Did Pope Francis remove his title of the vicar of christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2014taylorj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This question is also being discussed around the world, not just in Lifesite.
https://www.die-tagespost.de/kirche...mal-ein-Stellvertreter-Christi;art4874,206976
This is an auto translation produced via the Chromium browser facility.

Once upon a time was a “representative of Christ”​

The new yearbook of the Vatican classifies the papal title “Vicarius Christi” as a historical footnote.​

Pope Francis kisses a crucifix at the entrance to St. Peter’s Basilica during his extraordinary blessing “Urbi et orbi”, which was carried through Rome in 1552 to stop the great plague. Photo: Yara Nardi

The “Annuario Pontifio”, the annual yearbook of the Vatican with all information about the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which appears every year at this time, has in its latest edition for 2020 relegated the name of the Pope “Deputy Christian” as a “historical title” to a footnote . So far this page dedicated to the current pontiff, which precedes the sections on the College of Cardinals, the Bishops of the World and the Vatican Dicasteries, appeared under the heading “Vicario di Gesù Cristo”. Then followed the other titles of the Pope: successor of the prince apostle, supreme pontiff of the universal church, primate of Italy, archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman province, sovereign of the state of the Vatican City, servant of the servant of God. These titles have a different or no dogmatic meaning. The fact that the Pope is Christ’s converter is evident from the Scriptures in which Jesus gave Peter the key power in the Church.

Formerly “Vicario di Gesù Cristo”, now “Jorge Mario Bergoglio”​

After the listing of the papal titles, the name of the current incumbent, a short biography and the dates of the election and taking office followed on the page dedicated to the Pope. In the latest edition of the Pontifical Yearbook, however, it now reads as a heading on the page, where the words “Vicario di Gesù Cristo” used to be: “Jorge Mario Bergoglio”. The biography of Francis follows immediately, then the days of the election of the Pope and taking office. Finally, after a line that should clarify the beginning of the “footnotes”, the - literally - “historical titles” of the pontiff are named: Deputy Jesus Christ, successor to the prince apostle, chief pontiff of the universal church, primate of Italy, archbishop and metropolitan the Roman province, sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, servant of the servant of God.

(continued in next post)
 
Last edited:
(Continuation)

At the instigation of Francis himself​

The astonished users of the Pontifical Yearbook knew immediately that such a change on the “papal side” could only have happened at the instigation of Francis himself. An expert on the matter in the Vatican concluded from the “Daily Mail” a “broken understanding of office” of the incumbent Pope. However, it is more serious, according to the same expert, that the dogmatically important papal titles “successor to the Prince of Apostles” and “Supreme Pontifex of the Universal Church” were also dismissed as historical footnotes. Cardinal Gerhard Müller also spoke to this newspaper in this context of a “theological dilettantism of statisticians”, even if this change in the Vatican yearbook “should be touted with great hypocrisy by the interested party as a sign of great humility”
 
This is a photograph of the entry in the Annuario Pontificio
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
So, actually all titles have been moved to the historical section. The only title in the page is the pope’s birth name. I think this implies that it is a stylistic, editorial choosing more than a formal, ecclesiological change.

In fact, as this is a brief biography it could even be argued that “historical” refers to the tittles personally accumulated through Pope Francis’ life.

Pure RadTrad hyperbole, as I was suspecting.
 
Last edited:
IanM said:
However, it is more serious, according to the same expert, that the dogmatically important papal titles “successor to the Prince of Apostles” and “Supreme Pontifex of the Universal Church” were also dismissed as historical footnotes
Click to expand...
I suggest that the title “Vicar of Christ” and others illustrated are not merely to be regarded as “footnotes” unless one does not really attach much importance to the titles or roles. Additionally, there is no “historical section” A man receives these positions (and titles) because that is what they are on election to the Papacy.They are not accumulated throughout a life. So no, not RadTrad hyperbole, as you fear.
 
Last edited:
IanM said:
40.png
IanM:
However, it is more serious, according to the same expert, that the dogmatically important papal titles “successor to the Prince of Apostles” and “Supreme Pontifex of the Universal Church” were also dismissed as historical footnotes
Click to expand...
I suggest that the title “Vicar of Christ” and others illustrated are not merely to be regarded as “footnotes” unless one does not really attach much importance to the titles or roles. Additionally, there is no “historical section” A man receives these positions (and titles) because that is what they are on election to the Papacy.They are not accumulated throughout a life.
Click to expand...
What are you actually accusing the Pope of?
 
I seriously doubt so, but, based on what I have observed about Pope Francis, if this pope did remove such a title, he would have done so out of no disrespect but only humility.
 
I think we can all agree that the Pope would have done such an action from motives of humility. And we can all agree that there are extremists on both sides, the “Uber Papalists” who treat any and all statements or actions of the Pope as if they were infallible and impeccable and perfect, and the “Anti-Francis’ who, hearing Pope Francis say, “The Lord be with you” contend that every single word of that exposes the Pope’s heresy, hubris, and intent on destroying Catholicism.

What would help is (IMO) a moratorium from both extremist groups on holding forth their POV and —here’s an experiment—have Life Site News for the “anti” and Crux and Michael Scott Winters for the “Uber” spend Holy Week looking and acting as if things were totally different from what they have been stating.

Have Life Site going to great pains talking about not what they THINK Pope Francis did or said or meant, but just reporting how he has been speaking and acting. No ‘shading’, just plain ‘He spoke at St. Peter’s Square’, “He kissed the cross”, “He asked Catholics to pray”.

And have Crux and MSW etc. instead of acting like ‘glory men’ do the same. Just the facts.

If that happened, first of all, I think both groups would realize that Pope Francis has no need to have people either acting like he’s perfect, OR complaining that he’s evil; they would see by simple words and actions a whole, balanced, Pope who might not ‘fit’ their preconceived notions (Life site) or might not be ‘utter perfection” (Crux) but that in fact, as a man who is now our Pope And does not NEED our judgment either way. We just need to LET HIM BE POPE and not be either criticizing him, OR criticizing OTHERS who don’t seem to be as ‘adoring’ as we feel they should be!
 
I agree with most of what you say, but I disagree that their intention is just to report facts. Journalism has a way of cutting and emphasizing information in such a way that it conveys a message to the reader, and this is not something I say but something that many media theorists say.
 
40.png
Did Pope Francis remove his title of the vicar of christ? Catholic News
I seriously doubt so, but, based on what I have observed about Pope Francis, if this pope did remove such a title, he would have done so out of no disrespect but only humility.
Click to expand...
The problem is that some people believe false humility is good when presented as humility (this is not directed at you, but a general statement).

There have been 266 Popes in history. Naturally some have been better than others, only God has a final “ranking” so to speak.

Every Pope both lives a personal life (including sin) and also how they bring Christ to his people via actions to the world as Pope, including bringing God’s message to His Church.

Many people criticize Pope Francis not because they don’t like him, but due to his poor performance (in their judgment) of bringing Christ’s will to the Church or confusing His message and leading people astray.

I have not met any real life Catholic who has any personal grudge against this Pope, just that they feel Francis is #266 of 266 in effectively sheparding Christ’s people, especially in this very troubled world.

I honestly do not think Lifesite or similar sites have anything personal against this Pope, they just want him to do Christ’s and HIs Church’s will, and feel a need to call the Pope out when he does not.

Personally I pray for the Pope to do Christ’s will. Some popes have done a better job than others over the centuries.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I understand your point. However, I can’t imagine which Catholics think that Pope Francis is the WORST of all the popes who preceded him (#266, as you put it). There have been popes who have done some pretty awful things during their papacy. I don’t believe Pope Francis fits into that category, and I don’t see how any Catholic who has some knowledge of papal history can believe so either.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Did Pope Francis remove his title of the vicar of christ? Catholic News
Yes, I understand your point. However, I can’t imagine which Catholics think that Pope Francis is the WORST of all the popes who preceded him (#266, as you put it). There have been popes who have done some pretty awful things during their papacy. I don’t believe Pope Francis fits into that category, and I don’t see how any Catholic who has some knowledge of papal history can believe so either.
Click to expand...
My personal opinion is that there have been many popes with much more notorious personal sins which have damaged the office of the pope greatly. My concerns with Pope Francis are more of his sheparding of the Church and with (at best) muddled teachings which confuse Catholics, especially Catholics who are not as well catechized as they should be. Also some of his appointments have been complete and utter disasters. Of course all popes have a certain number of misses, but very few popes have permitted outright heresy in the Church. Right now the Church in Germany is in open heresy.
 
Last edited:
Again, I get it. There are some Catholics who have stated the same. It seems to me, a non-Catholic, that the current pope teaches by example a doctrine of unconditional love for all. To me, that is a pretty good doctrine to live by, and, I believe, in keeping with the message of Jesus.
 
40.png
Did Pope Francis remove his title of the vicar of christ? Catholic News
Yes, I understand your point. However, I can’t imagine which Catholics think that Pope Francis is the WORST of all the popes who preceded him (#266, as you put it). There have been popes who have done some pretty awful things during their papacy. I don’t believe Pope Francis fits into that category, and I don’t see how any Catholic who has some knowledge of papal history can believe so either.
Click to expand...
I understand your perspective; for me (and many Catholics throughout history including Jesus himself) permissiveness in pleasure and calling it love is not the same as doing what God wants. True love includes correction of actions which are detrimental.

Thank you for your very respectful dialogue; I greatly appreciate your point of view coming from the Jewish outlook. You bring a lot to this forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top