Vicarius Filii Dei
Catholic Censorship At WikiPedia
Wikipedia is a user edited encyclopedia that invites anyone to edit and contribute to their articles. While this sounds like a great concept, in practice it has obvious problems. Anyone can completely rewrite an entire article and with the click of their mouse button completely replace the existing entry. This leads inevitably to edit wars on articles that people are passionate about, because it is just as simple to sweep away any recent edits to an article by reverting to a previous version. If your willing to stick with it, your edits may very well prevail because an opposing editor may just give up, and let your edit stand. This constant battle of opposing points of view (POV) is the reason for the generally poor reputation of Wikipedia, because in practice, on contentious topics it is nearly impossible to achieve and maintain a neutral point of view (NPOV) that is entirely true. Knowing that this is the way of Wikipedia, I have not had any interest in editing articles there. However, in the last few days, to demonstrate a persistent problem there, I have been attempting to edit the Wikipedia article on Vicarius Filii Dei. You will notice that the article is very biased in a pro-Catholic/anti-Adventist manner. This is because Catholics have been closely guarding this particular article, and other articles on related topics for a long time.
Turning on even a small light in a dark room will dispel the darkness. Now, here are the little secrets that turns on the light in this dark little corner. On any Wikipedia entry, at the top of the page you will see a tab titled history. Clicking on that tab will bring up the entire edit history for that article. You will see the most recent edit at the top, and all previous edits are listed chronologically, along with the editor who made the edit. You can view the entire article as it used to be by clicking on the date of the edit. You will see in the history of edits for the Vicarius Filii Dei article, that everything I have contributed recently has been quickly removed by another editor, Farsight001. Now, back at the top, there is a tab titled Discussion. There you will find the interaction between editors where conflicts can be worked out, with the most recent posts at the bottom. As you can see from the edit history and the discussion page, Farsight001 has refused to allow even the smallest edit of mine to remain on the active article. But, you can still see what I posted by clicking on the date of each archived entry of mine in the history page.
As you will see, Farsight001 will simply not permit me to add anything to the article, because the information I am trying to post is like turning on a light in a dark room. Even one sentence of truth has the power to expose volumes of darkness. Farsight001 is aware that letting my smallest post stand will tip the scales on that article in favor of the truth. One reason for this, is that the article spends a great deal of space in refuting the claim that Vicarius Filii Dei was seen on a papal tiara. Whether or not the tiara claim is true or not is really a miniscule part of the issue, such that it is almost insignificant. The real issue revolves around whether or not Vicarius Filii Dei can be validly applied to the papacy. The crowning proof, so to speak, was never likely to be the discovery of an existing tiara or mitre with the inscription in jewels, it was far more likely that historical use of the title and its application to the papacy would turn up in documents from hundreds of years ago. Well, that has now happened in spades, as a card player would say, and that truth is very potent. That is why Farsight001 will throw every rule in the Wikipedia book at anyone trying to post this information, anything, including censoring the truth, in defense of the Mother Church.
How do I know he is Catholic? Though he has avoided it nearly to the point of denial in the discussion page, he made one small mistake. For simplicity he has used his rather unique nic, Farsight001, elsewhere on the web, in places where he is quite willing to say he is a Catholic. Now whether or not I ever get my posts to stand on Wikipedia, as I told Farsight001 on the discussion page, his acting as a gate guard for the Vicarius Filii Dei article at Wikipedia is not preventing people from finding the truth about this now authenticated papal title. The secret is already out, and that light will prevail over the darkness.
In the latest installment of this story, another probable Catholic has stepped in to remove an edit of mine on Vicarius Filii Dei. His nic is Jtdirl. Thank you gentlemen, for proving my point.
Update July 11, 2009.
Farsight001 has again censored the Wikipedia article on Vicarius Filii Dei. That page, which he keeps protecting, is a pathetic collection of distortions and falsehoods that only harm Wikipedia's already dismal reputation. The page he does not want to be available at Wikipedia is online here. He is demonstrating that Catholics are totally unable to deal with the documented truth, and can only resort to the medieval tactics of inquisition: censorship. This is because the recently discovered use of Vicarius Filii Dei by Pope Paul VI, applying it to himself and all Peter's successors in two official decrees, is potent truth that deeply embarrasses Catholic apologists, who have previously declared with an air of absolute certainty that no Pope had ever used the title. The fact that a Pope has indeed used Vicarius Filii Dei so recently, in documents that are indisputably authentic and official, has unavoidable ramifications. That being that there is now no way to effectively dispute the application of the number 666 to the papacy, who is then easily identified as the first beast in Revelation 13. That is why Farsight001 is falsely accusing me of breaking all the rules at Wikipedia, or that my contributions there are misleading, improperly sourced, or not up to Wikipedia standards.
Update Dec. 2011.
I searched Google on Dec. 16th and found a current discussion on the Catholic Answers forum, and discovered Farsight001 on entry #75 making these statements that are quite false.
"Vicarius Filii Dei means "Vicar of the Son of God", which you will not find the pope referred to as."
"Scripture says specifically that 666 would represent the NAME of the beast. No matter how you try to spin it, whether Vicarius Filii Dei is a real or fake title, it is still a TITLE, not a name. So it is not applicable."
Regarding the first erroneous assertion, Farsight001 knows better than this. As the self appointed Catholic gate guard at Wikipedia's article on Vicarius Filii Dei, he has censored it repeatedly when examples of use of the title, including use by a pope, were added, as my recent entrys for Dec. 16, 2011 and years earlier back in 2009 will amply demonstrate. The Dec. 16th edit was made to get his attention, and it did that within a remarkably short time. He guards that article like a hawk.
Regarding the second erroneous statement, it is easily answered:
Since Catholic Answers banned author Marc Rasell before he could respond, here are the documented historical facts that Catholics would prevent you from seeing:It might be argued by some that 666 must be applied to one man's name, and that this will then help identify him as the antichrist. I would offer the following verse to show that 666 need not apply solely to a man's name:
The same Greek word translated as name (onoma: G3686) that appears in Revelation 13:17-18 is also used in chapter 19:16, so clearly the word can also apply to a title, and not just one man's name.Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.