Talk:Vicarius Filii Dei

W=VV
Where does this W=VV arguement come from, I have looked up W and roman numerals the only result I can find are many claiming it has no value and one claiming it means 800. --174.45.184.184 (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It comes from history. There didn't used to be a letter W.  When a word had the W sound, it was two V's next to each other.  Since the bible is 2000 years old, it's numerology was based on this old alphabet where a W=2 V's.Farsight001 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Source? I mean I don't have a vested interest in if her name enumerates to 666 or not but I cannot find anything about this--174.45.184.184 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia doesn't meet its own reliable source guidelines (as it is a user-generated and unstable source), the article W explains more. In German, Spanish, French, W is still called "Double V."
 * You'll also notice that the Vulgate Bible (or any Latin text for that matter) doesn't feature the letter W anywhere in it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Fact W is in appearence two V's doesn't mean that it can be used in roman numerals as such. --174.45.184.184 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We know that. But it's not just that way in appearance.  The letter W is literally derived from a double V.  The similarity in appearance is not merely coincidence.Farsight001 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The Romans would not have seen it as anything other than two Vs. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is still his assertion we cannot come up with our own roman numeral rules--174.45.184.184 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? We just explained multiple times that its NOT just an assertion.  It's pretty common knowledge.Farsight001 (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you ready to call WP:IDHT on this as well? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite yet, but I'm close.Farsight001 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out consensus by definition cannot be reached by three people. Secondly I thought it should be deleted completly, and still do, but did not do so but merely stated it was his opinion, we cannot know how others over a thousand years would react to seeing something for enumeration purposes. Considering I did not delete text I felt was 100% wrong you cannot say I ignored anything, so you should watch your accusations. All of that said I suppose wether either of us is right or wrong does not alter what is said so --174.45.184.184 (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, WP:CONSENSUS does not require a minimum number of editors, and outside of site guidelines, three would be the minimum needed for a consensus (consensus need not be unanimous). Consensus is not overturned by only one person, and two editors happen to represent the current consensus. Noone else is objecting to the current consensus. Also, consensus on Wikipedia tends to go with the guidelines (which represent site-wide consensus). The information is sourced, so any statement about W not being usable as two Vs is original research (which we do not accept) while (as it is part of a source), the use of W as two Vs is not. In a past edit (before the gematria formula was rejoined with its source) I had also provided the source Letter by letter: an alphabetical miscellany By Laurent Pflughaupt, p.128, which explains that W is two Vs or two Us (which in turn was V originally). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but does it really matter? We have a sentence that says that Catholic apologists do use "Ellen Gould White" as an example of a name that can be manipulated to produce number 666 (meant to show that such techniques can easily backfire and thus prove nothing of value). We also have a source for that (one Catholic apologist). Do we really need to decide if those techniques are "correct"? I don't think so, thus a couple of weeks ago I removed the words "The 'W' is counted as two 'U's' or 'V's'", moving the rest of the explanation to be supported by the source mentioned above (the source did not explicitly say that W was counted as V and V, thus perhaps we don't need to say that either). Would that be a satisfactory solution? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical sources for W=VV
Historically, the letter W began as a double u, at a time when u and v were not differentiated. This digraph was used in the earliest Old English texts, but was replaced by the runic letter wynn (ƿ, like a p with a large loop), which remained in use over most of the Old English period. The digraph uu for the w sound appears in Old High German manuscripts, and it appears in this form in modern printed editions. Several instances appear in the following manuscript: http://c8.alamy.com/comp/EABEG6/historic-manuscript-the-wessobrunn-prayer-or-the-wessobrunn-creation-EABEG6.jpg The treatment of W as a numerical letter, equivalent to V+V = 10, is centuries old. This is shown in an old diversion called the chronogram, in which a sentence was constructed, the numerical letters of which add up to the current year. In Europe (and Britain) this was commonly done in Latin, but one ingenious one for 1642 appears in both Latin and English, where it is obvious that W was regarded as a double V: "'TV DeVs IaM propItIVs sIs regI regnoqVe hVIC VnIVerso." – "O goD noVV sheVV faVoVr to the kIng anD thIs VVhoLe LanD." This example appears in some (not all) editions of Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. I have seen (but cannot find) front pages of 18th century books where W appears as VV Koro Neil (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A DEEP FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
The recent reversions by Farsight001 are blatant censorship. I invite the reader to see the overwhelming wealth of pertinent verified historical documentation regarding Vicarius Filii Dei at http://biblelight.net/666.htm

Farsight001, if you or any of the other Catholic gatekeepers here want to challenge the veracity of any of the documentation on my site, email me at mikesch@aloha.net and I will post our entire discussion, and link to it from the 666 page. I don't expect any of you to accept the challenge. Biblelight (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We've been over all of this before. First of all, accusing me of censorship is a violation of WP:AGF, which requires you to assume good faith about my edits.  Second of all, I have repeatedly shown that I am willing to let information in the article, IF it is presented accurately and neutrally, which you consistently fail to do.
 * Third, of course I am not going to accept your challenge. You published as much private information about me that you could dig up on your website and I was personally harassed because of it.  There is NO WAY IN HELL I am giving you more of my personal information for the sake of my safety, and that of my family and friends.
 * Now do you have a suggestion for the article, or are you just going to spend all your time trying to inflate your own ego by acting tough and throwing out challenges left and right?Farsight001 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

O.K. let's just see how willing you really are.

1. This article is about a Latin phrase, and whether or not it is applicable to the Papacy, in particular whether or not it has ever had any official aspects or official character with regard to it. Catholics deny this, Seventh Day Adventists (like myself) maintain that historically it has indeed been used repeatedly by popes, and by that very usage, it is properly and rightly deemed an official title. Does this accurately summarize the issue? If not, please clarify.

2. By the very nature of the subject, it is patently obvious that any use of Latin in authentic papal documents is clearly and undeniably pertinent and material to the subject, and should be deemed admissible evidence. To exclude such evidence because it is in a foreign language is a logical absurdity, as it precludes presenting the very information that is logically essential to the topic. Therefore, any Wikipedia rules that discourage inclusion of foreign language documents are suspended, as they are not logically applicable to this article. Do you agree?

3. As the vast majority of papal documents have never been translated into English, then these documents, are deemed exempt from Wikipedia rules regarding primary sources, due the same logical absurdity mentioned above. Do you agree?

Now, Farsight001, taking the above into consideration, without which the truth about this topic cannot possibly be presented, please explain precisely what about the two entries of mine that you have recently reverted are factually erroneous? Be specific, or else please acknowledge them to be true, correct, accurate and in good order in every respect.

Now, what if anything, still hinders the inclusion of these entries? Biblelight (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE as it applies here, particularly the part about when it is better to ignore rules.. Biblelight (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess it is all about changes and  with reversions  and ..?
 * "This article is about a Latin phrase, and whether or not it is applicable to the Papacy [...]" - no, it is not. In a sense, it is about a phrase, but the phrase itself is not interesting (otherwise we would be writing something like "The phrase has three words and 16 letters."). Also, you seem to be saying that it should answer the question you mention. Yet it shouldn't. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide.
 * "Catholics deny this, Seventh Day Adventists (like myself) maintain that historically it has indeed been used repeatedly by popes, and by that very usage, it is properly and rightly deemed an official title. Does this accurately summarize the issue?" - yes, I'd say that it is not a bad summary (given that one cannot demand much from a single sentence). And that is what the article is about: it is about arguing about the phrase.
 * "By the very nature of the subject, it is patently obvious that any use of Latin in authentic papal documents is clearly and undeniably pertinent and material to the subject, and should be deemed admissible evidence." - sorry, but evidence simply doesn't matter here. Yes, it does look counterintuitive. The problem is that, well, if we looked at the actual argument as a "court case", we, Wikipedians are not meant to be "lawyers" that show evidence. We are closer to "court secretary" that writes down the proceedings.
 * "To exclude such evidence because it is in a foreign language is a logical absurdity, as it precludes presenting the very information that is logically essential to the topic." - sorry, but it looks like you do not understand the actual objections... The problem has nothing to do with language. It concerns "original research". Now, since I see some confusion, could you, please, answer some questions:
 * Have you read Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research?
 * If so, do you understand what they say? In other words, do you have any questions?
 * If you do understand them, do you agree with them? Do you accept them? Are you going to follow them?
 * Actually, reformulating the things you wrote to make them far more acceptable should not be that hard. If you write "Papal document X says Y.", reword it to something like "Seventh Day Adventist apologist A has argued that, since the papal writing X says Y, then Z.". All you need is a reputable Seventh Day Adventist apologist that actually does argue so in some of his writings. Someone like that shouldn't be that hard to find, right..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not my understanding or adherence to the Wikipedia rules. This is about content that Catholics will repress relentlessly because it defames Mother Church. They will not spare any effort to prevent any reference to papal documents that employed vicarius filii dei from being added to this article. They will claim that every Wikipedia rule imaginable precludes the addition of that information. Examples: Neutral Point Of View prevents it because you are pushing your own POV, and that is prohibited. Just how exactly does merely referring to a historically authentic papal document and linking to it online, with a translation, push ANY POV? It is nothing more than a statement of fact: that a document exists. Neither is that Original Research, as it does not propose unique new knowledge that has never been thought of before. Etc, etc.

However, as I have shown above, there is a Common Sense provision that allows any and all rules to be IGNORED. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE

On the basis of that provision, the previous censorship of this article to prevent inclusion of pertinent historical documents can be justifiably reverted and remain within the established Wikipedia rules. Biblelight (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, I feel that the other user answered your questions just fine, so I'll leave that be.
 * Second, COMMONSENSE is not an excuse to break any rule anytime you please. In fact, it doesn't even say that it allows any and all rules to be ignored.  Such a statement is found nowhere in the provision.  Furthermore, that is part of an essay - a sort of suggestion that anyone can write, but which IS NOT POLICY, and does not override policy, even if it says it does.
 * Third, yes, we will repress information that defames the Church, but not because we want the Church to appear shiny and free from dirt. If we did, the Catholic sex abuse cases article, among many others, would not even exist.  Rather it is because defamation is kind of illegal, and if allowed, can get wikipedia sued.  Not only can we blindly revert defamation/slander, but policy DEMANDS it to help prevent legal action from being taken against wikipedia.  If nothing else supercedes COMMONSENSE, this policy most certainly does.  One does not get to commit slander for any reason.  There is no justification for it whatsoever.  It has nothing to do with it being about the Catholic Church.  Slander on ANY article is not allowed.
 * Fourth, as I have explained before, the issue is not with the content of your edits, but with your presentation of them. You can go ahead and state in the article that the Donation of Constantine, for example, used the term "Vicarius Filii Dei", provided you also clarify that it referred specifically to Peter, and that it was a later addition to a forged document.  Instead of this clarification, you imply that its use is official and binding.  That is false and misleading.
 * Fifth - Let me also point out that this is an attempt at an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia article is supposed to be a general overview of a subject.  It is NOT supposed to be an attempt at a comprehensive, all inclusive coverage of the subject.  What I mean to say is that not every single instance of the term's use need be included in this article, nor should it be.Farsight001 (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

BUT, those two recent entries merely link to authentic papal documents and cite them. In and of themselves those two entries are NOT defamatory in any way! They slander nobody! They are not presenting a Point Of View! Citing them is not Original Research! But those papal documents ARE evidence, pertinent evidence that prominent Catholics have repeatedly denied ever existed (I can give the quotes).

I do not expect this article to make an overall judgment in favor of one interpretation or conclusion over any other, but if it is going to have a section heading "Origins and uses of the phrase" then the entries that were recently reverted by Farsight001 have every right to be included, they are NOT violations of the rules, and that is common sense. I will let him revert his own censorship. Biblelight (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, you still didn't answer if you have read the policies. If you claim that an exception should be made, you should still know the policies themselves.
 * Second, if you do not see the original research, try opening MS Excel (or its equivalent) and enter this formula:
 * =SEARCH("Vicarius Filii Dei";"Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius et Procurator, quibus numen aeternum summam Ecclesiae sanctae dedit, ...")
 * It is meant to return the first instance of the phrase "Vicarius Filii Dei" in the text that you cite . When I run it, I get an error. Why? Because the phrase isn't there! Yes, the words themselves are there, but the phrase as such (with words in specific order) is not. You can claim that it is "close enough", but that "close enough" is not in the text. It is an interpretation of the text - "original research". And it is not the only instance. Still, the solution is simple: find a reputable Seventh Day Adventist apologist who makes such arguments. Why haven't you done so?
 * Finally, if you want to avoid the main content policies, maybe you should still read Assume good faith..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that is NOT what Original Research means. It means you have developed something so incredibly unique that nobody else has ever thought of it before. This does not apply here, vicarius filii dei and dei filii vicarius are equivalent, like the English, vicar of the Son of God and God's Son's vicar are identical in meaning. You are misapplying the rule. Biblelight (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, while it may not be original research colloquially speaking, we are using the wikipedia term here. And according to that terminology, it certainly is original research.  According to wikipedia's definition of the term, whether or not you are the first one to think it up is completely irrelevant.  This only goes to show us even further that you do not care to read or familiarize yourself with the various policies of wikipedia.
 * Second, no, the terms are not equal. Order is important.  "Vicarius Filii Dei" translates as "Vicar of the Son of God".  Dei Filii Vicarius" roughly translates as "God of the Vicar Son".  They are two separate things.  Regardless, trying to convince us that order doesn't matter is unacceptable.  It clearly does matter.Farsight001 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research which I quote: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1]"

The rule on OR has no application what so ever to the Latin word order in question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SYN#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position which says quite specifically: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research." Scroll down to Translations and transcriptions for the quote.

Now, please continue with your expert translation of the Latin in question, what exactly does Pope Paul VI say here: ?

Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius et Procurator, quibus numen aeternum summam Ecclesiae sanctae dedit, ...

Can you demonstrate this translation is erroneous?

As the worshipful Son of God's Vicar and Caretaker, to whom the eternal divine will has given the highest rank of the holy Church, ... Biblelight (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Biblelight, multiple users who have far more experience about this site's guidelines and policies have asked you to quit spreading your conspiracy theories. I'm one more of them.  Wikipedia is not here for users to "right" what they perceive as "great wrongs."  Plain and simple, "Dei Filii Vicarius" is not the same as "Vicarius Filii Dei," the former places more emphasis on "Dei Filii." Ian.thomson (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so at least it is certain that you have read parts of WP:NOR. Good.
 * So, to the "original research". You think that the phrase is so obviously the same? Well, why isn't the extracted title "Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius" or "Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius et Procurator"? Of course, they do not add up to the same number... Also, the order of words in titles tends to be important. For example, the Patriarch of Moscow has a title "Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'", not "Patriarch of All Rus' and Moscow". You can argue that this title is an exception, but that is definitely not obvious enough to give you a "dispensation" from WP:NOR.
 * Furthermore, in history the research does include finding the document. Someone did find those words, right? Who?
 * And one more thing: you seem to think that the ones who resist inclusion of your findings are defending the Catholic Church. Well, not that much... Imagine the sentence: "Seventh Day Adventist apologist who edits under nickname 'Biblelight' in Wikipedia has argued that the phrase is a papal title citing the [title of the document] saying 'Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius et Procurator, quibus numen aeternum summam Ecclesiae sanctae dedit, ...' as the most recent example.". Well, the statement is accurate, right? And, as far as Catholic apologetics is concerned, there isn't much to add: if that's the best argument the Seventh Day Adventists can find, their case against the Catholic Church is truly weak. And nothing (well, almost nothing) strengthens the faith as the weak arguments against it... No, the problem is from Wikipedia's point of view: this sentence doesn't look very serious. That's why I'm asking for some more serious source.
 * Anyway, for now the consensus (see Consensus) is against you. Feel free to appeal elsewhere to change it. Possible places are No original research/Noticeboard, Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Dispute resolution noticeboard... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to this page which uses "Jesu Christi Filii Dei Vicarius", exactly the same word order as Pope Paul VI used in another decree online here where he says "adorandi Filii Dei hic in terris Vicarii Petrique successores" meaning "the worshipful Son of God's Vicar(s) upon the earth, Peter's successor(s), ...".

In context then, "Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius et Procurator", "Jesu Christi Filii Dei Vicarius", and "adorandi Filii Dei hic in terris Vicarii Petrique successores", and "vicarius Filii Dei" in the Donation are all referring to the Pope as "the vicar of the Son of God", despite variations in the Latin word order. Now, do any of you really want to object that any of these are invalid translations? Biblelight (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Biblelight, refusal to get the point is considered rude and disruptive. "Vicarius Filii Dei" is not the same as "Filii Dei Vicarius," or "adorandi Filii Dei hic in terris Vicarii Petrique successores."  The word order does matter.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, remember I was strongly invited to discuss this topic in this forum. Why are you not willing to give faithful translations? Excuse me, but if you are correct, then you should be able to easily render accurate translations of each example, and thoroughly demonstrate how it is pure folly to consider these as papal titles. If you could really do this, you would be eager and quick to pounce and expose the errors. But you can't do this, can you?

You think the Adventist case is weak? This association of vicarius filii dei to 666 is such a minor element in identifying the antichrist as to be nearly unnecessary. There is in the Bible a formidable list of parallels that are powerful and unmistakable in their application. There is only a single entity on earth that fulfills each and every one of the points presented, and that is the Roman Catholic Church. I invite the reader to watch this video which presents the extensive and convincing biblical truth. It is simply irrefutable. Biblelight (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You were invited to discuss the topic, not repeatedly post your pet conspiracy theory over and over without listening to more experienced editors' explanation of this site's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a forum, we do not accept youtube as a source, and we do not care how much effort that preacher put into cherry-picking scripture and history to create his patchwork eschatology.  If you are not here to improve the article, according to this site's policies and guidelines, please leave.  The talk page is for improving articles, and what you bring up has been dismissed by all other editors as inappropriate misinterpretation done to advance a conspiracy theory.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well Ian, I am trying very hard to accept in good faith the assertions and guidance by some of these "more experienced editors". I am apparently supposed to obediently accept and kowtow to their claimed authority and wisdom, when the rules are clearly being ignored or misapplied by them in order to justify their censorship. Improve Wikipedia? Yes, that is what I am trying to do, even now. This discussion shows clearly where improvement is sorely needed. However, I am not expecting anything to change here any time soon. Biblelight (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time believing you when you say the rules are clearly being ignored when you haven't even bothered to read half of the rules we have cited to you. And btw, that youtube video you posted is horribly amateurish and poorly researched.  It makes error after error after error pertaining not just to scripture and the Catholic Church, but to history, geography, and several other fields of study.  If that's what you call "irrefutable", it's no wonder you're having so much trouble finding qualified and acceptable sources.Farsight001 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a perfect example. Farsight001, how can you be so certain about what I have read, or not read, about the rules? You don't have the first clue about that, I will go even further, that is a blatant lie that you will never be able to prove. And that is what I am supposed to accept in good faith?. Biblelight (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

F=5000???
"F means 5,000"

In which Universe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.29.219 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"Many" vs. "Some"
There is a statement under "Protestant View" that "Many Protestants have the view that Vicarius Filii Dei can be applied to the Bishop of Rome."

Based on my research, this is a minority view. Making the statement "many" is an editorial comment without a reliable, published source. Darlig &#127928; Talk to me 17:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have removed the paragraph entirely, since it was not sourced by reliable secondary sources. Veverve (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)