Vicar of Christ and Ecumenical Councils

[Ghosty]

Of course they were accepted by all bishops, eventually. If you look around today, no one within the Church (Catholic or Orthodox) teaches anything opposed to what those councils taught.

The Oriental Orthodox still reject Challcedon and consider its language problematic at best. While they largely agree with the root Christology of Chalcedonian Churches as it is explained today they do not accept the definitions of Chalcedon and consider it a robber council without any authority. They would point out that just because some of the definitions have come to be interpreted and explained in an orthodox manner doesn’t make the Council or its teachings orthodox themselves.

It’s the same as the EO position on the filioque and the Immaculate Conception, positions you are familiar with. Just because a teaching can be understood in an orthodox light doesn’t make it dogma, otherwise the should be no problem in calling Florence ecumenical.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Oriental Orthodox still reject Challcedon and consider its language problematic at best. While they largely agree with the root Christology of Chalcedonian Churches as it is explained today they do not accept the definitions of Chalcedon and consider it a robber council without any authority. They would point out that just because some of the definitions have come to be interpreted and explained in an orthodox manner doesn’t make the Council or its teachings orthodox themselves.

It’s the same as the EO position on the filioque and the Immaculate Conception, positions you are familiar with. Just because a teaching can be understood in an orthodox light doesn’t make it dogma, otherwise the should be no problem in calling Florence ecumenical.

Peace and God bless!

And they are neither a part of the Eastern Orthodox or Catholic communion. When a Church or Churches schism, they are no longer part of the Church, thus they are no longer counted as among those who need to accept the council. In fact I believe the real issue between themselves and the EO today is accepting Chalcedon and the later 3 councils. Otherwise they already pretty much resolved all their issues and differences.

Florence wasn’t Ecumenical from the Orthodox point of view because they later on rejected it, after first accepting it. But even the first acceptance wasn’t unanimous, as I noted. Then again, the Catholics can say the Eastern Churches completely schismed at this point and thus the council from their point of view is Ecumenical because all canonical Churches did accept it at that point in time. But then again you have to look at the language of the Union of Brest and ask again if the Eastern Catholic Churches even accept Florence as a council or not. They certainly didn’t want to accept Purgatory as a teaching.

I’d like to add something.

Orthodox teaching on Holy Orders state that one is only clergy within the boundaries of the Church. If a bishop or presbyter or deacon leaves the Church, they are no longer bishops, presbyters or deacons. So anyone who schismed as a result of a council are no longer counted among the bishops. They don’t have to accept because they are no longer clergy of the orthodox faith.

 

[Ghosty]

Again there is a serious circular flaw in your argument. The churches only broke communion with eachother because of the disagreement over the Ecuminicity of the Councils in question. Had there not been disagreement over the Councils there would have been no schism. While the churches were in communion they disagreed over the Councils.

Now, according to your argument this disagreement should void the authority of the Council, but that isn’t what happened. It was only because the Council was already considered Ecumenical that the Bishops who disagreed with it were considered deposed. Had it still been “pending” then the refusal of the Council would not incur schism. The schism between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians could not have happened if things were as you say.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dzheremi]

In fact I believe the real issue between themselves and the EO today is accepting Chalcedon and the later 3 councils. Otherwise they already pretty much resolved all their issues and differences.

Actually, much of what is in the later councils that doesn’t rely on explicit acceptance of Chalcedon is not really a problem for us. For instance, Nicaea II (what the EO reckon as the 7th ecumenical council), which restored icons to their proper place in the Church and repudiated iconoclasm, is not rejected on principle, but rather seen as unnecessary for us, as we never suffered widespread iconoclasm as the Byzantine churches did. And things like repudiating the infamous “Three Chapters”, well…of course, it was the non-Chalcedonians who had a problem with them in the first place, wasn’t it…so that’s not a problem either, but also we clearly didn’t need a council to do that. But I have never heard any OO speak badly for the council which did so (quite the opposite, in fact), it’s just again that it’s unnecessary from our point of view.

 

[mardukm]

The argument that Christ needs no vicar as He is not gone rests upon the general understanding of what the term “vicar” usually signifies (one standing in the place of an absent superior), not a Rome-specific understanding that obviously those not in communion with Rome cannot be expected to embrace.

To Rome, nothing that she herself does is the least bit unorthodox, so that’s neither here nor there.

Can you please cite a source for saying that “vicar” signifies absence of someone? I always thought it only meant “standing in place of” or “to represented someone,” and does not necessitate the absence of the one who is being represented.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I’ve heard this from Orthodox apologists before. I consider it rhetoric with no basis in fact. Does anyone really believe that the Latin Church thinks Christ is absent? Is that why we place so much emphasis on Eucharistic Adoration? This argument makes no sense to me - and I’ve seen it several times. Obviously that isn’t what Latins mean when they use the term “vicar”. Jesus clearly states in Scripture that He is sending the apostles out as the Father sent him…they are going forth to carry out His work…that’s what is understood by “vicar”. According to Vatican II and the Catechism, all bishops are vicars of Christ.

AFAIK, “vicar” has only ever meant “representative,” and doesn’t necessitate the absence of the one being represented.

In truth, long before I even considered joining the Catholic communion, I deplored this rhetoric as utterly inconsistent. Why? Because I had enough experience with radical Protestants to realize they used the same argument against priests and bishops. It was a matter of conscience for me to reject that argument against the papacy, for to maintain the idea that Christ was absent in any sense is to admit that Protestants were right. I would only be a hypocrite if I rejected that argument used by Protestants against Orthodoxy, while using that very same argument against Catholics. I’m very conscious of our Lord’s constant and consistent exhortations against hypocrisy.

Fortunately, these wrongheaded polemics are not the essence of Orthdoxy, so I pray no one reads this thread and imagines Orthodoxy itself is inconsistent.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[twf]

AFAIK, “vicar” has only ever meant “representative,” and doesn’t necessitate the absence of the one being represented.

In truth, long before I even considered joining the Catholic communion, I deplored this rhetoric as utterly inconsistent. Why? Because I had enough experience with radical Protestants to realize they used the same argument against priests and bishops. It was a matter of conscience for me to reject that argument against the papacy, for to maintain the idea that Christ was absent in any sense is to admit that Protestants were right. I would only be a hypocrite if I rejected that argument used by Protestants against Orthodoxy, while using that very same argument against Catholics. I’m very conscious of our Lord’s constant and consistent exhortations against hypocrisy.

Fortunately, these wrongheaded polemics are not the essence of Orthdoxy, so I pray no one reads this thread and imagines Orthodoxy itself is inconsistent.

Blessings,
Marduk

Come to think of it, the only time I’ve personally seen our Vicar-General was when the monsignor was standing next to the archbishop. Even when he is ministering on his own, the superior he represents, the archbishop, is just a phone call away…

 

[dzheremi]

AFAIK, “vicar” has only ever meant “representative,” and doesn’t necessitate the absence of the one being represented.

It comes from Latin vicārius ‘substitute’, which in itself (semantically) at least implies absence – how can there be a substitute for one who is not absent? That’s not how substitution works. And it still retains that meaning (see here).

It was a matter of conscience for me to reject that argument against the papacy, for to maintain the idea that Christ was absent in any sense is to admit that Protestants were right. I would only be a hypocrite if I rejected that argument used by Protestants against Orthodoxy, while using that very same argument against Catholics.

What?

When Orthodox say “Christ does not need a vicar, as He is not absent”, it’s making the exact opposite argument that you are apparently afraid you would be agreeing with: Christ is not absent, hence a vicar/substitute is not needed. It is no way admitting or advancing the idea that He is absent.

 

[twf]

It comes from Latin vicārius ‘substitute’, which in itself (semantically) at least implies absence – how can there be a substitute for one who is not absent? That’s not how substitution works. And it still retains that meaning (see here).

What?

When Orthodox say “Christ does not need a vicar, as He is not absent”, it’s making the exact opposite argument that you are apparently afraid you would be agreeing with: Christ is not absent, hence a vicar/substitute is not needed. It is no way admitting or advancing the idea that He is absent.

1. That’s not how vicar appears to be understood in the Latin Church. Ecclesiastical Latin, the language of the Church, is not necessarily identifcal with classical vulgar Latin. Clearly Latins do not believe Christ is absent. Also, as I pointed out, the title vicar is used in other cases - the vicar-general of a diocese, who assists in the government of the diocese even though the bishop, whom he represents, is also present. A parochial vicar is another example - a priest who represents the parish pastor and assists him in his ministry, yet typically lives in the same house as the pastor and works side by side with the pastor. The only time vicar is used to represent an absent superior would be the case of Vicars apostolic who govern certain areas that do not have their own ordinaries on the Pope’s behalf. The term vicar can, but does not necessarily, imply absence in the ecclesiastical sense.
2. Marduk’s point here, I believe, is that the argument against caling bishops vicars of Christ strikes him (and I tend to agree) as very similar to the arguments Protestants make that the priesthood/episcopate are unnecessary as Christ is present and guides His Church.

 

[mardukm]

It comes from Latin vicārius ‘substitute’, which in itself (semantically) at least implies absence – how can there be a substitute for one who is not absent? That’s not how substitution works. And it still retains that meaning (see here).

I didn’t say it cannot mean there is no notion of absence. I said it does not necessitate the notion of absence. For example, a priest can be the vicar of a bishop, and the priest will remain vicar (i.e, his representative with all his delegated prerogatives) even in the presence of the bishop.

What?

When Orthodox say “Christ does not need a vicar, as He is not absent”, it’s making the exact opposite argument that you are apparently afraid you would be agreeing with: Christ is not absent, hence a vicar/substitute is not needed. It is no way admitting or advancing the idea that He is absent.

Yeah I think my statement might be confusing because there is an inherent double negative. Your argument is equivalent to saying that Christ only needs a vicar if and because He is absent; but since He is not absent, we do not need a vicar. Notwithstanding the fact that vicarship does not necessitate the absence of the person for whom one is a vicar, the reason I found this argument inconsistent (even when I was not yet in the Catholic communion) was because I encountered many radical Protestants using the same argument against priests and bishops: “We do not need priests and bishops because Christ is not absent.” Equivalently, “we need priests and bishops because Christ is absent; but because Christ is not absent, then we do not need priests and bishops.” For me to reject the Protestant argument against priests and bishops on the basis of Christ not being absent, yet propose against Catholics that we do not need the Pope on the very same rationale that Protestants use to reject priests and bishops was a sign of hypocrisy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

1. That’s not how vicar appears to be understood in the Latin Church. Ecclesiastical Latin, the language of the Church, is not necessarily identifcal with classical vulgar Latin. Clearly Latins do not believe Christ is absent.

I’m out of ways to continue making this point, so from now on when people say “well that’s not what the Latin Church means”, I think I’ll just quote Apotheoun, because indeed he is right, we have discussed this before:

Yes, this has been discussed before: Vicar of Christ

Please read the thread linked in his post.

1. Marduk’s point here, I believe, is that the argument against caling bishops vicars of Christ strikes him (and I tend to agree) as very similar to the arguments Protestants make that the priesthood/episcopate are unnecessary as Christ is present and guides His Church.

Mardukm seemed to be saying that he could not agree with the argument put forth without somehow agreeing that Christ is absent. But this is the opposite of the argument that is actually made (I’m unaware of Protestant arguments; I’m talking here about the argument I have made, both in this thread and in the one linked by Apotheoun, which rests on the traditional Orthodox objection to this term) – namely, that Christ is not absent. Again, the general (not Latin Catholic) understanding of what “vicar” means, based on the usage of the term outside of the Western churches (which obviously the Eastern churches whether Catholic or Orthodox do not necessarily share; note that Apotheoun, for instance, who seems to grasp this idea intuitively, is an Eastern Catholic, not a Protestant or Orthodox), where it does in fact mean “substitute”. That is what the Latin vicarus means, and based on this original understanding of the word (i.e., subsequent, denominationally-based understandings are semantic extensions of/from the original), this title is seen as unnecessary in the East. That’s all. No need to bring Protestants into it, and certainly not to argue the opposite of what those who are against the term are actually saying by rejecting it.

 

[dzheremi]

I didn’t say it cannot mean there is no notion of absence. I said it does not necessitate the notion of absence.

It kind of does, though. That’s the whole point of stressing, as I have in all of my posts, that the rejection of the term is based on the general/original understanding of what it meant, not on the Roman Catholic (and Anglican) ecclesiastical use, as that is not something that the Orthodox share in the first place. So, if you’re not going to rely on the RC understanding (which makes sense, as I have written before that nothing that the RC does is in its own eyes unorthodox, so that is not an appropriate standard), what you have left is the original understanding of “substitute”, which again at least implies absence. See the opening section here.

Yeah I think my statement might be confusing because there is an inherent double negative. Your argument is equivalent to saying that Christ only needs a vicar if and because He is absent; but since He is not absent, we do not need a vicar.

Essentially, yes.

Notwithstanding the fact that vicarship does not necessitate the absence of the person for whom one is a vicar

Again, it does if you’re talking about the general/original understanding, and not the RC-specific ecclesiastical understanding, which we are.

the reason I found this argument inconsistent (even when I was not yet in the Catholic communion) was because I encountered many radical Protestants using the same argument against priests and bishops: “We do not need priests and bishops because Christ is not absent.” Equivalently, “we need priests and bishops because Christ is absent; but because Christ is not absent, then we do not need priests and bishops.”

This is totally irrelevant. We are talking about the term “Vicar” and what it means in the original usage (i.e., why Eastern Christianity has seen it as unnecessary), not the terms “priest” or “bishop”. Neither of those terms mean (either in the original or through subsequent semantic extension, which is what the RC/Anglican ecclesiastical usage of “Vicar” relies upon) “substitute” or “stand-in for an absent superior”. The bishop (episkopos) is an “overseer” or “guardian” [of a diocese], while a priest (presvyteros) is an “elder” [e.g., leader of a local congregation]. So it’s really not equivalent at all. While the Pope of Rome is certainly also Bishop of Rome, “Vicar of Christ”…well, Christ has no one ecclesiastical geographic territory, does He? So I have to believe, especially given the earlier practice (much more sensible, in my view, though not without problems) of calling the Roman Pope the “Vicar of Peter” (not Christ), that “Vicar of Christ” developed as it did after the 13th century (when it became regular as a title for the Roman Pope) in order to emphasize Roman Papal claims to universal jurisdiction over the entire Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

." Equivalently, “we need priests and bishops because Christ is absent; but because Christ is not absent, then we do not need priests and bishops.” For me to reject the Protestant argument against priests and bishops on the basis of Christ not being absent, yet propose against Catholics that we do not need the Pope on the very same rationale that Protestants use to reject priests and bishops was a sign of hypocrisy.

I’ve been listening a lot recently on a related subject in different talks/podcasts by Orthodox priests, and the view of the priesthood is definitely different from the Orthodox standpoint. There is only one priest in the Church, and that is Christ. The priest is the one who makes the sacrificial offering, and Christ did that on the Cross. St. Peter wrote in his epistle that we (he is talking to Gentiles here) are a Royal Priesthood, a Holy Nation. This was taken from Isaiah which used to refer exclusively to the Jews. But now it refers to any Christian. We all share in the priesthood of Christ. The Presbyter or Bishop acts in a priestly manner, but it is Christ who is still the priest. This is why in the Latin tradition we say the priest act “in persona Christi”.

 

[dzheremi]

I’ve been listening a lot recently on a related subject in different talks/podcasts by Orthodox priests, and the view of the priesthood is definitely different from the Orthodox standpoint. There is only one priest in the Church, and that is Christ.

Amen. As is prayed during the fraction for the apostles’ fast and feast: Thou art the Logos of the Father God, Who is before the ages; the great High Priest; Who was incarnate and became man for the salvation of mankind. And out of all nations, He called unto Him a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation and a justified people…

 

[Ghosty]

It kind of does, though. That’s the whole point of stressing, as I have in all of my posts, that the rejection of the term is based on the general/original understanding of what it meant, not on the Roman Catholic (and Anglican) ecclesiastical use, as that is not something that the Orthodox share in the first place.

This approach doesn’t stand. When discussing a matter with someone you have to take their words as they use them, not as you would use them. To do otherwise is to argue against strawmen.

For example, if I say “he’s green”, and I mean he’s inexperienced, you can’t argue against me by saying his skin is pink. Just because you may not use the expression “green” to mean inexperienced doesn’t mean you can discount my use of the term. To insist on using a different definition is to avoid the actual discussion and point.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dzheremi]

This approach doesn’t stand. When discussing a matter with someone you have to take their words as they use them, not as you would use them. To do otherwise is to argue against strawmen.

Not really, because I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t or can’t use them however they want, only explaining why it seems improper in the East/Orient – namely because we do not understand the term in the same way. You could, if you wanted to, compare it to things like the filioque – you can say that “and” means “through” until you are blue in the face, and insist that it means that and only that when you use it, and we’ll say "fine, fine, but in the rest of the world, where we live by virtue of not sharing your specific meaning, it does not mean that, so we’re going to continue to reject it.

 

[Ghosty]

Not really, because I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t or can’t use them however they want, only explaining why it seems improper in the East/Orient – namely because we do not understand the term in the same way. You could, if you wanted to, compare it to things like the filioque – you can say that “and” means “through” until you are blue in the face, and insist that it means that and only that when you use it, and we’ll say "fine, fine, but in the rest of the world, where we live by virtue of not sharing your specific meaning, it does not mean that, so we’re going to continue to reject it.

The point is that one can’t accuse the Latins of believing that the Pope is a stand-in for Christ, and can’t accuse the Latins of believing that Christ is absent, by virtue of the term “vicar”. The Latin belief must be judged by Latin definitions, not what others think the terms should mean.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, I’m going to have to keep disagreeing with you, but we’re also talking past each other by this point, so it doesn’t even matter. Take care.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“our Bishop presides in the place of God” St Ignatius

The Priest stands at the altar “in Vicario Christi” as an “Altus Christus”. We must become “Altus Christus.”

The term Vicar comes from the Greek, then translated to Latin. later translated to Russian from Latin as Curate.

Vicarius Christi. “Vicarius” or “Vicar” means “a substitute” or “another” . Thus, the title “Vicar of Christ” means “a substitute for Christ” or “another Christ.” Of course courtesy is extended by many to define anti-christ. Nevertheless Greek for “anti-Christ” means “in place of Christ” as does the Latin for “Vicar of Christ”. If I’m to understand the Russian this is not different but to further define.

“Vicar of Christ from Latin Vicarius Christi; Vicar of God is used as an (equivalent title) is a term used in different ways, with different theological connotations throughout history. As the original notion a vicar is of “earthly representative of Christ” but also used in sense of “person acting as parish priest in place of a real parson” The title is used in Catholicism to refer to the bishops and more specifically to the Bishop of Rome.” Wiki-Pedia

What am I missing?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

It kind of does, though. That’s the whole point of stressing, as I have in all of my posts, that the rejection of the term is based on the general/original understanding of what it meant…This is totally irrelevant. We are talking about the term “Vicar” and what it means in the original usage (i.e., why Eastern Christianity has seen it as unnecessary).

The term “vicar of Christ” was used by the Eastern emperors in the 5th and 6th centuries, so it cannot be said to be absent from the Eastern Tradition, unless Eastern Christians considered Christ do be absent thereby. So it’s original usage does not seem to match your statement. It seems the idea of “absence” was a later polemic, perhaps even accomodated from the Protestants.

not the terms “priest” or “bishop”. Neither of those terms mean (either in the original or through subsequent semantic extension, which is what the RC/Anglican ecclesiastical usage of “Vicar” relies upon) “substitute” or “stand-in for an absent superior”. The bishop (episkopos) is an “overseer” or “guardian” [of a diocese], while a priest (presvyteros) is an “elder” [e.g., leader of a local congregation].

The priest and bishop stands in the place of Christ/God. That is the sense in which “vicar” has always been used by the Catholic Church. This understanding is from St. Ignatius of Antioch. It does not mean that Christ or God is absent just because the priest or bishop is his representative here on earth.

So it’s really not equivalent at all. While the Pope of Rome is certainly also Bishop of Rome, “Vicar of Christ”…well, Christ has no one ecclesiastical geographic territory, does He? So I have to believe, especially given the earlier practice (much more sensible, in my view, though not without problems) of calling the Roman Pope the “Vicar of Peter” (not Christ), that “Vicar of Christ” developed as it did after the 13th century (when it became regular as a title for the Roman Pope) in order to emphasize Roman Papal claims to universal jurisdiction over the entire Church.

Are you saying that “Vicar of Christ” is used by the Catholic Church to mean that Christ is absent? If so, on what grounds? If not, then what is the objection to the Latin Church using the term, or of the Catholic Church using it for her bishops?

Blessings,
Marduk