Question faced by Eastern christians

  • Thread starter Thread starter india_ker_pala
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, Vatican 2 asserted that all bishops are vicars of Christ, not vicars of the Pope. Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
Not when it applies to the vicar of the Church, as the successor of Peter. Hope that helps.
 
Not when it applies to the vicar of the Church, as the successor of Peter. Hope that helps.
As Vatican 2 has explicitly stated that all bishops are vicars of Christ, and that bishops do not lose their God-given responsibilities to promote the Faith no matter where they are in the world (their jurisdiction is another matter), I would say that in a limited sense, every bishop is a vicar of Christ for the whole Church. ALSO, in an Ecumenical Council, all bishops are EXPLICITLY vicars of Christ for the whole Church.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
As Vatican 2 has explicitly stated that all bishops are vicars of Christ, and that bishops do not lose their God-given responsibilities to promote the Faith no matter where they are in the world (their jurisdiction is another matter), I would say that in a limited sense, every bishop is a vicar of Christ for the whole Church. ALSO, in an Ecumenical Council, all bishops are EXPLICITLY vicars of Christ for the whole Church.

Blessings,
Marduk
Not when it applies to the vicar of the Church, as the successor of Peter. Hope that helps.
 
Not when it applies to the vicar of the Church, as the successor of Peter. Hope that helps.
For an ex cathedra decree, yes. In an Ecumenical Council, as the entire body is protected by infallibility, I believe it is proper to say that the entire body of bishops acts in the capacity of vicar.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
For an ex cathedra decree, yes. In an Ecumenical Council, as the entire body is protected by infallibility.
Blessings,
Marduk
I will go along with this. No Church Father is, in his private opinions, infallible.
 
When you can show me in the edict of milan where it states more than one vicar let me know
I just told you, in the latin it makes no distinction between “a vicar” and “the vicar”. Not to mention that if it had plural vicars, it would mean that everyone would have to appeal to multiple vicars. Its perfectly grammatical in the latin to refer to the regional vicars in the singular like that just as it is to do so in english grammar.

Sorry I missed the request for a citation on the John VII accepting of the chalcedon canon. I was incorrect, its John VIII, he approved of it at the IV Council of Constantinople. I will get the links for you tomorrow.
 
I just told you, in the latin it makes no distinction between “a vicar” and “the vicar”. Not to mention that if it had plural vicars, it would mean that everyone would have to appeal to multiple vicars. Its perfectly grammatical in the latin to refer to the regional vicars in the singular like that just as it is to do so in english grammar.

Sorry I missed the request for a citation on the John VII accepting of the chalcedon canon. I was incorrect, its John VIII, he approved of it at the IV Council of Constantinople. I will get the links for you tomorrow.
My point is there is NOTHING in the document to indicate it is refering to VICARS in the plural sense.
 
I just told you, in the latin it makes no distinction between “a vicar” and “the vicar”. Not to mention that if it had plural vicars, it would mean that everyone would have to appeal to multiple vicars. Its perfectly grammatical in the latin to refer to the regional vicars in the singular like that just as it is to do so in english grammar.
I understand exactly what you are trying to say, my good brother in Christ. However, the document does state:

“Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the VICAR if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency.”

A careful research of history will show us Miltiades was elected pope in either 310 or 311 and died in 314. About this time the edict of toleration signed by the Emperors Galerius, Licinius, and Constantine, put an end to the persecution of the Christians, and they were permitted to live as such, and also to reconstruct their places of religious worship.

However, the countries in the east were under the sway of Maximinus Daia and the Christians continue to be persecuted.

The emperor gave Pope Miltiades in Rome the right to receive back, through the prefect of the city, all ecclesiastical buildings and possessions which had been confiscated during the persecutions.

The two Roman deacons, Strato and Cassianus, were ordered by the pope to discuss this matter with the prefect, and to take over the church properties. It then became possible to reorganize thoroughly the ecclesiastical administration and the religious life of the Christians in Rome.
 
“Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the VICAR if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency.”
It certainly does appear that this statement refers to some sort of ecclesiastical or civil vicar in a court of law.
 
So what was the discussion about between you and brother Formosus?
Apparently brother Formosus was under the impression the word “VICAR” in the edict of milan meant everyone would have to appeal to multiple vicars.
 
When you rigourously quote the words from edict of Milan, you must make a research on the forgeries which took place in the 8th century during the reign of emperor Charlemagne. I also do not know clearly, but I heard of some fake documents which were created, called “Donation of Constantine”. Somebody please explain,
 
I understand exactly what you are trying to say, my good brother in Christ. However, the document does state:

“Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the VICAR if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency.”

A careful research of history will show us Miltiades was elected pope in either 310 or 311 and died in 314. About this time the edict of toleration signed by the Emperors Galerius, Licinius, and Constantine, put an end to the persecution of the Christians, and they were permitted to live as such, and also to reconstruct their places of religious worship.

However, the countries in the east were under the sway of Maximinus Daia and the Christians continue to be persecuted.

The emperor gave Pope Miltiades in Rome the right to receive back, through the prefect of the city, all ecclesiastical buildings and possessions which had been confiscated during the persecutions.

The two Roman deacons, Strato and Cassianus, were ordered by the pope to discuss this matter with the prefect, and to take over the church properties. It then became possible to reorganize thoroughly the ecclesiastical administration and the religious life of the Christians in Rome.
EXCELLENT POINT
 
Apparently brother Formosus was under the impression the word “VICAR” in the edict of milan meant everyone would have to appeal to multiple vicars.
No, I am under the impression, based on my knowledge of Latin grammar and the context of the sentence that Vicar is referring to a regional civil bureaucratic post for which pagans can appeal to for compensation of properties that are being returned to Christians. Its not talking about the Pope, the title Vicar of Christ is not that old and its archaic to suggest otherwise.

Edit*

What point? The point that the great king Constantine was returning property to all Christians? That is what the Edict is saying and I never doubted otherwise. How does it prove anything about the word vicar?
 
No, I am under the impression, based on my knowledge of Latin grammar and the context of the sentence that Vicar is referring to a regional civil bureaucratic post for which pagans can appeal to for compensation of properties that are being returned to Christians. Its not talking about the Pope, the title Vicar of Christ is not that old and its archaic to suggest otherwise.
Oh, I,m sorry. I read a previous post from you and you stated and I quote “The document is referring to regional vicars of some kind.”

However after I read a post from CLARKEY, this does not seem to be the case at all.

CLARKEY stated "The emperor gave Pope Miltiades in Rome the right to receive back, through the prefect of the city, all ecclesiastical buildings and possessions which had been confiscated during the persecutions.

The two Roman deacons, Strato and Cassianus, were ordered by the pope to discuss this matter with the prefect, and to take over the church properties. It then became possible to reorganize thoroughly the ecclesiastical administration and the religious life of the Christians in Rome."

Doesn,t seem to me the document is refering to vicars at all, but only to one vicar, the vicar of rome, Pope Miltiades
 
the title Vicar of Christ is not that old and its archaic to suggest otherwise.
It is also my understanding and I concur with CLARKY From the time of Corinth “Pope Clement I”, “requests for decisions on various ecclesiastical matters were addressed to the Holy See from all parts of the known world, and the answers that were received were reverenced as proceeding from the mouth of Christ’s chief Apostle and His vicar on earth.”
 
Doesn,t seem to me the document is refering to vicars at all, but only to one vicar, the vicar of rome, Pope Miltiades
I’m afraid not. The vicar spoken of in the excerpt was expected to conduct financial transactions between pagans and the Emperor. Do you really think the Pope is expected to do that? The vicar most likely refers to the Emperor’s representative who was to handle the transactions with the two deacons.

Blessings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top