arguing that numbers make truth, I was simply correcting your facts.

Facts? Plural? You do seem to like adding, when it suits.

That's anyway vile falsehood, to add to the fawning drivel and misrepresentation. You know very well that I was merely re-phrasing Ted's sentence, which was not incorrect, numerically, anyway. The only purpose of being more exact was to employ argumentum ad numerum.

Thank you for displaying with such amazing panache the true nature of the religion of the inquisitors. With friends like you, the Vatican needs no enemies.

[spot]

Originally Posted by xyz

Facts? Plural? You do seem to like adding, when it suits.

Did I not reach a thirdly?

On whom have I fawned?

Originally Posted by xyz

With friends like you, the Vatican needs no enemies.

You regard me as antithetical to the Vatican? I don't see how you reach that conclusion. You're discussing the nature of words like God and represent and vicar of Christ, they're imprecise. Within the context of religious imagery I don't see how you get to anything so hard and fast as "lie", though you might discuss a misinterpretation of the nature of the universe I suppose. What the Roman Catholics have is an interpretation which they express through the tradition of dogma. Truth or lie is a meaningless distinction to try to make in that arena, it always has been. Some interpretations resonate more for an indicidual than others, that's as far as anyone can reasonably go.

[xyz]

Originally Posted by spot

On whom have I fawned?

Your little mate Ratso, of course!

[spot]

I apologize, I edited my previous post to expand my thought and took longer about it than I expected.

"little" and "mate" and "Ratso" all tend toward my finding you rather obsessed, you know.

Originally Posted by spot

Firstly it's hundreds of millions, secondly it's a title that's been continuously in use for over a thousand years and thirdly it's a form of language, it's communication, it's symbolism. The Napoleon in the mental ward is there because he has no social recognition, the Pope sits on the Vatican's throne wearing the triple tiara using the language he uses because several percent of the population of the planet for the last fifty generations have wanted him to sit there. It's all down to group consensus. I don't think he's God's one personal representative on earth and neither, I'm sure, does he, but I'm perfectly happy that he's using the language he uses. Anyone who claims that a religious vocabulary is a sign of mental breakdown is going beyond the conventions of polite discussion.

The following might beg to differ:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

Vicar of Christ

(Latin Vicarius Christi).

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.

In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap. "Licet", 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. "Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.