The Orthodox doesn’t believe in a “Vicar of Christ”, although “vicar” is used in a different sense in the Orthodox Church. A vicar is one who rules in place of the absent king. It is counter to Orthodoxy to believe that Christ is an absent king given his promise to be with us 'til the end of ages, and that He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us.
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.
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.
Yes, this has been discussed before: Vicar of Christ
In these sorts of discussions I can’t help but feel that many in the East/Orient want the Latin Church to hold a different faith on virtually every issue…even accepting the possibility that we could be expressing the same mystery using different terminology seems to be immediately dismissed by many. I suppose I’ll just have to drop it and move on, but despite having read through previous debates on the issue…I just don’t comprehend how an Eastern bishop isn’t acting as a vicar of Christ in the sense that I understand the term (in the theological context - I don’t care how the term may have been used in a secular context). Does not a bishop teach in Christ’s name? Does not a bishop bless in Christ’s name? Is not a bishop sent out by Christ to carry out Christ’s work as the apostles were? If the answer to any of these questions is ‘yes’, then to me he is a vicar. Eastern/Oriental Christians don’t have to use the term ‘vicar’, but I don’t see why the term should be offensive. All bishops are vicars of Christ, and in a sense so is every baptized person. The main reason I get frustrated with this particular debate is that it always seems to imply that Latins believe Christ is somehow absent in a way that is not believed in the East…but as per my earlier example, the Latin practice of Eucharistic adoration testifies to a most profound, abiding, and deep knowledge that Christ is very literally and physically present in every one of our churches.
Thanks for the link. I knew we’d been here before, but couldn’t remember the thread in which that conversation took place. twf, please read it.
(It’s easier and better than recreating the same discussion in a different thread.)The Orthodox Church believes in conciliarism, that the will of God is revealed by the agreement of all in a council (usually the acceptance of all bishops, which is how a council becomes Ecumenical or “the entire world”), not by one human being. As evidenced by Scripture, Christians in the early Church would always go in “one accord”, homothumadon.
The Catholic Church also believes that councils play a central role in the life of the Church…but why is it that the Spirit speaks to the Church through the bishops in council? From a Latin perspective, it is because all of the bishops are vicars of Christ and speak and act with His authority, as did the Apostles. That being said, I don’t think there’s ever been a single council that was accepted by “all” the bishops. Chalcedon is a great example - of what would later be termed the “pentarchy”, two of the great sees, Alexandria and Antioch, rejected the council. What makes those who accepted it correct and those who rejected it incorrect? To say that the Non-Chalcedonian bishops removed themselves from the Church is a matter of perspective - weren’t they true bishops of the Church? Do only Latin and Greek bishops need to accept a council for it to be ecumenical? From a Catholic perspective - it was Pope St. Leo’s acceptance that settles the matter. If not for my belief in the primacy of Rome, I would personally be at a loss to decide between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians.
Simply because from a group of bishops you can’t have one who is guided by the false spirit. They can debate the issues and come to a conclusion. The process isn’t magic, they don’t suddenly become inspired and end up shaking on the ground. Only Pentecostals do that. Sometimes people are led to imagine that there is some magical force, the Holy Spirit is not like that. God works through our own humanity. A council may look no different that a session of congress or parliament if you are up here in Canada with me. God reveals himself through our everyday lives if we pray for it and go through our own human process.
No, the Catholic Church teaches only the Pope is the vicar. Even in Orthodoxy, none of the bishops are vicars. They do not stand in for the absentee king. The King is here present as he promised.
It was accepted by all Patriarchs. Of course, the non-Chalcedonian Patriarchs were deposed and replaced, and those who replaced them accepted Chalcedon. Don’t forget that little snippet of history. Usually after a bishop or number of bishops were proven to be heretical, they are given a chance to repent. If not, they are deposed. And their replacements will also be given a chance to accept the council. When they do, it becomes Ecumenical.
As noted above, they were deposed and replaced. Of course to their followers they were not deposed and thus there was a continuity with them and their followers. But for those that accepted the council, the replacements who accepted are the orthodox bishops.
His acceptance is just one of many. It wouldn’t have meant anything had the other bishops rejected it (unless they were deposed and replaced as well).
From your perspective the heretical bishops were deposed and replaced…but that isn’t how the Non-Chalcedonians would see it. It seems a fairly subjective standard. The council is accepted by all because we kick out everyone who doesn’t accept it and keep replacing bishops until all bishops accept the council? That seems very circular to me.
As I noted earlier, are you suggesting that Latins believe that Christ is somehow absent because we believe that every bishop is a vicar of Christ (Ie. exercise’s Christ authority by teaching, sanctifying, and ruling the flock)? We obviously believe that Christ is very present in a literal and physical sense in every parish through the Eucharist… but that doesn’t mean that He hasn’t given a share of His priesthood to His brothers, the bishops, enabling them to preach, teach, govern, and offer the holy mysteries with and for Him.
As dzheremi pointed out, it is not a simple matter. My “summary” doesn’t do it justice, but I’m not going to write about the entire thing here. I will admit that even my knowledge of the events is limited. But fact is, some things such as those do happen. And mind you, the council becoming Ecumenical or not doesn’t happen in days or weeks after the conclusion of the council. Often it is years before a council is termed Ecumenical. Such acceptance doesn’t happen overnight, especially for bishops who weren’t there or had opposing views.
Christ’s presence isn’t limited to the Eucharist, though it is one of the more tangible signs of his presence. Unless you believe an infinite God can be contained into the shape and appearance of a small wafer. As Jesus said, whenever two or there among you gather, I will be present among them. God’s presence in His Church goes beyond the Eucharist. The bishop doesn’t need to be a vicar to Christ, He is there and the Holy Spirit is there as well.
Better than be obscure and forgottenWhy are we always brought into everything?
Determining whether a council is ecumenical or not isn’t a purely mechanical process (like saying “if the pope accepts it then it’s ecumenical” or “it’s ecumenical if it’s supported by at least 71% of the bishops”).
At the same time there must be an objective criteria, otherwise calling a Council ecumenical is meaningless. The criteria must also be actually applicable, unlike the utterly nonsensical “consensus of the Faithful” which, if it had ever existed (and it never has, and there hasn’t been a single Ecumenical Council which met with consensus during or after), would eliminate the need for an Ecumenical Council in the first place. Furthermore, it is clear that each Council expected that its decisions be implemented immediately, not at some nebulous later date when it would somehow become Ecumenical; not a single Canon is written as a suggestion and discussion point.
I don’t know if there is really something final. Usually the decision of a council is discussed again in a following council. That is perhaps part of the process, that the experience of the Church through time will prove indeed if a decision was right or not. Correct me if I am wrong here, but Arius was exonerated by a council after the First Ecumenical Council, and then later “re-anathemized”. It is part of the belief that the truth will eventually come out, even though it is not automatic.
More important, I think is that the apostles all agreed on the decision.